STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
RALPH D. TURLINGTON, as )
Commissioner of Education, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 85-065
)
I. J. GREEN, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Consistent with the Notice of Hearing furnished the parties on February 4, 1985, a hearing was held in this case before Arnold H. Pollock, a Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings, in Orange Park, Florida on May 21 and 22, 1985. The issue for consideration at the hearing was whether Respondent's certificate as a teacher in the State of Florida should be disciplined because of the alleged misconduct outlined in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
APPEARANCES
For the Petitioner: L. Haldane Taylor, Esq.
331 East Union Street, 2nd Floor
Jacksonville, Florida 32202 For the Respondent: I. J. Green, pro se
Post Office Box 192 Vina, Alabama 35593
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
On December 17, 1984, Ralph D. Turlington, Commissioner of Education for the State of Florida, filed an Administrative Complaint against the Respondent herein, I. J. Green, in which he sought disciplinary action against Respondent's teacher's certificate because of Respondent's repeated acts of imposing corporal punishment on students assigned to his care and custody in violation of Section 232.27, Florida Statutes. Petitioner also alleged that Respondent's conduct reduced his effectiveness as an employee of the school board in violation of Section 231.28(1)(f) and (h), Florida Statutes, and that because Respondent failed to make a reasonable effort to protect his student from conditions harmful to learning, health, or safety, and has intentionally exposed the students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement, he is in violation of the Code of Ethics, State Board of Education Rules 6B-1.06(3)(a), (e) and (f). The Administrative Complaint was forwarded to the Respondent by certified mail the same day and on December 28, l9S4, in a letter to the Education Practices Commission, Respondent disputed the allegations of fact contained in the Administrative Complaint and demanded a formal hearing. On January 4, 1985, the file was forwarded to the Director, Division of Administrative Hearings, for the appointment of a hearing officer and on February 4, 1985, a Notice of Hearing as set forth above was issued by the undersigned. On February 5, 1985, respondent submitted his formal answer to the Administrative Complaint in which he denied all substantive allegations contained therein.
On May 8, 1985, the Respondent filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings for Failure to State a Cause of Action and on May 10, 1985, also filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the Pleadings. Both motions were denied on May 16, 1985.
At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of Elizabeth C. Hart, Ruth O. Green, Debra F. Baylor, Carolyn Straub, Helen M. Vitullo, and Peggy Williams, all teachers at Cherry Elementary school Dawn F. Wilson, a primary specialist at Cherry Martin E. Miller, Assistant Superintendent for Personnel and Labor Relations, Clay County Schools Sally May Gones, Connie Jo Babe, and Nora Marie Crothers, all parents of students at Cherry; Roy W. Philemon, Jr., Principal at Cherry and Respondent's supervisor; Myrna Robinson, a former employer as principal of the Respondent at a former school; Richard Blandy, former principal at Respondent's previous school and Linda Blanton, Assistant Principal at Cherry Elementary School.
Petitioner also introduced Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 6 and
8 through 17. Respondent testified in his own behalf and introduced Respondent's Exhibits A, B. F. and I through W. He also presented the testimony of Dorothy F. Perricone, his principal during a former employment.
The parties have submitted posthearing proposed findings of fact pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact has been made either directly or indirectly in this Recommended Order, except where such proposed findings of fact have been rejected as subordinate, cumulative, immaterial, or unnecessary.
FINDINGS OF FACT
At all times pertinent to the allegations set out in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was licensed by the State of Florida as a teacher by Florida Teaching Certificate Number 239016, covering the areas of physical education and administration, issued on March 7, 1978.
From January, 1981 until September 25, 1984, he was employed as a Physical Education (PE) Instructor at W. E. Cherry
Elementary School in Clay County, Florida and as such was an employee of the Clay County School Board.
Clay County School Board rules and policies stipulate that no one but a school principal or his/her designee is authorized to administer corporal punishment in the schools of that county. This policy was in effect prior to, during, and subsequent to the entire period of time the Respondent was employed with the school board and during the period in question in this proceeding.
At the beginning of each school year, the school principal, Mr. Philemon, would conduct a staff meeting during which he clearly outlined the school board's policy and procedures regarding the administration of corporal punishment. Respondent was in attendance at these meetings while employed at Cherry. In addition, each teacher was furnished a copy of the Faculty-Staff Handbook, a copy of the Code of Student Conduct for Clay County, and a copy of the Clay County School Board rules on discipline. In addition to the above, Respondent attended a training session for new teachers conducted by Ms. Linday Blanton, Assistant Principal at Cherry on August 27, 1981, during which the policies on corporal punishment were thoroughly reviewed. From the above, it is clear that Respondent was well aware of the policy of the school board on corporal punishment and the procedures to be followed when corporal punishment was necessary. It is clear that he understood these policies from the showing that during the initial phase of his employment, he followed the procedure properly. However, beginning with the 1982-1983 school term, he discontinued using the prescribed referral forms needed by the principal and assistant principal to administer corporal punishment and refused to use them until such time as he became aware of the investigation into his alleged misconduct in the Spring of 1984. In spite of his knowledge as to the appropriate procedure, he continued to persist in administering corporal
punishment even after being advised of the impropriety of his actions. He was administered a letter of reprimand because of his personal administration of corporal punishment on February 22, 1982, because of complaints received from parents that Respondent was improperly spanking their children.
Elizabeth C. Hart has been teaching for 16 years. At some point during the 1982 school year, she was coming back from her break to pick up her third grade class who had been at PE with the Respondent. She saw the students lined up and watched the Respondent strike another student, Ricky Kogut, twice with his bare hand on the buttocks. The child was crying as a result and it appeared to Ms. Hart that Respondent had struck him quite hard.
On another occasion during this 1983-84 school year, she observed Michael Donnel crying as he was walking back from the direction of Respondent's portable classroom. When she asked the student if Respondent had spanked him, the child nodded his head "yes".
On another occasion, on September 12, 1984, as Ms. Hart's students were coming to her in line from PE, she observed Respondent stop one student, Christina Smith, and shout at her for not walking fast enough. Respondent also berated the child, directing her to answer, "yes, sir" to his questions, and as a result, the child began to cry and remained crying for approximately 10 minutes after the next class period started.
In Ms. Hart's opinion, this incident had a disruptive effect on the class and as a result, she complained to the principal about the situation. In addition, she felt this type of conduct was not proper behavior for teachers. On the basis of what she saw of the Respondent, she began to avoid him and this had an adverse effect on the teacher to teacher relationship.
Similar activity was reported by Ruth Green, whose 8- and-9-year-old students had Respondent as their PE teacher during the 1982-1984 school year. On one occasion during the first part of that school year, she was going to pick her students up from PE when she heard Respondent yell at a child to bend over. She observed the Respondent strike the student, Lanier Austin, on the buttocks with his hand resulting in the child being reduced to tears. This incident took place at the edge of the sidewalk near the school clinic. Though no other teacher was present, the other children in the class were and the student who was struck was considerably embarrassed as was Ms. Green and the other students who stood silently by not knowing what to do.
During the beginning of the 1983-1984 school year, while in her classroom with some other teachers, she overheard Respondent and Mr. Philemon arguing at the foot of the stairs outside her room. This conversation related to a third grade student with neurological problems who had a restricted physical activities slip and to whom Respondent had given a hardball.
Mr. Philemon was contending that was not good judgment on the part of the Respondent who was debating whether Mr. Philemon had the right to tell him this.
In May, 1984, Ms. Green sent one of her students into Respondent's office to get gym equipment. Respondent came out of the PE building and shouted at her and her students about equipment being lost. He then ejected the student she had sent in, exited his office, locked the door, and went back to the school. This surprised, shocked and frightened Ms. Green because it had never happened before. In the past, she had used the school's PE equipment without any difficulty. The incident also upset the students and from that point on, because her students didn't want to be involved with the Respondent and because she didn't want an encounter with him, she never again
asked for the use of PE equipment for her class. Ms. Green subsequently reported this incident to Mr. Philemon.
Similar incidents were reported by Debra S. Baylor. During the 1983-1984 school year, while standing at the drop-off point one day, waiting for Respondent to come and get her class for PE, she observed Respondent bringing back the prior class and saw and heard him shout at one student, Brian Cozort. This altercation resulted from an incident which allegedly had occurred out on the playing field. When Brian, a small child, tried to explain, Respondent yelled at him to be quiet and not speak. He refused to let the child say anything but kept on berating him for several minutes. As a result, the child began to cry and shake. This incident embarrassed both the teacher and the students in her care and as a result, she took them away. When Respondent subsequently came to get them, he told her that she should not have moved the class, that her students needed to hear what happened so that it might prevent similar things from happening with her class. After the Cozort incident, Respondent cut all relationships with Ms. Baylor.
Helen Vitullo, Cozort's teacher, also observed the incident. After Respondent released the class, she took them back to their room where Brian continued crying for 10 minutes or so. When he finally calmed down, she tried to find out what had happened to prompt Respondent's outburst and though she could not get a complete answer, it was obvious to her that nothing serious had happened and that Respondent had overreacted.
As a result, after school was over that day, Ms. Vitullo went to the school office and reported the incident to Ms. Blanton, the vice-principal. Somewhat later, when she went into the teacher's lounge, Respondent questioned her as to why she had reported the incident.
During the 1983-1984 school year, Dawn F. Wilson counseled two young sisters regarding emotional instabilities arising out of their poor home situation. In January 1984, Respondent asked her what she was doing with them. When she told him, he replied it was none of her business that they would have to "tough it out" and get on with their lives. Ms. Wilson had not solicited this discussion with Respondent and felt that if she had argued with him, the discussion could have become more seriously confrontational. Therefore, she did not pursue it.
In the Autumn of 1984, the school received a student from another State who was neurologically impaired and who, in his previous school, had had a specialized PE program. This child had some head/spinal cord injury. According to Ms. Wilson, he had a structured goals and objectives plan already prepared and to facilitate his integration into the school, Ms. Wilson talked to the Respondent about implementing the preplanned goals in his physical education plan. This was an adaptive PE program somewhat separate from the general PE program. In response, however, Respondent advised Ms. Wilson he was philosophically opposed to children getting special PE except in those cases where the child could not physically perform. Ms. Wilson advised Respondent that was not their decision to make, that they had no choice. Nonetheless, in order to facilitate working with the Respondent, Ms. Wilson discussed the matter with the county PE resource teacher who advised that this particular child could take regular PE if Respondent would write new goals and objectives consistent with the child's situation. Respondent did not agree to do this. After talking with the county again, Ms. Wilson drafted the new goals herself and left them in Respondent's box in the office. At this point, he agreed but the entire transaction took some 30 to 40 days which were unnecessary.
Another aspect of Respondent's conduct deals with his habit of imposing "birthday spankings" on his students. This came to light when the daughter of a county school official, one of Respondent's students, expressed concern over the practice. Several of the teachers also expressed concern about it and several students complained to their parents who, in turn, reported the matter to the principal. The practice consisted of Respondent picking out children whose birthdays it was and tossing them into the air all the while maintaining contact with at least the child's arm. Many of the children to whom this was done enjoyed it. Others did not. Even the teachers who commented on it, however, while considering it to be an undesirable practice, nonetheless conceded that Respondent maintained adequate control over the situation.
Mr. Miller, in April, 1984, attended a conference at Cherry Elementary School in Ms. Blanton's office, attended by Respondent, Ms. Blanton, Mr. Philemon, and Ms. Wilson. This meeting was to look into Respondent's actions of spanking a child and berating the principal. Though Respondent answered the questions asked of him, at one point, he indicated he had no respect for the principal. Because of Respondent's demeanor at this meeting, both in what he said and the way that he said it, Mr. Miller considered Respondent to be rude and belligerent to not only the principal but to any authority.
During the 1983-1984 school year, on one occasion, Sally Jones' son, David Thomas, came home from school crying and related that Respondent had hit him. He indicated that other things had happened before and as a result, Ms. Jones went to school to see Respondent. When she got there, Respondent appeared to be upset and regaled her with a list of things her child had done over the prior weeks. As a result, a loud argument developed outside the principal's office observed by Ms. Hart, the substance of which was that in the opinion of Ms. Jones, her child's conduct did not justify Respondent's hitting
him. Both Respondent and Ms. Jones were called into the principal's office where, in her opinion, Respondent was loud, rude, scoffing, and intimidating in both posture and demeanor. She has two other children in this school and does not want them in Respondent's class. She feels that Respondent had no reason to hit her child and if the child was a problem, Respondent should have either contacted the parent or sent the child to the office. It should be noted at this point that Ms. Jones admits that her son is a disciplinary problem but contends the Respondent's reaction to her was unjustified and unnecessary.
Respondent did not use profanity or vulgarity during their argument, and here it must be noted that neither did any of the complainants, nor did he physically threaten her, but she was intimidated and repelled by his attitude, demeanor, and approach.
Connie Jo Babe's son, Herman, a 10-year-old school patrol member, had Respondent for his PE teacher during the 1983-1984 school year. In February, 1984, her son came home from school one day in tears indicating that he had been fired
from the school patrol by Respondent who was head of that group. Ms. Babe went to see Respondent to find out why this action had been taken. He was evasive and said he did not want to discuss it, but that her son was fired and when she said she would go to the school office about the situation, his response was, "fine." She subsequently found out why her son was dismissed from the patrol and can accept that action. What she cannot accept is the humiliating way in which the removal action was taken -- in front of a lot of other patrol members in public. Because of this, Ms. Babe does not want her son back on the patrol, in any case, because she does not want him to have contact with the Respondent.
Yet another parent, Nora Mae Crothers, has a son, Kevin, age 11, who was one of Respondent's 5th grade PE students during the school year 1983-1984. The boy was petrified of the
Respondent to the extent that he began to want to miss school. Her inquiry finally revealed that he had gotten into an argument with the Respondent during which the Respondent had told him that if he didn't bring a cardboard box to school to replace one that had been broken during horseplay, he would receive a spanking. When she heard this, she called Respondent on the phone telling him that she resented his threat to strike her son and that he'd better not do it again. She admits that she was screaming at Respondent and perhaps was irrational and as a result, Respondent hung up on her. As a result, she reported the incident to the principal and arranged for her son's transfer to another school.
Respondent's relationships were not good with other teachers as well as the Principal at Cherry. Peggy Williams had a conversation with Respondent toward the end of the 1982-1983 school year regarding a field day for the students. During prior years there had been a different type of event in which Respondent had not participated. This year, Respondent had drawn up a schedule for the day and the lunch period had been reduced by 15 minutes (lunch schedule is set at the beginning of the school year by the administration). Ms. Williams told Respondent that the lunch schedule could not be changed due to the needs of the cafeteria, to which Respondent replied that it had to be his way or not at all. To avoid a confrontation at that point, Ms. Williams left.
Mr. Philemon received several complaints from parents regarding Respondent spanking their children or his relationships with them. In one case, Respondent had ordered a parent off the campus without authority from Mr. Philemon. In prior years, Mr. Philemon had rated Respondent satisfactory based solely on classroom evaluation. In February, 1984, however, after the gradual deterioration of Respondent's attitude and performance, he rated him unsatisfactory. In the various meetings that he had with Respondent about his attitude
and performance, he found him difficult to confer with. In his opinion Respondent is arrogant and overbearing and demonstrates a total intolerance of the opinion of others.
On April 2, 1984, Mr. Philemon met with Respondent regarding a trip for the school safety patrol. Respondent had put a note in the principal's box asking, in part, about the year end trip. The principal responded to this request and when Respondent saw the response, he immediately got angry. At this point, the principal called Respondent into his office and Respondent immediately verbally abused the principal to the point that he felt it necessary to call in a witness. It was obvious to Mr. Philemon that Respondent did not understand the answer to the note. From the way he shook his finger at and berated him during this incident, Mr. Philemon took them as a physical threat.
The next day, Mr. Philemon again met with Respondent to discuss proposed discipline for the prior day's incident. Others, including the union representative, the vice-principal, and the assistant superintendent were present. In addition to the discipline discussion at this meeting, Mr. Philemon told Respondent that he was not to administer corporal punishment to any student and Respondent indicated he understood. It was at this meeting that Respondent indicated he had no respect for the principal as an individual. He admitted that the office of principal was due some respect but not the individual incumbent.
On April 17, 1984, in a letter to the Superintendent of Clay County Schools, Mr. Philemon recommended Respondent be suspended because of (1) unsatisfactory evaluation rendered in February, 1984: and (2) the fact that Respondent's conduct had not improved since that time. After a copy of this letter was given to the Respondent, he became aloof and would not speak.
The staff indicated that they were afraid of Respondent and didn't want to be around or deal with him because of his yelling and abrasiveness. Even though Respondent was competent as a PE instructor, Mr. Philemon felt that his personal relations skills with teachers, supervisors, and
parents were totally lacking based upon both personally observed conduct and reports by others.
This opinion was not held solely by Mr. Philemon. The majority of teachers with whom Respondent worked indicated that his personality changed over the period of time that he was employed at Cherry Elementary School. He became withdrawn and the incidents such as those described above seemed to have increased. It was their opinion that Respondent had become a martinet who breached no challenge to his opinion and his way of doing things. Some of the staff have, as a result, become concerned about the safety of the students and the school.
Notwithstanding this, Respondent was not dismissed from employment at the end of the 1983-1984 school year and returned to school at the beginning of the 1984-1985 school year, but his conduct and behavior did not improve. On the opening of the pre-school session, he was 45 minutes late without any explanation. On September 11 and 12, 1984, he berated several children which resulted in a conference with the principal on September 12. Respondent immediately wanted to know who had reported his actions. He would not discuss the incident and kept making comments such as accusing the principal of having it in for him. Respondent accused the other teachers of being neurotic and suggested that the principal go to the school board and get rid of him. During this conversation, though Respondent was loud and belligerent, he denied yelling at the children. He contended that he had a firm voice. It was on this occasion that he called Mr. Philemon, "The most pathetic excuse for a man I've ever seen."
In Mr Philemon's opinion, Respondent lacks the personal relations skills to be employed as a teacher either in Clay County or anywhere else. Admitting that he failed as a principal to mark Respondent's previous evaluations as he should have, he contends that if he had done what was appropriate, he would have evaluated Respondent lower than he did prior to the 1984 evaluation. He states however, that whenever he discussed Respondent's incidents with him, Respondent would either admit
or fail to deny the strikings and on each occasion he felt constrained to give Respondent another chance. Now, however, he considers Respondent totally unfit as a teacher because he intimidates students, staff, and parents and would not want Respondent to work for him in any capacity.
The aberrant tendencies demonstrated by Respondent as described above did not begin, however, at Cherry Elementary School. Respondent was employed at Roosevelt Elementary School in Tampa, Florida during the 1970's and worked for several different principals. During 1974-1979, his principal was Myrna Robinson who found him to be a hardworking PE teacher. He had a basically good relationship with the students and, overall, he was a good teacher whose students achieved. Respondent also got along with other members of the faculty when things went his way. However, he did have difficulties from time to time. On one occasion, for example, he got into an altercation with the bus drivers over getting closer to the school during rainy periods. He was contemptuous to the principal when she subsequently tried to investigate this incident and as a result, was not reappointed to be the safety patrol sponsor.
Respondent also refused to obey orders of the principal in regard to corporal punishment. He refused to bring children to the office for corporal punishment and imposed it himself on the spot. When instructed that this was not to be done, he demanded that these instructions be put in writing and only when that was done did he comply. Ms. Robinson believes that Respondent's major problem was his inability to follow the corporal punishment policy and a subordinate problem was his inability to accept criticism. Though Ms. Robinson recalled no incidents of Respondent verbally abusing students, she does recall times when faculty members would complain about his relationship with them, but would ask the principal not to say anything to him about it. This volatility when things did not
go his way adversely affected Respondent's effectiveness as a classroom teacher.
Ms. Robinson does not want Respondent to work for her again. Though he is a good teacher and a good organizer, his volatile nature makes it impossible for him to accept criticism or rejection of his proposals. Ms. Robinson warned Respondent long ago, when he worked for her, that if he continued to administer corporal punishment himself, he would some day face a hearing. His response to that warning was that he "would take the chance."
Richard Blandy took over from Ms. Robinson as principal at Roosevelt in 1979, and Respondent worked for him at that location through December 1980. When Mr. Blandy first arrived at Roosevelt, he had a meeting with all the teachers to go over the policies of the school and the school board and the teacher's handbook. He talked specifically about corporal punishment. Initially, he had no problem with Respondent in that regard, but after a while, he began to get some complaints. In September, 1980, he received a complaint from an officer of the Tampa Police Department based on a complaint filed by parents of a student about Respondent's administering corporal punishment to their child. It appears that the complaint was not that the child had been spanked but that it was done without any witnesses present. When Mr. Blandy talked with Respondent about this, Respondent advised him that it was too far to bring the student to the principal's office for paddling. In light of this, Mr. Blandy was convinced that Respondent knew what to do and ignored the policy. In the interview, Respondent was courteous and admitted he understood. On each occasion, when the policy was brought to Respondent's attention, he never said he would not follow it but he always ignored it.
Dorothy F. Perricone was the principal at Roosevelt who hired Respondent initially and subsequently recommended him
for continuing contract. She found him to be a hard working teacher who had a good relationship with the students a majority of the time. He also got along with a majority of the faculty members and Mrs. Perricone does not recall any friction created by Respondent in that regard.
She has seen Respondent overreact and get too angry in a relationship with children. He is a strong disciplinarian who expects perfection. Though he got along with most students, he had difficulty with those whose discipline or physical skills were less than he considered acceptable. He did not agree with the state law limiting corporal punishment to administrators and felt that he should have the right to administer it.
Respondent was suspended from his employment with the Clay County schools by letter from the Superintendent dated September 25, 1984. This suspension was to continue until a hearing could be held before the school board regarding his proposed dismissal. However, on November 20, 1984, Respondent submitted a personal letter of resignation which obviated the need for the hearing on the dismissal.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of the proceedings.
Petitioner seeks to discipline Respondent's teaching certificate in the State of Florida based on his alleged violation of Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes. This provision authorizes the Education Practices Commission to discipline a teacher's certificate when it can be shown that the teacher has been guilty of:
(f) personal conduct which seriously reduces his effectiveness as an employee of the School Board and
(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.
Petitioner also alleged that Respondent is in violation of Section 232.27, Florida Statutes, which sets out the guidelines for the administration of corporal punishment by school board personnel in this State. This provision permits corporal punishment to be administered only in strict compliance with the guidelines set forth in the statute.
Petitioner also cites Respondent for a violation of the rules of the State Board of Education, Rule 6B-1.06 in three particulars. These are that:
Respondent failed to make a reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to learning or to health or to safety
Respondent intentionally exposed students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement and
Respondent intentionally violated or denied a student's legal rights.
The evidence presented by Petitioner here is replete with examples of Respondent's administration of corporal punishment to students in his control in violation of the rules of the School Board of Clay County and, previously of Hillsborough County, and of the rules of the principals for whom he worked. His repeated violation of these most reasonable rules, shown to be with full knowledge and disregard of their existence, clearly constitutes a violation of Section 232.27.
His constant improper administration of corporal punishment constitutes not only a violation of the statute but a violation of the students' rights and a continuing problem for the school instructional and administrative staff with and for whom he worked. It is clear that Respondent was incapable of getting along, on a continuing basis, with his co-workers or his supervisors that he held his principal and his co-workers in contempt; that he was totally insensitive to the feelings of his students and their parents; and that, thereby, his effectiveness as an employee of the School Board of Clay County as well as the School Board of Hillsborough County previously, was seriously reduced.
It is obvious that Respondent cannot accept criticism from others; finds it difficult to have anyone question his judgments or authority; and is involved in volatile encounters with staff, administration, and parents.
Further, it is clear that Respondent's actions resulted in his repeatedly exposing his students, of tender years, to unnecessary and unjustified embarrassment and disparagement and in this regard, he failed to protect them from conditions of his own making which are unquestionably harmful to their learning, health, or safety. This conclusion is not drawn based on the Respondent's practice of administering birthday spankings. While perhaps unwise and uncalled for, and without question in some cases, unwelcomed, this practice was, nonetheless, harmless and does not form the basis for the conclusion that his conduct is in violation of the statute.
Nonetheless, the Respondent's repeated violation of the directions of his principals and the school boards for which he worked as regards the administration of corporal punishment his inability to get along with students, their parents, co- workers, and supervisors and his apparent compulsion to be right above all, clearly brings his conduct within the purview of Section 231.28(1). It also brings him within and establishes a violation of Rule 6B-1.06 F.A.C.
Respondent is not currently employed by a school system in the State of Florida. It is clear, under the circumstances, that until such time as his method of operation is radically changed or considered to be less aggressive, he should not be.
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therfore,
RECOMMENDED that Respondent's teacher's certificate issued by the State of Florida, be revoked permanently.
RECOMMENDED this 5th day of August, 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 5th day of August.
COPIES FURNISHED:
L. Haldane Taylor, Esq.
331 East Union Street 2nd Floor
Jacksonville, Florida 32202
I. J. Green
P. O. Box 192
Vina, Alabama 35593
Karen Barr Wilde Executive Director
Education Practices Commission
125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Ralph D. Turlington
Commissioner of Education The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Aug. 05, 1985 | Recommended Order (hearing held , 2013). CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Oct. 31, 1985 | Agency Final Order | |
| Aug. 05, 1985 | Recommended Order | Teacher, who repeatedly administered unauthorized corporal punishment and who exposed kids to ridicule and didn't protect them, is guilty of misconduct supporting revocation. |
PROFESSIONAL PRACTICES COUNCIL vs. JOHN A. LETTELLEIR, 85-000065 (1985)
PINELLAS COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs LINCOLN M. LOUCKS, 85-000065 (1985)
SCHOOL BOARD OF CITRUS COUNTY vs. DELORISS FORT, 85-000065 (1985)
PINELLAS COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs FREDDIE R. CRAYTON, 85-000065 (1985)
PINELLAS COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs. CLARENCE DAVIS, 85-000065 (1985)
