STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
EDUCATION PRACTICES COMMISSION, ) DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, and ) RALPH D. TURLINGTON, as )
Commissioner of Education )
)
Petitioners, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 84-1009
)
WILLIAM WYCHE, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Consistent with the Notice of Hearing furnished both parties hereto, a hearing was held in this case before Arnold H. Pollock, a Hearing Officer with Division of Administrative Hearings in Jacksonville, Florida, on June 4, 1984. The issue for consideration was whether Respondent's teaching certificate issued by the State of Florida should be disciplined because of his misconduct alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed by Petitioner.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioners: L. Haldane Taylor, Esquire
331 East Union Street, First Floor Jacksonville, Florida 32202
For Respondent: William Wyche, pro se
Post Office Box 40224 Jacksonville, Florida 32203
Background Information
On February 15, 1984, Petitioner, Ralph D. Turlington, State of Florida Commissioner of Education, signed an Administrative Complaint against the Respondent, William Wyche, urging the discipline by suspension or revocation of his teacher's certificate because of false statements by him on his application, and because of his incompetence allegedly demonstrated while be was employed as a teacher in the Duval County, Florida school system during the school years 1981-82 and 1982-83, all in violation of Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes. A copy of this Administrative Complaint was sent to Respondent by Certified Mail on February 17, 1984. Thereafter, Respondent, in writing, on the form furnished by Petitioner, indicated he disputed several of the allegations brought against him and requested a formal administrative hearing.
At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of Lonnie Davenport, assistant Principal at Wolfson High School; Jack B. Shanklin, Jr., Principal at Kirby Smith Jr. High School; Dalton D. Epting, Director of Certified Personnel for the Duval County School System; Lowell Thomas Hudson, Administrative
Supervisor of Industrial Arts for the Duval County School System; and David E. White, Principal of Wolfson High School. Petitioner also introduced into evidence, Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 17. Respondent testified in his own behalf but presented no other witnesses. He also introduced into evidence Respondent's Exhibits A through G.
Petitioner's counsel has submitted a proposed recommended order which was considered in preparation of this Recommended Order. To the extent that the proposed findings, etc. are not incorporated in this Recommended Order, said proposed findings, etc. were deemed either irrelevant, immaterial or not otherwise supported by record evidence.
FINDINGS OF FACT
At all times pertinent to the allegations treated herein, Respondent, William Wyche, held a Florida Teaching Certificate number 106113, issued on October 29, 1980, covering the area of industrial arts.
Respondent applied for a Florida teaching certificate by submitting the required application form and documentation on or about October 20, 1980. At the time of submission, Respondent replied "no" to the question in Section V of the form which asks: "Have you ever been convicted or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation. . .?"
This answer was false in that:
On September 20, 1979, respondent was found guilty of driving while his license was suspended, and fined $50.00;
On March 20, 1980, Respondent was found guilty of obtaining property by worthless check and fined $25.00;
On March 20, 1980, Respondent was found guilty of driving with a suspended license and fined $100.00;
On April 2, 1980, Respondent was found guilty of obtaining property by worthless check and was fined $25.00; and,
On April 25, 1980, Respondent was found guilty of obtaining property by worthless check and was fined $25.00. On that same date, in a separate case involving an identical charge, adjudication was withheld but Respondent was placed on probation for sixty days.
Respondent explains the check charges on the basis that at the time they took place, all within a few weeks of each other, his bank account had been garnished and because of that garnishment, though he had ample funds in his account to honor these checks, the bank did not honor them. There were quite a few checks dishonored for this reason-so many, in fact, that he lost track of some of them and though he redeemed most, he failed to redeem these. As to the convictions for driving with a suspended license, he thought these were minor traffic offenses that did not have to be listed.
Respondent was employed as an industrial arts (IA) teacher at Kirby Smith Junior High School (KSJHS) in Jacksonville, Florida during the 1981-82 school year, teaching in the metal shop. During this period, he was evaluated on a regular basis, based on observations and evaluations by other school
officials carried on at various times throughout the school year. During these evaluations, such things as classroom conditions, the instructor's presentations, the preparation of lesson plans, and the use of lesson plans as guidelines for in-class instruction were considered.
Lonnie W. Davenport was assistant principal for curriculum at KSJHS during this period and had to insure that teaching was taking place properly in both form and substance. To do this, he contacted his teachers daily and also relied on observations such as described above, and reports submitted to him. These reports were regarding such things as student class size, grade reports by teachers, black/white student count in the homerooms, and teachers' lesson plans which were required from each teacher weekly. While he has no formal IA training, he has a lot of experience in the area.
Mr. Davenport first took serious note of the Respondent in mid- December, 1981 when he noted that Respondent had not submitted complete lesson plans. There were holes in those submitted relating to time and quality. In addition, the principal had asked him to look into reported irregularities in Respondent's classroom. His examination of Respondent's lesson plans showed that they were inadequate because they:
did not conform to the form required;
did not cover the subject matter sufficiently;
did not follow a time sequence properly; and,
were not sufficiently specific. They should have broken down the instruction into segments for skill development on a step-by-step, day-by-day basis. In short, Respondent's plans did not adequately tell what he was intending to do in his classroom.
As to Respondent's teaching, Davenport's observation showed that Respondent:
had no plans to show what was expected of his students;
maintained the shop in a depressing state. (Here, however, it was admitted that this school was old and the shop dingy, and Respondent could not control all of that. However, Respondent's teaching aids, such as posters, which were old, faded, and torn, added to the dinginess.)
allowed shop metal to lay around the shop without being placed in stock storage, creating a safety hazard;
failed to safeguard and neglected one student's artwork project, and other students' projects were left out and not placed in storage for the next class period;
stored a large stack of sheet metal under a work bench with cutting corners end edges protruding (also a safety hazard)
allowed equipment which should have been stored to remain out;
failed to have safety lines placed on the floor around individual pieces of equipment;
failed to insure that soldering forges were properly shielded or securely fastened down; and,
failed to post safety rules prominently in the classroom.
Respondent contends that he submitted purchase orders requesting corrections be made of these deficiencies. However, with the exception of several orders for paint, some of which may have been used for the safety lines and to brighten up the area, the remainder of the purchase orders he introduced into evidence (Respondent's Composite Exhibit E), were for metal stock and other pieces of new or replacement equipment. There was no evidence of work orders for correction of any of the cited defects.
Mr. Davenport's observations as to Respondent's teaching ability were that:
He sat at his desk in the classroom while his students were working in the shop behind his back. As a result, students with problems had to come out of the shop to him for help rather than him being available in the shop to help;
students were not required to wear safety goggles while operating power equipment nor did Respondent use them while operating the equipment;
The student projects assigned or approved by Respondent were too simple and provided no challenge;
The quality of the finished product turned out by Respondent's students was poor;
Grading of student projects was accomplished on the basis of negotiation with the student and not on accomplishment or work quality;
Once the student had completed the basic project, Respondent had no follow-up projects for them to do to use up the remainder of the school year. He, allowing them to occupy themselves with "busy work," showed to Davenport a lack of commitment to planning;
Respondent was observed and overheard by Davenport to chastise a student by threatening to destroy the student's project, resulting in failure. This observation, which Respondent admitted to Davenport, is contrary to a school policy which prevents discipline from affecting an academic grade; and,
In one particular class observed, Respondent came to class late. He had allowed a student to take roll, a function required of the teacher, and evidence available to Davenport, led him to believe this was a repeated- occurrence; Respondent's absence allowed students to engage in horseplay and rowdy behavior and, even when Respondent came into class, he chastised the wrong student.
As to the type of instruction Respondent was observed to give, when a student would bring a project to him and ask a question, he would answer. For the most part, however, he stayed at his desk while the students worked unsupervised in the shop. He showed no initiative and did not even require students to draw plans or prepare material lists before starting work on a project. On one occasion, a student was injured in the shop. Respondent merely washed the injury, wrapped it, and sent the student back to work. Davenport,
who observed this incident, told Respondent on the spot that the student should go to the office for first aid and that Respondent should file an accident report on the incident. The report was not filed by Respondent and the student went to the office at the direction of Davenport, not Respondent. This showed a complete lack of concern, according to Davenport.
Davenport counseled the Respondent on the above deficiencies but observed no immediate response. He went back to Respondent's class 5-7 times subsequently for follow-up visits of from 20 minutes to an hour in duration and found little change for the better. He repeatedly offered Respondent assistance in any area to correct the shortcomings and got no response until in March, 1982, when Respondent found out he was going to get an unsatisfactory rating.
He had been notified in writing, on January 8 end again on February 5, 1982, by his principal Mr. Shanklin, in addition to others, including an evaluation on January 13, 1982 by Mr. Lowell T. Hudson, supervisor of industrial arts for the school board, that his performance was deficient. These warnings could have left little doubt as to the fact his performance was below standard. Finally, on March 15, 1982, Mr. Shanklin rendered an evaluation on Respondent which showed an overall rating of unsatisfactory. Of the six areas rated in classroom management, two were satisfactory and four were unsatisfactory. Of the twenty- one areas rated in teaching effectiveness, one was satisfactory, nine were rated as needing improvement, and eleven were rated unsatisfactory. Seven of the nine areas of professional/personal characteristics were rated satisfactory, one needed improvement, and one was unsatisfactory.
Even after this unsatisfactory report, the school administrative staff still tried to help Respondent. They offered him direct help themselves and, in addition, the services of county in service resource personnel to help with planning. Respondent was receptive to this verbally, but never took any steps to use them. As a result, there was no improvement in Respondent's performance but merely a maintenance of the status quo. There were some minor improvements in the condition of the shop but these were merely cosmetic and did not, in any way, relate to the quality of instruction. In Davenport's opinion, Respondent does not meet the minimum standards of competency for teachers nor can he be trained to meet these standards. He is convinced, and it is so found that Respondent's race played no part in the evaluation process.
The principal at KSJHS during this period, Mr. Jack H. Shanklin, agreed with and amplified on Davenport's analysis of Respondent. His first difficulty with Respondent came in October, 1981 when the Dean of Girls wrote him a memorandum stating that Respondent had struck a student with a dowel rod. This was not the first instance of Respondent's striking students. Since Respondent was not designated as one to administer corporal punishment, she had previously warned him to send all disciplinary problems to the office. When Shanklin discussed this with Respondent, he said he did it to control the class.
Shanklin did not personally evaluate Respondent until early January, 1982, after Davenport's evaluation. Prior to going to the class, he reviewed Respondent's lesson plans and found them to be sketchy. In his opinion, a substitute teacher could not have taught from them and they were "totally unacceptable." When he went into the classroom, he found the Respondent lecturing end he could not understand what Respondent was trying to get across. Respondent mumbled, was hard to understand, and used few, if any, visual aids. It was obvious to him that the students were bored, confused, and were getting nothing from the presentation. In addition, he observed the shop and found it to be dingy, dirty, and a safety hazard.
Mr. Shanklin discussed these deficiencies with Respondent a few days later when he gave him the letter regarding the observation. He went into these deficiencies, and recommendations to correct them, quite thoroughly. He made suggestions as to resource people available to help and pointed out specific references to the teachers' manual. In each case, Respondent always indicated he understood and would try to comply. However, in the succeeding month leading up to the February letter, there were no signs of improvement at all nor was there any indication he had utilized the resource people. Follow-up visits to the classroom showed no change and no indication Respondent was getting anything across to the students.
After the February letter was given to Respondent by Mr. Shanklin personally, they had a conference in which Shanklin discussed Respondent's deficiencies and he was told what he had to change to get a favorable evaluation. The most critical areas for improvement identified were:
lesson plans
safety conditions, and
classroom appearance, as well as Respondent's personal untidy and nonprofessional appearance.
After this discussion, Shanklin made several visits to Respondent's classroom prior to the March evaluation and did note some improvements in classroom appearance and safety, but not in lesson planning or teaching. Even after the March evaluation, up to the end of the school term, he noted no improvement. On March 29, 1982, he gave Respondent a third letter outlining areas for improvement.
Respondent finished out the 1981-82 school year but because of the unsatisfactory evaluation he received, requested a transfer to a different school for the 1982-83 school year. In Shanklin's opinion, Respondent did not meet minimum standards of competency nor could he achieve them because of a lack of effort to improve. Shanklin feels Respondent does not care about the education of children and would make only superficial efforts to be trained. Race is not a factor in this evaluation. At least 50 percent of Shanklin's staff is black. He has 85 teachers on his staff and in the last three years, he has rated 13 teachers unsatisfactory. Of these, 8 or 9 were black. Therefore, of the 255 teacher evaluations he has rendered in three years, 8 or 9 unsatisfactory's were given to black teachers.
Dalton D. Epting, Director of Certified Personnel for the school board, talked with Respondent about his evaluation on several occasions when Respondent was at Wolfson High School. If a teacher is on tenure status and received an unsatisfactory evaluation, he may request a transfer to a different school for a second year during which efforts are made through counseling, training, and other assistance, to help him become satisfactory. When Respondent, due to his unsatisfactory evaluation at KSJHS requested a transfer, he was assigned for the second year, to Wolfson High where, for reasons cited below, he was rated unsatisfactory for the second year in a row. Respondent was sent to Wolfson for his second year because there was no vacancy for IA teachers in the system. Even though Wolfson was also full, rather than send Respondent back to KSJHS, they sent him to Wolfson, with all its teachers, so he could have the benefit of other good teachers. Race was not a factor in this decision.
It is not automatic that a teacher who receives a second consecutive unsatisfactory rating is discharged. The system looks to see if the teacher was given every assistance to improve; to ensure that everything reasonable was done by way of counseling, resource help, training, and the like, to help him. If it was and the teacher did not improve, he is discharged. Here, school officials looked at all evaluations for both years, considered the discussions held with Respondent, and the input from cadre and resource personnel, and decided that Respondent was incompetent. The decision was made, therefore, to discharge the Respondent and this action was taken.
During the 1982-83 school year, after his first unsatisfactory evaluation, Respondent worked for David E. White, principal at Wolfson High School. Immediately White sat down with Respondent, along with the IA supervisor to let him know what was expected of him and what help was available to him. He observed Respondent in the classroom on several occasions and, based on these and other factors in accordance with school board rules, in an effort to let the teacher know how he or she is doing, rendered an unsatisfactory rating on Respondent on October 30, 1982. Among the examples of Respondent's incompetence which led up to this evaluation were progress reports, discipline referrals, notes, and tests prepared by Respondent, some of which went home to parents, that contained obvious spelling, grammatical, and syntax errors.
At first, White became aware of concern by students and their parents about Respondent's performance. When these complaints first began, White called in the IA supervisor for the school district, Mr. Hudson, to evaluate Respondent. He began evaluating Respondent himself when the complaints continued. These complaints were to the effect, basically, that the students could not understand Respondent. (It is noted here that Respondent suffers from a slight speech impediment). He would merely read from the textbook with no teacher-student interaction. There was little lab work - mostly lecture or reading. This was not appropriate in the Graphic Arts area which consists of such skills as printing, photography, silk-screening, and the like. Consistent with the notes, reports, end referral slips prepared by Respondent, White noted a lack of grammatical correctness in his oral presentations as well.
In addition, White observed that the Respondent's students were not being motivated by him and spent little time on their classroom tasks, and he also observed that Respondent's presentation was lacking in technological detail. For example, on one occasion, Respondent was discussing a box camera and failed to detail the advantages and disadvantages of this type of camera, the type of films available for it, and the merits of each. When the class period was over, White discussed the above with Respondent, suggesting how the lecture could be improved. The following day White came back to class to see how Respondent carried the discussion forward and it was as if White had not said anything. Respondent continued to omit from his lecture the substantive technological information White, as principal, felt should be taught. White concluded that Respondent was not at all familiar with the subject matter he was teaching. 1/
Respondent was also considered to be deficient in his administrative skills. He lost (or had stolen) his grade book as well as his computer worksheets twice during one 9 week period. This created seven extra hours work for the curriculum office, with 3 additional hours by Respondent, to reconstruct, his grades. The fact that Respondent had to help in this project
meant someone had to cover his classes for him. It also created a lot of inquiry by parents who, on learning of the lost grade book, questioned the validity of grades given their children. In addition, Respondent's attendance registers were not turned in on time notwithstanding frequent reminders in advance of due dates.
At the end of the first semester, White had a conference with Respondent about the above. Respondent began being absent due to sickness in January, 1983 and went on sick leave on 9 February, 1983 which extended through the remainder of the school year. It is important to note that Respondent's absence at this time was valid and there is no inference or insinuation to the contrary. While he was absent, on March 8, 1983, Respondent was given a notice of intent to render an unsatisfactory evaluation report which was, in fact, issued on April 15, 1983. Here it must be noted that there could have been no improvement in performance between the notice and the evaluation as Respondent was not present for duty but was on sick leave.
In any event, White contends that as a result of Respondent's teaching, the school's IA program has been seriously damaged, but that has not been shown. While Respondent's classes did net prepare his students for the second year curriculum in those areas, there is no evidence that the school's program has been seriously damaged. Nonetheless, it was shown be that, as white contends, Respondent did not meet minimum county standards and could not be improved to meet them. Consequently, on August 15, 1983, the superintendent of the Duval County public schools, by certified letter, notified Respondent that because of the two years of unsatisfactory evaluations, indicating professional incompetence, he was recommending the School Board discharge Respondent from employment. Thereafter, on January 16, 1984, the Duval County School Board, by Final Order, sustained the charge of professional incompetence, and discharged Respondent as a teacher.
Race was definitely not an issue in White's evaluation. In his school, at which the student body comes from the upper level socioeconomic group, and which has rated first in Area Scholastic Aptitude Test scores for the past five ears, White has no black administrators or department chairmen on his staff. One black former department chairman was promoted to vice-principal at another school. His choices for personnel are based on qualifications, not race. At the present time, 12 percent of the teachers on staff are black and over the six years White has been principal at Wolfson High, only 3 black teachers have transferred out.
While at both KSJHS and Wolfson High, Respondent was encouraged to consult with Everett T. Hudson, IA supervisor for the school board, and was, in fact, evaluated by him in both settings. He evaluated Respondent first on January 14, 1982, at the request of the Principal at KSJHS end observed Respondent during his 8-9 a.m. first period class. His conclusions were:
classroom and shop cleanliness were poor;
it appeared that activities were winding down
shop organization was poor (no clean-up schedule was posted and metal stock was laying everywhere;
the students' projects were not meaningful or of a quality nature;
respondent spent too much time lecturing and did not allow for sufficient shop time, and,
respondent's lesson plans were not available.
When seen, it was obvious Respondent had not used the curriculum guide to draft the few plans he had.
When Respondent transferred to Wolfson High, the Principal there also asked Hudson to come out and evaluate Respondent on a more frequent basis. Consequently, because of this request and because of the fact that due to Respondent's previous unsatisfactory rating he was on probation, Hudson evaluated Respondent ten times, at least once in each month, between September 8, 1982 and January 5, 1983. As a result of these evaluations, it appeared to Hudson that Respondent did not know how to:
plan a project;
lay out equipment;
identify woods and where they came from;
use certain equipment.
It further appeared to Hudson that Respondent's lectures were poor in that he mumbled and he didn't seem to know what he was talking about. Further, his lesson plans were poor, and he failed to keep up with an appropriate time schedule for class. As a result, Hudson ended up, himself, helping the students rather than evaluating.
When these observations were made, Mr. Hudson would go over them with Respondent and give Respondent a copy. Notwithstanding he pointed out these deficiencies repeatedly, there appeared to be no improvement at all. The school system here has a remedial program for teachers to use to improve their performance. There are resource teachers to provide assistance and there are also "in service" programs for teachers. Mr. Hudson suggested Respondent take some, one of which he was teaching right at Respondent's school. As he recalls, Respondent came twice out of 15 sessions.
As a result of the above, Hudson does not believe that Respondent meets minimum competency standards and could not meet them. In his opinion, Respondent:
suffers from a lack of organizational ability;
has lackadaisical attitude toward improving the program;
would not spend the necessary time to upgrade his skills, and
has a weak knowledge of the subject matter.
Here again, race was not an issue in these evaluations. Hudson supervises 95 IA teachers in the Duval County school system and is the only administrator. Of these teachers, approximately 25 are black. Over 13 years, he has been called in to evaluate, like this, 5 or 6 teachers, only one of whom was black, and of this number, only 2 have been discharged.
Respondent has a Bachelor of Science decree in Education and a Masters degree in Industrial Education, both from Florida A & M University. In addition, he has attended a leadership development course at Michigan State University, military classes in the same while in the army at Ft. Dix, New Jersey, and numerous workshops in Florida at his own expense. It was his hope, when he started working in Duval County, to develop some feel for the IA field in that school system As a result of his experience there, he is of the opinion that the entire IA program is underfunded. Students have to pay for the wood and metal materials they use to build a prefect.
He urges that without materials and equipment, a teacher cannot teach, a point concerned by Mr. Davenport, and that was the reason he submitted the purchase orders he did at KSJHS. In that regard, it would appear that about the time Respondent was teaching at KSJHS in 1981, a report by an Inspector (Jenkins) from the school district offices, reflected that materials and equipment in Respondent's class area did not meet minimum state requirements.
In addition, there was some problem regarding the excessive size of the class. This problem was immediately corrected end certification in this area was restored. He also contends that a teacher's teaching style may differ from that of his principal's and still be correct. With regard to the April 15, 1953 unsatisfactory evaluation, Respondent contends, in an attempt to contest his rating, that since he was out sick much of the month of January, 1983, and all of the time from February 9, 1983 to the end of the school year, a rating dated in mid April would cover as large a period of time when he was not there as when he was. The Teacher Tenure Act under which this system operates provides for a second full year of evaluation before discharge. Since he was sick for half the second year, he contends, his discharge was not valid. He wants to fulfill his probationary period to prove he is a worthy teacher.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of these proceedings.
In the Administrative Complaint filed in this case, Petitioner seeks to discipline Respondent's teaching certificate on the basis that he is guilty of misconduct in violation of Section 231.28(1) , Florida Statutes. This allegation, summarized in paragraph 14 of the complaint, stipulates four separate areas of `misconduct." These are:
obtaining his certificate by fraudulent means;
being incompetent to teach;
having been convicted of a misdemeanor; and
being guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces his effectiveness as an employee of the school board.
Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, provides authority for the Petitioner, Education Practices Commission, to suspend, revoke, or otherwise discipline a teacher's license provided that certain conditions are shown. Among these are those listed as allegations in the paragraph next above and are that he:
"Obtained the teaching certificate by fraudulent means;" (subsection (a))
"Has proved to be incompetent to teach or to perform his duties as an employee of the public school system. . . ;" (subsection (b))
"Has been convicted of a misdemeanor, felony, or any other criminal charge, other than a minor traffic violation;" (subsection e)) , and
"Upon investigation, has been found guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces his effectiveness as an employee of the school board;" (subsection f)).
The evidence presented by the Petitioner clearly shows that on several occasions in March and April, 1980, Respondent was found guilty of obtaining property by use of worthless checks. His explanation of how this came about does not, however, take away the fact that he was convicted of several misdemeanors, and insofar as it relates to an unexplained garnishment, raises as many unanswered questions as it puts to rest. Further, his explanation that he overlooked these few checks, among numerous others that he redeemed, does not engender an overabundance of confidence in his responsibility. Nonetheless, these convictions, and those relating to the driving with suspended license, occurred substantially before Respondent received his license and do not form the basis for disciplinary action against his subsequently issued license except insofar as his failure to list them on his application constitutes fraud.
In that regard, Respondent's justification for not listing these convictions on his application is not convincing. While Respondent may honestly have believed the driving offenses were miner traffic offenses and not have intended any concealment in failing to list them, the same cannot be said for the check offenses. At the hearing, Respondent attempted to explain away any criminality in their commission but he could not explain, nor did he try to do so, why he failed to list them on his application. He could easily have listed them end then, at the place provided thereon, explained them. His failure to be forthright here, when both need end opportunity to do so were present, clearly constitutes the fraud contemplated by the statute.
The allegation regarding Respondent's being found guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces his effectiveness as a school board employee is somewhat mystifying as no evidence on this allegation was produced at the hearing nor does the administrative complaint elaborate further on it. It well may be the personal conduct complained of here consists of repeated instances of misdemeanor convictions described above. Nothing else in the evidence could be so described. If so, the discussion of its effect, aliunde the fraud allegation, would be dispositive of this issue. Misconduct which occurred prior to licensure ordinarily would not constitute misconduct which would reduce his effectiveness as an employee of the school board, unless it is misconduct involving moral turpitude which, by its very nature, would transcend the licensure process. Consequently, there is no independent evidence to support this allegation.
The above paragraphs dispose of all allegations of "misconduct" except that alleging professional incompetence. Here the testimony of Respondent's first vice-principal, his second principal, and the IA supervisor for the school district, all indicating his lack of preparation for teaching, his inability to teach, his unfamiliarity with the subject matter, and his unwillingness to change or make any real effort to improve, when coupled with the samples of his written communication skills, paints a vivid picture of professional incompetence. Notwithstanding his educational background, it is very clear that
Respondent either could not or would not develop the skills needed to present the course material for which he was responsible in a manner which could be absorbed and assimilated by his students. That is the primary purpose of the teacher.
Respondent raised the issue of the possibility of his discharge by the school board and the instant decertification process being racially motivated. There was not one scintilla of evidence to support this and much to the contrary. He also indicated that he made numerous efforts to upgrade his classroom at KSJHS but these efforts were thwarted. The only evidence he presented on this subject were several purchase requests which, even if filled as drafted, would have little substantive impact on his operation. Respondent does make a salient point in regard to his being evaluated in April, 1983 he had been on extended sick leave since early February, 1984. The Duval County Teacher Tenure Act provides in substance for two unsatisfactory evaluations at different schools before discharge action may be taken against a teacher. Accepting the fact as a given, and even assuming the school board may have been incorrect in discharging Respondent without two full years of probation, it would still have no bearing on the overwhelming evidence of his professional incompetence observed while he was on duty in the year and a half prior to his illness. Consequently, it can readily be concluded that Respondent's performance as a teacher, while employed by the Duval County School Board constitutes professional incompetence as outlined in the statute.
Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is, therefore:
RECOMMENDED that Respondent, William Wyche's teacher certificate issued by the State of Florida be revoked for a period of three years, with provision for reinstatement as provided for by statute.
DONE and RECOMMENDED this 16th day of August, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, 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 with the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of August, 1984.
ENDNOTE
1/ It should be noted that this witness, who styled himself as somewhat of an amateur expert in photograghy, erroneously identified the relative sizes of film in his own testimony.
COPIES FURNISHED:
L. Haldane Taylor, Esquire
331 East Union Street First Floor
Jacksonville, Florida 32202
William Wyche
Post Office Box 40224 Jacksonville, Florida 32203
Ralph D. Turlington, Commissioner Department of Education
The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Donald L. Griesheimer Executive Director
Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Dec. 02, 1984 | Final Order filed. |
| Aug. 16, 1984 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Nov. 26, 1984 | Agency Final Order | |
| Aug. 16, 1984 | Recommended Order | Evidence of misconduct as teacher and failure to disclose prior misconduct in application is adequate to revoke certificate. |
SCHOOL BOARD OF DUVAL COUNTY AND HERB A. SANG, SUPERINTENDENT vs. C. LENWOOD LEE, 84-001009 (1984)
BOBBIE JEAN SMITH vs. GADSDEN COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, 84-001009 (1984)
JUANITA SAUNDERS vs. SCHOOL BOARD OF HOLMES COUNTY, 84-001009 (1984)
SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION OF JACKSONVILLE vs. DUVAL COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, 84-001009 (1984)
MYRON HUDSON vs. HOLMES COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, 84-001009 (1984)
