STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DUVAL COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,

vs.

Petitioner,

Case No. 13-2882TTS

DENNIS HESTER,

Respondent.

/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held in this case on March 11 and 12, 2014, in Jacksonville, Florida, before Lawrence P. Stevenson, the designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Henry M. Coxe, III, Esquire

Ashley Wells Greene, Esquire Bedell, Ditmar, DeVault, Pillans

& Coxe, P.A.

101 East Adams Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202

For Respondent: Kenneth B. Wright, Esquire

Bledsoe, Jacobson, Schmidt, Wright & Wilkinson

1301 Riverplace Boulevard, Suite 1818

Jacksonville, Florida 32207 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue is whether Petitioner, the Duval County School Board, may terminate Respondent's employment as an instructional

employee based upon the conduct alleged in the letter titled "Notice of Termination of Employment Contract and Immediate Suspension Without Pay" (the "Notice") from Superintendent of Schools Nikolai P. Vitti to Respondent dated June 28, 2013.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On or about June 28, 2013, Respondent Dennis Hester received a copy of the Notice, which set forth the following allegations in support thereof, in relevant part:

During the 2011/2012 and 2012/2013 school years, you exercised poor judgment by displaying unprofessional behavior toward and in the presence of colleagues. Upon investigation, it was reported that you made offensive and suggestive comments, “screamed and yelled” at colleagues, and made threatening comments that intimidated those colleagues.

Additionally, it was reported that you provided a colleague with a copy of an End of Course Examination for TV Productions. This colleague requested that you assist her by providing curriculum for the course; you indicated that you “would take care of it.” She later found a copy of the End of Course Examination in her mailbox with her name on it.1/

Lastly, it was reported that you repeatedly provided ESOL endorsements to employees without requiring that they complete the course requirements, including submission of work or attendance in classes. Upon investigation, it was determined that some participants neither attended classes, nor completed coursework, yet you provided them with credit for the course. Further, some of these participants were not required to gain an ESOL endorsement; however, they were

approached by you with an offer to assist them in gaining the ESOL endorsement.

Your conduct is in direct violation of the below regulation(s) relating to the public school system.

Specifically, the following portions of the Code of Ethics were violated:

6A-10.080(1)-- The educator values the worth and dignity of every person, the pursuit of truth, devotion to excellence, acquisition of knowledge, and the nurture of democratic citizenship. Essential to the achievement of these standards are the freedom to learn and to teach and the guarantee of equal opportunity for all.

6A-10.080(2)-- The educator’s primary professional concern will always be for the student and for the development of the student’s potential. The educator will therefore strive for professional growth and will seek to exercise the best professional judgment and integrity.

6A-10.080(3)-- Aware of the importance of maintaining the respect and confidence of one’s colleagues, of students, of parents, and of other members of the community, the educator strives to achieve and sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct.

Additionally, your conduct violates the following Principles of Professional Conduct:

6A-10.081(3)(a)-- Shall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student’s mental and/or physical health and/or safety.

6A-10.081(5)(a)-- Shall maintain honesty in all professional dealings.

6A-10.081(5)(d)-- Shall not engage in harassment or discriminatory conduct which unreasonably interferes with an individual’s performance of professional or work responsibilities or with the orderly processes of education or which creates a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive environment, and, further, shall make reasonable effort to assure that each individual is protected from such harassment or discrimination.

6A-10.081(5)(h)-- Shall not submit fraudulent information on any document in connection with professional activities.

Further, this conduct also falls within the definition of “cause” as provided in Section 1012.33(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Just cause includes, but is not limited to, the following instances, as defined by rule of the State Board of Education: immorality, misconduct in office, incompetency . . . gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, or being convicted or found guilty of, or entering a plea of guilty to, regardless of adjudication of guilt, any crime involving moral turpitude.

The Notice informed Mr. Hester of his right to a formal hearing to contest the factual allegations recited in the Notice, and, should he invoke his right to a formal hearing, that the Duval County School Board (the "School Board")2/ would act to suspend him from employment without pay as of July 3, 2013, pursuant to section 1012.33, Florida Statutes. On

July 29, 2013, Mr. Hester timely invoked his right to a formal hearing via a Request for Formal Administrative Hearing filed by his counsel.

On July 30, 2013, 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. The matter was scheduled for final hearing on December 3 and 4, 2013. One continuance was granted and the case was rescheduled for final hearing on March 11 and 12, 2014, on which dates it was convened and completed.

At the hearing, the School Board presented the testimony of Dawn Wilson, the School Board’s supervisor of professional development; Duncan U. Fletcher High School (“Fletcher” or “Fletcher High School”) teachers Christine Andrews, Julie Durden, Sherry Murrell, Heather Kopp, Catherine Johnson, Josh Corey, Andrew Davis, Suzanne Harman, Nicole Conrad, and Ashley Snell; Karen Patterson, a teacher who during the period relevant to this proceeding acted as the School Board’s English for Speakers of Other Languages (“ESOL”) specialist; Donald F. Nelson, the current principal of Fletcher High School; and Josephine Jackson, executive director of the School Board’s Office of Equity and Inclusion and the head of the School Board’s Office of Professional Standards. The School Board’s Exhibits 4 through 10, 15 through 36F, 37, 39 through 43, 45, and 47 through 52E were admitted into evidence by stipulation of the parties. Additionally, the School Board’s Exhibits 44, 46,

and 53 were admitted into evidence during the course of the hearing.

Respondent testified on his own behalf and presented the testimony of School Board member Fred “Fel” Lee and retired Fletcher High School principal Dane Gilbert. Respondent's Exhibits 1 through 16, 23, 24, 26 through 53, 56, 57, 60 through

72, 76, 77, 80 through 82, 84 through 101, and 103 through 116 were admitted into evidence by stipulation. Additionally, Respondent’s Exhibits 19, 25, and 102 were admitted into evidence during the course of the proceeding.

The four-volume Transcript of the hearing was filed at DOAH on April 8, 2014. A joint motion for extension of the time for filing proposed recommended orders was granted by order dated April 18, 2014. The School Board filed its Proposed Recommended Order on April 22, 2014. Respondent filed his Proposed Recommended Order on April 23, 2014. Both were timely filed in accordance with the terms of the order granting extension.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent Dennis Hester has been employed by the School Board as a teacher since 1994. He is covered by the Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") between Duval Teachers United and the School Board for 2008-2011. At the time of the events at issue in this proceeding, Mr. Hester was assigned to

   
   

   Fletcher High School as instructional coach and professional development facilitator (“PDF”).

   ESOL certification requirements

   
   

2. At the final hearing, the School Board conceded that the allegation regarding unprofessional behavior would not, standing alone, constitute grounds for terminating Mr. Hester’s employment. The chief allegation against Mr. Hester is that he repeatedly gave School Board employees credit for English for Speakers of Other Languages (“ESOL”) courses for which they performed no work and/or did not attend. Therefore, it is necessary at the outset to explain the School Board’s ESOL requirements for teachers and Mr. Hester’s role in teaching and accounting for credits in ESOL courses.

3. In August 1990, Judge James Lawrence King of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida entered a consent decree to oversee implementation of a settlement agreement between the Florida State Board of Education and a coalition of plaintiff organizations that included the League of United Latin American Citizens, ASPIRA of Florida, the Farmworkers’ Association of Central Florida, the Florida State Conference of NAACP Branches, the Haitian Refugee Center, the Spanish American League Against Discrimination, the American Hispanic Educators’ Association of Dade, and the Haitian Educators’ Association.3/

   
   

4. Relevant to this proceeding, Section IV of the settlement agreement required teachers of “English language learners” or “ELL students”4/ to obtain an ESOL endorsement and complete between 60 and 300 hours5/ of in-service training in each of the five following subject areas:

   1. Methods of teaching English to speakers of other languages;

      
      

   2. ESOL curriculum and materials development;

      
      

   3. Cross-cultural communication and understanding;

      
      

   4. Applied linguistics; and

      
      

   5. Testing and evaluation of ESOL.

      
      

      See Fla. Admin. Code. R. 6A-4.0244 (specialization requirements

      
      

      for the ESOL endorsement) and 6A-6.0907 (in-service requirements).

5. Not every teacher is required to obtain the ESOL certification. Only when an ELL student is assigned to a teacher’s class is the teacher required to obtain ESOL certification. Karen Patterson, the School Board’s ESOL specialist during the period relevant to this proceeding, testified that she knew of one teacher who taught in Duval County for nearly 40 years before being “flagged” as “out of field” for having an ELL student in her class and no ESOL credits on her record.

   
   

6. The School Board’s policy is to terminate the employment of teachers who are flagged for ESOL and who do not timely obtain the required ESOL in-service training. Approximately 750 to 800 teachers are flagged out of field for ESOL each school year and must come into compliance with the ESOL requirement by June 30 of the school year in which they are flagged.

7. As noted above, a teacher must obtain between 60 and

   
   

   300 in-service credits, depending on the subject matter taught.

   
   

   Reading and language arts teachers are required to complete 300 credits of in-service ESOL training; math and science teachers need only 60 credits. The State allows teachers to “bank” their ESOL credits and apply them toward the requirements for recertifying their Florida Educator’s Certificates.

8. Section 1003.56(3)(a), Florida Statutes, requires each district school board to submit to the Department of Education for review and approval a plan for providing ESOL instruction to ELL students. Paragraph (f) of the same section requires the district school board to provide qualified teachers for ESOL instruction.

9. The School Board’s approved District Plan sets forth the standards for obtaining the ESOL endorsement, stating that the “expectation is that any teacher who obtains the ESOL Endorsement will acquire the appropriate strategies to teach

   
   

   English language learners.” The District Plan refers to the ESOL endorsement as an “Add-on-Program” because the endorsement can be added to any Florida Educator’s Certificate requiring a bachelor’s degree or higher. The District Plan states as follows, in relevant part:

   The standards to be addressed in each course will be stated and updated in the district’s master in-service plan for the Add-on- Certification Program for ESOL. Each component has been developed in accordance with the requirements for the Master Plan for In-service Education components.

   Participants must complete and demonstrate competency of 80% of the course objectives in order to receive credit for the component. Participants must participate in the following clinical activities in the ESOL Add-on-Program for the ESOL endorsement:

   
   

   • Submit a portfolio of ELL student work with analysis of student growth

     
     

   • Develop appropriate formal and alternative methods of assessment for ELLs

     
     

   • Develop lesson plans using effective teaching methodologies in planning and delivering instruction to meet the needs of ELLs

     
     

   • Complete a culture sketch and mini- ethnography on an ELL to identify language proficiency and cultural influences on learning

     
     

   • Use knowledge of culture and learning styles to plan and evaluate instructional outcomes

     
     

   • Evaluate, modify and employ appropriate instructional materials for ELLs at all proficiency levels

     
     

   • Evaluate instructional programs in ESOL based on current standards

     
     

   • Reflect on and analyze current trends in ESOL

     
     

   • Select and develop appropriate ESOL content according to ELL students’ level of proficiency

     
     

   • Identify and implement strategies for using school, community and home resources

     
     

   • Analyze ELL Case Studies

     
     

   • View and discuss pd360.com segments for each course (See Appendix)6/

   
   

10. The District Plan sets forth the following under the heading “Completion Requirements”:

    The participant will satisfactorily complete all the appropriate courses needed for the endorsement. The successful completion of each required course will document that the participant has attained the competencies and skills addressed in and specific to the course. In order to complete a course successfully, a participant must:

    
    

    • Complete a Pre/Post test or other valid measure to show at least 80% competency of the course objectives

      
      

    • Complete all individual and group activities at a professional level of quality that demonstrates knowledge of the Florida Teacher Standards for ESOL Endorsement

      
      

    • Complete all written assignments at a level that demonstrates competency of

    
    

    Domains 1-5 of the Florida Teacher Standards for ESOL Endorsement7/

    
    

    1. Program Completion

       
       

       The participant must master 80% of the course objectives in order to complete the in-service component satisfactorily. In order to add the ESOL endorsement the participant must complete all five state approved ESOL in-service courses or the equivalent. The participant must complete all individual projects and assignments at the level of quality as stated in the objectives. The instructor will follow the criteria established for satisfactory completion. Upon completion of the required courses work, the Professional Development Director will certify the program completion.

       
       

    2. Competency Demonstration

       
       

       The participant must demonstrate successful completions of all competencies as outlined in the district master in- service components for each ESOL class included in the add-on endorsement program for the Florida Teacher Standards for ESOL Endorsement.

       
       

11. The District Plan sets forth the following as a section under the heading, “Management”:

    1. Attendance requirement for in-service points

    
    

    Attendance is mandatory. All of the classes have a specific number of hours and participants must attend the required number of hours. Absences must be made up with the instructor or the ESOL Specialist.

    Excessive absences will result in the participant not satisfactorily completing the class. The Director and ESOL Specialist for Professional Development will determine

    
    

    what will happen with a participant in the event of an extreme emergency or serious illness causing excessive absentees [sic].

    
    

12. During the period relevant to this case, Brenda Wims was the Director of Professional Development. She was responsible for all in-service programs in the School District, including the ESOL program. As the ESOL specialist,

    Ms. Patterson worked directly beneath Ms. Wims in the hierarchy. Then there were 20 to 25 ESOL facilitators such as Mr. Hester, who delivered the in-service training for ESOL professional development.8/

13. Ms. Patterson testified that there was always a crunch at the end of the school year to obtain ESOL credits and that the bulk of the training pushed up against the June 30 deadline. Teachers came to her office as late as June 27 desperately seeking ESOL credits. Some teachers hadn’t even realized they were out of field for ESOL until near the deadline and they approached Ms. Patterson in a panic.

14. Ms. Patterson testified that the Professional Development staff of the District did whatever was legitimately possible to ensure that teachers flagged for ESOL obtained the credits they needed to keep their jobs. Given the number of teachers caught by the ESOL requirement every year,

    Ms. Patterson had an enormous task to schedule sufficient ESOL courses for all of them.

    
    

15. As the end of the school year approached and the desperate push for ESOL classes began, Professional Development would schedule additional courses and would shorten courses. The standard ESOL training program consisted of five separate courses, each covering one of the five “domains,” i.e., methods of teaching English to speakers of other languages; ESOL curriculum and materials development; cross-cultural communication and understanding; applied linguistics; and testing and evaluation of ESOL. Each course was worth 60 points. Those teachers needing 300 points were required to take all five classes.

16. In recognition that there is some subject matter overlap among the ESOL courses, the District decided to implement a “hybrid” ESOL course as part of its effort to quickly move more teachers through the training. The facilitator of this course would offer all five class titles and the teachers taking the course would choose the title they needed. During the first half of each class session, the facilitator would teach the whole class the materials common to all ESOL courses. During the second half, the facilitator would offer differentiated instruction for each course title.

    Ms. Patterson testified that the typical ESOL class took ten to twelve weeks but that the hybrid class was shortened to six weeks.

    
    

17. Ms. Patterson further testified that other “emergency” ESOL courses were shortened to six weeks. She was asked what “emergency” means and responded, “That means that we needed to offer more courses, so we added more that were not hybrid as well.”

18. Section 1012.56(8), Florida Statutes, provides for a “cohesive competency-based professional development certification and education competency program” through which persons with bachelor’s degrees in majors other than education may become certificated teachers. This program is popularly called “alternative certification.” Ms. Patterson testified that the alternative certification coordinator approached

    Ms. Wims about adding an ESOL component so that new teachers entering the profession by way of alternative certification would satisfy the ESOL requirement without adding to the backlog of teachers needing separate ESOL certification. The District added an ESOL component to the alternative certification program.

19. Another way of obtaining ESOL credit was through independent study. Foreign travel by a teacher could be counted as independent study if certain criteria were met, basically a certification that the teacher had been out of the country for five or more days and the filling out of an independent study form.9/ Teachers who were unable to attend ESOL classes due to

    
    

    professional or familial conflicts could seek permission to complete independent studies by performing the course work on their own time. Ms. Patterson stated that when she was a PDF teaching ESOL she conducted between 20 and 40 independent studies per year. After becoming the District’s ESOL specialist, she oversaw roughly 20 independent studies per year conducted by the trainers.

20. Ms. Patterson testified that as a PDF she would record a teacher’s participation in an independent study course by marking him “present” at an ESOL class that she or another facilitator was teaching. This was strictly an administrative method of tracking the student, not a statement that the independent study teacher was physically present at the class to which his name had been attached. Ms. Patterson stated that she continued to follow this procedure after she became the ESOL specialist for the entire district.

21. Teachers could also obtain credit for ESOL courses they took in college. This credit was not automatically attached to a teacher’s record but required submission of a written request and an official transcript. A similar credit was available to teachers who obtained in-service ESOL credit during employment in another Florida school district.

22. Finally, a teacher could obtain ESOL certification by passing an examination.10/

    
    

23. At the hearing, Mr. Hester contended that there was an “alternative delivery” method by which teachers could obtain ESOL credits at the discretion of the PDF by demonstrating their ESOL knowledge and skills. The School Board denied that this was ever an option for obtaining ESOL credit.

    Mr. Hester’s qualifications and experience

    
    

24. In 1998, after four years as a classroom teacher in Duval County, Mr. Hester became a PDF working with the District’s Professional Development Cadre, which mentored novice and “needs assistance” teachers and implemented the District’s master plan for in-service education.11/ During his time in Cadre, Mr. Hester estimated that he trained between 3,000 and 4,000 new teachers through the District’s Mentoring and Induction for Novice Teachers (“MINT”) program. He trained teachers who had majored in education as well as alternative certification teachers.

25. Mr. Hester was chosen to redesign the alternative certification to include the ESOL component. After Mr. Hester completed the redesign in 2010, teachers finishing the alternative certification program would receive 120 master plan points for ESOL, in the areas of testing and evaluation and cross cultural communication. In addition to training teachers in the alternative certification program, Mr. Hester became a trainer of trainers in the program.

    
    

26. In 1998, Mr. Hester became state certified in the Florida Performance Measurement System, which qualified him to train administrators on how to observe and evaluate teachers. In 1999, he also became state certified in Clinical Educator Training, which further refined his training in the observation and evaluation of classroom teachers and helped him to develop

    strategies to improve the teachers’ performance. Mr. Hester was also a trainer in Clinical Educator Training, another observational tool used informally to coach teachers.

27. In 2003, Mr. Hester was chosen to receive two weeks of intensive training in the America’s Choice program, a method for implementing standards-based education. Mr. Hester described the standards-based program as founded on the principle that all students can learn the same information and reach a uniform standard of achievement but that some students take longer and need more assistance to reach the goal. The “critical attribute” of standards-based education is differentiated instruction, whereby faster learners may move at their own pace while the lower achieving students receive remedial support from the teacher.

28. Mr. Hester’s specialized training led to his appointment as a District standards coach from 2003-2007. As standards coach, Mr. Hester held workshops, coordinated breakout sessions on early release days, and created pamphlets setting

    
    

    forth pre-planning activities, among other duties. Former Fletcher principal Dane Gilbert described standards coach as an especially tough position in terms of “ruffling feathers” among the teaching staff.

29. From 1998 through 2009, Mr. Hester served as an adjunct professor in the College of Education and Human Services at the University of North Florida. He taught several courses that included ESOL instruction. Mr. Hester testified that this college level teaching experience was one reason the District brought him into the ESOL program as a trainer.

30. In addition to his redesign of the alternative certification program, Mr. Hester was also the author of the hybrid ESOL course. For a time he was the only PDF teaching the hybrid course because he was one of the few trainers in the District qualified to train teachers in all five ESOL subject areas.

31. Mr. Hester testified that his development and teaching of the ESOL course gave him a reputation as the “trainer of last resort” for the School District. This reputation was enhanced by his willingness to work through holidays to assist desperate teachers in completing their ESOL requirements.

32. From 2007 until his termination, Mr. Hester served as Fletcher High School’s PDF and instructional coach. As such he helped generate the school improvement plan, part of which

    
    

    involved coordination of Professional Learning Communities (“PLCs”). PLCs are a facilitated collaborative effort among teachers to improve instruction, including the preparation of lesson plans and development of teaching strategies. The 28 or so PLCs at Fletcher were organized according to academic subject or administrative duty such as “guidance” or “leadership.”

33. As Fletcher’s PDF, Mr. Hester was also involved in the adoption of the requirement that teachers develop “lesson design notebooks.” These notebooks were more complex than simple lesson plans in order to enable the teachers to document everything happening in the classroom in terms of standards based education and the “Florida Educator Accomplished Practices” found in Florida Administrative Code rule 6A-5.065. The lesson design notebooks were used for evaluative purposes by the school administration.

34. Mr. Hester attended the various PLC meetings and assisted the PLCs with teaching issues. Each PLC at Fletcher had a PLC binder placed in the front office. The documents generated at PLC meetings would be routed to Mr. Hester for his review and for retention in the binders.

35. As the PDF, Mr. Hester was assigned to work with low performing “needs assistance” teachers to improve their performance. Mr. Hester was also the Advanced International Certificate of Education (“AICE”) program coordinator. AICE is

    
    

    a diploma program created by Cambridge University. As program coordinator, Mr. Hester worked closely with top students and their teachers. Mr. Hester was also Fletcher’s main data analyst as regards student and teacher performance.

    ESOL endorsements

    
    

36. Of the two allegations that the School Board pursued at the hearing, the more serious was that Mr. Hester “repeatedly provided ESOL endorsements to employees without requiring that they complete the course requirements, including submission of work or attendance in classes.”

37. The School Board asserted that Mr. Hester falsified ESOL documents by marking independent study participants “present” in classes they did not physically attend. Mr. Hester did not dispute that he accounted for the work performed by his independent study students by marking them present on attendance sheets for ESOL classes that Mr. Hester or another PDF was teaching. He testified that this was the method by which the District instructed him to account for his independent study students and was the method he had used since 1998.

38. Mr. Hester’s testimony was corroborated by that of Ms. Patterson, who testified that she used the same method of recording the participation of teachers who were taking ESOL courses via independent study. See Finding of Fact 20, supra.

    Class rosters produced at the hearing confirmed that

    
    

    Ms. Patterson used this method. Ms. Patterson testified that this method of accounting for independent study was in place when she began teaching ESOL and was used throughout her years of teaching ESOL.12/

39. Both Mr. Hester and Ms. Patterson credibly testified that they had no intent to falsify District records. They were simply employing the record keeping method they had learned from other District personnel. The School Board has failed to demonstrate that Mr. Hester falsified ESOL documents merely by recording independent study participants present in classes they did not physically attend.

40. The genuine controversy surrounds the assertion by several Fletcher High School teachers that Mr. Hester gave them credit for ESOL courses for which they had performed no work at all. Some of these teachers testified that they were unaware Mr. Hester had given them ESOL credits and only learned of receiving the credits during the course of the School Board’s investigation of Mr. Hester.13/

41. Mr. Hester contends that he never gave anyone credit for doing nothing. He claims that each of these teachers, in one way or another, earned independent study credit within the scope of discretion allowed him by the District until

    January 23, 2013. On that date, Ms. Patterson sent Mr. Hester an email titled “ESOL Independent Study other than ESOL Foreign

    
    

    Travel.” The body of the email was blank but it contained the following attachment:

    ESOL Independent Study other than ESOL Foreign Travel

    
    

    This is decided on a case by case basis and must be approved by Brenda A. Wims Director [sic] of Certificated/Non-certificated personnel for Professional Development and Kella Grant, Supervisor of Certification.

    All assignments must be submitted to the trainer who will then submit the completed work to Karen L. Patterson, ESOL Specialist for Professional Development.

    
    

    The request must meet the following Criteria:

    
    

    • Classes are not open for Registration and termination is within a short period of time

    • Death/illness of family member

    • Illness that requires treatment or hospitalization of participant

    • Cross content conflicts (Reading/ESOL)

    • Participant assigned Summer School during the Summer course offerings and realizes after the fact that they have not satisfied their out of field status and a replacement is not available and this situation is verified by a Human Resources Administrator/Principal

    • You must be able to complete the assigned task and meet with the ESOL Specialist for Professional Development, Diversity Specialist for Professional Development or Brenda A. Wims

    
    

    Brenda A. Wims, Director

    
    

    Karen L. Patterson, ESOL Specialist

    
    

42. Mr. Hester testified that when he received this email, he understood it as an instruction to change the way he was

    
    

    handling independent studies. He was taken aback by the change, but thenceforth conformed his actions to the new instructions.

43. The School Board denies that the scope of discretion granted to PDFs to award independent study credit was ever as broad as Mr. Hester claims and that the January 23, 2013, email was simply a restatement of longstanding District practice of which Mr. Hester was well aware. However, Ms. Patterson conceded that the purpose of the email was to clarify the policy to all the District’s trainers because some of them may have understood they could do things differently.

44. Ms. Patterson’s testimony is that she “probably” sent the email to all of the District’s trainers, or “probably” provided it to them at a meeting. However, the record evidence shows Mr. Hester as the only recipient of the email, and shows that he received it at about the same time as the District received the anonymous letter that set in motion the investigation of Mr. Hester.

45. As noted in Finding of Fact 23, supra, Mr. Hester claimed authority to award independent study ESOL credit via an “alternative delivery method” or “differentiated instruction.” The alternative delivery method involved Mr. Hester’s assessment of the teacher’s overall competence and his determination that the teacher had ESOL competency and had satisfied the ESOL course requirements despite not sitting for the ESOL classes.

    
    

    The School Board denied that any PDF was, or ever would be, given such broad discretion to award ESOL credit without completing any coursework.

46. Mr. Hester testified that when he began teaching ESOL in 2008, he would go to Ms. Patterson for approval of ESOL independent study projects. Ms. Patterson at length told

    Mr. Hester and several other trainers that they were aware of the criteria for independent study established by Ms. Wims: the teacher must either have extraordinary family obligations or school duties that prevent her from taking the evening ESOL classes offered by the District. Mr. Hester testified that

    Ms. Patterson told him that she trusted him to make the call on an independent study project. Ms. Patterson told him that the teachers must meet the expectations of the ESOL course.

47. As the subsequent findings indicate, Mr. Hester believed that in this conversation Ms. Patterson had authorized him to award ESOL credits to teachers who had demonstrated proficiency in the subject matter of the ESOL courses, even where the teachers did not actually perform any course work. This was the source of Mr. Hester’s “alternative delivery” method of obtaining ESOL credit disclaimed by the School Board.

48. Ms. Patterson testified that she did not have the authority to authorize independent study projects, let alone delegate such authority to Mr. Hester. She conceded that she

    
    

    was the trainers’ conduit to Ms. Wims and that she may have relayed Ms. Wims approval of independent study projects to Mr. Hester in a way that gave him the impression that it was Ms. Patterson granting the approval. However, Ms. Patterson denied saying anything that would make Mr. Hester reasonably believe he could award ESOL credit to a School Board employee simply for being a good teacher.

49. Supporting the testimony of Ms. Patterson and undercutting that of Mr. Hester is the fact that Mr. Hester did seek permission, via a June 10, 2011, email to Ms. Patterson, to complete an independent study with seven teachers who were making multicultural presentations at pre-planning. Mr. Hester claimed that Ms. Patterson gave him permission to do the independent study, though Ms. Patterson testified that she could not recall whether Ms. Wims approved.

50. Mr. Hester testified that he asked permission to perform this independent study because it fell outside the scope of the criteria established by Ms. Wims, i.e., extraordinary family obligations or school duties. The School Board reasonably asks: if Mr. Hester admits that he needed to ask permission to conduct an independent study outside the scope of normal parameters, how can he claim the unilateral authority to award ESOL credit for “independent studies” involving no ESOL coursework whatever?

    
    

51. The question points to a logical disconnect that

    
    

    Mr. Hester never adequately explained. Even if the undersigned is persuaded that Mr. Hester honestly believed he had the authority to award ESOL credit to “phenomenal” teachers on their personal and professional merits alone, there remain the questions of whether that belief was reasonable, what impact his unreasonably held belief had on the integrity of the District’s ESOL certification program, and whether Mr. Hester’s effectiveness as a teacher in the District has been irredeemably damaged.

52. Other evidentiary elements support Mr. Hester’s version of both Ms. Patterson’s power to authorize independent study projects and the flexibility of the District’s policy of always requiring ESOL coursework for ESOL certification. An email chain in December 2011 involves Mr. Hester’s proposed independent study project for a teacher named Matthew Tracy. In one of the emails, dated December 7, 2011, and addressed to

    Mr. Tracy, Ms. Patterson, and the District’s Supervisor of Certification, Kella Grant, Mr. Hester wrote: “With Karen Patterson’s permission, I can work with Mr. Tracy and do an ‘independent study’ with the 2 classes in question and do it with him over the break.” The subsequent emails in the chain establish that Mr. Tracy received permission to complete the independent study with Mr. Hester.

    
    

53. Ms. Wims is not named in or copied on any of the emails in the chain. Ms. Patterson testified that she conveyed the request to Ms. Wims and then conveyed Ms. Wims’ approval of the project to Mr. Tracy, but no written evidence of any involvement by Ms. Wims was provided at the hearing.

    Ms. Patterson did not explain why she failed to correct

    
    

    Mr. Hester’s statement that he was seeking “Karen Patterson’s permission,” or why Ms. Grant’s subsequent email appears to accept at face value that Ms. Patterson is indeed the person from whom Mr. Tracy should obtain permission for his independent study project.

54. As to the strictness of the ESOL classwork policy, Mr. Hester pointed out that there was precedent for independent study projects outside of that parameter. In an email dated July 23, 2011, a teacher named Dayle Timmons wrote to

    Ms. Patterson as follows:

    
    

    I have recently been tagged for ESOL classes. I have 3 years before retirement and have been teaching ESE for 40 years. I figured I would retire before I got tagged—- after all these years. Anyway, as I have been thinking about taking the classes I have been wondering if there is a better way to use my time . . . .

    
    

    As you may know, Chets Creek [Elementary School] has opened a tutoring service at Portside, the 1000 home trailer park that is part of the Chets school zone. Teachers volunteer their time for one day a week for two hours to tutor. There are also other

    
    

    things going on through an agrrement [sic] between Portside[,] the school and Beach United Methodist church. Teacher [sic] also volunteer with Second Harvest once a month to deliver food, some are part of the Rising Tide which is a Sunday School that meets on Saturdays, etc. There’s a lot going on over there and certainly has given teachers that are involved an insight into the children that we serve that has never been possilbe [sic] before. We identified that community because it is where most of our lowest quartile, ESE and behavior problems live.

    It is also where most of our second language kids live. I am wondering if instead of taking a course, it would be possible to count the tutoring and service as a practicum instead. I’m thinking reading some text and identifying some specific strategies for second language students might be part of the course with data on how the strategy worked or anecdotal notes or something along those lines. As I was thinking about my own need and doing an independent study, I wondered about the bigger Chets community—- many of whom were not able to volunteer last year because they were already committed to taking an ESOL course. Do you think there is a possibility that we could work something out?

    
    

55. Ms. Patterson testified that the District’s Professional Development office approved giving the Chets Creek teachers ESOL credit for the tutoring activities they were already performing. Eventually eight to ten teachers at Chets Creek were able to obtain credit for all five ESOL courses.

    Ms. Patterson conceded that this project did not meet the usual criteria for an independent study, but justified the credits because the teachers were teaching reading and math using ESOL

    
    

    manuals and strategies. When pressed, she allowed that a teacher in any classroom could deploy the same ESOL strategies as those used by the Chets Creek teachers.

56. Christine Andrews has been a teacher at Fletcher since 2002. She teaches AP statistics and AP calculus. On March 16, 2012, Ms. Andrews and several other teachers received an email from Mr. Hester stating, “Please see me ASAP regarding your out of field status.”14/ Ms. Andrews immediately responded with an inquiry as to how she was out of field, to which Mr. Hester just as quickly responded, “ESOL.”

57. Ms. Andrews was puzzled because she believed that her undergraduate program at the University of North Florida had included an ESOL component sufficient to satisfy the 60-hour requirement for a high school math teacher.

58. Mr. Hester, who taught as an adjunct professor at UNF, testified that students at the university had been given the impression that their ESOL classes automatically gave them ESOL credit upon entering the profession and that they were often upset to learn this was not the case. Mr. Hester stated that it is up to the teacher to bring her college transcripts to the District ESOL office to obtain approval.

59. The course Ms. Andrews took at UNF was titled “Teaching Diverse Populations.” Mr. Hester testified that UNF ran into trouble by telling students that this course satisfied

    
    

    ESOL requirements for all school districts in the state. In fact, UNF had not cleared the course with the Duval County School Board. Mr. Hester stated that there was a period of about three years, coinciding with Ms. Andrews’ attendance at UNF, when students wrongly believed that they would receive automatic credit for this course.

60. Ms. Patterson confirmed that ESOL credit for college courses was not automatic. She stated that teachers are required to submit their college transcripts and seek credit from the District.

61. Later on March 16, 2012, Ms. Andrews sent Mr. Hester an email stating that she had spoken to Natosha Earst-Bailey in the District’s Certification department. Ms. Earst-Bailey told Ms. Andrews that her 60 ESOL hours were showing on the computer and she should not have been flagged as out of field.

    Ms. Earst-Bailey suggested that Ms. Andrews provide her transcript to Mr. Hester so that the records at the school level would jibe with those of the district, as well as provide a copy to Ms. Patterson at Professional Development.

62. Ms. Andrews did not provide her transcript to the school. It was left to Mr. Hester to press the issue of obtaining credit for her college work.

63. In May 2012, Mr. Hester followed up on Ms. Andrews’ claim that she should already have the required ESOL credits and

    
    

    should not be considered out of field. On May 1, he sent emails to Ms. Earst-Bailey and Ms. Patterson requesting a review of

    Ms. Andrews’ UNF credits for possible ESOL credits. In his email to Ms. Earst-Bailey, Mr. Hester stated, “Also, I attached her points and she has 60 for Cross-cultural and has the paperwork for 60 hours earned at UNF.”

64. On May 2, Ms. Patterson notified Mr. Hester that Ms. Andrews had been approved for the required credits. For purposes of this case, the credits claimed for the UNF class

    were uncontroversial. However, the School Board’s investigation of Mr. Hester raised the question of whether Ms. Andrews should have received “60 [points] for Cross-cultural” as claimed by Mr. Hester, because it appeared that Ms. Andrews had never taken a Cross-Cultural ESOL course.

65. At the hearing, Ms. Andrews was shown the attendance sheet for a Cross-Cultural ESOL class that Mr. Hester taught from July through September 2011. The chart indicates that Ms. Andrews was present for every one of the twelve class

    sessions. Ms. Andrews testified that she did not attend any of the class sessions. Given the District’s method of tracking independent study students, it would not be unusual for a teacher’s name to appear on a class roster although the teacher was not physically present for the class.

    
    

66. The problem for Mr. Hester is that Ms. Andrews testified that she did not take an independent study course from Mr. Hester or anyone else during that period. She testified that she knew nothing about this course or of having received credit for it until June 2013, when she was questioned during the School Board’s investigation of Mr. Hester. She had no memory of discussing her ESOL credits, or lack thereof, with Mr. Hester in 2011.

67. Mr. Hester testified that Ms. Andrews had been adamant that her college work exempted her from taking ESOL courses, and was furious when Mr. Hester explained what she had to do get “in field.”

68. Mr. Hester stated that he did not do many independent studies and that he chose them on a case by case basis. He testified that Ms. Andrews was “a phenomenal teacher” with a “fantastic rapport” with her students, who topped the state in AP statistics and calculus scores. However, she became very difficult when Mr. Hester relayed the news that she might not get credit for her “Teaching Diverse Populations” class at UNF.

69. Mr. Hester stated that they sat down and discussed her situation. Ms. Andrews fretted that she would lose her job.

    Mr. Hester told her it was too late to enroll in an ESOL course, but that he would work with her on an independent study.15/

    
    

70. Mr. Hester testified that this was a “very, very rare occurrence” because Ms. Andrews did not meet the criteria established by Ms. Wims for independent study, i.e., she had no family obligations or school duties that ruled out attendance at a regular ESOL course. He testified that when he wanted to undertake an independent study for reasons outside of Ms. Wims’ criteria, he usually called Ms. Patterson for permission and that he "probably" did so in the case of Ms. Andrews.

71. Ms. Patterson did not testify as to her recollection of a conversation with Mr. Hester about an independent study for Ms. Andrews. She clearly testified that she had no authority to authorize Mr. Hester’s independent study proposals. At most, she forwarded the proposals to Ms. Wims and relayed Ms. Wims’ decisions to Mr. Hester.

72. Mr. Hester believed that losing Ms. Andrews would be a “major loss to education” and decided to pursue an independent study with her, employing the “alternative delivery” method, despite the fact that she did not meet the standard criteria for an independent study. He looked at everything he knew about Ms. Andrews as a teacher: the quality of her teaching, her extensive PLC work, her lesson design notebook, his classroom observations of and discussions with Ms. Andrews. He was familiar with the content of the course she took at UNF because he taught the course, and he took that course into account.

    
    

    Mr. Hester talked with ELL students to confirm that Ms. Andrews was using ESOL strategies to communicate with her students.

    Mr. Hester testified that by taking all of these factors into account, he was able to determine that Ms. Andrews met the competencies of the Cross-Cultural ESOL class for which he gave her credit.

73. When pressed during cross examination, Mr. Hester conceded that Ms. Andrews did not perform an independent study16/ and did not receive any instruction from Mr. Hester to receive the 60 ESOL points for which she was credited. What did she do? Mr. Hester stated as follows:

    We looked at the PLC information, the binders and the information that she had, and embedded in those were the assessments, were the strategies, were the lesson plans, were the student strategies, all those areas, also, with her lesson design notebook, which included her lesson plans, her specific students with the strategies needed, so on and so forth. And I remember being in Ms. Andrews’ classroom at least once for observation.

    
    

74. In other words, Ms. Andrews performed no classwork or dedicated work of any kind to obtain credit for Cross-Cultural ESOL. Mr. Hester believed that he was authorized to award ESOL credits based on the teacher’s competence and the quality of her teaching, provided the teacher in question was “phenomenal.” He believed that Ms. Andrews was qualified to receive the ESOL

    
    

    credits and stated that he had no intent to mislead anyone as to how Ms. Andrews received the credits.

75. Mr. Hester testified that he was “confused” that

    
    

    Ms. Andrews claimed she knew nothing of the ESOL credits until the investigation in this case commenced. He stated that Fletcher’s computer system allowed teachers to view their transcripts and course credits and that Ms. Andrews could have accessed her records at any time.

76. Julie Durden graduated from UNF in 2004 with a degree in English and American Sign Language (“ASL”) and had taught at Fletcher since 2004. She met Mr. Hester when she was taking alternative certification courses from him, and knew him thereafter in his role as PDF at Fletcher.

77. Ms. Durden testified that prior to the 2013-2014 school year she taught ASL to hearing students and did not have any ELL students in her classes. In the 2013-2014 school year she was switched to teaching English. Ms. Durden stated that she was first flagged as out of field for ESOL during the 2013- 2014 school year, although documentary evidence presented at the hearing indicated that Mr. Hester sent Ms. Durden an email regarding her out of field status on March 16, 2012.17/

78. At the hearing, Ms. Durden was shown the attendance sheet for the Cross-Cultural ESOL class that Mr. Hester taught from July through September 2011, the same attendance sheet that

    
    

    had Ms. Andrews’ name on it. Ms. Durden is listed as attending all but one of the twelve class sessions.

79. Ms. Durden testified that she did not sign up for this course, did not attend the classes, and performed no independent study to qualify for ESOL credit in this class. Ms. Durden stated that she knew nothing of receiving credit for this class until she was interviewed during the School Board’s investigation of Mr. Hester.

80. Mr. Hester testified that Ms. Durden first came to him during the 2011-2012 school year, when he notified her that she was out of field. She did not believe she needed ESOL because she was teaching ASL, but Mr. Hester informed her that she needed 60 hours of credit. It was late in the semester, too late to sign up for an ESOL class, and she did not know what to

    do.

    
    

81. Mr. Hester testified that he would be willing to look

    
    

    at Ms. Durden’s activity in establishing “Challenge Day” at Fletcher and at her pre-planning activities during the 2010-2011 school year as equivalents under his “alternative delivery” independent study method. “Challenge Day” was a national program that Ms. Durden imported to Fletcher. It is a three-to- four-day program on diversity, designed to break down barriers between students, eliminate cliques and bullying, and create a safe environment for all students. The program was such a

    
    

    success at Fletcher that it spread to every high school in Duval County.

82. Ms. Durden testified that she put in a lot of work to establish and maintain the Challenge Day program. She conceded that there may be some subject matter overlap between Challenge Day and ESOL, but could not fathom how her Challenge Day activities could be considered a substitute for an ESOL class because they have nothing to do with teaching strategies for ELL students. She denied that Mr. Hester ever told her she could get ESOL credit for running Challenge Day at Fletcher. She did admit that Mr. Hester reviewed her lesson design notebook, though she assumed he did so in his role as Fletcher’s instructional coach.

83. Ms. Durden testified that pre-planning in-service courses are organized for teachers to attend during the week before the school year begins. She stated that she helped with the training on one occasion, but that Mr. Hester never told her that she could get ESOL credit for helping with the pre-planning in-service training. She had no idea whether Mr. Hester had received permission to give her ESOL credit for her Challenge Day or pre-planning in-service activities.

84. Mr. Hester testified that Challenge Day is “all Cross Cultural ESOL” because it “breaks down barriers of bullying, you know, racism, and sexism, and everything.” He stated that he

    
    

    told Ms. Durden that she did not have to attend the Cross Cultural ESOL class, that he would “take care of it.” They talked about the work she had done for Challenge Day and pre- planning and how that work equated to the expectations of the ESOL course. As noted above, Ms. Durden denied that any such conversation occurred.

85. Mr. Hester testified that he had a telephone discussion with Karen Patterson about the extent to which preparations for Challenge Day could satisfy the requirements for Cross Cultural ESOL. He stated that Ms. Patterson told him that, “In the end, does what they do meet the expectations of the course?” Mr. Hester could produce no written memorandum to confirm this conversation. Ms. Patterson was not specifically asked about Challenge Day, but denied having any conversation that could be construed as giving Mr. Hester permission to award ESOL credit via his “alternative delivery” method.

86. At the time of the hearing, Sherry Murrell was in her tenth year as a geometry and intensive math teacher at Fletcher. Ms. Murrell’s name appears on the class roster for the same 2011 Cross Cultural ESOL class that included the names of Ms. Andrews and Ms. Durden. She is listed as attending each of the twelve class sessions.

87. Ms. Murrell testified that she had completed all of her ESOL requirements in June 2005. She was not out of field in

    
    

    2011 and had no need to take an ESOL course. She stated that she was in Mr. Hester’s office one day when he asked her to attend one of his courses. She told him she didn’t need professional development points. He replied that she just needed to say that she sat in the class. She told him that she needed to be in her classroom and couldn’t be in two places at once. Mr. Hester persisted. At that point, Ms. Murrell needed to leave to pick up her own children and told Mr. Hester, “Sure, whatever,” on her way out the door.

88. Ms. Murrell testified that she did not sign up for or attend the 2011 ESOL class. She did not complete an independent study for the course credit. She did not learn she was on the attendance sheet until a School Board investigator contacted her in June 2013.

89. Ms. Murrell’s name also appears on an attendance sheet for an ESOL Curriculum & Materials course that Mr. Hester taught from January to April 2012. The sheet indicates that she attended eleven out of twelve class sessions. Ms. Murrell testified that she did not attend this course or perform any independent study activities for this course. Again, she only learned that her name was on the attendance sheet from the School Board investigator.

90. Ms. Murrell testified that about a week and a half before the investigator came to the school, a student delivered

    
    

    to her a manila envelope containing a completed “course activities checklist” for an ESOL Curriculum & Materials class taught during Spring 2012 and for a Hybrid ESOL class taught in Spring 2012. Both documents were signed by Mr. Hester and dated April 3, 2012. These are the documents that a course instructor completes to verify that a teacher has satisfactorily completed all the required activities in a given ESOL course. Ms. Murrell testified that she did not take either of these courses.

91. At lunch that day, Mr. Hester asked Ms. Murrell if she had received the envelope and she said yes. He said nothing more about it, and Ms. Murrell gave it no more thought until the investigator arrived. She provided the investigator copies of the checklists.

92. Ms. Murrell recalled another conversation with

    
    

    Mr. Hester about an ESOL class in which he told her she went “above and beyond” the course requirements. Ms. Murrell testified the conversation went as follows:

    I said I didn’t sign up for that class.

    
    

    He’s like, Well, I can make it an independent study.

    
    

    I was like, You can do that? And he said, Yes.

    And I’m like, Well, isn’t there some course work that I have to do online?

    
    

    He’s like, No, don’t worry about it. You’ve gone above and beyond. He goes, You’ve met all the criteria.

    
    

93. When Ms. Murrell protested that there must be something she needed to turn in to show the course work,

    Mr. Hester responded that she shouldn’t worry about it. He would make it an independent study and take care of everything.

94. Mr. Hester testified that Ms. Murrell was one of the rare “phenomenal” teachers who merited ESOL credit for the quality of her teaching. He recalled Ms. Murrell telling him that she had learned it was possible to “bank” ESOL points, meaning that extra ESOL points may be carried over and applied to a teacher’s next recertification period. Ms. Murrell expressed a desire to take ESOL courses for banking purposes but was unable to do so because she had two young children at home.

95. Mr. Hester testified that he told Ms. Murrell, “Well, Sherry, with what you're doing at Fletcher, we could be able to show that you have competency in this course.” He denied ever telling Ms. Murrell that she should tell people she sat in one of his classes.

96. Mr. Hester testified that he sent the completed course checklist to Ms. Murrell in April 2013 at her request. She was concerned about the ongoing investigation and was worried because she couldn’t find the checklist sheet that proved she had completed the competencies for the class. She asked

    
    

    Mr. Hester for another checklist sheet and he provided it via interoffice mail. Mr. Hester stated that he could not understand why Ms. Murrell would deny knowing about the ESOL class attendance sheets.

97. Mr. Hester described Ms. Murrell’s qualifications for the ESOL credit as very similar to those of Ms. Andrews with the addition of extensive pre-planning training. Ms. Murrell also performed teacher trainings for Compass Odyssey, a proprietary program used by the School Board, and testified that she never missed a PLC. Her lesson design notebooks were “overflowing.” Mr. Hester believed that Ms. Murrell easily met the substantive criteria for obtaining the ESOL credits he awarded, despite her never taking a course or an active independent study program from him. Mr. Hester clearly remembered asking Ms. Patterson for permission to do an independent study with Ms. Murrell.

98. Heather Kopp graduated from UNF in 2006 and started teaching at Fletcher in 2007. After two years she transferred to Mandarin High School. She returned to Fletcher two years later. Ms. Kopp testified that she took ESOL courses as an undergraduate at UNF and was told she needed no further ESOL courses.

99. Ms. Kopp later received an out of field notice. She contacted the District office and explained that at UNF she had performed a 50-hour internship and wrote a case study to fulfill

    
    

    her ESOL requirements. The District awarded her the ESOL credit. Ms. Kopp testified that she has taken no ESOL courses since graduating from UNF.

100. At the hearing, Ms. Kopp was shown the attendance sheet for a Methods of Teaching ESOL course taught by Mr. Hester from January to March 2009. Ms. Kopp is listed as present at every session of the course. Ms. Kopp testified that she did not sign up for the class, did not attend the class, and did none of the course work or independent study work toward obtaining credit for the class.

101. Ms. Kopp was also shown the attendance sheet for an ESOL: Curriculum & Materials class taught by Mr. Hester from January to March 2010. Ms. Kopp is listed as present at every class session. Ms. Kopp testified that she did not sign up for the class, did not attend the class, and did none of the course work or independent study work toward obtaining credit for the class. Ms. Kopp testified that she first learned of her purported participation in these classes during the School Board’s investigation in this case.

102. Mr. Hester testified that Ms. Kopp came to him because she was out of field and didn’t know what to do. Her husband worked in the evenings and she had two small children and could not attend evening ESOL courses. Mr. Hester obtained permission to work with Ms. Kopp on an independent study. At

     
     

     the time of the courses, Ms. Kopp was working at Mandarin High School but lived near Fletcher, where Mr. Hester taught the courses.

103. Mr. Hester gave Ms. Kopp access to the course online.

     
     

     She independently performed all of the course work and left the written work in Mr. Hester’s mailbox at Fletcher. Mr. Hester testified that Ms. Kopp performed all of the course work in both of the ESOL classes for which he gave her credit.

104. Ms. Kopp denied working with Mr. Hester on independent study classes in 2009 and 2010. She did not recall telling Mr. Hester about her husband or her children making it hard for her to attend evening classes. Ms. Kopp did recall telling Mr. Hester that she had satisfied her ESOL requirements at UNF.

105. Catherine Johnson teaches English at Fletcher. She started at Fletcher in 1998. She took a two-year leave of absence that ended with her return to Fletcher on December 1,

     2008.

     
     

106. At the hearing, Ms. Johnson was shown the attendance

     
     

     sheet for an ESOL: Curriculum & Materials course taught by Mr. Hester from January through March 2009 at Fletcher. The sheet indicates that Ms. Johnson attended all but one of the nine class sessions. Ms. Johnson testified that she did not attend the class, did not sign up for the class, did no course

     
     

     work for the class and performed no independent study in relation to the class.

107. Ms. Johnson was also shown the attendance sheet for a Cross-Cultural ESOL course taught by Mr. Hester from January to April 2011. Ms. Johnson testified that she had nothing to do with this course.

108. Ms. Johnson recalled that in December 2010 she received an out of field notice for ESOL. She talked to

     Mr. Hester about it, telling him that she was not sure exactly which ESOL class she needed to take. Mr. Hester consulted with Ms. Patterson, who wrote to him that Ms. Johnson needed part 2 of Cross-Cultural Communications to complete her ESOL endorsement. Mr. Hester passed this news along to Ms. Johnson.

109. Ms. Johnson asked Mr. Hester what she needed to do to complete the ESOL endorsement. Mr. Hester told her just to consider it independent study. He handed her two discs to download to her computer in case of an audit.

110. Ms. Johnson testified that she tried to download the disks but either they were defective or she was doing something wrong. She brought them back to Mr. Hester and asked him to come to her classroom and try to download them to her laptop. Mr. Hester took the disks from her and told her that he knew her reputation as a classroom teacher. Ms. Johnson was a quality

     
     

     instructor and had fulfilled the requirements of part 2 of the Cross-Cultural Communications course.

111. Ms. Johnson stated that because Mr. Hester was her PDF, she took him at his word. She did no work for the ESOL course.

112. Ms. Johnson testified that Mr. Hester later made reference to having done her a “favor.” The reference was not specific, but she believed he was referring to having given her the ESOL credit. She stated that Mr. Hester also alluded to having done “favors” for Heather Kopp. She did not pursue the issue with Ms. Kopp because she didn’t want to make her uncomfortable.

113. Mr. Hester testified that Ms. Johnson was the third of the three “phenomenal” teachers who received ESOL credit because of the quality of their teaching. He stated that

     Ms. Johnson came to him “in rather of a panic” after being notified she was out of field. Mr. Hester testified that he was very familiar with her work, having taken “needs assistance” teachers to her classroom to see how it is done. He knew her PLC work and was familiar with her lesson design notebook.

114. Mr. Hester stated that he gave Ms. Johnson the syllabus for the Cross-Cultural ESOL course and told her that she could either come to the class or he could look at her lesson design notebook and her work in the PLCs and see how well

     
     

     these items met the course criteria for the class. He testified that Ms. Johnson was very happy to see that her classwork satisfied all of the requirements of the ESOL class syllabus and that she would be able to obtain her endorsement.

115. Mr. Hester was certain that he and Ms. Patterson discussed Ms. Johnson’s situation and that Ms. Patterson okayed the independent study option in her case.

116. Mr. Hester agreed that he did not give Ms. Johnson any work to do. He denied giving her discs or CDs to download into her computer. There was no need to do so because all of the course materials were on the District website. He gave her the course syllabus for Cross-Cultural ESOL and told her she could use that as documentation if she needed it. He denied giving her the syllabus “in case of an audit.” He gave her the syllabus because she asked for documentation of the course.

117. Mr. Hester testified that he wasn’t “giving” anything to Ms. Johnson. She earned the ESOL credit because of the extra work she did with the PLC groups, her status as an AICE, her lesson design notebook and his observations with her in the classroom and the PLCs.

118. At the time of the hearing, Josh Corey had been a teacher at Fletcher for twelve years. He teaches leadership and physical education and also serves as the head football coach, assistant athletic director and student activities director.

     
     

     Mr. Corey testified that he had known Mr. Hester for fifteen years, since they taught together at Fletcher Middle School.

119. Mr. Corey testified that he was up for recertification in 2013 and looked up his records. He was surprised to see that he had five ESOL courses, or 300 hours, to his credit. He believed that he only had 180 hours, and was puzzled by the last two courses he was credited with completing in 2011.

120. Mr. Corey was shown the attendance sheet for a Methods of Teaching ESOL course taught by Mr. Hester from April to June 2008 and agreed that he attended the class and did the course work.

121. Mr. Corey was shown the attendance sheet for an ESOL: Curriculum & Materials course taught by Mr. Hester from January to March 2009 and agreed that he did independent study work through Mr. Hester for this course. Mr. Corey was coaching softball at the time and was unable to physically attend the class. Mr. Hester told him that he was approved through the District to do an independent study. Mr. Hester gave Mr. Corey the readings and assignments and Mr. Corey did the work on his own time.

122. Mr. Corey was shown the attendance sheet for an Empowering ESOL Teachers course taught by Mr. Hester during July 2010. Mr. Corey testified that he did not physically attend the

     
     

     class but he performed an independent study through Mr. Hester. He was allowed to do independent study for this course because he was teaching drivers’ education and working at the school during the summer.

123. Mr. Corey testified that the 2009 and 2010 courses were the only independent study courses he ever took from

     Mr. Hester. He was shown the attendance sheet for an ESOL: Applied Linguistics course taught by Mr. Hester from January to April 2011 and the attendance sheet for a Cross-Cultural ESOL course taught by Mr. Hester on different nights during the same period. Mr. Corey’s name (along with the name of his wife, Michelle Corey, a kindergarten teacher at Seabreeze Elementary) appeared on the sheets for both classes.

124. Mr. Corey testified that he did not attend either of the 2011 classes. He was coaching softball during this time and could not have attended classes either after school or in the evening. He did not sign up for the courses and could not recall having any discussions with Mr. Hester about them. He only learned that he had been credited for the courses when he pulled his points for recertification in October 2013.

125. Mr. Hester testified that Mr. Corey wanted ESOL points for banking purposes. Mr. Corey’s wife, Michelle, had come back into teaching after taking time off to have a child and also needed ESOL courses. They had a problem because

     
     

     Mr. Corey coached in the evenings and they had two small children. Therefore, Mr. Hester allowed them to do independent studies and turn in their work in the same fashion Ms. Kopp had. Mr. Hester testified that the work was turned in with both Coreys’ names on it. He assumed they collaborated on the work and gave them both credit.

126. Mr. Hester stated that collaboration was encouraged in the ESOL independent studies because it mimicked the sharing of activities and experiences that goes on in the ESOL classroom. Mr. Hester agreed that Mr. Corey did not attend the 2011 ESOL classes, but stated that the Coreys did the work independently. He assigned them all of the activities and readings they would have done in the class, and they submitted the completed work to him.18/

127. Andrew Davis testified that he went through the alternative certification program, finishing at the end of his third year of teaching in 2010. He taught intensive reading from 2008 through spring 2013, then switched to physical education. He is a football coach. Mr. Hester was the instructor for Mr. Davis’ alternative certification course and acted as a mentor to Mr. Davis as he began his teaching career.

128. At the hearing, Mr. Davis was shown attendance sheets and/or completion reports for the following classes: Methods of Teaching ESOL, taught by Mr. Hester from January to March 2009;

     
     

     Empowering ESOL Teachers, taught by Mr. Hester during July 2010; ESOL: Applied Linguistics, taught by Mr. Hester from January to April 2011; Cross-Cultural ESOL, taught by Mr. Hester from January 2011 to April 2011; and ESOL: Curriculum & Materials, taught by Mr. Hester in spring 2012.

129. Mr. Davis testified that he did not attend any of the classes in the 2009 Methods of Teaching ESOL, despite his being marked present for each of the nine class sessions. He testified that he performed an independent study with

     Mr. Hester, who told him that things he was doing in the classroom or while coaching counted toward his credit for the class. Mr. Hester also assigned him readings for the class.

130. Mr. Davis testified that he did not attend any of the classes in the 2010 Empowering ESOL Teachers course, despite his being marked present for six of the seven class sessions. He did an independent study consisting of “whatever Mr. Hester asked me to do, whether it was looking at articles or things like that.” Mr. Davis was coaching football during this period, and stated that Mr. Hester told him that coaching football counted toward his independent study.

131. Mr. Davis’ testimony was the same as to all five of the listed ESOL classes. He did not attend the classes. He performed an independent study with Mr. Hester, but only vaguely recalled what Mr. Hester had him do for the course. He mostly

     
     

     recalled being assigned articles to read. Mr. Davis could not recall if his alternative certification course with Mr. Hester provided him with ESOL credit.

132. Mr. Hester confirmed that Mr. Davis received 300 credits over the course of three years doing independent studies for ESOL courses. Mr. Davis was coaching girls’ flag football among other things and his coaching duties conflicted with the ESOL classes. Mr. Hester testified that he employed Ms. Wims’ criteria to allow Mr. Davis to take independent study courses because his school duties did not permit him to take regular ESOL classes.

133. Suzanne Harman has been a teacher since 1974, and has taught English at Fletcher since 1996. She stated that she was out of the classroom from 1986 to 1996 because of her husband’s career in the Navy.

134. On March 25, 2011, Ms. Harman received an email from Natosha Earst-Bailey informing her that she was out of field for ESOL and must document completion of the required ESOL credits by December 31, 2011. Ms. Harman forwarded the email to

     Mr. Hester and asked him what she needed to do.

     
     

135. Ms. Harman testified that she had given ESOL no thought prior to this email, as it did not even exist during her early days in teaching. She heard from fellow teachers that Mr. Hester was the person to see about ESOL credits.

     
     

136. Ms. Harman went to see Mr. Hester. Her testimony is unclear as to how much time passed between her receipt of the email from Ms. Earst-Bailey and her meeting with Mr. Hester, but it appears from the context of her testimony that she waited until October 2011.

137. Ms. Harman testified that when she mentioned that her friends had advised her to see him, Mr. Hester “looked up kind of funny” and she wondered whether she had said something wrong. He asked who told her that. She replied that it was just a couple of her friends. Mr. Hester stated, “Well, they need to watch what they tell people.”

138. Ms. Harman testified that Mr. Hester then pulled out a piece of paper, later identified as a “course artifacts checklist” for the Cross-Cultural ESOL course, and started going over the items on the checklist, saying, “I’ve seen you do this in your classroom. Ms. Harman stated that “he was signing, signing, and then handed a piece of paper to me when he finished initialing.”

139. The document states that Suzanne Harman took the seminar in summer 2011. Mr. Hester signed the “statement of completion” as the approving instructor and dated it October 5, 2011. He initialed every item on the checklist, including eleven “journal entries.” The form states that “All articles are to be read and each summary is to be 2 paragraphs long.”

     
     

     Ms. Harman testified that she did not complete any of the activities checked off on the form.

140. The problem with Ms. Harman’s testimony that Mr. Hester out of the blue completed a checklist for her on October 5, 2011, is that her name appears on the attendance

     sheet for the Cross-Cultural ESOL class taught by Mr. Hester from July through September 2011. She was shown this attendance sheet at the hearing and confirmed that she did not attend any of the twelve classes in the course, but was not asked how

     Mr. Hester could have known to place her on the class list in July when she did not come to him for help until October.19/

141. Mr. Hester testified that Ms. Harman was a needs assistance teacher, meaning that she was labeled by the Fletcher administration or the District as needing help because she was not meeting classroom expectations. Mr. Hester worked with

     Ms. Harman quite a bit at the behest of Fletcher’s assistant principal supervising the English department. Mr. Hester testified that Ms. Harman tried very hard in class, but was weighted down with personal issues at home.

142. Mr. Hester agreed that Ms. Harman told him that other teachers said he was the person to see about ESOL but he denied telling her they needed to keep quiet about it. He stated that Ms. Harman requested an independent study similar to Catherine Johnson’s, i.e., an “alternative delivery” award of ESOL credit

     
     

     based on her merits as a teacher. Mr. Hester told Ms. Harman that it doesn’t work that way. Ms. Harman was a little irate because she thought she was as good a teacher as Catherine Johnson.

143. Mr. Hester testified that he would never sit down with a teacher and tick off boxes on a checklist to give ESOL credit. Before giving credit under the alternative delivery method, he would examine the teacher’s PLC group, individual assessments, collective assessments and lesson design notebooks. He would observe the teacher in the classroom. The scene described by Ms. Harman did not happen. Mr. Hester did sit down with Ms. Harman to go over the checklist, but only when she came in with her completed portfolio at the end of the 2011 independent study.

144. Mr. Hester stated that he allowed Ms. Harman to do an independent study because she was having so many issues at home with her family. Mr. Hester made time to sit with her to go over the work, mostly readings and activities, once or twice a week. Mr. Hester testified that Ms. Harman did more work for the Cross-Cultural ESOL class than is indicated on the checklist he signed on October 5, 2011.

145. Ms. Harman was on the recipient list for the same March 16, 2012, out of field email that Mr. Hester sent to

     Ms. Andrews and Ms. Durden. On the same date, Ms. Harman sent

     
     

     Mr. Hester the following response: “Is it time for me to take another class with you?” Ms. Harman testified that she was not sure what Mr. Hester would expect of her, because she had heard that some people had taken classes for their ESOL credits in the time since Mr. Hester allegedly gave her the checklist.

146. Mr. Hester told Ms. Harman that he was teaching a hybrid ESOL class on Tuesday nights in a portable classroom at Fletcher. The attendance sheet for this class indicates that Ms. Harman was present for the Curriculum & Materials portion of the hybrid class for the seven sessions held between April 24 and June 5, 2012.

147. Ms. Harman testified that she did indeed sign up for the course and that she attended every session except the first. She stated that she was having difficulties during this period with her mother, who had been put on a new Parkinson's disease medication that caused her to stop breathing. Her mother was rushed to the hospital via rescue unit three times during the time Ms. Harman was attending the class. Ms. Harman twice emailed Mr. Hester to say she might not make the class, but each time she attended.

148. However, Ms. Harman was not able to complete all the work for the class in timely fashion. At the last class, when the rest of the students were turning in their work folders,

     
     

     Ms. Harman told Mr. Hester that she had not been able to finish. He told her to get the work to him when she could.

149. On June 28, 2012, Mr. Hester sent an email to

     
     

     Ms. Harman thanking her for “completing the Hybrid ESOL class this spring.” He attached a copy of the artifacts checklist.

     He wrote that Ms. Harman received 60 ESOL points for the course.

     
     

150. Ms. Harman testified that she read this email with relief. She believed it meant that she did not need to submit her uncompleted coursework, that her class attendance and the work she had done were sufficient for class credit.

151. On January 25, 2013, Mr. Hester sent Ms. Harman an email stating that he had to see her about her ESOL work.

     Ms. Harman testified that she went to see Mr. Hester the next day. He told Ms. Harman that he needed to see her work folder from the class. She was shocked and asked why he needed it seven months after the class. Mr. Hester told her that something had been said about the way he gives out ESOL points, and that he needed her folder.

152. Ms. Harman testified that she told Mr. Hester she hadn’t talked to anyone. Mr. Hester responded that he didn’t trust anyone. Ms. Harman promised to look for the folder but she wasn’t sure she had kept it. She was able to find a few pieces of her work from the class and she sent those to

     
     

     Mr. Hester with a note stating that this was all she could find. Mr. Hester did not ask her for anything else.

153. In May 2013, Mr. Hester reported to Ms. Patterson that Ms. Harman did not complete the agreed-upon work that he assigned her to complete the Hybrid ESOL class in which she was enrolled from April to June 2012. His email to Ms. Patterson stated as follows, in relevant part:

     It was agreed upon that she would be given more time to complete the required work and have it ready by September 2012 due to her extreme family situation.

     
     

     I gave her another extension to the holidays to complete the work (I know that I am not allowed to give that amount of time).

     However, I could not get the information needed.

     
     

     I asked for her work and finally received an incomplete packet (see attached) April 1, 2013. I still waited until the end of April (April 28, 2013) to see if she would come to me and complete the necessary work—- she did not.

     
     

     I am asking that she not be awarded the 60 points for ESOL: Curriculum & Materials.

     Please have these points removed from her Master Plan Points.

     
     

154. Ms. Harman received a courtesy copy of this email.

     
     

     She testified that she was shocked by it because she and

     
     

     Mr. Hester had not had the referenced discussions. She did not think that the District actually took away her points for the class.

     
     

155. Mr. Hester testified that he had talked to Ms. Harman many times about the need to send in her work before he sent the email of January 23, 2013. His email should not have been a shock because of their many conversations. Mr. Hester stated that the email Ms. Harman received in June 2012, stating that she had completed the course, was a bulk email sent to all the course participants.

156. Mr. Hester and Ms. Harman had made an agreement.

     
     

     Because she was having so many family issues, he would give her more time to get her portfolio finished. When the teachers came back in the beginning of August, Mr. Hester met with her and told her that he still needed her class portfolio. According to Mr. Hester, there was no surprise intended and no vindictiveness involved in his email to Ms. Patterson. By the time he sent it, Mr. Hester knew that he was under suspicion. He considered

     Ms. Harman’s case a loose end he needed to tie up so that no one could say he was giving away ESOL points that the teachers had not earned.

157. Nicole Conrad graduated from Flagler College in 2005 and taught at Fletcher from 2007 to 2013. She now teaches at Lake Shore Middle School in Jacksonville, after being “surplused” from Fletcher.

158. Ms. Conrad was the head coach of the girls’ varsity soccer team at Fletcher and assisted with softball and cross

     
     

     country. She taught Spanish I and a career and college readiness course.

159. Ms. Conrad believed that her classes at Flagler had satisfied all of her professional ESOL requirements. However, on May 5, 2010, she received an email from the District’s distance learning coordinator stating that she needed ESOL points before the June 30 deadline. Ms. Conrad did not believe she should have received this notice but she nonetheless went to Mr. Hester to find out how to proceed.

160. Ms. Conrad testified that Mr. Hester told her that because she was a coach she didn’t need to do anything to obtain the ESOL credit, “that I was taken care of, or exempt, or whatever it might be. He said after-school duties.”

161. Ms. Conrad responded by saying “I felt like he was a hustler.” Mr. Hester did not like that comment. Ms. Conrad testified that his answer was, “If I was a hustler, I’d be making money.”

162. Ms. Conrad stated that she called Mr. Hester a “hustler” because it seemed that certain people were required to do more work for ESOL credit than others, depending on their relationship with him. Mr. Hester appeared to use his position to gain leverage over people.

163. Because she did not trust Mr. Hester, Ms. Conrad declined the “exempt coach” option and insisted on doing work to

     
     

     obtain her ESOL credits. Mr. Hester gave her a packet of work to do, which she completed in a week or two. Mr. Hester recorded Ms. Conrad as attending an ESOL: Methods class that he taught from February to May 2010. Ms. Conrad testified that she did not in fact attend any class sessions but that she independently did the work for this class.

164. On cross-examination, Ms. Conrad conceded that before her out of field notice and the meeting with Mr. Hester at which he told her she need do nothing for her ESOL credit, Mr. Hester had sent her a lengthy email outlining her options for obtaining ESOL credit, none of which involved “doing nothing.” The email, dated March 29, 2010 (more than a month prior to the date on which Ms. Conrad testified she first learned she was out of field), stated as follows, in relevant part:

     As a summary of our conversation last week regarding ESOL and your expectation to complete 60 hours to keep you [sic] job, I am listing your options.

     
     

     1. You can petition the district ESOL office to allow your college courses [to] count for credit. You need to remember the following:

        1. The state university systems did not get clearance from the state that those course [sic] can be used as ESOL credit.

           The district and the state is [sic] under no obligation to honor these course [sic].

        2. If you plan on petitioning the district to allow the courses, you have to:

           1. Get an Official-certified copy of your college transcripts,

              
              

           2. Drop off the transcripts (in person) to Karen Patterson . . . .

           3. This process may take up to

              3 months (average wait time) and there is NO GUARANTEE that you will receive credit for the classes.

              
              

     2. You can get into the classes that I am teaching at Mandarin HS. They are every Tuesday starting at 2:00 p.m.

        1. I will provide you some make up work to get you caught up from the classes that you missed.

        2. The next class is tomorrow March 30th at Mandarin HS at 2:00 p.m.

           
           

     3. You can get with Carmen Meyer and see if she has room in her class that is going on right now.

        
        

     4. You can do the Independent Study option that we discussed.

        1. You will receive a listing of assignments of what you need to complete and the dates and times we will meet to review the information.

        2. I will have this ready on the Tuesday after break for your review (if you plan to complete this option).

     
     

     Please let me know what you plan to do.

     
     

165. Ms. Conrad conceded that this email indicates that Mr. Hester was trying to help her by offering a number of legitimate options for obtaining her ESOL credits. However, she continued to state that Mr. Hester later offered to “do a favor” and give her the credit based on her coaching duties alone.

166. Mr. Hester testified that Ms. Conrad was identified by the District’s World Languages supervisor as a needs assistance teacher. Ms. Conrad was friendly with Mr. Hester

     
     

     when she started at Fletcher, but that ended when he started working with her as a needs assistance teacher. Their relationship soured to the point that Mr. Hester moved away from performing direct classroom observations of her.

167. Dr. Joanne Davis, the World Languages supervisor, took over the task of observing Ms. Conrad and worked for three years in an attempt to improve Ms. Conrad’s classroom performance. A sample of Dr. Davis’ observations was entered into the record, and discloses many problems with Ms. Conrad’s classroom performance, including her failure to implement any of Dr. Davis’ prior suggestions.

168. Mr. Hester testified that Ms. Conrad came to him at some point to talk about being out of field. She was “annoyed” about that because she believed she had taken the necessary ESOL courses at Flagler. Mr. Hester outlined her options, which are reflected in the March 29, 2010, email quoted above. Ms. Conrad chose the independent study, did the work assigned by

     Mr. Hester, and earned the ESOL credit.

     
     

169. Mr. Hester denied telling Ms. Conrad that he would give her the credit just for being a coach. Mr. Hester confirmed Ms. Conrad’s version of the “hustler” conversation, except that he was in no way bothered or concerned about it. He testified that he considered Ms. Conrad a friend at the time and that they were both joking.

     
     

170. Dane Gilbert, the principal at Fletcher High School from July 1, 2006, to June 30, 2012, testified that he learned in spring 2013 that he had received 60 points for a hybrid ESOL class taught by Mr. Hester from May to June 2012. The attendance sheet for the ESOL: Testing & Evaluation portion of the hybrid class indicates that Mr. Gilbert attended six out of the seven class sessions. Mr. Gilbert testified that he did not attend any of the classes and did not perform any independent study to obtain the credits awarded for the class.

171. Mr. Gilbert testified that, to his knowledge, he did nothing directly for this ESOL class. He noted that he had done a lot of work with Mr. Hester in the area of testing and evaluation, though not in the area of ESOL.

172. Mr. Gilbert testified that as principal he green- lighted Ms. Durden to initiate the Challenge Day program at Fletcher and that he did a lot of work on the program.

173. Mr. Hester testified that Mr. Gilbert indeed received credit for “Empowering ESOL,” which is testing and evaluation. He stated that he and Mr. Gilbert had a conversation about it during the period when Challenge Day was going forward.

     Mr. Gilbert and Ms. Durden were instrumental in bringing this program to Fletcher.

174. Mr. Hester opined that the Challenge Day program “is all Cross-Cultural ESOL. It really breaks down the barriers of

     
     

     bullying, you know, racism, and sexism, and everything.”

     
     

     Mr. Hester was also working with Mr. Gilbert on his principal evaluation binder, which required case study. He told

     Mr. Gilbert that all of this work could fit the criteria for ESOL testing and evaluation credit.

175. At that point, Mr. Gilbert liked the idea of banking the ESOL points for his recertification and okayed Mr. Hester’s plan to give him the credit. Mr. Hester stated that this was the extent of their discussion about ESOL and that he saw to it that Mr. Gilbert was awarded the credits. Mr. Gilbert testified that he subsequently retired and didn’t give much thought to the ESOL credit matter until he was contacted during the School Board’s investigation of Mr. Hester. Mr. Gilbert credibly testified that he relied on Mr. Hester’s knowledge of the ESOL certification criteria to accept the credits that Mr. Hester offered.

     Personal conflicts

     
     

176. Mr. Gilbert testified that Mr. Hester came to Fletcher as a standards coach during his second year as principal. Mr. Hester’s position evolved into his becoming the PDF and the AICE coordinator for Fletcher.

177. Mr. Gilbert believed that Mr. Hester was very good at his job and was good for Fletcher. Mr. Hester was in a difficult spot because he was in a teaching position, not an

     
     

     administrative position, yet appeared to have authority over the regular faculty. Mr. Gilbert compared the friction caused by Mr. Hester’s job to other “quasi-administrative” positions such as athletic director and activities director. The employees are teachers but they are not in the classroom and they take care of administrative duties. These “quasi-administrative” teachers tend to ruffle feathers and are not popular with the rank and file teachers.

178. Mr. Hester confirmed that it was hard at times to be the PDF at Fletcher because not all of the teachers liked doing what the District and the state required to maintain their professional standing, such as the preparation of lesson design notebooks.

179. Several teachers testified about their personal conflicts with and unease about Mr. Hester and his role at Fletcher. Ms. Durden, for example, said that it was well known around the school that one did not want to get on the wrong side of Mr. Hester or he would make your life hell as a teacher. For his part, Mr. Hester agreed that most of the animosity toward him was due to his position at Fletcher but he also believed that certain of his accusers were motivated by homophobia, as he is an openly gay man.

180. Ms. Harman testified that Mr. Hester once directed a very inappropriate joke to her. She stated that she entered

     
     

     Mr. Hester’s office one morning to ask him a question and found the room full of men, coaches mostly, who were talking and laughing. Mr. Hester said to the gathering, “I’ll ask Harman. Harman, do you know what Ballchinia is?” Ms. Harman said, “Ballchinia?” Mr. Hester said, “Yes, it’s a condition where you have balls on your chin. Gay men are prone to have it.”

181. Ms. Harman testified that at that point she realized Mr. Hester was making a crude reference to oral sex for the amusement of the men in the room. She turned around and walked out. She testified that she did not immediately report the incident to anyone in authority, but that she did tell

     Mr. Gilbert about it at a later time, stressing the embarrassment Mr. Hester had caused her. She did not know whether Mr. Gilbert ever followed up on the matter.

182. Mr. Gilbert denied that Ms. Harman ever came to him to talk about Mr. Hester telling a sexual joke that upset her. Mr. Hester was not questioned about this incident.

183. Ms. Conrad testified that when she was on good terms with Mr. Hester, she would hang out in his office. A woman who was an assistant principal at the time was also in Mr. Hester’s office. Fletcher had just had its annual faculty Christmas party and Mr. Hester joked that one of the raffle prize drawings was “a blow job, and that if you were real lucky, it would involve gumming.”

     
     

184. Ms. Conrad further testified that she was in

     
     

     Mr. Hester’s office when a woman arrived from “downtown,” the vernacular for the District’s central office. Ms. Conrad did not know this woman or what her prior relationship with

     Mr. Hester might have been. Mr. Hester was busy when the woman arrived. Mr. Hester addressed her as “sex kitten” and told her to just have a seat. The woman sat down. Ms. Conrad found it “shocking” that “she just went right along with it like it was nothing.”

185. Ms. Conrad was also made uncomfortable by a comment Mr. Hester made regarding a photograph in the Fletcher school newspaper. A group of teachers was “kind of hanging out” near Mr. Hester’s doorway in the common area of the main office.

     Mr. Hester picked up a copy of the newspaper, the front page of which had a jokily posed photograph of an upper classman pushing a younger student into a locker. Ms. Conrad testified that

     Mr. Hester told the assembled group that he had taken the photo home and showed it to his partner, who thought it was a “turn- on” or “hot,” or “something like that.” This statement made the group uncomfortable. People tried to laugh it off and moved away from Mr. Hester as soon as possible.

186. Despite believing that Mr. Hester’s statements were “out of line,” Ms. Conrad never told Mr. Hester she found them offensive and never reported them to Mr. Gilbert or anyone else

     
     

     in a position of responsibility. She testified that she didn’t know how well connected Mr. Hester was and was afraid to initiate a confrontation. She wasn’t sure to whom she could turn. “He was obviously very comfortable using inappropriate language in front of important people, like assistant principals and downtown personnel, so I didn’t know who he had connections with. . . . I felt it best at that time to just try to avoid him the best I could and go on with my business and stay away.” She noted that Mr. Hester was in charge of “the documentation and certification and the paperwork that keeps us legally teaching.” She feared retaliation if she reported his misbehavior.

187. Ms. Conrad testified that it seemed understood around Fletcher that Mr. Gilbert was aware of “the types of things Dennis was doing and ignored them.” She described Mr. Gilbert as a “people person” who shied away from confrontation and did not want to deal with Mr. Hester’s behavior. Ms. Conrad also testified that Mr. Hester was doing a lot of Mr. Gilbert’s work for him, including preparation of the school budget. Therefore, the understanding around the school was that Mr. Hester was a privileged, protected person who could do as he pleased, “unchecked and unbalanced.”

188. Ms. Durden similarly testified as “a really oppressive environment for the adults at Fletcher High School.”

     
     

     She described Mr. Gilbert as a good administrator who was, nonetheless, very dependent on Mr. Hester for many things. She was a new teacher at Fletcher and did not want to be on

     Mr. Hester’s “dark side.” She knew that complaining about him would put her in a bad spot.

189. Mr. Gilbert testified that he once suggested to Ms. Durden that she place Mr. Hester on the committee to plan

     Challenge Day. Ms. Durden declined, stating that there would be too much “drama” with Mr. Hester trying to take things over.

     She also mentioned that she was somewhat in disfavor with Mr. Hester for unspecified reasons.

190. Mr. Gilbert testified that Ms. Durden’s statement about “drama” with Mr. Hester did not ring a bell with him.

191. Ashley Snell, an intensive reading teacher in her tenth year at Fletcher, testified as to an argument she had with Mr. Hester in September 2010. She stated that there was a non- ESOL class that the subject area teachers were required to take from Mr. Hester after school hours. Ms. Snell had two jobs at the time and was unable to stay after school. She went to

     Mr. Gilbert and asked for permission to take the class during school hours at the Schultz Center for Teaching and Leadership, a conference center where many of the District’s professional development classes are taught. Mr. Gilbert approved a

     
     

     “Temporary Duty Elsewhere” (“TDE”) permit for Ms. Snell and she signed up for the class at the Schultz Center.

192. Ms. Snell testified that Mr. Hester called her down to his office after school. He yelled at her for going behind his back and asking permission to take the class elsewhere. He told her that she was going to ruin things for all the other teachers because he could not offer the class unless a certain number of people signed up for it.

193. Ms. Snell stated that Mr. Hester got up from behind his desk and stood between her and the door, blocking her way out of the room as he yelled at her. She stated that he was in her face, cursing and screaming “How dare you,” saying that she had no right to do what she did and that she needed to sign up for his class.

194. Ms. Snell testified that the next thing she knew, another teacher unlocked the back door to the office and she ran out and down to the classroom of Tina Reed, another teacher.

     Ms. Snell stated that she had never been talked to that way before and was hysterical and afraid. She reported the incident to Mr. Gilbert, but was unsure whether Mr. Hester was ever disciplined. She acknowledged that Mr. Hester later apologized to her.

195. Mr. Gilbert testified that his office was a couple of doors down from Mr. Hester’s in the administrative wing but that

     
     

     he was not in his office when this incident occurred.

     
     

     Mr. Gilbert heard about it from his secretary and from Ms. Snell and Ms. Reed. His secretary told him that there was a lot of loud yelling and arguing behind Mr. Hester’s closed door. The students had gone home but staff was still present in the office. The secretary said it was “disturbing” and Mr. Gilbert saw that Ms. Snell was upset by it. At the time of the hearing, Mr. Gilbert could not remember what the incident was about, but he recalled telling Ms. Snell that he would address the matter and get back to her.

196. Mr. Gilbert testified that he called Mr. Hester as soon as possible, either later that afternoon or the next day. Mr. Hester admitted there was an argument that got too loud, which Mr. Gilbert stated was not acceptable. He reminded

     Mr. Hester that his door was open any time there was a disagreement and they could come in and sit down with him and try to resolve it. Mr. Gilbert told Mr. Hester he was being given a “verbal warning”20/ and from that day forward was to have nothing to do with Ms. Snell. Mr. Gilbert would take care of all her assignments from that point forward. He also told

     Mr. Hester that he had to make a formal apology to Ms. Snell.

     
     

197. Mr. Gilbert stated that he got back to Ms. Snell and told her how he had handled the matter and asked her to let him know if she had any more problems with Mr. Hester. He heard

     
     

     nothing further from Ms. Snell. Mr. Gilbert testified that Ms. Snell and Mr. Hester did not become best friends, but that he was aware of no further difficulties between them.

198. Mr. Hester recalled the incident with regret, but disputed some of the details recited by Ms. Snell. He did not recall getting up from his desk and impeding her from leaving the office. He recalled standing on his side of the desk,

     Ms. Snell standing on the other side, and the conversation becoming “rather heated.”

199. Mr. Hester was upset because he needed to get as many teachers as possible to take Content Area Reading-—Professional Development (“CAR-PD”) training at Fletcher, and there were just barely enough teachers signed up to offer the class.

     Mr. Gilbert would be unable to give TDE permits to ten or more teachers because the school would then be short-staffed.

     Ms. Snell’s action might have the effect of denying all the other teachers the ability to take the CAR-PD class at Fletcher. Mr. Hester was frustrated and their inability to agree on her course of action led to an argument.

200. Mr. Hester conceded that “I lost my cool and told her to get the hell out of my office.” At that point, Ms. Snell called him “a fucking faggot.” This comment made Mr. Hester very upset.

     
     

201. Mr. Gilbert met with Mr. Hester later that day and told him he could not yell at people like that. Mr. Hester told Mr. Gilbert about the “faggot” remark but Mr. Gilbert said, “I don’t care. . . . You’re a man. You should never talk to a woman that way.” Mr. Hester agreed that Mr. Gilbert was right. Mr. Hester readily agreed to apologize to Ms. Snell. When

     Ms. Snell walked past his office the next week, Mr. Hester called her in and told her he wanted to apologize for his unprofessional and disrespectful behavior. Ms. Snell stated that she was sorry as well.

202. Mr. Hester testified that this was the last time they discussed the incident and he never had any further problem with Ms. Snell. Mr. Gilbert kept Mr. Hester from having any oversight of Ms. Snell, and Mr. Hester respected that order.

     Mr. Hester testified that this was the only time he ever had a heated argument with another teacher.

203. Ms. Snell testified that she never called Mr. Hester a “faggot.”

     The investigation

     
     

204. In January 2013, an anonymous letter was sent to School Board Superintendent, Nikolai Vitti; School Board Chairman, Fred “Fel” Lee; Human Relations (“HR”) Director, Sonita Young; and Fletcher High School Principal, Donald F. Nelson. The letter stated as follows, in relevant part:

     
     

     I hate to have to submit this as an “anonymous” letter. However, it is important that someone take action and there is a situation that must be addressed. I am currently assigned as a teacher at Duncan U. Fletcher High School. It is for this reason that I am choosing to send this letter anonymously. I am writing it as [sic] the request of several teachers who feel that the current situation cannot be allowed to continue. I do not want to be subjected to individual scrutiny. We have tried to address this with our school level administration (this year and in past years). However, we do not feel that it is being handled appropriately.

     
     

     The situation involves our Instructional Coach, Professional Development Facilitator and AICE Coordinator at Fletcher, Dennis Hester. Several faculty members have lodged complaints against him, yet he appears to be protected from any possible disciplinary consequences. The complaints that are generally listed are about how he treats members of our faculty unprofessionally.

     One teacher even went to the previous principal after being yelled at and “bullied” into a corner, and Mr. Hester was simply asked to make a verbal apology.

     That’s not enough in response to the repeated behavior that he displays. In fact, other teachers have said they have experienced the same behavior from

     Mr. Hester again this year.

     
     

     * * *

     
     

     Another example of his unprofessionalism points to ESOL. For a few years now, it has been known that if a Fletcher teacher is flagged and needs ESOL hours, just sign up for Hester’s class. He doesn’t require anything of you. You simply sign the papers in his office and you never attend a single session. He is supposed to be the

     
     

     Professional Development Facilitator, yet nothing about this seems professional.

     
     

     * * *

     
     

     These are only a handful of the situations that have taken place. Each teacher seems to have a story of his/her own regarding professionalism, ethics, support, etc. This situation at Fletcher has gotten out of hand. I would like to request that someone from Human Resources or Professional Development visit Fletcher and interview faculty members. As I mentioned before, there are several teachers who have requested that I write this letter and invite the district to intervene, as the traditional avenues haven’t proven effective.

     
     

     We love our school and many of us are long term faculty within the system and at this school. We are only trying to make Fletcher the best it can be. We look forward to seeing you at Fletcher in the very near future and welcome your involvement in the review of what is going on here.

     
     

205. Mr. Nelson testified that when he receives such letters, he immediately calls in the affected employees. Because he could not meet with the anonymous author of the letter, he confined himself to meeting with Mr. Hester. They went over the letter paragraph by paragraph and Mr. Nelson made

     notes on his copy of the letter. After meeting with Mr. Hester, Mr. Nelson concluded that the matter was not much more than a “catfight” and suspected, correctly as it turned out, that the author of the anonymous letter was Laura Strickland, Fletcher’s

     
     

     media specialist and the sister-in-law of the School Board Chairman, Mr. Lee.21/

206. Mr. Nelson was aware that there were some ongoing personal issues between Mr. Hester and Ms. Strickland. She believed that Mr. Hester was “holding back” the paperwork for her professional development credits for 2012 and she had written a string of increasingly agitated emails to Mr. Lee complaining of this and other high-handed actions by Mr. Hester. Mr. Hester testified that Ms. Strickland was one of about ten Fletcher teachers, including Mr. Gilbert, who failed to submit their paperwork on time and were thus late in obtaining their professional development credits.

207. After talking to Mr. Hester, Mr. Nelson decided to take no further action at the school level, as most of the allegations concerned matters that occurred during Mr. Gilbert’s time as principal of Fletcher. He spoke with Ms. Young, who confirmed that her office had received the letter and someone would be in touch with the school. Shortly thereafter,

     Mr. Nelson was contacted by Mary Mickel, an employee of the Professional Standards office of the HR Department. Mr. Nelson told Ms. Mickel that he believed the letter was a vendetta by the anonymous author against Mr. Hester.

     
     

208. Ms. Mickel summarized her meeting with Mr. Nelson in an email to Ms. Young, dated February 6, 2013, which stated as follows, in relevant part:

     When asked if this is a pattern of behavior for Mr. Hester, who was accused of displaying unprofessional behaviors in several instances, the principal replied that it is not. Principal Nelson also stated that he believed that these “hodge- podge, shot in the dark” accusations are a means to hurt Mr. Hester, by someone who does not care for him and has a personal vendetta. The principal also stated that he believed that it was one of two people who wrote the anonymous letter. [Mr. Nelson named Ms. Strickland and Ms. Johnson as the likely authors.]

     
     

     * * *

     
     

     When the principal received the letter, he met with Mr. Hester to address each issue of alleged unprofessional behaviors below:

     
     

     • Treats other members of the faculty unprofessionally-— Mr. Nelson stated that he has not observed any unprofessional behavior towards other faculty members, nor has anyone come to him with complaints.

       
       

       * * *

       
       

     • If a teacher was flagged for needing ESOL hours, Mr. Hester does not require anything from teachers accept [sic] to sign papers in his office-— Mr. Hester’s response to the principal was that Karen Patterson, ESOL Professional Development Office, approved all courses. (Office of Professional Standards made recommendation to principal to obtain records of sign-in sheets and records of Professional Development requests with approval from Karen Patterson’s office to have on hand.)

     
     

209. A string of District emails entered into evidence indicates that the matter continued to percolate during the spring of 2013, primarily via a series of signed email complaints from Ms. Strickland to Mr. Lee, who forwarded them to Dr. Vitti. An email from Dr. Vitti to District ESOL director Christine Dahnke, dated April 28, 2013, states as follows:

     I need someone to look into ESOL endorsement at the school. Apparently there is an individual who has been hired there to provide ESOL endorsement training for teachers. Training is not occurring but teachers still receive endorsement. There may be no substance to this but it continues to be raised as a concern by teachers.

     
     

210. Ms. Dahnke forwarded the emails to Ms. Young, who in turn sent the following email to Ms. Jackson and Ms. Mickel on May 2, 2013:

     Josephine—- This continues to come up. We received an anonymous complaint earlier this year and Mary spoke to the principal. We now need to conduct an official investigation to include interviews with appropriate personnel. Thanks.

     
     

211. The matter was assigned to Professional Standards investigator Jessica Altman. Mr. Nelson testified that in late May, teachers began coming forward to speak with him about their experiences with Mr. Hester. The first was Tina Reed, the teacher who had assisted Ms. Snell in her confrontation with Mr. Hester. Ms. Reed brought in Ms. Snell and another teacher, Joy Chalker, to Mr. Nelson's office.

     
     

212. During their discussion with Mr. Nelson, the teachers stated that there were others who were afraid to come forward because nothing had been done when they had complained in the past. Mr. Nelson told them that any charges against Mr. Hester would have to be made in writing, and that they should encourage the other teachers to submit written statements. Mr. Nelson testified, “I was dealing with teachers that felt that their voice wasn’t heard before, so I felt in order to give them some comfort, they could tell the other teachers to please put it in writing.” Each of the three teachers who met with Mr. Nelson submitted a written statement, which Mr. Nelson forwarded to HR. More teachers came forward and submitted written statements, eight or nine in total, all of which Mr. Nelson forwarded to HR.

213. Mr. Gilbert testified that he never noticed that teachers were reticent to speak with him about Mr. Hester. He denied there was a climate of fear at Fletcher as regards

     Mr. Hester. Ms. Durden certainly did not hesitate to tell

     
     

     Mr. Gilbert what she thought of his proposal to place Mr. Hester on the committee for Challenge Day. Mr. Gilbert stated that he was known for literally having an open door to all Fletcher employees, but that no teacher ever came to him with any problem concerning ESOL.

214. Mr. Gilbert testified that, far from protecting or coddling Mr. Hester, he was harder on Mr. Hester than on most

     
     

     other people on staff at Fletcher.22/ He would edit emails that Mr. Hester wanted to send to the entire faculty and would “kind of jump on him” about not getting data into the principal’s office fast enough. Mr. Gilbert would have to rein in

     Mr. Hester on things such as changing the way the students marched at graduation, but he described these as minor incidents.

215. Mr. Gilbert disagreed that Mr. Hester could make a teacher’s life miserable if the teacher crossed him. Mr. Hester had no authority to discipline teachers at Fletcher.

     Mr. Gilbert noted that the District, not Mr. Hester, is the ultimate arbiter of professional development points. Mr. Hester facilitated the preplanning and training day workshops held at the school, but his authority over those matters was limited to turning in the paperwork to the District.

216. Josephine Jackson is the executive director of the District’s Professional Standards office. She assigned

     Ms. Altman to investigate the complaint against Mr. Hester. Ms. Jackson also serves as the District’s equity officer, addressing violations of nondiscrimination laws and policies. Ms. Jackson testified that she first met Mr. Hester when her office called him in to discuss the concerns that had been raised about the endorsements for ESOL classes.

     
     

217. Ms. Jackson stated that this was a brief meeting at the end of the day. She told Mr. Hester there had been accusations of discrepancies in awarding endorsements to teachers and asked whether he could provide documentation as to what classes were held, who attended them and what was the course content. Mr. Hester told her that he believed there was a group of people at the school who had targeted him because of his sexual orientation. Ms. Jackson told him that such behavior was intolerable and would be dealt with by her office. She asked Mr. Hester to provide names and examples of things that had been said to him.

218. Ms. Jackson testified that she had no more in-person meetings with Mr. Hester but that they communicated via email. Mr. Hester did submit to her secretary a small packet of ESOL information with attendance sheets and checkmarks,23/ but he never provided any information about the alleged sexual orientation targeting.

219. Mr. Hester conceded that he did not bring to

     
     

     Ms. Jackson any information to substantiate his allegation that he had been targeted because of his sexual orientation. He did note that the investigative report included insinuating statements made to the investigator by Ms. Durden, who spoke of Mr. Hester having young male teachers at his house in the evenings. Mr. Hester also noted a statement by Ms. Conrad that

     
     

     she would walk by his office and see the door closed as he “courted” young male students.24/

220. Mr. Hester wondered why such irrelevant comments were included in the investigative report. He noted that the teachers at his house were Mr. Corey and Mr. Davis, the coaches with whom Mr. Hester was working on alternative certification, and that Mr. Corey’s wife often accompanied him. He also denied “courting” male students, stating that such behavior would be criminal and that he was not a pedophile. Mr. Hester stated that he takes a lot of pride in his job and tries very much to be a professional. He noted that homosexuality is still not “really accepted” in society and that it can become a touchy situation in terms of classroom management. He took great offense at the insinuations of these teachers being made part of the District’s investigative report.

221. In her defense, Ms. Durden testified that she is gay and had no problem with men going to Mr. Hester’s house. Her point was that Mr. Hester should not have been coaching alternative certification teachers at his house before they were on the faculty of Fletcher High School. Ms. Durden’s testimony on this point was not persuasive. The clear suggestion of her statement to the investigator was that assignations may have been taking place at Mr. Hester’s house.

     
     

222. Ms. Snell testified that one day she was in

     
     

     Ms. Reed’s classroom working on planning with Ms. Reed when the phone rang. Ms. Reed answered on speakerphone. Mr. Hester was on the line. He said that he was just leaving downtown, where someone had told him there was a possible investigation into ESOL. He told Ms. Reed not to worry about it. He had taken care of it, but was going to give some backdated paperwork to Ms. Reed’s daughter to deliver to Ms. Reed. Mr. Hester stated that he thought the investigation was stemming from “either Laura Strickland or the dumb bitch, Joy Chalker, who could possibly be the two that filed the anonymous letter.”

223. Mr. Hester denied that he phoned Ms. Reed to tell her that he had taken care of anything or had backdated ESOL documents. Mr. Hester testified, “I knew [Ms. Reed] was part of the anonymous letter. Why would I call her about it?” It does not seem credible that Mr. Hester would phone a known adversary to discuss a plan to fraudulently cover his tracks on the ESOL endorsements, particularly when the discussion is alleged to have taken place over a speakerphone. Ms. Snell’s testimony on this point appears to be fabricated, which calls into question the entirety of her testimony save that which Mr. Hester and

     Mr. Gilbert corroborated.25/

     
     

224. Mr. Nelson testified that Mr. Hester came by his office a few times to inquire about the status of the

     
     

     investigation. Mr. Nelson forwarded the inquiry to Ms. Jackson, who declined to comment because the investigation was ongoing.

     Mr. Nelson relayed this information to Mr. Hester.

     
     

225. Mr. Nelson testified that Mr. Hester never suggested that homophobia was the motivating factor in the teachers’ complaints against him. Mr. Nelson stated that he would have immediately notified the investigator had Mr. Hester made such a statement to him.

226. Mr. Davis testified that around May 21, 2013, he had a conversation with Mr. Hester in the Fletcher parking lot. Mr. Hester was upset. Mr. Hester stated that Ms. Reed,

     Ms. Snell, and Ms. Chalker “needed to watch their back because he was going to go after them” for writing an anonymous letter about him. Mr. Hester stated, “You never want to piss off a gay man” and cautioned Mr. Davis to distance himself from the three women to avoid becoming “collateral damage.”

227. Mr. Hester recalled the parking lot conversation. He told Mr. Davis, “I’m under investigation. If anyone asks you anything, don’t lie.” Mr. Hester conceded that he was “very heated” about the situation in which he found himself. He did tell Mr. Davis that Ms. Snell, Ms. Reed, and Ms. Chalker had written the anonymous letter. Mr. Hester testified that he gleaned his erroneous attribution of authorship “just from my knowledge and from information that I had received from some

     
     

     other people.” Mr. Hester further conceded that he told

     
     

     Mr. Davis that he was going after the women and would not feel bad about anyone who gets caught in the collateral damage.

     Mr. Hester conceded that he told Mr. Davis, “You never want to piss off a gay man.”

228. Mr. Nelson testified that during the period of the investigation and Mr. Hester’s subsequent dismissal, the District assigned several new employee positions to its secondary schools. One of those new positions was “testing coordinator.” Mr. Nelson intended to give the job to

     Mr. Hester. Because Mr. Hester was fired, Mr. Nelson gave the position to Ms. Reed.

229. Based on his own exposure to Mr. Hester’s work, Mr. Nelson believed that Mr. Hester was effective in his position and was an asset to Fletcher High School.

230. Ms. Jackson testified that at the time of the investigation, she understood that Mr. Hester was unique in marking people present for classes they did not physically attend. She stated that after the determination to fire Mr. Hester was made, the District continued to investigate

     “because it became clear that this may have been an issue that was broader than the number of people that we had spoken with during the course of the investigation.”

     
     

     Summary of findings

     
     

231. Mr. Hester has been accused of “displaying unprofessional behavior toward and in the presence of colleagues” and “repeatedly provid[ing] ESOL endorsements to employees without requiring that they complete the course requirements, including submission of work or attendance in classes.”

232. The evidence presented at the hearing established that Mr. Hester displayed unprofessional behavior toward and in the presence of colleagues. He admitted to having a shouting match with Ms. Snell that could be heard outside the closed doors of his office. Even crediting Mr. Hester’s testimony as to the extreme provocation provided by Ms. Snell, his actions were unprofessional. Ms. Harman’s undisputed testimony described a lewd joke Mr. Hester told to her in front of a group of male colleagues, to her profound embarrassment. Ms. Conrad described witnessing three separate incidents of unprofessional conduct by Mr. Hester, all of which involved sexual innuendo of varying degrees of egregiousness.

233. There is no question that Mr. Hester was feared by at least some teachers on the Fletcher campus. Though Mr. Gilbert accurately stated that Mr. Hester was merely a teacher and had no control over other teachers’ jobs, as a practical matter

     Mr. Hester had the power to seriously affect careers by

     
     

     providing or withholding professional development credits.

     
     

     Mr. Hester was capable of “going after” teachers who had crossed him without regard for “collateral damage.”

234. The evidence regarding the ESOL endorsements was not as straightforward or overwhelming as the School Board alleged. The School Board’s ESOL classroom requirements were elastic enough to provide for shortened “emergency” and “hybrid” courses when the crush of teachers needing ESOL credits became too much. Vacations abroad qualified for Cross-Cultural Communication ESOL credit. Of the most relevance to this case was the School Board’s practice of allowing teachers to obtain ESOL credits via “independent study” supervised by a PDF.

235. The School Board’s most serious allegation against Mr. Hester is that he intentionally falsified ESOL documents by marking independent study participants “present” in classes they did not physically attend. The evidence established that

     Mr. Hester accounted for the work performed by his independent study students by marking them present on attendance sheets for ESOL classes that Mr. Hester or another PDF was teaching. The evidence further established that this method of accounting for the work performed by independent study students was also used by Ms. Patterson and apparently by all PDFs in Duval County.

     Ms. Jackson’s statement that “this may have been an issue that was broader than the number of people that we had spoken with,”

     
     

     in conjunction with Ms. Patterson’s testimony, effectively conceded that the allegations of falsification of documents by Mr. Hester was without basis.

236. The evidence presented at the hearing established that, whether or not his actions were within his actual authority to conduct independent studies and award ESOL credit, Mr. Hester at all times believed that he was acting as authorized by Ms. Patterson. Even crediting Ms. Patterson’s testimony that she lacked the authority to authorize independent study projects, there is nothing in the record to gainsay

     Mr. Hester’s reasonable belief in Ms. Patterson’s apparent authority. Documentary evidence indicated that Ms. Patterson’s authority to approve independent study projects was taken for granted not only by Mr. Hester but by the District’s Supervisor of Certification, Kella Grant. Mr. Hester’s contention that the January 23, 2013, email from Ms. Patterson marked a change in policy was well founded.

237. However, the power to approve independent study projects and the delegation of that approval power to Mr. Hester mark the outer limits of the reasonableness of Mr. Hester’s belief in Ms. Patterson’s authority. It was not reasonable for Mr. Hester to believe, based on the novel example of the Chets Creek teachers,26/ that Ms. Patterson had conveyed or could convey to him the independent authority to award ESOL credits

     
     

     for anything other than completion of ESOL coursework.

     
     

     Mr. Hester had no reasonable basis to believe in his authority to award ESOL credit by his “alternative delivery” method.

238. Mr. Hester determined that Ms. Andrews met the competencies of the Cross-Cultural ESOL class for which he gave her credit though she performed no independent study and received no instruction in the coursework.

239. Mr. Hester gave Ms. Durden credit for a Cross- Cultural ESOL class based on her work on Challenge Day and on pre-planning in-service courses. Ms. Durden performed no independent study and received no instruction in the coursework for the Cross-Cultural ESOL class.

240. Mr. Hester also gave Mr. Gilbert ESOL credit for Challenge Day, as well as for his work in testing and evaluation and his principal’s evaluation binder, none of which involved ESOL coursework. Mr. Gilbert testified that he relied entirely on Mr. Hester’s expertise in accepting the ESOL credits.

241. Though Ms. Murrell and Mr. Hester differed dramatically on the details of their interaction, there was no dispute that Mr. Hester awarded her credits for two ESOL courses despite her never taking either an ESOL course or an active independent study program from him. Mr. Hester’s sole basis for awarding the credits was his determination that Ms. Murrell’s work as a teacher met the competencies of the ESOL classes.

     
     

242. In like fashion, even if Mr. Hester’s disputed version of his interaction with Ms. Johnson is fully credited, the undisputed fact remains that Mr. Hester awarded her ESOL credits for her work with PLC groups, her status as an AICE, and her lesson design notebook, not for any ESOL coursework she performed.

243. Mr. Hester’s version of events involving Ms. Kopp is credited. The evidence established that Ms. Kopp performed independent studies with Mr. Hester in 2009 and 2010, despite her testimony to the contrary.

244. Mr. Hester’s version of events involving Mr. Corey is credited. It is more likely that Mr. Corey’s wife completed and turned in the coursework in “collaboration” with Mr. Corey than that Mr. Hester invented the fact of having received the work for which he credited both of the Coreys.

245. However vague his recollection, Mr. Davis testified that he performed independent study projects for each of the five ESOL courses for which Mr. Hester gave him credit.

246. Ms. Harman was not a credible witness and no findings against Mr. Hester should be based on her testimony.

     Mr. Hester’s version of events involving his interactions with Ms. Harman is reasonable and supported by the documentary evidence.

     
     

247. Ms. Conrad’s contention that Mr. Hester offered her ESOL credit merely for being a coach was belied by the documentary evidence showing that Mr. Hester in fact offered her several legitimate options for obtaining ESOL credit.

     Ms. Conrad performed an independent study and legitimately received ESOL credit.

248. In summary, five teachers, Ms. Andrews, Ms. Durden, Mr. Gilbert, Ms. Murrell, and Ms. Johnson, were awarded ESOL credits by Mr. Hester based on an “alternative delivery” method that he was not authorized to use and that he could not reasonably have believed he was authorized to use. Mr. Hester has potentially damaged these teachers professionally, should their ESOL credits be disallowed based on Mr. Hester’s actions.

249. There was no evidence that Mr. Lee, the School Board Chairman, took an active part in initiating or conducting the investigation of Mr. Hester. The evidence did establish that it was well known in the District that Ms. Strickland is Mr. Lee’s sister-in-law, but it would be speculative to find that her complaints carried more weight than their substance merited.

250. No sexual improprieties were alleged against

     
     

     Mr. Hester, unless one counts locker room jokes made to fellow teachers. There was, therefore, no reason for the School Board’s investigator to include the insinuating comments of Ms. Durden and Ms. Conrad in her report. The School Board

     
     

     should be sensitive to the still-tenuous position of its gay employees in both the school setting and the larger society and should be more vigilant to exclude such damaging irrelevancies from its official documents.

251. The evidence established that Mr. Hester was somewhat self-aggrandizing and given to interpersonal intrigue among his colleagues at the school. He obviously had enemies at Fletcher. Mr. Hester also wished to appear omnicompetent in his field. Some of his problems appeared to stem from this desire to impress fellow teachers with his wizardry in the area of professional development. Rather than explaining to them in drab detail exactly how he was providing them with ESOL credit, Mr. Hester would airily proclaim that he was “taking care of it.” This practice led to confusion and unease and goes some way toward explaining why even those “phenomenal” teachers who bore Mr. Hester no real grudge were not especially friendly toward him in their testimony.27/

252. However, the evidence also established that

     
     

     Mr. Hester was extremely accomplished as a trainer and designer of training programs. He was selected to redesign the District’s alternative certification program to include an ESOL component and he was the developer of the District’s hybrid ESOL course. He worked tirelessly, teaching ESOL courses after school and doing independent studies with teachers such as

     
     

     Mr. Tracy over the Christmas holidays, if such was necessary to maintain their certification. If anyone in the District was qualified to determine that a teacher should receive ESOL credit for the type and quality of her work in the classroom, it was Mr. Hester.

253. The School Board presented no evidence of prior discipline against Mr. Hester and acknowledged that the default position for first time disciplinary actions is progressive discipline. The School Board proved its allegation that

     Mr. Hester “repeatedly provided ESOL endorsements to employees without requiring that they complete the course requirements, including submission of work or attendance in classes.”

     However, the School Board did not prove that Mr. Hester intentionally falsified records, otherwise engaged in fraudulent activities, or took any action indicating a guilty conscience.

     Mr. Hester believed, unreasonably but honestly, that he had the authority to award ESOL credits to the five teachers discussed above based on his “alternative delivery” method. Whether

     Mr. Hester’s mistaken understanding of his authority constitutes such a severe act of misconduct as to merit circumvention of the established progressive discipline procedure is ultimately the School Board’s decision. It appears to the undersigned that the District would not be well served if it were to simply jettison

     
     

     such a tremendous source of information and support based on the allegations proven at the hearing.

     CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

     
     

254. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to and subject matter of this proceeding pursuant to section 120.569 and sections 120.57(1) and 1012.33(6)(a), Florida Statutes.28/

255. The School Board has the burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence the grounds for disciplining

     Mr. Hester. See, e.g., McNeill v. Pinellas Cnty. Sch. Bd., 678

     
     

     So. 2d 476, 477 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Sublett v. Sumter Cnty. Sch. Bd., 664 So. 2d 1178, 1179 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Allen v. Sch.

     Bd. of Dade Cnty., 571 So. 2d 568, 569 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Dileo v. Sch. Bd. of Dade Cnty., 569 So. 2d 883, 884 (Fla. 3d

     DCA 1990).

     
     

256. Article V.D.1 of the CBA, the Progressive Discipline Policy, provides as follows, in relevant part:

     The following progressive steps must be followed in administering discipline, it being understood, however, that some more severe acts of misconduct may warrant circumventing the established procedure:

     
     

     1. Verbal Reprimand

        1. No written conference summary is placed in personnel file

        2. Employees must be told that a verbal reprimand initiates the discipline process

           
           

     2. Written Reprimand

        
        

     3. Suspension without Pay

        
        

     4. Termination

     
     

257. Mr. Hester meets the definition of “instructional personnel” set forth in section 1012.01(2), Florida Statutes. The School Board has the authority to suspend or terminate instructional staff pursuant to sections 1012.22(1)(f) and 1012.33(6)(a).

258. The standard for termination of instructional personnel is "just cause," pursuant to section 1012.33(1)(a).29/

259. Section 1012.33(1)(a) 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: immorality, misconduct in office, incompetency, two consecutive annual performance evaluation ratings of unsatisfactory under section 1012.34, two annual performance evaluation ratings of unsatisfactory within a 3-year period under section 1012.34, three consecutive annual performance evaluation ratings of needs improvement or a combination of needs improvement and unsatisfactory under section 1012.34, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, or being convicted or found guilty of, or entering a plea of guilty to, regardless of adjudication of guilt, any crime involving moral turpitude.

     
     

260. The School Board in this case has not cited a specific aspect of the statutory "just cause" definition as the basis for Mr. Hester's termination. However, the facts alleged

     
     

     in the Notice would, if proven, amount to "misconduct in office" constituting just cause to terminate his employment.

261. Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056(2)

     
     

     provides:

     
     

     1. “Misconduct in Office” means one or more of the following:

        1. A violation of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida as adopted in Rule 6B-1.001, F.A.C.;

        2. A violation of the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida as adopted in Rule 6B- 1.006, F.A.C.;

        3. A violation of the adopted school board rules;

        4. Behavior that disrupts the student’s learning environment; or

        5. Behavior that reduces the teacher’s ability or his or her colleagues’ ability to effectively perform duties.

     
     

262. The Notice alleged that Mr. Hester violated the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida, Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.080,30/ which provides as follows:

     1. The educator values the worth and dignity of every person, the pursuit of truth, devotion to excellence, acquisition of knowledge, and the nurture of democratic citizenship. Essential to the achievement of these standards are the freedom to learn and to teach and the guarantee of equal opportunity for all.

        
        

     2. The educator’s primary professional concern will always be for the student and for the development of the student’s potential. The educator will therefore strive for professional growth and will seek to exercise the best professional judgment and integrity.

        
        

     3. Aware of the importance of maintaining the respect and confidence of one’s colleagues, of students, of parents, and of other members of the community, the educator strives to achieve and sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct.

     
     

263. The Notice also alleged that Mr. Hester violated Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081,31/ which provides as follows in relevant part:

     1. Obligation to the student requires that the individual:

        1. Shall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student’s mental and/or physical health and/or safety.

     
     

     * * *

     
     

     1. Obligation to the profession of education requires that the individual:

        1. Shall maintain honesty in all professional dealings.

     
     

     * * *

     
     

     (d) Shall not engage in harassment or discriminatory conduct which unreasonably interferes with an individual’s performance of professional or work responsibilities or with the orderly processes of education or which creates a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive environment; and, further, shall make reasonable effort to assure that each individual is protected from such harassment or discrimination.

     
     

     * * *

     
     

     (h) Shall not submit fraudulent information on any document in connection with professional activities.

     
     

264. The text of rule 6A-5.056 set forth in Conclusion of Law 261, supra, took effect on July 8, 2012. Prior to the 2012 amendments, this rule and its predecessor, rule 6B-4.009, defined “misconduct in office” as consisting of a violation "so serious as to impair the individual's effectiveness in the school system." A body of appellate case law arose that applied this standard. See, e.g., Cropsey v. Sch. Bd. of Manatee Cnty.,

     19 So. 3d 351, 355-356 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). Case law further established that impairment may be proven by direct evidence or may be inferred from the nature of the violation itself. Purvis

     v. Marion Cnty. Sch. Bd., 766 So. 2d 492, 498 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).

265. The corresponding language in the current version of rule 6A-5.056(2)(e) is “Behavior that reduces the teacher’s ability . . . to effectively perform duties.” It could be argued that a “reduction” in effectiveness sets a lower standard for proving misconduct in office than “impairment” of effectiveness. However, it is not necessary to settle the issue in this case because Mr. Hester’s conduct meets the arguably higher standard of “impairment.”

266. The evidence established that Mr. Hester engaged in behavior that reduced his colleagues’ ability to effectively

     
     

     perform their duties and that consequentially could disrupt the learning environment for students. That Mr. Hester honestly believed he had the authority to award ESOL credits to “phenomenal” teachers will provide scant comfort to those teachers should the credits be disallowed.

267. The evidence established that Mr. Hester failed to exercise the best professional judgment. He had sufficient reason to believe that Ms. Patterson had delegated to him the authority to perform independent study projects with teachers. He did not have reason to believe that he was authorized to award ESOL credits for anything other than ESOL coursework performed either in the professional development classroom or by way of independent study. This failure of professional judgment could have continuing consequences for the teachers involved.

268. The evidence established that Mr. Hester engaged in conduct that could be fairly construed as “harassment . . . which creates a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive environment.” His screaming match with Ms. Snell and his vulgar jokes and comments to other female teachers certainly helped create a hostile, intimidating, and offensive environment. The one saving aspect to these incidents is that students were not exposed to Mr. Hester’s behavior.

269. Mr. Hester committed misconduct in office by violating Florida Administrative Code rules 6A-5.056(2)(e), 6A-

     
     

     10.080(2) & (3) and 6A-10.081(5)(d) in a manner so serious as to impair his effectiveness in the school system. There is little question that Mr. Hester would not be able to work effectively at Fletcher High School. However, the District should not have difficulty in placing a teacher with Mr. Hester’s specialized skills and tremendous work ethic at another school or in some central training function.

270. Mr. Hester contends that the School Board erred in not applying the Progressive Discipline Policy of the CBA in this case. It was undisputed that this was the first disciplinary action of any kind taken against Mr. Hester during his employment with the School Board. The Progressive Discipline Policy expressly provides that “severe acts of misconduct may warrant circumventing the established procedure.” The undersigned agrees with Mr. Hester that termination of his employment was not warranted by the facts established at the final hearing. Mr. Hester has been suspended without pay since July 3, 2013. The suspension plus a written reprimand constitute sufficient disciplinary action for the violations established by the School Board in this case.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Duval County School Board enter a final order finding Dennis Hester guilty of misconduct in

office and imposing the following sanctions: uphold Respondent's suspension without pay from July 3, 2013, through the date of the final order and issue a written reprimand to Respondent.

DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of January, 2015, 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 7th day of January, 2015.

ENDNOTES

1/ At the final hearing, the Duval County School Board withdrew the allegation regarding the End of Course Examination.

2/ The term “District” or “School District” is also used in this Recommended Order where the reference is to administrative functions or actions occurring below the level of the School Board.

3/ The text of the consent decree and settlement agreement may be found at http://www.fldoe.org/aala/lulac.asp.

4/ The term actually employed in the settlement agreement is “Limited English Proficiency” or “LEP.” The language has apparently evolved since 1990 because “ELL” is the current universal term for such students.

5/ At times the witnesses referred to the courses as consisting of “hours” of work. At other times the witnesses spoke in terms of “points” obtained for each course. The documentation provided at the hearing did not make it clear that each course actually required 60 classroom hours of work. In fact, the classes were sometimes shortened but 60 points were still awarded for completion. Therefore, “points” or “credits” would appear to be more accurate terms.

6/ pd360.com is an online professional development library for teachers.

7/ The referenced “Domains” are the five subject areas listed in Finding of Fact 4, supra.

8/ Ms. Patterson disputed the notion that she was above the ESOL trainers in the School Board hierarchy. She preferred to call herself the “liaison” between the trainers and Ms. Wims.

9/ Mr. Hester had nothing to do with awarding ESOL points for foreign travel. Therefore, this method is not discussed in detail in the text. However, the undersigned has noted that this case involves the alleged falsification of ESOL credits that can be “legitimately” obtained by a teacher’s taking a vacation in Spain. Mr. Hester credibly testified as to the low likelihood that a teacher will obtain good strategies for teaching ELL students from a trip to the Bahamas, and that there are “very low expectations” for the Cross-Cultural Communications portion of the ESOL requirement.

10/ The examination method was not part of the controversy in this proceeding and is therefore not discussed in detail.

11/ Until 2002, Mr. Hester continued to teach in the classroom while performing his PDF duties.

12/ Neither Mr. Hester nor Ms. Patterson was asked why this convoluted and potentially misleading method of recording independent study participation was used by the District. An answer to this question is not necessary to the resolution of this issue because the documentation allegation requires proof that Mr. Hester intentionally falsified records. The evidence is clear that Mr. Hester at the very least believed he was following District procedure.

13/ Given the ease with which teachers may monitor their professional development credits, it seems unlikely that these teachers could have been completely unaware of their ESOL status. See Finding of Fact 76, infra.

14/ The out of field notices were generated by the District’s Certification office, not by Mr. Hester. The notices were sent by the District to the school principal, who sent them down the line to the assistant principal for curriculum and Mr. Hester. Mr. Hester would then call the out of field teachers into his office and offer his assistance in resolving their status.

15/ The School Board argued that the timing of this discussion indicates that Mr. Hester is being untruthful. Ms. Andrews received the notification that she was out of field in

March 2012, but Mr. Hester testified that his discussion with Ms. Andrews about her out of field status occurred prior to his giving her credit for Cross-Cultural ESOL in September 2011.

The chronology is confusing but does not necessarily prove that Mr. Hester is lying. A document produced by Mr. Hester indicates that Ms. Andrews was also on the out of field list in spring 2011. Ms. Andrews could have been concerned about her status in 2011 and approached Mr. Hester about obtaining credits.

16/ He later amended this answer to state that Ms. Andrews did do an independent study, but she “did it” through Mr. Hester’s assessment of her competencies. Mr. Hester’s first answer was the more accurate.

17/ This was the same email received by Ms. Andrews and Suzanne Harman.

18/ In this instance, one must entertain the possibility that Michelle Corey completed and submitted all of the work without her husband’s knowledge, signing his name so that he would receive credit for their “collaborative” work.

19/ In the absence of the any definite evidence as to the chronologies of the various ESOL course attendance sheets, the undersigned has presumed that they were created contemporaneously with the class sessions. In this instance, the Cross-Cultural ESOL class began on July 14, 2011, and the last class session was held on September 28, 2011, more than a week before Ms. Harman stated she met with Mr. Hester.

20/ Mr. Hester generally agreed with Mr. Gilbert’s version of the conversation but had no recollection of Mr. Gilbert’s telling him that this was a “verbal warning.” The first step in the CBA’s progressive discipline policy is “verbal reprimand,” but it requires that the employee be told that the verbal reprimand has initiated the discipline process. See Conclusion of Law 256, infra. The informality of this conversation between Mr. Gilbert and Mr. Hester militates against its being considered a “verbal reprimand” for purposes of progressive discipline.

21/ Though listed as a witness by the School Board,

Ms. Strickland was not called to testify at the final hearing.

Mr. Lee credibly testified as to his minimal involvement in this case. He acknowledged receiving (and being somewhat puzzled by) the emails from Ms. Strickland and performing his official functions in forwarding the anonymous letter to HR and in voting on the investigative report. However, he took no personal hand, whatever, in the investigation of Mr. Hester.

Mr. Lee did not even know that Ms. Strickland was the author of the anonymous letter until he read the investigative report.

22/ Even Ms. Reed acknowledged, in a June 4, 2012, email to Ms. Harman, that “Dennis is a hard worker and Dane does expect way too much from him at times.”

23/ Mr. Hester’s ability to document independent study coursework was compromised by his practice of returning the work to the teachers at the conclusion of each ESOL course.

Mr. Hester credibly testified that he returned the coursework so that the teacher would be able to document that he or she had done the work. Because each teacher is ultimately responsible for completing his or her own professional development credits, Mr. Hester’s practice made sense.

24/ In an accusatory email to Mr. Nelson, dated June 10, 2013, Ms. Harmon made a sneering reference to Mr. Hester’s “office boys.” It is unclear whether this made its way into the investigative report, which was not part of the evidentiary record.

25/ Despite her centrality to the case, Ms. Reed was not called to testify at the hearing. Joy Chalker, the third member of the group that initially approached Mr. Nelson about Mr. Hester, was also not called as a witness.

26/ It is unclear from the record whether Mr. Hester was even aware of the situation at Chets Creek at the time he was exercising the presumed authority to award ESOL credits to teachers simply for being “phenomenal.”

27/ It is noted, however, that these teachers seemed only too happy to accept the ESOL credits until the School Board began investigating the matter. The undersigned took their protestations that they knew nothing about the ESOL class credits with a large grain of salt.

28/ Unless otherwise indicated, references to the Florida Statutes are to the 2013 edition.

29/ The CBA, part of which was entered as Respondent’s Exhibit 103, provides at Article V.C. that employees may be "suspended without pay only for just cause and only by action of the School Board." Article V.D.7 provides that an employee "may be suspended without pay only for just cause and only by action of the School Board." Though the agreement appears to be silent as to the standard for termination, it stands to reason that "just cause" would be required for the ultimate sanction, as well as for the quoted lesser penalties.

30/ Rule 6B-1.001 has been renumbered as 6A-10.080 without change to the substance of the rule. Rule 6A-5.056(2)(a) has not been amended to reflect this renumbering.

31/ Rule 6B-1.006 has been renumbered as 6A-10.081 without change to the substance of the rule. Rule 6A-5.056(2)(a) has not been amended to reflect this renumbering.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Carol Mirando, Esquire Office of General Counsel

City of Jacksonville

117 West Duval Street, Suite 480 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 (eServed)

Kenneth B. Wright, Esquire Bledsoe, Jacobson, Schmidt, Wright

& Wilkinson

1301 Riverplace Boulevard, Suite 1818

Jacksonville, Florida 32207 (eServed)

Henry Matson Coxe, III, Esquire Bedell, Dittmar, Devault, Pillans

& Coxe, P.A.

101 East Adams Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 (eServed)

Dr. Nikolai P. Vitti, Superintendent Duval County Public Schools

1701 Prudential Drive

Jacksonville, FL 32207

Pam Stewart

Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514

325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)

Lois S. Tepper, Interim General Counsel Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1244

325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)

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.

Docket for Case No: 13-002882TTS

Orders for Case No: 13-002882TTS