STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ) EDUCATION PRACTICES COMMISSION, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) CASE NO. 83-2899
)
MARION C. STRANGE, )
)
Respondent. )
) SCHOOL BOARD OF CITRUS COUNTY, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) CASE NO. 83-3445
)
MARION C. STRANGE, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
These consolidated cases were heard on February 14, 1984, by R. L. Caleen, Jr., hearing office with the Division of Administrative Hearings, in Crystal River, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner Wilson Jerry Foster, Esquire Department of Lewis State Bank Building, Suite 616 Education: Tallahassee, Florida 32301
For Petitioner Richard S. Fitzpatrick, Esquire School Board of 213 North Apopka Avenue
Citrus County: Inverness, Florida 32650
For Respondent Philip J. Padovano, Esquire Marion Strange: Post Office Box 873
Tallahassee, Florida 32302 ISSUE
Whether respondent's teaching certificate should be disciplined, and her continuing contract with the citrus County School Board terminated, on charges of professional misconduct and willful neglect of duty: specifically, failure to keep complete student records, and forgery of signatures of other professionals on student records with the intent to deceive her superiors into thinking the records were complete.
BACKGROUND
On August 15, 1983, Ralph D. Turlington, as Commissioner of education of the State of Florida, filed a two-count administrative complaint against Marion
C. Strange ("respondent"). Specifically, he accused her of failing to keep her student records complete and forging the signatures of other professional personnel on her students' Individual Education Plans ("EIPs") to deceive her superiors into thinking that her records were complete, in violation of Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, and various rules governing teachers in Florida.
On August 23, 1983, the School Board of citrus County ("School Board") suspended respondent from her teaching duties without pay, alleging misconduct in office and willful neglect of duty.
On November 22, 1983, the School Board, through its Superintendent of Schools, filed a two-count amended administrative complaint against the respondent, alleging substantially the same misconduct complained of in the Commissioner of Education's administrative complaint. The School Board alleged that her conduct violated Section 231.36, Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-1.01, Florida Administrative Code.
For respondent's alleged misconduct, the Commissioner of Education seeks to revoke her teaching certificate. The School Board seeks to terminate her continuing contract as an exceptional education teacher, and separate her from her employment.
Respondent disputed the charges and requested a Section 120.57(1) hearing. Both agencies separately forwarded their cases to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of a hearing officer. By agreement, the cases were subsequently consolidated for hearing.
At hearing, the two agencies, proceeding jointly, called 8 witnesses and introduced 20 exhibits into evidence. Respondent called 5 witnesses, introduced
4 exhibits into evidence, and elected not to testify.
The transcript of hearing was filed on March 21, 1984. Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed by April 21, 1984. Those proposed findings incorporated in this recommended order are adopted; otherwise, they are specifically rejected as unsupported by the necessary quantum of evidence or as irrelevant or unnecessary to resolution of the issues presented.
Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, the following facts are determined:
FINDINGS OF FACT
At all times material hereto, respondent, Marion C. Strange, held Florida teacher's certificate No. 296394, covering the areas of Elementary Education, Mental Retardation, and Specific Learning Disabilities. Since at least 1979, she has been employed by the citrus County School Board as a teacher of exceptional students at Crystal River High School.
Her teaching duties included keeping complete, current and accurate records on her exceptional students. These record keeping duties are required of the Citrus County School System by federal and state authorities and are necessary for the school system to remain eligible for federal and state funds, which pay the costs of educating exceptional students.
Exceptional students are defined by Section 228.041(18), Florida Statutes, as students who have been classified under regulations of the state board of education as unsuited for enrollment in regular classes in public schools or who are unable to be adequately educated in the public schools without the provision of special classes, instruction, facilities or related services.
The education of exceptional students is strictly regulated by federal, state and local school board laws and regulations. Exceptional students are taught differently than students in regular public school classes.
A basic element in the education of exceptional students is the preparation and maintenance of an Individual Education Plan (IEP) for each exceptional student. IEP's are reviewed on an annual basis and are considered the backbone of the special education process. Respondent, as an exceptional education teacher, was responsible for maintaining an IEP for each of her students.
An IEP is necessary to evaluate the students' educational level, to establish short and long-term educational objectives for the student, to develop alternative ways to accomplish the objectives, to provide a systematic method for implementing the objectives, to record the progress of the plan and to establish a means for the school administration to review and control the education of the student. The proper preparation and maintenance of IEP's is a basic responsibility of the special education teacher.
Critical to the preparation and maintenance of IEP's is the annual IEP review conference. Under Citrus County School Board regulations and policy, the annual review conference takes place at a meeting where school professionals, with varied areas of expertise, confer, evaluate the student's progress, make recommendations, and decide on the appropriate instructional program for the student. It is a multi-disciplinary "team" approach to managing the student's education program. The annual IEP review conference is mandatory. Failure to hold the conference is a violation of federal, state, and School Board rules and policies; deprives the child of the educational assistance to which he or she is entitled under law; and jeopardizes continued federal and state funding of the School Board's exceptional education program.
Respondent was repeatedly instructed, as were all other teachers of exceptional students, that every IEP must be reviewed at least once a year through an IEP review conference. The School Board's Operations Manual requires the following persons to attend and participate in the annual review conference: the exceptional education teacher, a school psychologist, and a parent. At Crystal River High School, the psychologist also acted as the LEA representative, the designated representative of the school board. The Operations Manual states that the following additional people may participate in the annual conference: a guidance counselor, the mainstream classroom teacher, the principal, the student, other individuals invited by the parent, or other supportive personnel. Although not required by the Operations Manual, at Crystal River High School the mainstream teacher and guidance counselor were expected to participate in the annual review conference.
The exceptional education teacher is responsible for assuring that the annual IEP review conference is held and documented in the student's IEP records. The exceptional education teacher schedules the conference, invites the required people, and records it. As a means of documenting that the
required conference took place, the School Board requires that participants in the conference sign the IEP's. The requirement that attendees sign the appropriate IEP is a requirement made explicit by the Operations Manual, copies of which are given to each teacher, and by instructions at annual training sessions. Exceptional education teachers, including respondent, are well aware of this requirement.
Beginning in June, 1980, and continuing through 1983, respondent was frequently cited for record keeping violations. Her supervisor repeatedly asked her to correct numerous errors and omissions in her students' IEP's.
In June, 1980, Neil S. Weiss, Coordinator of Exceptional Students Programs for the Citrus County School Board, reviewed respondent's student IEP records. He found discrepancies and sent her a memorandum, dated June 6, 1980, in which he directed her attention to the Operations Manual and correct procedures to follow.
On September 23, 1981, Mr. Weiss again reviewed respondent's IEP records, examining, in depth, the records of six students. He found at least five serious problems with those records and discussed them with respondent.
On March 3, 1982, Mr. Weiss again reviewed respondent's records and found incomplete IEP forms. Disturbed by her continued record keeping deficiencies, Mr. Weiss wrote a letter, dated March 5, 1982, identifying the errors, explaining the seriousness of her failure to keep adequate records, and offering assistance. He considered this to be a letter of reprimand and treated it as such; it was made a part of her personnel file.
On December 10, 1982, Mr. Weiss visited respondent's classroom and, once again, reviewed her exceptional students' folders. After finding substantial problems in more than half of her files, he discussed the matter with her and wrote her a letter, dated December 22, 1982, expressing concern. In his experience, her chronic record keeping failures were unprecedented. Never before had he experienced similar problems with a special education teacher in the Citrus County school system.
In his December letter to respondent, Mr. Weiss advised her that her records were deficient and violated state and county rules and procedures. He noted that many of her IEP's had expired, and offered her the in-service training assistance of Patricia Stayments, a former teaching principal who was employed by the School board as a training consultant. He concluded the letter with an explicit warning: "If deficiencies in this area are not corrected by you by April 1, 1983 I may have to recommend that your teaching contract be returned from continuing to annual status." (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 6) This was the first time he had given her a specific deadline for bringing her records into compliance.
In January, 1983, at the request of Mr. Weiss, Ms. Stayments approached respondent and offered her assistance. Respondent initially declined the offer but later changed her mind and sought her assistance. Their first meeting took place on February 24, 1983. At that time Ms. Stayments reviewed 27 of respondent's files and found substantial problems in 19 of them. Ms. Stayment documented these deficiencies, in detail, by making handwritten notes. (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 16) The files of numerous special education students either lacked an IEP annual review form, or, if such a form existed, lacked the required signatures of participants. (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 16)
At that meeting, and in subsequent meetings on March 1, 2, and 24, 1983, Ms. Stayments discussed these deficiencies with respondent. At their final meeting on March 24, 1983, it appeared to Ms. Stayments that, except for four student folders, respondent had brought her records into compliance. She reported the progress to Mr. Weiss. She failed, however, to detect several discrepancies. Several signatures of annual IEP conference participants, previously noted as missing, were now included on "corrected records," but were back-dated to a time prior to Ms. Stayments' initial meeting with respondent.
The previously imposed deadline for bringing respondent's records into compliance was April 1, 1983. On April 11, 1983, Mr. Weiss reviewed the IEP files of Marion Strange to determine compliance. At first, the records appeared to be acceptable. He then noticed that, on one IEP, the signature of Ann Cummins, a school psychologist, was misspelled "Cummings." (Ms. Cummins, had been the LEA representative at the Crystal River High School for the past 4 years. She was the designated representative of the School Board administration at IEP annual conferences.) Mr. Weiss then found other IEP's that had Ms. Cummins' signature misspelled. He then showed the misspelled signatures to Ms. Cummins, who verified that the signatures were false. Mr. Weiss then examined more closely the other IEP's and, after investigation, found numerous instances where signatures of professional personnel were forged, giving the false impression that the records were complete, that the IEP annual conferences were held and attended as required, and that the students were being educated in accordance with local, state, and federal requirements. The forgeries are described below.
Respondent's IEP records contain the false signature of Ms. Cummins, as the LEA representative on 14 IEP annual review forms. The signatures were unauthorized. In fact, on the dates when many of the IEP annual conferences supposedly took place, Ms. Cummins was not at Crystal River High School. Many of the signatures were misspelled, "Cummings." (Respondent had earlier sent a routine letter to students' parents in which she made the same mistake in spelling Ms. Cummins' name.) The false signatures were affixed during 1982 and 1983. Several of the signatures were affixed between February 24, 1983, and April 11, 1983, for the apparent purpose of satisfying Ms. Stayments' February 24, 1983, criticism of unsigned or missing IEP review forms.
Respondent's IEP annual review records also contain the false and unauthorized signature of George Moonschiene, a math teacher, on the IEP records of John Dubois, one of her exceptional education students. The false signatures indicated that Mr. Moonschiene had attended an annual IEP review conference concerning this student on October 19, 1982. He had not. On February 24, 1983, Ms. Stayments had complained to respondent that this particular student's IEP form had no signatures. By April 11, 1983, the form contained the unauthorized and forged signature of Mr. Moonschiene.
Respondent's IEP records also contain the false and unauthorized signature of Gerald Schuman, an English teacher, on the IEP review forms of at least four exceptional education students: James Morrow, Debra Hollis, Greg Burress, and Richard Schaefer. The false signatures indicated that Mr. Schuman, as a mainstream teacher, attended IEP review meetings on these students. In fact, these were not his students and he did not attend any IEP review meetings concerning them. On February 24, 1983, Ms. Stayments had pointed out to respondent deficiencies in the IEP records of each of these students.
Respondent's IEP records also contain the false and unauthorized signature of Linda Alexander, a guidance counselor at Crystal River who was
expected to participate in IEP annual reviews. Her signature was forged on the IEP review forms for at least five exceptional education students: Debra Hollis, John DuBois, David Lenhard, James Marrow and Ronald Parker. The forged signature indicated that she had attended annual IEP review meetings on these students; she had not. At the February 24, 1983, meeting with respondent, Ms.
Stayments pointed out deficiencies in the IEP records of four of these five students. The deficiencies in three of the forms involved missing signatures. John Dubois' IEP review record had no signatures. At least in his case, the forged signature was added between February 24, 1983, and April 11, 1983.
Respondent's IEP annual review records for Doran Mulder also contain the forged and unauthorized signature of his parent, Calvin Mulder. The forged signature falsely indicates that Mr. Mulder attended his son's IEP annual review.
A handwriting analyst employed by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement compared respondent's handwriting with the forged signatures of Ann Cummins, Jerald Schumann, Linda Alexander, and George Moonschiene. His resulting report was inconclusive:
There are some similarities between the known writing of Marion F. [sic] Strange (K-1 thru
K-21) and portions of the questioned signatures in the names of "Ann S. Cummings" and "Linda Alexander" on the above mentioned exhibits; however, there are differences present which cannot be reconciled on the basis of the material at hand. Therefore, no definite opinion can be reached with respect to whether or not Marion F. [sic] Strange (K-1 thru K-21) executed any of the questioned signatures on Exhibits Q-1 through Q-21.
(Respondent's Exhibit No. 3)
The evidence forcefully, and convincingly, supports the inference, now drawn, that respondent either alone or in combination with another--forged the signatures of Ann Cummins, Jerald Schumann, Linda Alexander, George Moonschiene and Calvin Mulder on the IEP annual review forms described above. She forged these signatures to make it appear that these persons had participated in annual IEP review meetings, when they had not; and that the students involved had received IEP reviews in accordance with local, state, and federal law, which they did not. She intended to deceive her supervisors into believing that she was conducting IEP reviews and keeping IEP review forms, as required.
These inferences are based on circumstantial evidence which is compelling. No other theory or hypothesis has been posited which is plausible, or even rational. The falsified forms were in respondent's control and it was her duty to see that they were complete and accurate. It was also her duty to arrange for and convene the annual IEP review meetings for her exceptional education students. Her tenure and, conceivable, even her job were in jeopardy because of her seemingly chronic inability to comply with IEP annual review requirements, including record keeping and documentation. She had been formally reprimanded, and placed on a deadline for bringing her records into compliance. As of February 24, 1983, her records were replete with error and omissions; the deadline for compliance was fast approaching, little more than a month away. Under the pressure of these events, she had not only the opportunity but a clear
motive to "correct" her records by forging, either alone or in concert with another, the required signatures. Many of the forged signatures were added to the documents between February 24, 1983, and April 11, 1983, when they were discovered by Mr. Weiss. There is no evidence that anyone, other than respondent, had anything to gain from falsifying the records in question.
By forging signatures and falsifying important student records, respondent breached the trust which her employer, her students and their parents place din her as a school teacher. She misled her supervisors and deprived some exceptional students of the annual IEP review to which they were lawfully entitled. To this extent, her students were adversely affected by her actions. Her integrity and honesty are now in doubt; her supervisor has lost confidence in her. Her effectiveness as an employee of the School Board has been seriously reduced. She is no longer able to serve effectively as an employee of the Board.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this proceeding. s. 120.57(1), Fla.Stat. (1983).
In disciplinary proceedings such as these, the critical matters in issue must be sown by evidence "which is indubitably as 'substantial' as the consequences." Bowling v. Department of Insurance, 394 So.2d 165 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Both the School Board and the Education Practices Commission have sustained this evidentiary burden.
Section 231.36, Florida Statutes, authorizes school boards to dismiss and terminate the continuing contract of any person provided it can be shown that such person is guilty of misconduct in office or willful neglect of duty. Respondent's actions constitute violations of Section 231.36, Florida Statutes, in that she is guilty of personal misconduct in office and willful neglect of her duties which seriously reduces her effectiveness as a teacher.
She violated Rule 6B-1.06(3)(a) and (f), Florida Administrative Code, by failing to make reasonable efforts to protect her students from conditions harmful to their learning and by intentionally violating her students' legal rights.
And she violated Rule 6B-1.06(5)(a) and (g), Florida Administrative Code, by failing to maintain honesty in her professional dealings and by submitting fraudulent information on documents in connection with her professional activities. Her actions, contrary to Rule 6B-1.01, manifest a failure to achieve and sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct.
Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Education Practices Commission to revoke a teaching certificate if it can be shown that such person:
(b) Has proved to be incompetent to teach or to perform his duties as an employee of the public school system. . .
* * *
(f) . . . has been found guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces his effectiveness as an employee of the school board;
* * *
(h) Has otherwise violated the provisions of law or rules of the State Board of Education, the penalty for which is the revocation of the teaching certificate.
By her actions respondent violated Section 231.28(1), as alleged.
The evidence demonstrates that she is incapable of performing her duties as an employee of the public school system and is guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces her effectiveness as a teacher.
Section 231.09, Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-5.03(1)(a), require instructional staff in public school systems to comply with record keeping requirements prescribed by law or school board rule. Respondent violated this record keeping duty.
Penalty. School teachers are held to strict standards of conduct because of the nature of their profession:
A school teacher holds a position of great trust. We entrust the custody of our children to the teacher. We look to the teacher to educate and prepare our children for adult lives. To fulfill this trust, the teacher must be of good moral character; to require less would jeopardize the future lives of our children.
Tomerlin v. Dade County School board, 318 So.2d 159, 160 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). By her dishonest actions, respondent violated her position of trust and forfeited her right to continue as an employee of the School Board and a certified public school teacher in Florida. Accordingly, termination of her continuing contract and permanent revocation of her license are justified.
Respondent makes several arguments of law, each of which are rejected. She contends that the School Board cannot convene a disciplinary proceeding against a teacher. but it did not do so here. It simply granted respondent's request for a Section 120.57(1) hearing, and, as was its right, requested that the hearing be conducted by a Division of Administrative Hearings hearing officer.
Next, respondent argues that she cannot be disciplined for inadequate record keeping because, by her prior reprimand, she has already been disciplined for such misconduct. Her prior record keeping deficiencies can be considered, however, for purposes of showing motive, a continuing course of inadequate record keeping, and the appropriate penalty. Moreover, the December 1982, record keeping deficiencies, which arose after the reprimand, were, in large part, never cured. Falsification of documents did not resolve them.
Lastly, respondent argues that the Bowling standard of proof has not been satisfied. To the contrary, the matters in issue have been convincingly established, by evidence as substantial as the consequences.
Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED:
That respondent's continuing contract with the School Board of Citrus County be terminated by the School Board; and
That her Florida teacher's certificate No. 296394, be permanently revoked by the Education Practices Commission.
DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of July, 1984, 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 20th day of July, 1984.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Wilson Jerry Foster, Esq. Suite 616
Lewis State Bank Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Richard S. Fitzpatrick, Esq.
213 N. Apopka Avenue Inverness, Florida 32650
Philip J. Padovano, Esq. Post Office Box 873 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Ralph D. Turlington, Commissioner of Education
Department of Education The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Donald Griesheimer, Executive Director Education Practices Commission
125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Roger Weaver, Superintendent School Board of Citrus County 1507 W. Main Street Inverness, Florida 32650
================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
RALPH D. TURLINGTON, as
Commissioner of Education
Petitioner,
vs. CASE NO. 83-2889
MARION C. STRANGE,
Respondent.
/
FINAL ORDER
Respondent, Marion C. Strange, holds Florida teaching certificate number 296394. Petitioner filed an Administrative Complaint seeking suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against the certificate.
Respondent requested a formal hearing and one was held before the Division of Administrative Hearings. A Recommended Order has been forwarded to the panel pursuant to Section 120.57(1), F.S.; it is attached to and made a part of this Order.
A panel of the Education Practices Commission met on September 27, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida, to take final agency action. The Petitioner was represented by Philip J. Padovano, Esquire. The panel has reviewed the entire record in the case.
The panel adopts the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 of the Recommended Order.
The Commission hereby REVOKES the Respondent's certificate for one (1) year. The reasons for reducing the penalty from the permanent revocation recommended are:
The Commission feels the violations cannot be defended or explained.
However, the Respondent has been a teacher for over twenty years and this is the first action against her. We note that the administrative burdens on teachers of exceptional children have increased greatly in recent years.
Any period of revocation indicates a severe offense and results in the loss of a respondent's right to teach. After the period of ineligibility, the teacher would have to meet all current requirements for certification. At the
Respondent's stage in her career, it is unlikely that she would be able to return to the classroom. If she does seek to return, she will be required to show much proof of her competence, capacity, and ability to meet teaching obligations.
DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Florida, this 8th day of October, 1984.
CAROLYN WILSON, Presiding Officer
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing Final Order in the matter of RDT v. Marion Strange has been furnished to Philip J. Padovano, Esquire, by U.S. Mail, this 10th day of October, 1984.
DONALD L. GRIESHEIMER
Executive Director
Copies furnished to:
Marlene Greenfield, Administrator Professional Practices Services
Arthur Wallberg, Esquire Attorney General's Office
Judith Brechner, General Counsel
W. Jerry Foster, Esquire 616 Lewis State Bank Bldg. Tallahassee, FL 32301
Phil Padovano, Esquire Post Office Box 813 Tallahassee, FL 32302
R. L. Caleen, Jr.
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building
2009 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Mr. Roger Weaver, Supt. Citrus County Schools 1507 W. Main St.
Inverness, FL 32650
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Oct. 16, 1984 | Final Order filed. |
| Jul. 20, 1984 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Oct. 08, 1984 | Agency Final Order | |
| Jul. 20, 1984 | Recommended Order | Respondent forged superior's signature/falsified records to make it appear she was doing her job. Recommend revocation and terminate contract. |
ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs KAREN HAMILTON, 83-002899 (1983)
BROWARD COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs LATUNYA GIBBS, 83-002899 (1983)
ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs FRANCES VALERIO, 83-002899 (1983)
MONROE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs MARYEUGENE E. DUPPER, 83-002899 (1983)
JAMES F. NOTTER, AS SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS vs SEAN GENTILE, 83-002899 (1983)
