STATE OF FLORID
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
HERB A. SANG, SUPERINTENDENT, ) SCHOOL BOARD OF DUVAL COUNTY, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 83-1210
)
QUEEN BRUTON, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Arnold H. Pollock, Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings, on June 16 and 17, 1983, in Jacksonville, Florida. The issue for determination was whether the Respondent should be discharged from employment as a teacher in the Duval County, Florida, public school system for professional incompetency as set forth in Section 4(e) of the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Gary E. Eckstine, Esquire
Chief, Administrative Hearings Section City of Jacksonville
1300 City Hall
Jacksonville, Florida 32202
For Respondent: William F. Kachergus, Esquire
Maness & Kachergus
502 Florida Theatre Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
By certified letter dated November 22, 1982, Herb A. Sang, Superintendent of Duval County Public Schools, indicated the intention of the Duval County School Board to discharge Respondent for professional incompetency. Respondent requested a formal hearing on the proposed discharge, and the matter was referred to the undersigned to conduct the hearing.
Action was based upon unsatisfactory performance ratings of the Respondent by various supervisors for the 1976-77, 1977-78, 1980-81 and 1981-82 school years. Respondent moved to exclude consideration of the two earliest school year reports, and this motion was granted. Consequently, this hearing was concerned with performance from the 1978-79 school year onward.
Petitioner presented the testimony of Dalton Epting, Warren K. Kennedy, Marguarite G. Hildum, Beth Starnes, Ronel J. Poppel, Ronald J. Peterson, Ellen
Bullard, Carl Jansen, Judith B. Silas, Dr. James W. Ragans, Dr. Mary
Henderson, Wendell P. Holmes, and Dr. Jeff Weathers, and Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 32. Respondent presented the testimony of James H. Steeley and testified in her own behalf, as well as introducing Respondent's Exhibits A through G. Hearing Officer's Exhibits 1 through 3 were also admitted.
On June 1, 1983, Respondent, through her attorney, submitted a Petition for Administrative Determination wherein she requested a determination that the "rules" utilized by Petitioner defining the terms "unsatisfactory evaluation" and equating "unsatisfactory evaluation" with "professional incompetency," as used under the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act, constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority and are therefore invalid.
FINDINGS OF FACT
At all times pertinent to this hearing, Respondent was a public school teacher licensed by the State of Florida to teach English language at the secondary school level, and her teaching certificate was current and in full effect.
The Respondent, Queen Bruton, is employed by the Duval County School Board and holds tenure under the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act. On November 22, 1982, Respondent was sent a Notice of Proposed Dismissal by the School Board indicating the Board's intention to dismiss her as a teacher upon a charge of professional incompetency. The grounds for such conclusion include an indication that Respondent received unsatisfactory evaluations of her performance for the 1980-81 and 1981-82 school years.
The Duval County Teacher Tenure Act (TTA), Chapter 21197, Laws of Florida (1941), as amended, permits the discharge of a teacher for, inter alia, professional incompetency as a teacher if certain conditions are met and procedures followed.
All teachers in the Duval County public schools are evaluated whenever necessary, but at least once a year. Under the rating system in effect during the 1980-81 and 1981-82 school years, an unsatisfactory rating is awarded when an evaluation contains eight or more deduction points. Ratings are: (1) satisfactory, (2) needs improvement, and (3) unsatisfactory. On the rating form in use during the time in issue here, an unsatisfactory rating results in two deduction points in Items 1 through 27, and one deduction point in Items 28 through 36. An evaluation of "needs improvement" does not result in any deduction points.
The School Board of Duval County has not, in any formal way, defined professional incompetence. The evaluation process is but one tool in the management of teacher employment. An unsatisfactory evaluation is not, therefore, conclusive of professional incompetence, but is one factor in that judgmental decision.
The procedure used by the School Board in evaluating teacher performance was not adopted in conformity with the Administrative Procedure Act. At the time of adoption, the School Board was operating under teacher working conditions that had been implemented after extensive bargaining between the School Board and the teachers' union. These working conditions contained extensive provisions involving "teacher evaluation." When a contract was finally agreed upon between the School Board and the teachers' union, it contained provisions concerning teacher evaluation identical to those which were in effect under the working conditions previous to the implementation of the
contract. These provisions, therefore, do not constitute rules "as defined in Section 120.52, Florida Statutes," but instead constitute guidelines for the evaluation of teacher performance arrived at not by decision of the School Board under conditions which require public hearing but jointly by agreement of the parties to the negotiations of the teacher contract between the School Board and the union, a collective bargaining agreement.
Warren K. Kennedy was in Respondent's sophomore English class at Forrest Senior High School in Jacksonville during the 1980-81 school year. At one point during the school year, Kennedy saw a series of approximately 22 sexually explicit words or phrases written on the blackboard in Respondent's room. Kennedy copied these words and notified the principal, who went to Respondent's classroom and saw them himself. These words were placed on the board by someone other than Respondent, with her permission, and consisted of a part of an exercise in outlining. As such, Respondent claims the words themselves mean nothing, but words of that nature, including "orgasms, sexual intercourse, French tickler, blow job, condoms, dildo, masturbation, orgy," and the like serve no legitimate purpose in, and are not a legitimate part of, a sophomore English class.
Respondent's classroom that year was chaotic. Students did little work, but instead talked openly and freely. Respondent sat quietly at her desk doing paperwork unless the noise got so great as to disturb other classes. Students felt free to walk out of class with impunity. Cursing was prevalent in class, and discipline was nonexistent. Defacing of school property occurred on at least one occasion with Respondent taking no corrective action. As a result, several students and the parents of other students requested their transfer from Respondent's class to another.
Respondent was also unreliable in submitting grades and reports in a timely fashion. Observations of Respondent in the classroom environment by several different individuals revealed she did not insist her students come to class equipped with the proper supplies for effective writing or textbook activity. She rarely utilized visual aids pertinent to the matter being discussed. Classroom discussion with students did not generally involve a broad sampling of the class, but was focused on only a few class members. Her questions to the students were often vague and confusing to the students.
Respondent's principal during that school year, Ronel J. Poppel, at whose request the above observations were made, himself observed Respondent in the classroom on several occasions. As a result of the input from those requested observations and of his own observations, he prepared an evaluation form on Respondent on March 15, 1981, which bore an overall rating of unsatisfactory and reflected that her performance was declining. This report, which reflected 7 of 36 items as unsatisfactory (12 total deduction points), had
20 other items rated as "needs improvement" and contained such written-in suggestions as "needs classroom management techniques, needs better standards of behavior, needs to have long-range planning from the beginning of the year, needs to show more enthusiasm for teaching--needs more variety in methods of teaching," and "should use better judgment in selection of topics."
As a result of this evaluation, the observations of her principal and others, and the several counseling periods during which Respondent's deficiencies were pointed out to her along with suggestions for improvement, Respondent was put on notice of her failing performance and afforded the opportunity to take advantage of teacher education counseling (TEC) and, while
she did enroll in at least one improvement course, failed to take full advantage of the available opportunities.
Poppel's evaluation of Respondent as an incompetent teacher is based
on:
His personal observation;
Evaluation by other professionals;
Parent complaint follow-up;
Her demonstrated lack of effective planning;
Her lack of enforcement of school policies;
Her lack of or inability to motivate students;
Observed and reported chaotic classroom deportment;
Her failure to keep proper records; and
Her failure to leave lesson plans for substitutes.
Notwithstanding the above, Respondent was well versed in the subject matter she was to teach and had the subjective background to be an excellent teacher. Her shortcomings, as described above, however, far outweighed the positive aspects of her credentials.
Respondent was transferred for the 1981-82 school year to Fletcher High School in Jacksonville where she was placed under the supervision of Dr. Ragans, Principal, to teach English. Dr. Ragans spoke to Mr. Poppel, her former principal, about Respondent's weak areas so that he could develop plans to help her in those areas. In an effort to prepare Respondent for the coming year and to ensure she was fully aware of school policies and standards, Dr. Ragans held an extensive conference with Respondent to discuss her previous year's unsatisfactory rating and to make plans to remedy or remediate those areas. On August 25, 1981, he wrote a letter to Respondent in which he reiterated the items discussed previously. Review of this letter reveals there could be little doubt of what Dr. Ragans expected. Nonetheless, when he personally observed her in her classroom less than a month later, he found many of the same weaknesses previously identified, such as a noisy classroom environment, talking by students without being called on, Respondent appearing preoccupied with desk work, and inadequate lesson plans. In the observation report, he made numerous suggestions for improvement and offered Respondent the opportunity to a conference which she did not request.
Prior to that observation, however, on September 8, 1981, Dr. Ragans and Respondent met with Dr. Jeff Weathers, TEC consultant for the School Board, in a full discussion of her professional shortcomings, at which meeting a suggestion was made that Respondent enroll in certain university-level courses in classroom management and motivation. Respondent was somewhat reluctant to take these courses because she felt they might interfere with her planning and her preparation for classes. Nonetheless, she did attend one class. Dr. Ragans had advised her he would arrange for substitute teachers for her so that she could take available classes. She was also invited to meet with master teachers in the school to seek assistance and to observe them, and she did in fact do so. In addition, a program was set up for her lesson plans to be reviewed by experts at the School Board. Respondent denies she ever submitted these plans, but according to Judith B. Silas, a resource teacher at School Board headquarters who reviewed Respondent's plans in December, 1981, her plans were confusing and
lacking a consistent format: the dates on the plans reflect they were from an earlier series of years; objective numbers did not refer to the 1981 Curriculum Guide and did not cross-reference; and some included material had no relationship to plans or lessons. Ms. Silas's comments, forwarded to the school in February, 1982, were discussed with Respondent.
A follow-up letter dated September 25, 1981, outlining the substance of the joint meeting with Dr. Weathers, was forwarded to Respondent. Shortly thereafter, on October 29, 1981, Dr. Ragans prepared a preliminary evaluation on Respondent rated overall as unsatisfactory in which 13 items were rated that way and 12 more rated as "needs to improve."
On November 25, 1981, Respondent was provided with a lesson presentation checklist drawn by Dr. Weathers for her to use along with a notice of several night courses available to Respondent and a notice of a proposed observation of another teacher by Dr. Weathers and Respondent on December 14, 1981. After this observation, Dr. Weathers and Respondent discussed the positive aspects of that teacher's operation that Respondent could and should emulate. A new classroom observation of Respondent was set for January, 1982.
In the interim, in January, 1982, Dr. Ragans received at least one parent request for a student to be transferred from Respondent's class because the classroom environment was noisy, unruly, and not conducive to learning. As a result of this letter and other parent contacts of a similar nature, Dr. Ragans had several informal discussions with Respondent during this period.
On February 23, 1982, Respondent requested a conference with Dr. Ragans on her upcoming evaluation which was, she understood, to be unsatisfactory from a letter to her on February 5, 1982, from Dr. Ragans. This rating, conducted on February 2, 1982, but not signed by Dr. Ragans until March 3, 1982, was unsatisfactory, containing 14 items so marked and 13 marked "needs to improve." At the conference, held the same day as requested, Dr. Ragans advised Respondent he still felt she had marked deficiencies previously indicated regarding classroom control, authority, respect, lesson plans coordination, classroom planning, her failure to provide purposeful learning experiences, no student motivation, and her apparent inability to be understood by her students. Also cited to her were the continuing parent complaints and those of other teachers that their classrooms, used by her (she was a traveling teacher with no room of her own), had been damaged by her students. Much of this had previously been outlined in Dr. Ragans' February 2, 1982, letter indicating his intent to rate Respondent as unsatisfactory.
Both Dr. Weathers and another school district supervisor, Dr. Henderson, observed Respondent in the classroom situation in late January or early February, 1982. Both individuals identified the same deficiencies as previously noted by so many others, and both made recommendations for improvement which were passed on, intact, to Respondent.
In early March, 1982, Dr. Ragans advised Respondent in writing of his intent to evaluate her on March 15, 1982, to see if she had made any improvement. He did this because of Respondent's feeling that the previous evaluation had not given her enough time to work out improvements. This latest evaluation was also overall unsatisfactory. Two days later, on March 17, 1982, Respondent indicated in writing that she did not accept this evaluation.
On April 30, 1982, Dr. Ragans again visited Respondent's classroom so that, if she had markedly improved, he could try to extend her contract or
change her evaluation before the end of the school year. However, he could observe no appreciable change. Shortly after this visit, on May 3, he discussed with Respondent complaints he had received from several parents about warnings she had sent out on some students which inconsistently showed both satisfactory performance and danger of failing on the same form. She explained this as all students, including straight "A" students, who had not taken the MLST (test) were in danger of failing. Dr. Ragans felt this excuse was feeble and unjustified and demonstrated poor judgment on her part. All this was confirmed in a letter on May 17.
A complaint from a parent of one of Respondent's students, received on June 11, 1982, initiated an audit of the grades given by Respondent during the school year. Results of this audit revealed at least 68 errors involving 46 students, including three students who received passing grades when they, in fact, had failed and should have been in summer school. A total of 13 student grades had to be changed, requiring a letter of notification and apology from the principal. Respondent did not deny the inconsistencies shown in the audit, but defended them on the basis of, in many cases, their being the result of her exercising her discretion and prerogative to award a grade different from that supported by recorded achievement if, in her opinion, other factors so dictated. In any case, the number of inconsistencies requiring a grade change was substantially higher than is normal.
During the 1981-82 school year, Respondent had not been assigned a classroom of her own, but instead met and taught her classes in the rooms assigned to other teachers. This situation, while not unique to Respondent and one which several other teachers had as well, is nonetheless a definite handicap to any teacher. In an effort to alleviate the impact of this situation, all Respondent's rooms were scheduled as geographically close together as possible, and she was assigned only one subject to teach. Therefore, though she may have had several class periods which progressed at different speeds, the planning and preparation was similar and much less an arduous task than if she had different subjects to prepare for. In any case, there is little relationship between this and discipline and control in the classroom.
Dr. Mary Henderson, Director of Language Arts/Reading for the Duval County School Board, observed Respondent in the classroom during both the 1980-
81 and 1981-82 school years at two different schools. Recognizing that Respondent has definite strengths in her knowledge of the subject matter to be taught and her recognition of and communication to the students of the relationship of their lessons to the test requirements, Dr. Henderson still felt Respondent was not a competent teacher. On both occasions, she found Respondent's lesson plans to be inadequate, her techniques in classroom management were deficient, she failed to make effective use of the students' time, and she failed to effectively motivate her students to participate in the classroom activities. Throughout all this period, according to both supervisors and others who observed her, Respondent always maintained a pleasant, calm, positive, and cooperative approach to all with whom she came into contact. At no time did she show hostility or resentment. Also, there was never a question as to her knowledge of the subject matter.
Respondent possesses a bachelor's degree in English and a master's degree in administration and supervision. She has sufficient credit hours to qualify for a major in Spanish. She has also taken several in-service courses in such subjects as linguistics, methods of curriculum and instruction, British literature, and school administration. She is certified to teach English, Spanish, and typing. She has been a teacher in several Florida school systems
for 29 years, of which the last 21 years were in various Jacksonville area schools. She is tenured. She was selected for summer school employment in 1980, while at Forrest High School, even though tenure does not ensure selection to teach summer school.
During the 1980-81 school year, Respondent was caring for the aunt who raised her and who was suffering from terminal cancer. This required frequent travel back and forth to another part of the state, and in addition to being a physical burden, constituted a severe strain on her mental state. During that year, she started out teaching only twelfth grade classes, but as a result of a reduction in class sizes during the school year, she was given some additional tenth grade classes for which she had not prepared.
Respondent feels her classroom discipline was not so unusual as to be remarkable. She feels she maintained classroom discipline as well as required and contested the allegations that she rarely referred students to the administration for additional discipline. She made all reasonable effort to improve her performance by enrolling in some of the courses recommended by Drs. Weathers and Ragans, but had to wait until the second semester because she did not get the information on the first semester courses until after they had started. The classes she took urged the use of listening and negotiating skills rather than the authoritative method in dealing with students. She tried to implement what she learned in her classrooms and feels she succeeded regardless of what the testimony shows. In addition, she took a course dealing with self- concept and self-confidence and applied for admission to Jacksonville University's master of arts program in an effort to upgrade her skills.
Respondent admits that at the beginning of the 1981-82 school year, she was not using formal lesson plans. She had been asked by the administration for plans on a weekly basis and had jotted down ideas on paper. To formulate these ideas, she used prior years lesson plans, but did not turn any of these in. This does not track with Ms. Silas's testimony that the Respondent's plans she reviewed appeared to be from prior years. I find that prior years' plans were used by Respondent extensively and how these plans were transmitted to Ms. Silas for review is immaterial.
Respondent, based on the above, while possessing the necessary technical qualifications to perform as a teacher, while possessing the appropriate knowledge of her subject matter, and while possessing the desire to impart that knowledge to her students, is nonetheless incompetent to conduct a class, maintain proper discipline, and generate adequate student motivation to accomplish these desired ends.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this proceeding.
Section 120.52(14), Florida Statutes, provides, as follows:
"Rule" means each agency statement of general applicability that implements, interprets, or prescribes law or policy or describes the organization, procedure, or practice requirements of an agency and includes any form which imposes any requirement or solicits any information not
specifically required by statute or by an existing rule. The term also includes the amendment or repeal of a rule. The term does not include:
Internal management memoranda which do not affect either the private interests of any person or any plan or procedure important to the public and which have no application outside the agency issuing the memorandum.
Legal memoranda or opinions issued to an agency by the Attorney General or agency legal opinions prior to their use in connection with an agency action.
The preparation or modification of:
Agency budgets.
Contractual provisions reached as a result of collective bargaining.
It is, therefore, specifically concluded as a matter of law that Respondent's guidelines for the evaluation of teacher performance does not constitute a rule within the meaning of Section 120.52(14), Florida Statutes, in that it is a contractual provision reached as a result of collective bargaining.
The School Board of Duval County proposes to dismiss Respondent from employment as a teacher in its system on the basis that she is professionally incompetent and relies on, as authority for that proposed action, Section 4(e) of the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act, Chapter 21197, Laws of Florida (1941), as amended, which states:
Section 4. Causes for the discharge or the demotion of a teacher shall be:
Professional incompetency as a teacher; provided however, no teacher shall be discharged or demoted for such cause of professional incompetency unless and until the following requirements shall have been met, which requirements shall apply only to such cause of professional incompetency, to-wit:
That the teacher be given a clear and detailed statement of the specific reasons on which the claim of incompetency is based.
That at least one opportunity to transfer to a new school or location be afforded the affected teacher where the teacher asserts as a defense racial discrimination or prejudice, personality conflicts with superiors, or other subjective considerations directly related to the deficiencies charged.
That prior to the institution of proceedings as hereinafter provided, a period of one year shall elapse during which such teacher shall be afforded the opportunity of specific in-service training to correct the alleged deficiencies and the teacher shall cooperate in undergoing such specific
in-service training, or, at the election of the teacher, but only with the consent of the
Superintendent of Schools and the approval of the Duval County School Board, such teacher alternatively may be paid a sum of money up to, but not to exceed, one year's salary at his or her current rate upon the acceptance of which sum of money, such teacher's tenure and employment rights under this act and any contract then existing between such teacher
and the Duval County School Board shall be deemed terminated.
All proceedings for discharge or demotion brought under this subsection 4(e) shall conform to the procedural requirements of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, including the Administrative Hearings of the Department of Administration and except that all costs incurred in such proceedings for discharge or demotion shall be borne solely by the Duval County School Board.
No teacher shall be deprived of employment or professional status but for specific causes established by law having a clear relation to the competence or qualification to teach,
proved by the weight of the evidence.
In all such cases the teacher shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public hearing, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with accusing witnesses, to subpoena witnesses and papers, and the assistance of counsel. No teacher shall be called upon to answer any charge affecting his employment or professional
status but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation.
Prior to discussing whether professional incompetency has been proven, a consideration of whether the Petitioner has met the technical requirements of the Act is pertinent. First required is clear notice of the details in which the claim of incompetence is based. Clearly, the evaluations of Mr. Poppel and Dr. Ragans and the repeated counseling and written communications from both to Respondent, which clearly and specifically point out her particular deficiencies and offer suggestions for correction and improvement, meet this requirement. Respondent cannot reasonably be heard to complain she was not advised of her shortcomings and given opportunity to help to correct them.
Respondent, after the first documented and recorded year of unsatisfactory performance, was given the opportunity to transfer to a new school, from Forrest to Fletcher, and did in fact do so. At this point, it should be noted that Dr. Ragans did not seek a briefing on her former shortcomings so that he could also pick them out in an effort to get her out of the system. Instead, his inquiries were designed to give him the information on which to base a remedial program for her in an effort to, if at all possible, salvage her as a teacher. Consequently, that requirement was satisfied.
During both unsatisfactory years, Respondent was not only afforded the opportunity to, but encouraged to, engage in in-service courses to correct her deficiencies. This was not done utilizing solely the resources of her local
school. In fact, the resources of the School Board in the person of Dr. Weathers, a consultant in the area of teacher effectiveness training, were utilized professionally to observe Respondent and identify her shortcomings and to tailor a program to her particular needs in an effort to bring about the required improvement. Further, Dr. Ragans agreed to arrange for substitutes whenever necessary to afford Respondent the opportunity to take whatever courses were available to assist her regardless of time. That she availed herself of some of these opportunities is to her credit. That she failed to do so more fully is not. The fact remains that this requirement was certainly met by the administration.
That the proceedings conform to the procedural requirements of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes (1981), is without question. Respondent was afforded a two-day hearing at which she was represented by counsel and permitted to present all pertinent information she desired.
The sole remaining issue as to the requirements of the TTA addresses the relationship between the specific causes for separation and the Respondent's competence or qualification to teach. If the evidence presented establishes Respondent's incompetency in the classroom, this requirement has also been met.
This brings us, then, to the ultimate question as to whether Respondent is professionally incompetent as a teacher so as to support dismissal action. There is no question raised as to her knowledge of the subject matter she teaches. There is also no question as to her attitude toward her peers, the school administration, and the School Board. She has been described as cooperative, pleasant, calm, and cordial. There is, further, no question that unsatisfactory performance reports do not, in and of themselves, constitute professional incompetence, but are but one factor to be considered in arriving at that judgment.
It is reasonable to conclude that a competent teacher is one who has the ability to impart knowledge, the ability to command attention, the ability to motivate the student, and the ability to make the subject matter interesting. Here, the testimony shows that Respondent's students complained of her failure to provide a classroom environment in which they could learn. Her superiors observed her and concluded she was neither motivating her students to learn nor imparting much of the subject matter. Outside experts called in to evaluate her concluded her planning and preparation were deficient and her presentation was uninspired. It is obvious she could not control the classroom, and her judgment, as evidenced by the sexually oriented outlining exercise, is deficient. Regardless that the words used in that case were not hers and that there is no evidence she was attempting anything improper by this exercise, the fact remains that the use of that type of sex-oriented language in an English classroom of high school students is totally improper by any reasonably accepted standard.
In light of all the above, it is clear that aliunde the performance ratings, the evidence shows Respondent had deteriorated in her professional skills to the point where, regretfully, she must be declared incompetent. It is obvious, however, that at one point in time, Respondent was a highly skilled professional educator. For whatever reason, a decline in student attitude, larger classes, failure of economic progression, the specific is unknown; it is obvious, also, that this Respondent suffers from what can only be described as "burnout." It is unfortunate that that condition now renders her subject to dismissal for incompetence. The numerous years of satisfactory performance put
in by the Respondent in the past serve as naught more than mitigating factors to be considered in her behalf.
The parties have submitted posthearing legal memoranda which include proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The proposed findings and conclusions have been adopted only to the extent that they are expressly set out in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law above. They have been otherwise rejected as contrary to the better weight of the evidence, not supported by the evidence, irrelevant to the issues, or legally erroneous.
Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED:
That Respondent be removed from classroom teaching duties and be assigned some other function within the school system until such time, unless sooner released for other good cause, as she can retire with maximum benefits.
RECOMMENDED this 1st day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida.
ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 1st day of September, 1983.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Gary E. Eckstine, Esquire Chief
Administrative Hearings Section City of Jacksonville
1300 City Hall
Jacksonville, Florida 32202
William F. Kachergus, Esquire Maness & Kachergus
502 Florida Theatre Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Mr. Herb A. Sang Superintendent
Duval County Public Schools 1701 Prudential Drive
Jacksonville, Florida 32207
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Sep. 01, 1983 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Sep. 01, 1983 | Recommended Order | Evidence shows teacher to be incompetent and should be removed from classroom and given other duties. |
DUVAL COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs. JESSIE M. MITCHELL, 83-001210 (1983)
DUVAL COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs. ARTHENIA LEE, 83-001210 (1983)
RALPH D. TURLINGTON, COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs. WILLIAM WYCHE, 83-001210 (1983)
SCHOOL BOARD OF DUVAL COUNTY AND HERB A. SANG, SUPERINTENDENT vs. C. LENWOOD LEE, 83-001210 (1983)
