STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

SCHOOL BOARD OF LAKE COUNTY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 81-1087

)

LAWRENCE R. CAMPBELL, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, R. L. Caleen, Jr., conducted a formal hearing in this case on June 30, 1981, in Tavares, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Leo P. Rock, Jr., Esquire

631 North Hyer Avenue Orlando, Florida 32802

For Respondent: Virgil D. Hawkins, Esquire

Post Office Box 1195 Leesburg, Florida 32748

ISSUE

Whether respondent, a junior high school teacher, should be dismissed from employment pursuant to Section 231.36(4), Florida Statutes (1979), on grounds of incompetency and inefficiency--specifically, his alleged failure to use proper testing and grading techniques and procedures.

BACKGROUND

By letter dated March 17, 1981, respondent was notified that the Superintendent of Schools would recommend that petitioner School Board of Lake County ("School Board") dismiss him from employment as a classroom teacher at the end of the 1980-81 school year. The recommendation for dismissal was "based upon your [respondent's] incompetency and inefficiency in discharging your duties as a classroom teacher, specifically, . . . you have failed to utilize testing and grading techniques and proper procedures." 1/

On April 10, the School Board referred this case to the Division of Administrative Hearings for a formal Section 120.57(1) hearing on the allegations. Hearing was set for May 18, 1981; upon respondent's motion, the hearing was continued and reset for June 30, 1981.

At hearing, the School Board called Joseph R. Polk, principal of Leesburg Junior High School as its witness, and offered Petitioner's Exhibit 2/ Nos. 1 through 53 into evidence, each of which was received. Respondent testified in his own behalf and offered Respondent's Exhibit 2/ No. 1 into evidence.

At the close of hearing, the parties were allowed 15 days from the date of filing of the hearing transcript to file proposed findings of fact; proposed findings were subsequently received on July 31, 1981.

Based on the evidence submitted at hearing, the following facts are determined:

FINDINGS OF FACT I.

The Respondent

1. Respondent, a classroom teacher under continuing contract, has worked for the Lake County School Board for 24 years; he has taught social studies at Leesburg Junior High School for the last eight years. He is certified to teach social studies to grades 1 through 12. (Testimony of respondent; P-6.)

   
   

   II.

   
   

   June, 1980: Identification of Respondent's Grading and Testing Deficiencies

   
   

2. In June, 1980 -- at the conclusion of the 1979-80 school year -- P. Jeffrey Ladd, assistant principal at Leesburg Junior High School, received an inquiry concerning a report card completed by respondent. Upon investigation, Ladd discovered that respondent had failed to calculate a student's final grade pursuant to the School Board Grading Policy No. 7.07 3(d) 3/ . At Ladd's request, respondent returned to school and recomputed the grades awarded to his other students; it was then discovered respondent had similarly miscalculated the grades for all 117 students assigned to him during the school year. (Testimony of Polk; P-4, P-46, P-51.)

   
   

3. Ladd then reviewed the examinations which respondent had given and found: (1) one final exam contained a 26-point "gift" to students; (2) generous 10-to-30 point grading curves had been used; (3) 20 out of 74 questions on an eightR-grade exam required simple "unscrambling" of words within the social studies context; (4) many pages on final exams had no marks indicating they had been graded, and (5) the method used in calculating final grades was unclear.

   (P-51.)

   
   

4. On June 10, 1980, Ladd expressed his concern to respondent concerning the miscalculation of final grades and the deficiencies he had found in the final examinations. Respondent's attitude was cooperative; he did not disagree that the problems existed or that they required correcting. Ladd followed up the conference by sending respondent, by registered mail, a written summary of the matters discussed; respondent refused to accept the letter. (Testimony of respondent; P-16, P-51.)

   
   

5. When Joseph R. Polk, principal of Leesburg Junior High School, returned from summer vacation, Ladd informed him of respondent's grading miscalculations and respondent's refusal of the registered letter. Polk then met with

   respondent on July 24, 1980, and went over the grading and testing problems identified in Ladd's registered letter. Because these problems had a far reaching affect on students, Polk considered them to be serious deficiencies; he told respondent that such mistakes could not be tolerated, that a teacher with respondent's experience should not take them lightly, that other action, including dismissal, would have to be taken if the problems continued. (Tr.

   19, 22.) 4/ Respondent acknowledged his grading deficiencies and stated that he intended to take care of the problem. (Testimony of Polk.)

   
   

   III.

   
   

   Respondent's Subsequent Performance

   
   

   1. First Nine-Week Period

      
      

6. For the purpose of determining whether Respondent's grading and testing deficiencies had been corrected, Polk and Ladd reviewed the next examination given by respondent. Their review at the end of the first nine-week period in the 1980-81 school year indicated that students had done poorly on the test; there were three As, five Bs, eleven Cs, nine Ds, and ninety-one Fs. The test covered material not included in the lesson book; it contained open-ended subjective questions which could have been answered in a number of ways. Examples were:

   
   

   2. The United States is a ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ).

   
   

   [Answer: (land)(of)(great)(re- sources).]

   
   

   6. The ( )( ) is

   one of the most beautiful regions of our nation.

   
   

   [Answer: (Pacific)(Coast).] (P-18.)

   
   

   This examination was not an effective measure of the students' progress. On October 20, 1980, Polk and Ladd went over the examination with respondent, pointed out the deficiencies, and recommended that he take a course in tests and measurements to improve his ability to give examinations. The next day, Polk completed and delivered to respondent a teacher Pre-Assessment Form which identified the test deficiencies discussed at the conference and explicitly recommended corrective action: "Take a course in tests and measurements to improve your [respondent's] testing abilities." (P-18.) Respondent was given another nine weeks to show improvement, and warned that failure to correct the area of concern could lead to his dismissal or non-renewal. (Testimony of Polk; P-18, P-51.)

   
   

   1. Second Nine-Week Period

      
      

7. During the next nine-week period, respondent asked Polk and Ladd to review his semester exams before they were administered; Polk agreed. On December 15, 1980, Polk and Ladd met with respondent and reviewed the proposed examinations. The exam questions had been taken directly from a teacher's manual which accompanied the course textbook; Polk and Ladd concluded that the questions were extremely difficult. When Polk asked respondent five of the questions, respondent was unable to give a correct answer. The test also

   covered material which may not have been taught to the students. Polk and Ladd suggested improvements to respondent; but there was insufficient time to revise the tests since they were to be given the next day. (Testimony of Polk; P-21, P-51.)

   
   

8. Respondent taught five classes in U.S. History to eighth graders; students were grouped in these classes according to their ability levels. Ladd and Polk also questioned whether the tests prepared by respondent were adequate to test the abilities of the five different levels of students. (Testimony of Polk; P-51.)

   
   

9. On December 17, 1980, respondent administered the tests which had been reviewed earlier by Polk and Ladd. Fifty-two percent of his students -- in all classes -- received a D or F on the exams. One class had been given the test, with answers, three days earlier; such action is unusual and not a sound educational practice. Polk met with respondent that afternoon, told him to stop providing students with examinations in advance, and asked for all his exams so that they could each be checked individually. In January, Polk and Ladd reviewed these examinations to see if respondent's grading problems had been corrected. They found little improvement. All of the exams in two of respondent's classes had been graded incorrectly. Some material on the exams had not been taught in class. On January 15, 1981, Polk wrote respondent a memorandum describing these testing deficiencies, concluding that the problems noted in October, 1980, had not been corrected, and making six specific recommendations for improvement. These recommendations required respondent observe testing procedures in other social studies classes; to improve his math skills 5/ , to cease providing students with exams in advance; and to take a course in testing and grading techniques, as previously requested in October, 1980. Polk also asked respondent to again submit his examinations for review during the next (third) nine-week grading period. Respondent was reminded that his course planning book should indicate that students have been taught the material included on a test. The memorandum cautioned that if respondent's testing problems were not corrected by the end of the third nine-week period (March 12, 1981) he might be dismissed or returned to annual contract. (Testimony of Polk; P-26, P-51.)

   
   

   1. Third Nine-Week Period

      
      

10. During the next nine-week period, respondent did not comply with Polk's October, 1980, and January, 1981, requests to take a course on testing and measurement procedures. 6/ In March, respondent did ask Polk for help in establishing such a course at the local teacher's education center; although Polk suggested contacting the education center, respondent did not do so. A college course in testing and grading techniques was available at several schools in the Lake County area during the first quarter of 1980. Notice of the course offered by the University of Central Florida was posted in the junior high school's teachers' lounge. (Testimony of Polk; P-52.)

    
    

11. In February and early March, 1981, respondent, as requested, submitted his examinations for prior review. Some improvement was noted by Ladd and Polk. The tests appeared to follow the respondent's planbook and, on their face, were generally acceptable. 7/ (Testimony of Polk; p-27, P-34.)

12. However, the results of the nine-week final examinations showed that respondent had not corrected his deficiencies in grading examinations. Numerous computation errors were detected; 59 out of 121 papers were incorrectly graded. Questions that were incorrect were marked correct -- and vice versa. Also, there was an unusually large number of poor grades: 65 Fs, 18 Ds, 34 Cs, 2 Bs, and 1 A. Assuming that respondent adequately instructed his students, these grades indicate that the tests did not adequately measure what had been taught during the course. (Testimony of Polk; P-36.)

    
    

13. Although Polk had suggested in his January memorandum to respondent that he take a course to improve his proficiency in math, respondent did not do so. Such courses were readily available at the Adult Education Center and Sumter Community College. (Testimony of Polk.)

    
    

    1. Respondent's Actions After Recommendation for Dismissal

    
    

14. On March 17, 1981, Polk notified respondent that he would be recommended for dismissal based on incompetency and inefficiency as demonstrated by his failure to use proper testing and grading techniques. Polk concluded that despite repeated efforts to assist 8/ respondent, no meaningful improvement had been made. (Testimony of Polk; P-37.)

    
    

15. Thereafter, during June, 1981, respondent took a course on testing and evaluation techniques at Bethune-Cookman College in Daytona Beach. (Testimony of respondent; R-1.)

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

16. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties to this proceeding. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1979).

    
    

17. Section 231.36(4), Florida Statutes (1979), authorizes a school board to dismiss a teacher "for good and sufficient reasons. Id.

    
    

18. Here, the School Board contends that respondent's incompetence and inefficiency, as demonstrated by his failure to apply proper grading and testing procedures, constitutes "good and sufficient reason" for his dismissal. Respondent contends that he has made a sincere and good faith effort to improve and that progress -- although admittedly slow -- has been made.

    
    

19. The School Board has established, by a preponderance of evidence, that "good and sufficient reasons" within the meaning of Section 231.36(4) justify the dismissal of respondent. His seeming inability to properly give and grade examinations affects the educational progress of students. He was adequately forewarned of the consequences should the deficiency continue. His supervisors attempted, repeatedly, to assist him in correcting his deficiencies during three consecutive nine-week grading periods; yet many of their recommendations went unheeded. He did not take a basic math refresher course; he took the testing and measuring techniques course only after dismissal charges were filed. His testing and grading deficiencies -- identified in June, 1980 -- continued through March, 1981; although some improvement was noted, his overall performance in giving and grading tests remained unsatisfactory.

    
    

20. Respondent, by virtue of his continuing contract, has a valuable property right in his expectation of continued employment. See, Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1977). But, he has a corresponding duty to

    perform his teaching responsibilities competently. The School Board has a right to promote efficiency and dismiss teachers who prove unable, or unwilling, to expeditiously overcome their deficiencies. Cf., Texton v. Hancock, 359 So.2d 895, 897 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Foot-dragging interrupted by periodic spurts of activity in anticipation of dismissal need not be tolerated. Cf., Department of Transportation v. Burnette, So.2d (Fla. 1st DCA, Case No. YY-223, Opinion filed May 26, 1981)

    
    

21. The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. To the extent they are not incorporated herein, they are rejected as irrelevant or unsupported by the evidence.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED:

That the School Board of Lake County enter a final order dismissing respondent from his employment.

DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of September, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida.

R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of September, 1981.

ENDNOTES

1/ Letter dated March 17, 1981, from James R. Polk, Jr., to respondent.

2/ Petitioner's and Respondent's Exhibits will be referred to as "P- and "R- ," respectively.

3/ That policy requires that semester grades be calculated by giving three- fourths value to the average of the two nine-week grades and one-fourth value to the semester final examinations. Instead, respondent had given semester examinations one-third value and nine-week grades two-third value.

4/ Pages in the transcript of hearing will be referred to as "Tr. " 5/ The taking of a basic math course was suggested.

6/ Respondent's contention that financial inability prevented him from taking the course is rejected. In previous conversations with Polk, he had not offered this as an excuse for his noncompliance. Moreover, the course was available locally at minimal cost.

7/ However, Polk expressed concern that the tests were of similar difficulty, yet they were to be given to students at different ability levels.

8/ During the 1980-81 school year, Polk and Ladd had 16 conferences with respondent in an effort to assist him in overcoming his deficiency. The next highest number of conferences with a teacher was three.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Leo P. Rock, Jr., Esquire 631 North Hyer Avenue Orlando, Florida 32802

Virgil D. Hawkins, Esquire Post Office Box 1195 Leesburg, Florida 32748

Carl H. Pettit, Superintendent School Board of Lake County

201 West Durleigh Boulevard Tavares, Florida 32778

Docket for Case No: 81-001087

Orders for Case No: 81-001087