STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 85-3673
)
DELORES V. CRUMIEL, )
)
Respondent. )
) RALPH D. TURLINGTON, as )
Commissioner of Education, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 86-1116
)
DELORES V. CRUMIEL, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the above cases were heard before the Division of Administrative Hearings by its duly designated Hearing Officer, Donald R. Alexander, on April 7-9, 1986 in Miami, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Case No. 85-3673 Suite 301
1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
For Petitioner: Craig R. Wilson, Esquire Case No. 86-1116 215 Fifth Avenue, Suite 302
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
For Respondent: Daniel F. Solomon, Esquire
1455 Northwest 14th Street Miami, Florida 33125
BACKGROUND
This matter began when petitioner, School Board of Dade County, issued proposed agency action in the form of a letter on October 3, 1985, advising respondent, Delores V. Crumiel, an elementary teacher employed by petitioner, that she was dismissed from employment with petitioner effective October 2, 1985, for "incompetency" within the meaning of Subsection 231.36(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1985). A Specific Notice of Charges was issued by petitioner on October 28, 1985, setting forth in greater detail the basis for its action. According to the Notice, petitioner was observed on a number of occasions between 1979 and 1985 to have been "deficient in her teaching," "deficient in classroom management and teacher-student management," and "deficient in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques."
It is also alleged that she only scored 74 on an adult
intelligence quotient test, that she does not have the intellectual capacity to teach a sixth grade class, and that she has been "either unable or unwilling to correct these noted deficiencies." This case has been assigned Case No. 85-3573.
Respondent requested a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1985), to contest the action. The matter was referred by petitioner to the Division of Administrative Hearings on October 24, 1985, with a request that a hearing officer be assigned to conduct a formal hearing.
By notice of hearing dated December 16, 1985, a final hearing was scheduled on February 12-14, 1986 in Miami, Florida. At the request of respondent, the final hearing was rescheduled to April 7-9, 1986 at the same location.
On March 11, 1986, petitioner, Ralph D. Turlington, as Commissioner of Education, filed an administrative complaint seeking to discipline respondent's teaching certificate for the same reasons as set forth in the Specific Notice of Charges.
This case has been assigned Case No. 86-1116. By agreement of the parties this complaint was consolidated with Case No. 853673.
At final hearing, the School Board of Dade County presented the testimony of Dr. Waldo M. Ellison, Dr. Leo H. Bradman, Dr.
John Hohnson, II, Glenda G. Harris, Jack Grayson, EniedA m. Hartner, Patricia Kanovsky, Johnny Rahmingas, Gwendolyn L. Bryant, Pauline Maloof, Alstene McKinney, Merrial Daniels Radford, Shirley Fields, and Dr. Patrick Gray. All were received in evidence. Petitioner, Ralph D. Turlington, as Commissioner of Education, adopted the testimony and exhibits presented by the School Board.
Respondent testified on her own behalf and presented the testimony of Dr. Marvin Dunn, Helen F. Viviand, Arnold Bouie, Darrell Gantt, and Derrick Miller. She also offered respondent's exhibits 1-4, 9, 11, 12, 15, and 16. All were received in evidence.
By agreement of the parties, respondent was given until May 20, 1986, in which to produce Drs. Larry Capp and Benjamin Isom for deposition, and to late-file those depositions as a part of record. When witness Isom was unable or unwilling to obtain patient releases on certain of his records, the undersigned deemed this action to have effectively prevented petitioners from conducting their cross-examination. Accordingly and order was entered on May 16, 1986, striking his testimony. The deposition of witness Capp was timely taken. Petitioners were given until June 6, 1986, in which to take rebuttal deposition of witness Bradman.
At the conclusion of petitioners' case-in-chief, respondent made an ore tenus motion to dismiss. A ruling on this motion was reserved.
The transcripts of hearing (six volumes) were filed on June 9, 1986. Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed on behalf of Ralph D. Turlington on June 20, 1986, and by respondent and the School Board of Dade County on June 23, 1986. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact has been made in the Appendix attached to this Recommended Order.
At issue are whether respondent should be dismissed as a teacher from the Dade County School System for incompetency, and whether her teaching certificate should be disciplined for the same reason.
Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined:
FINDINGS OF FACT
Introduction
At all time relevant hereto, respondent, Delores V Crumiel, held Teaching Certificate No. 342743 issued by the State Department of Education. The certificate covers the specialization of elementary education, grades one through six. During school years 1979-80 through 1984-85, Crumiel was employed by petitioner, School Board of Dade County, as a tenured elementary teacher at West Little River Elementary School (WIRES) in Miami, Florida.
Crumiel received a bachelor of science degree in elementary education from Florida Memorial College. Except for a leave of absence during school year 1982-83 due to the death of her husband, she was employed as an elementary school teacher in Dade County for the eleven years immediately preceding her dismissal.
WLRES is located in a low socio-economic area of Miami. It has qualified as a Chapter I school, which means it receives federal monies to provide supplementary instruction in basic skills for low-achieving students from the low-income areas of the community. Under this program, instruction is focused on basic skills such as mathematics, language arts and reading, and the teacher has no responsibility in content areas such as science, social studies and health. However, in order to compensate for the lack of content areas, the Chapter I teacher is required to interweave topics from the missing content areas into language lessons in order to give a "language experience" to the students. The language experience is an important part of the federal program. The size of Chapter I classes at WLRES is roughly half of a normal class, and typically numbered from thirteen to fifteen students. It was established that a Chapter I class is easier to teach than a class in the regular school program because of smaller classroom size, less discipline problems, and easier subject matter content. The lesson plans are also easier to prepare than regular lesson plans because only language arts and mathematics are included in Chapter I plans. During the relevant time period, Crumiel was assigned to teach either fifth or sixth grades.
By virtue of required classroom observations being conducted by supervisory personnel, Crumiel was found to be deficient in classroom management and teacher-student relationships in school year 1979-1980, deficient in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction and assessment technique in school year 1983-84, and deficient in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction and assessment techniques in school year 1984-85. After Crumiel declined a School Board offer to relinquish her teaching job, and accept a teaching aide position, the School Board voted on October 21, 1985, to dismiss Crumiel from employment with the Board on the basis of incompetency. This action confirmed her earlier suspension effective October 2, 1985, and she has remained suspended without pay since that date. The Board's action prompted the instant proceeding. Petitioner, Ralph D. Turlington, as Commissioner of Education, thereafter filed an administrative complaint seeking revocation of Crumiel's teaching certificate on the same ground. The two matters have been consolidated for hearing purposes.
School Year 1979-1980
During school year 1979-1980, Crumiel was assigned to teach in a fifth grade classroom at WLRES. At that time Dr. John Johnson, II was her principal. Crumiel was formally observed by Johnson on December 4, 1979 and February 26, 1980 when he made routine visits to her classroom to evaluate her
teaching skills. On these two visits Johnson found Crumiel to be deficient in the areas of classroom management and teacher- student relationships. More specifically, Johnson observed hostility and screaming in the classroom, and found her "upset, emotional and loud." He described her as being in "total disarray." He also felt the students were "acting out." Because of this, she received an unacceptable annual evaluation for the 1979-80 school year.
In an effort to assist Crumiel, Johnson assigned a systems aide to work with Crumiel in the classroom. Crumiel was also assigned to work with a master teacher during the following summer (1981). The results of this effort are noted in a subsequent finding. Dr. Johnson gave her written prescriptions to help improve her performance and asked that the assistant principal work with Crumiel. A prescription is a course of action that must be carried out by a teacher in order to remediate a deficient performance. This type of assistance continued until Johnson departed WLRES in 1983. During this period of time Johnson received numerous complaints regarding Crumiel's classroom management from other teachers, and had to go to her class on a number of occasions to calm the students.
During school year 1979-80, a first-year teacher taught in the classroom adjacent to respondent's classroom. She confirmed that Crumiel's classroom discipline was very poor, and that the students were noisy and disruptive. In addition, even though Crumiel was supposedly a "seasoned" teacher, the first year teacher frequently found Crumiel seeking assistance from her regarding subject matter content and teaching techniques.
Despite the unacceptable annual evaluation given Crumiel in school year 1979-80, Johnson continued to recommend Crumiel for employment. However, he noted that Crumiel's performance was going "down" as time progressed, and except for the fact that he was leaving WLRES in 1983, he would have recommended she be dismissed from the school system.
C. 1980-83
During the summer of 1981, Dr. Johnson assigned crumiel to team teach with Alstene McKinney, a master teacher, so that
Crumiel could learn some ideas and techniques from McKinney. They taught two regular size classes of twenty-five to thirty Chapter I students in a pod. A pod is a free standing building
utilizing the open space concept where a number of classrooms are separated by partitions. At least two classrooms would share common bathrooms and water fountain facilities.
McKinney observed that Crumiel has a problem with classroom management, and that her class was always noisy. On various occasions McKinney had to stop teaching and ask Crumiel's students to quiet down.
On one occasion McKinney observed Crumiel instructing her students that a quarter past the hour meant 25 minutes after the hour. When she later mentioned it to Crumiel, Crumiel corrected herself and said, "I meant 20 minutes after."
Crumiel's husband unexpectedly died on September 1, 1982, from injuries received in an accident. By the following spring, respondent has accumulated some forty-five days of absences, and her absences were affecting her students' progress. In addition, she developed a pattern of calling in the evening and informing the school secretary htat she would report to work the next day, and then in the morning, calling to inform the school she would be absent. At that time, Dr. Johnson referred Crumiel to the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) in an effort to aid her in coping with her family crisis. The EAP is a program designed to assist teachers having academic, personal or psychological problems. Crumiel eventually took a leave of absence April, 1983 for the remainder of the school year. She was medically cleared to return to work in August, 1983. The medical clearance noted that Crumiel did not have any medical condition that would impair or restrict her performance as a teacher.
School Year 1983-84
Respondent returned to WLRES on August 24, 1983. She was given a Chapter 1 fifth grade classroom assignment on that day by her new principal, Glenda Harris. The class was to be taught in an air-conditioned pod to be shared with two other teachers, Pauline Maloof and Merrial Daniels Radford. There were a total of forty-five students assigned to the entire pod. Although the adequacy of the size of the room was questioned by one of respondent's witnesses, it is found that respondent's classroom contained adequate space for the number of children being taught. In fact, in the prior year, two teachers and
sixty-four students had shared the same space. Moreover, the pod concept is common in the Dade County school system, and even
today, Crumiel's former pod classroom is still set up structurally in the same manner.
During this school year, Chapter I classes were restricted to a maximum of sixteen students, with the average being fifteen students. This compared with a regular class that would have from twenty-eight to thirty-five students.
An essential component in the Chapter I program is the oral language development segment. Through this component, the teacher gives the children a better example of speech patterns so that students who are not proficient in the use of standard English become aware of the standard patterns and usage. This enables the students to use appropriate language when entering the job market. To improve and enhance the teacher skills in the foregoing area, all Chapter I teachers, including Crumiel, received five in-service training sessions during the school year.
On November 16, 1983, Harris visited Crumiel's classroom to make a formal observation of respondent's teaching. Harris was so stunned by what she observed that she chose not to record her visit as an official observation. During the visit, it became apparent to Harris that Crumiel had no grasp of Chapter I requirements. More specifically, Crumiel was not interweaving the content areas of science and social studies into the language experience. She confused the students by accepting incorrect answers as correct and vice-versa. Crumiel also demonstrated a lack of basic English skills, making such statements as, "Is there anyone who do not understand?"; "I am sorry, boys and
girls--my book do not have . . . "; "Why you think it's 'drink?'"; and "Who do not understand?" In addition, Crumiel was using an outdated reading technique (round-robin reading), and did not use the diagnostic prescriptive approach by setting up reading groups within her class. It was evident to Harris that Crumiel had not read the lesson prior to teaching the children, and was totally unprepared. Because of this, the children in Crumiel's classroom did not receive a minimal educational experience on that day.
Harris asked Crumiel where her teaching aid materials were, and was told by Crumiel they were in the bottom of one of her desk drawers. Crumiel also acknowledged that she had not read them.
Harris returned for a formal observation of Crumiel on November 21, 1983. She found respondent's performance to be no better than it was on November 16, 1983. It was evident that respondent had not read the lesson prior to teaching the class and did not understand the point of the story being told. The
students were also having great difficulty reading. Crumiel's interpretive skills were very poor and she still accepted incorrect responses from the students and vice-versa. For example, when one student gave an example of a compound word, charcoal, Crumiel told the student that it was incorrect because "char" was not a word. Respondent continued to mispronounce words such as "jack-o-later" for "jack-o-lantern," "likeded" for "liked," and "terranium" for "terrarium." She also used very poor grammatical structure.
Based upon her observations, Harris rated Crumiel as being unacceptable with specific deficiencies in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. She also concluded that the students failed to receive a minimal educational experience. After the observation was concluded, Harris and Crumiel discussed the problems Harris had noted that day. Crumiel acknowledged she had done poorly, and asked that Harris observe her another day when she would be better prepared.
Harris again formally observed respondent on November 29, 1983. She was given an overall rating of unacceptable with specific deficiencies in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction and assessment techniques. Harris noted that Crumiel had not set up a reading program even though this is required in both regular and Chapter I classes. In addition, respondent's lesson plans merely listed page numbers rather than activities, materials and evaluations. Further, while she had grouped the children, she had not given them the appropriate reading books based upon their diagnostic tests. Crumiel had also failed to preview the lesson prior to teaching the class. Respondent continued to mispronounce words such as "shevel" for "shovel," and "depenable" for "dependable," and displayed poor grammar throughout the instruction. Her subject verb agreement was virtually nonexistent and she misused possessives. For example, Crumiel stated, "This machine what is called the steam shovel. . . what is the little boy name? . . . Yes it does scoops up dirt." She was unable to define a steam shovel for a student until she looked the term up in a dictionary. She continued to accept incorrect information from the children as correct and vice-versa. Finally, Harris found respondent's techniques of instruction unacceptable since Crumiel merely read directions to the class. After the observation was completed, Harris met with Crumiel and discussed all areas of her evaluation.
On December 8, 1983, a conference-for-the-record was attended by Harris, Crumiel and Jack Grayson, the assistant principal at WLRES. At that time, the observations and visits of November 16, 21 and 29, 1983 were discussed. In an effort to
assist Crumiel, Harris and Grayson devised a prescription designed to meet Crumiel's needs. In this case, the prescriptive plan required Crumiel to enroll in a basic English course and a Methods and Materials course in the teaching of reading. She was told to do this by the second semester of the school year. She was also told that Grayson would give her assistance with her reading plans, and visit her classroom on December 13, 1983 to become more familiar with her classroom style. In addition, Harris offered to make available further training in the Dade County Diagnostic Prescriptive Reading System. She was asked to set up a schedule of visitations to other classrooms so that she might learn teaching techniques from other faculty members.
Finally, Crumiel was given a set of procedures to be used in critiquing her own plans and presentations of lessons.
After the conference, Harris and Grayson spent an hour- and-a-half showing Crumiel how to set up her reading program. They were surprised when they found that respondent, despite having taught for eight or nine years in the system, did not know how to do this.
Respondent was next formally observed by Grayson during a lesson on invitations on December 13, 1983. Respondent was given an overall rating of acceptable. However, Grayson later discovered that another teacher, Merria1 Radford Daniels, had actually written the lesson plan, and had demonstrated to Crumiel how to teach that day's class. She did so after Crumiel came to her seeking help before Grayson's visit. Daniels had made displays for Crumiel, and had written the lesson on Crumiel's blackboard with the key words to be used. She also demonstrated the lesson in Crumiel's presence. Daniels then had Crumiel demonstrate the lesson for her, and told respondent to go home and practice in front of a mirror. Respondent admitted this to Grayson.
Respondent was informally visited by Harris on January 23, 1984. Although the students were supposed to be in their seats and ready to begin at 8:30 a.m., Harris found them up and out of their seats at 8:58 a.m. when she entered the classroom. Crumiel had not prepared a lesson for that particular class, so she taught a lesson originally scheduled for another time. Even so, she merely read instructions and handed out materials. Harris found no evidence that respondent was carrying out the prescription previously given to her on December 8, 1983. She concluded that the children did not receive a minimally acceptable educational experience that day.
Respondent was again formally observed by Harris on June 5, 1984. At that time she was given an overall rating of unacceptable with specific deficiencies in knowledge of subject
matter and techniques of instruction. Although respondent had developed lesson plans for the class, the classroom activities did not reflect evidence of effective instructional planning. More importantly, Harris did not see any progress by Crumiel since she had been given the prescription on December 8, 1983. She found Crumiel still reading directions to the students rather than teaching them subject matter content. A large part of the classroom instruction was taken up by students performing meaningless exercises. Respondent still lacked a basic understanding of the subject matter, abbreviations. This was evidenced by respondent's inability to answer questions from students indicating when abbreviations are to be used. For example, she could not answer why the abbreviation for doctor is capitalized, or why the abbreviation for ounces is oz. rather than oun. She still continued to use improper English such as "Be sure your name and date is on all your papers."
On June 6, 1984, Grayson revisited Crumiel's classroom to conduct a formal evaluation of Crumiel's mathematics class. Grayson rated respondent's performance as unacceptable with a specific deficiency in the area of techniques of instruction. He found the lesson too simple for the students and therefore a waste of their time. Crumiel's instructions and directions were confusing, and she was unable to clarify them for the students' benefit.
Crumiel was again observed by Harris on June 8, 1984. Respondent had asked Harris to return after her prior visit on June 5 because she had learned something in a class she was taking and wanted to demonstrate it to Harris. After observing respondent Harris rated her as unacceptable with deficiencies in the areas of planning, knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. She was found barely acceptable in classroom management. Although Crumiel had a lesson plan, it was not effective and was inappropriate for students of the fifth grade level. Moreover, her classroom management appeared to Harris to be staged and practiced as in a performance.
At hearing, Crumiel contended the pod was a poor environment in which to teach, and stated her class was frequently disrupted by outside students coming in to her area to use the restroom and drinking fountain. However, during school year 1983-84, Crumiel voiced no complaints to the administration about teaching in a pod, or that she experienced the disruptions she described. Indeed, no such disruptive activity was ever observed by the administrators who made classroom evaluations or by other teachers in the pod. If such activity did occur, it was only after someone inside the classroom unlocked the door since Crumiel's door was always kept locked.
During the school year, the disruptive children were always evenly distributed between Maloof, Daniels, and Crumiel. After Harris became aware of Crumiel's classroom management problems, several students with behavioral problems were reassigned from Crumiel's classroom to that of Maloof and Daniels. Moreover, Crumiel received the highest academic level in the three groups.
On her annual evaluation for the 1983-84 school year, Crumiel was rated unacceptable in the areas or preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. However, Harris refrained from recommending Crumiel for termination, choosing instead to write another, more detailed prescription in the hope that Crumiel could improve over the summer.
On June 21, 1984, another conference-for-the-record was held by Harris, Crumiel, Grayson and a teacher union representative. At that time, Harris outlined the prescription and asked that Crumiel continue with the EAP. Crumiel had previously participated in the EAP but had ceased attending, Crumiel was told to prepare her lesson plans in behavioral terms and was given various reading materials to help her with this task. She was further given an excerpt from the teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS) manual on techniques of instruction. In addition, she was directed to take certain courses offered by the Teacher Education center (TEC) to assist her in deficient areas. However, Harris suggested that the outside course work could be postponed until the fall so that she could spend a restful summer. Finally Crumiel was told she would be informally observed during the first nine weeks of the following school year, and formally observed in the second nine week period. This information was incorrect since any teacher on prescription must be formally observed during the first six weeks of the next school year.
In conjunction with the EAP respondent began individual psychotherapy and supportive counseling with a licensed clinical psychologist that summer. She remained his patient until September, 1985.
During school year 1983-84, Crumiel received help from Maloof and Daniels, who shared her pod. Maloof gave Crumiel assistance in grouping her children, shared materials with her, and made various suggestions on how to improve her teaching techniques. However, when they discussed educational topics, Crumiel did not seem to understand the subject matter. Daniels showed respondent how to order materials for the different levels of students. Finally, a reading specialist gave a workshop session in October, 1983 that addressed the procedures for pre-
testing, post-testing and leveling students. Crumiel attended this workshop.
School Year 1984-85
Beginning in the 1984-85 school year, WLRES implemented the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS) of teacher observation for all teachers. In the prior year, only annual contract teachers were under the TADS observation scheme. Since Crumiel was under a continuing contract, she was not subject to this observation method prior to school year 1984-85. Under the TADS system, teachers are required to have objectives, activities and a way of monitoring student progress in and through their lesson plans.
At the beginning of the school year, Harris moved Crumiel to Room 212, a self-contained classroom. This move was prompted by complaints about noisy, disruptive students in Crumiel's classroom from the teachers who shared the pod with Crumiel during the prior year. Room 212 contained approximately the same amount of space that Crumiel previously had in the pod, but the classroom was not air-conditioned. However, around two- thirds of the teachers in the school did not have air- conditioning at that time. Harris also changed respondent's grade level from grade five to grade six. This was done to relieve her of the additional pressures of preparing the students for the state assessment test (SAT). WLRES had been adjudged deficient during the previous school year, and fifth grade classes were scheduled to be tested on the SAT in the first nine weeks of the school year. Crumiel protested her reassignment to a higher grade level and told Harris that sixth grade mathematics were beyond her teaching ability. However, Harris reminded Crumiel that she was certified for the sixth grade, and that the chances of her actually teaching sixth grade math in a Chapter I class were remote.
Children were assigned to respondent in very much the same manner that they had been assigned the previous year. The administration made certain that slow learners and students exhibiting behavior problems were evenly distributed among the various teachers.
Harris visited respondent's classroom on September 20, 1984 to conduct an informal observation. Respondent's lesson plans were not written in behavioral terms as directed by her June 21 prescription. Further, she had not grouped the children or pretested them in reading. Harris also found Crumiel's presentation of subject matter and classroom management skills unacceptable. Harris concluded that the children did not receive a minimally acceptable educational experience.
Harris met with respondent following the informal visit. At that meeting, Harris reviewed Crumiel's prescription and the efforts being made by Crumiel to fulfill its goals. Harris discovered that respondent had "forgotten" to inquire about the various courses taught at the Reacher Education Center and displayed an unconcerned attitude towards the requirements of the prescription. She was told by Crumiel that the sixth grade level objectives were too difficult for her, and that she did not know how to write lesson plans in behavioral objectives. Harris then told Crumiel she would visit respondent's classroom on September 25, 1984. Harris also began showing Crumiel how to write objectives in behavioral terms.
Harris was unable to visit respondent's classroom on September 25 because respondent called in sick that morning. Crumiel did, however, bring her lesson plans to Harris the following day. Harris found them lacking any behavioral objectives. Harris again encouraged Crumiel to read the material furnished her.
Respondent's mathematics class was formally observed by Grayson on October 1, 1984. A formal observation was required at that time since Crumiel was on prescription from the prior year. She was rated unsatisfactory in preparation and planning because her lesson plans did not have the items required by the TADS system. In other words, Crumiel had no way to assess her students in order to monitor their progress.
Grayson recommended that respondent continue with the prescription given by Harris, and to turn in her lesson plans on a weekly basis for his review. Grayson continued to review those plans until her dismissal some two years later, and to offer suggestions on how they could be improved.
During the school year, the teacher occupying the adjacent classroom continually complained about the noise in respondent's room. Because of this, Crumiel was moved to room 206, a larger self-contained classroom which had been recently renovated and filled with new furniture. It was uncontradicted that room 206 was far superior to the other classroom spaces in the building that were used by Chapter I classes.
Respondent was formally observed again by Harris on January 23, 1985. Harris found that the children were not receiving a minimal educational experience. Using the TADS system, Crumiel was rated unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction and assessments techniques. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because she was still using November lessons plans with only the
dates changed, and was not using the prescribed plan. Crumiel was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she gave no instruction. She was found to be unacceptable in classroom management because the children were not prepared to begin the lesson. In the area of techniques of instruction, Crumiel received an unacceptable rating because she was not using appropriate methods or differentiated materials, and she failed to use two or more learning styles as required by TADS. Finally Crumiel was found to be deficient in assessment techniques because she failed to use the information given her in the TADS prescription manual. In addition, because her grade book and student folders were not properly maintained, and there was no way to tell what had been taught and tested, or to access the students' improvement.
As a result of the January 25 visit, Harris prescribed help for respondent from the TADS prescription manual, which is written on a level that the average teacher can understand. However, Harris did not suggest that Crumiel use the manual after that occasion since Crumiel admitted she was unable to understand the information in the manual.
At respondent's request, Harris performed another formal observation on January 29, 1985. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management and techniques of instruction. Harris also concluded that the students did not receive a minimal educational experience. Crumiel was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because her lesson plans were not written in conformity with her prescription. She appeared unprepared and wasted classroom time on repetitious, meaningless exercises. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of knowledge of subject matter because she did not understand the lesson she was suppose to be teaching, and told the children that adding an "s" at the end of a verb would make it plural. Crumiel's classroom management was rated unacceptable because the classroom environment was not conducive to learning. Harris found the room unkempt and materials in disorder, and noted that Crumiel did not start the lesson promptly due to a number of unnecessary delays. In the area of techniques of instruction Crumiel received an unacceptable rating because the majority of the materials used were inappropriate for the objectives. Further, the methods of instruction never varied, and respondent did not give consideration to the various learning styles in the classroom. Harris concluded that the materials and methods used often insulted the age level of the students.
After the observation was concluded, Harris asked Crumiel to review and study the materials given her in the prior prescription. Crumiel was also told that Eneida Hartner,
director of the North Central area, would provide her with additional help. Finally, Harris taught a reading lesson to Crumiel's class in an effort to improve Crumiel's teaching style.
While Harris was in the classroom, respondent did relatively well with teacher-student relationships. However, when no administrator was present, respondent could often be heard shouting and cajoling the children to behave. There were instances when children were seen hanging out of the windows and shouting. Respondent was heard telling a student on one occasion, "Sit your black butt down."
On February 8, 1985, Harris and Hartner visited respondent's classroom for approximately one hour to informally observe Crumiel. Even though Hartner had designed certain activities for respondent to use that day while teaching, Hartner and Harris concluded there was no teaching in the classroom.
They also noted that respondent was not following the diagnostic prescriptive approach which is required of all elementary teachers..
Hartner recommended that Crumiel receive assistance from a Chapter I educational specialist, Pat Kanovsky, who was assigned to help Crumiel with the language experience approach used in Chapter I classes. Hartner also directed a prep specialist, Gwen Bryant, to monitor Crumiel in the areas of basic skills, such as reading, writing and mathematics, and to help respondent in the prescriptive diagnostic approach. She also recommended that Crumiel receive assistance from the assistant principal, department chairman and master teacher, and to make use of certain excerpts from the TADS prescription manual.
Bryant visited Crumiel's classroom four times in February 1985 in an attempt to provide her with assistance. On her February 14 visit, Bryant observed that respondent was not using the "RSVP" program in an appropriate manner. This is a program that is used for all children in both Chapter I and regular classes. Bryant also noted that Crumiel had not used her pacemaker chart correctly, and was therefore unable to determine if the children were being taught subject matter at a pace commensurate with their level of ability.
On her February 27 visit, Bryant found the students confused and not understanding what they were expected to do in class that day. They were yelling, and many were out of their seats. Respondent was unsuccessful in her efforts to manage behavior. After seeing this, Bryant made a number of suggestions to respondent. She also went over the instructional material and demonstrated how to properly use it. She explained how the students were to be placed and instructed according to their
reading levels. Bryant gave further tips on teaching techniques, suggestions on managing classroom behavior and how to properly begin a lesson.
On February 11, 1985, Kanovsky spent approximately two hours with Crumiel in an effort to improve Crumiel's lesson plan preparation. Among other things, Kanovsky told respondent that her grammar was inappropriate for use in a Chapter I classroom.
Hartner, accompanied by Harris, visited respondent's classroom on March 27, 1985, for the purpose of making an external observation. This type of observation was required since Crumiel had already received two negative evaluations from WLRES administrators. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction and assessment techniques. She was given an unsatisfactory rating in preparation and planning because she failed to properly include a language experience activity in her instruction. She was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she continued to use poor grammar while teaching. For example, Crumiel made such statements as, "Their eyes be red" and "How do their face look?" Crumiel was found to be deficient in techniques of instruction because the lesson lacked sequence, and she failed to adjust her instruction when she did not get anticipated responses from the students. She also accepted responses from the students without telling them whether they were right or wrong. Further, it did not appear that Crumiel had made use of any of the suggestions regarding teaching techniques given by Bryant on February 27. Finally, respondent was given an unsatisfactory in assessment techniques because a review by Hartner of the students' folders revealed that Crumiel had failed to use the diagnostic prescriptive approaches in reading and mathematics that were required by the Dade County school system.
Having formally observed Crumiel, Hartner concluded that respondent's students did not have a meaningful educational experience on March 27, 1985. She further concluded that respondent lacked adequate command of her area of specialization, elementary education, and that she lacked the necessary motivational skills necessary to promote oral language development. She also concluded that Crumiel would be unable to teach non-Chapter I students because of the greater number of students and more difficult subject matter in those classes. In short, she found Crumiel unable to teach in any capacity at the elementary school level.
In addition to her visits on February 14 and 27, Bryant met with Crumiel on at least two other occasions to help Crumiel understand the diagnostic prescriptive approach to reading.
Bryant came away from those meetings with the belief that Crumiel did not understand her directions or the teaching materials. She also concluded the Crumbie was unqualified to teach the sixth grade.
An educational specialist, Shirley Fields, also visited respondent's classroom on April 19 and 22, 1985, to discuss the oral language development segment of instruction. On one of her visits, she demonstrated for Crumiel's benefit an actual lesson from the program.
Harris returned to respondent's classroom on June 3, 1985 for the purpose of conducting a formal observation. She found no improvement on Crumiel's part and concluded it would be counter-productive to fill out a formal observation form. The subject matter of the class was fractions, and Crumiel appeared to have no knowledge of the subject matter.
During the school year, Harris and Grayson received a number of verbal complaints about respondent's classroom management. This was confirmed by testimony from the other teachers and a teacher liaison who frequently observed or heard disruption and noise in respondent's classroom.
Harris, Crumiel and a teacher union representative attended a conference-for-the-record on June 12, 1986 to discuss Crumiel's teaching performance. However, it was necessary to discontinue the conference shortly after it was begun because Crumiel lost her composure. The conference was reconvened on June 24, 1985. At that meeting Crumiel rejected an opportunity to be reclassified as a teacher aide, a position that would enable her to continue working with children, but only under the direct supervision of another teacher.
On her annual evaluation for 1984-1985, respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction, assessment techniques and professional responsibility. In addition, she was not recommended for employment the following school year.
Psychological Testing
In an effort to find some type of alternative position for Crumiel, the classroom teacher's union recommended that she undergo a battery of psychological tests. In this vein, Crumiel was referred to both a psychiatrist and a psychologist to determine if there was a reason for her poor performance in classroom teaching. The psychologist, Dr. Bradman, had previously seen the patient since June, 1984 in conjunction with
the EAP. On June 14 and 18, 1985 Bradman administered the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised (WAIS-R) Test to Crumiel. This test is more commonly known as an IQ or intelligence quotient test. At the time of testing, Bradman found no evidence of depression although Crumiel experienced some mild anxiety. The test segment which would most likely be affected by depression was the Digit Symbol Subtest. However, Crumiel scored within the average range on this segment, and it represented one of her highest scores.
Respondent obtained a Full Scale IQ of 74 which is in the borderline range of intelligence. Stated differently, approximately 95% of the people taking the test would achieve a higher score than Crumiel. Bradman found this result to be accurate and valid, and that neither stress or depression could account for Crumiel's low performance.
During the course of the two sessions on June 14 and 18, Bradman asked Crumiel a number of questions to test her intellectual skill and capacity. In response to a question asking her to name four men who have been president of the United States since 1950, she responded, "Roosevelt, Lincoln, George Washington and Theodore Roosevelt." When questioned further, she added, "Jefferson." Crumiel also told Bradman that there were 48 weeks in a year and that Labor Day is in May. She did not know who Louie Armstrong was, and thought that to get from Chicago to the country of Panama one would travel east. She could not correctly define the words "assemble," "enormous," "conceal," "consume," "regulate," "commence," "domestic," "tranquil" or "ponder." Finally, Crumiel could not answer basic arithmetic questions such as "If raffle tickets cost twenty-five cents each, how much would it cost to buy six tickets?" and "If soft drinks are sold six cans to a package, if you want 36 cans, how many packages must you buy?"
Based upon the results of the WAIS-R, Dr. Bradman concluded that respondent was not capable of teaching the higher elementary school grades. However, he was unable to form an opinion as to whether Crumiel could teach the lower grade levels based strictly upon the testing he had performed.
On August 29, 1985, Crumiel was also evaluated by a board certified psychiatrist, Dr. Waldo M. Ellison, who was accepted as an expert in that field. He examined Crumiel to ascertain if there was a psychological reason for her dysfunction as an elementary school teacher. Ellison noted that respondent experienced some mild anxiety during the examination but had no depression. Further, he found no evidence of any medical problem or condition.
Although Crumiel told Dr. Ellison that mathematics was her favorite subject, she was unable to determine two-thirds of the number sixty. She also could not correctly define the word "motivate," and was unaware of important current events such as the name of the mayor of Miami, or the fact that a hurricane was then approaching the City of Miami. Based upon his evaluation, Ellison concluded that respondent's intellectual deficiencies would interfere with the ability to provide her students with a minimum educational experience.
Miscellaneous
It was the general consensus of all administrators and faculty who observed Crumiel during the relevant time periods that she did not possess the skills necessary to teach elementary students, either at a regular or Chapter I level. More specifically, they found that she lacked an adequate command of her area of specialization, elementary education, and that her lack of minimum skills and competency resulted in her students being deprived of a minimal educational experience.
Respondent's own testimony helped confirm the above observations since it was replete with inappropriate English grammar and language. Her lack of fundamental mathematics skills also became apparent during cross-examination by the Board counsel.
Respondent's Case
Respondent blamed her problems in 1984-85 on her assignment to a small, self-contained classroom without air- conditioning. However, this classroom was approximately the same size as used by two other teachers in the pod, and they did not experience the same difficulty as did Crumiel. Moreover, two- thirds of the faculty at WLRES that year had no air-conditioning. Even so, she was moved to a larger, more modernized classroom during the year but her performance did not improve. Respondent also cited over-aged, disruptive students being assigned to her Chapter I classes as a cause for her classroom management difficulty. But credible testimony established that disruptive students were evenly assigned to all Chapter I teachers, that Crumiel's class had no more than other Chapter I teachers, and several were taken out of her classroom in an effort to aid her performance. Crumiel also contended that her classes were frequently disrupted by students wandering into her classroom from an adjacent physical education area to use the restroom and water fountain facilities. No administrator ever observed this while visiting in her class, and it was shown that even if it did happen, she could have prevented this by refusing to unlock her door. Crumiel further stated that she attempted to follow
through with her prescriptions, but that Harris and Grayson were never satisfied. However, independent administrators not associated with WLRES confirmed her failure to follow the prescriptions. Respondent also stated she received a "B" in a college course taken one summer at a local college as evidence of her effort to improve her skills. But a fellow teacher placed this testimony in serious doubt when she testified that Crumiel had taken notes into the final examination and improperly used them while filling out her examination booklet.
Through the deposition testimony of Dr. Capp, a psychologist, respondent attempted to refute the IQ score of 74 by showing that she received a score of 99 on the test on February 4, 1986, and that she was functioning within the normal range of intelligence. Dr. Bradman had no scientific explanation for this result, but opined that Crumiel may have studied for the second test, or had remembered the questions from the first time the test was administered. Dr. Capp agreed that this was possible. In any event, the testimony of Drs. Bradman and Ellison is deemed to be more persuasive and credible, and their results and conclusions are found to be more accurate.
Union Contract
Respondent was a member of the United Teachers of Dade County. That body has a labor contract with the Dade County School Board. Among other things, section 6 of the contract provides in relevant part as follows:
Any teacher assigned in any observation category shall be entitled to a prescription of professional growth practices (remedies) which shall include reasonable time-frames for implementation . . .. The function of such practices is to assist the teacher in professional growth . . .. Failure to implement prescribed professional growth practices or to correct deficiencies for which professional growth was prescribed shall constitute just cause for disciplinary action in accordance with the due process provisions in this Article . . ..
In the instant case, respondent was placed on prescription at the end of school year 1983-84. Respondent was told she would remain on prescription during the first nine weeks of school year 1984-
However, in order to comply with a TADS requirement, a teacher who ends the year on prescription must be observed during the first six weeks in the following school year. To meet this requirement, a formal observation was made by Grayson on October
1, 1985 which was within the time-frame for improvement set forth in the prescription. At that time, Grayson gave a second prescription to Crumiel with instructions that a lesson plan be submitted by each Wednesday. Another formal observation was made by Harris on January 23, 1985, or well after the first and second prescriptive periods. Crumiel was then placed on another prescription effective January 28, 1985 by prescription dated January 23, 1985. Certain prescriptives were ordered to be complied with no later than the next visit. This was followed by a formal observation by Harris on January 29, 1985. When the next formal observation was made by Hartner on March 27, 1985, no time-frames were in effect. All such observations, prescriptive periods and remedies were in conformity with the contract. Even respondent did not file a grievance complaining that the contract was violated.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has juris- diction of the subject matter and the parties thereto pursuant to Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1985).
Respondent's motion to dismiss is denied. In her motion, Crumiel generally alleges that the school Board violated its contract with the teacher's union by failing to follow all prescribed procedures in taking disciplinary action against respondent. She argues that this flaw renders null and void all subsequent actions by the School Board in its effort to dismiss her. This argument is deemed to be unavailing. To begin with, any violation of the union contract must be resolved through the procedures set forth in the contract or before the Public Employees Relations Commission, if applicable. Further, even if there were irregularities in the investigative stage, the hearing in this cause is de novo, and such irregularities, if any, in the free-form process would not taint the Section 120.57(1) proceeding or otherwise deprive Crumiel of her opportunity to a fair hearing. Accord: The School Board of Dade County v.
Francis Burton, DOAH Case No. 84-3584, Recommended Order entered
June 20, 1985. Therefore, any alleged violations of the contract are irrelevant to this proceeding.
Respondent is charged with incompetency within the meaning of Subsection 231.36(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1985). That subsection provides in relevant part as follows:
(c) Any member of the district administrative or supervisory staff and any member of the instructional staff, including any principal, who is under continuing contract may be suspended or dismissed at any
time during the school year; however, the charges against him must be based on immorality, misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, drunkeness, or conviction of a crime involving moral turpi
tude . . .
Subsection 231.28(1)(b) and (f), Florida Statutes (1985), authorize the Education Practices Commission to suspend or revoke a teaching certificate if the licensee:
(b) Has proved to be incompetent to teach or to perform her duties as an employee of the private school system . . .
* * *
(f)Upon investigation, has been found guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces that person's effectiveness as an employee of the school board; . . .
Although the word "incompetency" is not defined in the above statute, it is defined in Rule 6B-4.09(1), Florida Administrative Code, as follows:
(1) Incompetency is defined as inability or lack of fitness to discharge the required duty as a result of inefficiency or incapacity. Since incompetency is a relative term, an authoritative decision in an individual case may be made on the basis of testimony by members of a panel of expert witnesses appropriately appointed from the teaching profession by the Commissioner of Education. Such judgment shall be based on a preponderance of evidence showing the existence of one (1) or more of the following:
Inefficiency: (1) repeated failure to
perform duties prescribed by law (section 231.09, Florida Statutes); (2) repeated failure on the part of a teacher to communicate with and relate to children in the classroom, to such an extent that pupils are deprived of minimum educational experience; or (3) repeated failure on the part of an administrator or supervisor to communicate with and relate to teachers under
his or her supervision to such an extent that the educational program for which he or she is responsible is seriously impaired.
Incapacity: (1) lack of emotional stability; (2) lack of adequate physical ability; (3) lack of general educational back-ground; or (4) lack of adequate command of his or her area of specialization.
Petitioner School Board further relies upon Dade County School Board Rule 6GX13-4A-1.21. Sections II and V of the rule read as follows:
II. Records and Reports
All personnel shall keep all records and shall prepare and submit promptly all reports that may be required by State Law, State Department of Education Rules, school Board Rules, and administrative directives.
* * *
v. Instructional Personnel
Members of the instructional staff of the public schools, subject to the rules of the State and District Boards, shall teach efficiently and faithfully using the books and materials required, following the prescribed courses of study, and employing approved methods of instruction as provided by law and by the Rules of the State Department of Education.
Although not cited by the parties, Rule 6B-4.08, Florida Administrative Code, is also relevant. It specifies general criteria to be followed when dismissing an employee. They include:
When an action or other matter appears to exist which may possibly result in the future dismissal of any employee, the immediate supervisor of the individual should take appropriate action to advise the employee of the matter and the potential consequence if not corrected.
Every possible helpful effort should be made by the immediate supervisor to aid the
employee to correct the matter which could cause his or her dismissal if not corrected.
Except in extremely serious circumstances, the employee should be given sufficient time, following notification, for improvement.
Any charges of undesirable traits or practices should be bona fide, verifiable, and clearly stated to the employee in writing. Any employee thus charged should have a fair opportunity to explain or otherwise defend himself or herself, as provided in Section 231.36, Florida Statutes.
Fair dismissal procedures should be followed regardless of the race, creed color, sex or contractual status of the individual.
The School Board contends that Crumiel failed to perform duties prescribed by law [Rule 6B-4.09(1)(a)(a)], repeatedly failed to communicate with and relate to children in the classroom to such an extent that the pupils were deprived of a minimum educational experience [Rule 6B-4.09(1)(a)(2)], lacked an adequate command of her area of specialization [Rule 6B- 4.09(1)(b)(4)], and lacked emotional stability [Rule 6B- 4.09(1)(b)(l)]. The Commissioner of Education charges that respondent violated Subsections 231.23(1)(b) and (f), Rule 6B- 4.09(1)(a)(1) and (2), and Section 231.09 which requires a teacher to teach efficiently and faithfully, use prescribed materials and methods, and keep records. In its post-hearing filing respondent focused primarily upon the events which occurred in school year 1984-85 and suggests (a) the School Board did not follow all prescribed procedures in the union contract, and (b) it gave her an inadequate time to comply with the prescriptions.
The evidence is clear and convincing that respondent was unable to discharge her required duties as an elementary teacher by virtue of both inefficiency and incapacity as defined within Rule 6B-4.09(1), Florida Administrative Code. More specifically, she repeatedly failed to carry out school board rules relating "to teaching efficiently, using prescribed materials and methods; record keeping; and fulfilling the terms of any contract . . .," she was repeatedly unable to adequately communicate with and relate to the children in her classroom to the extent the students were deprived of a minimum educational experience, and she lacked adequate command of her area of specialization, elementary education. However, the charge that
respondent "lacked emotional stability" must fail. By virtue of the foregoing, respondent has been shown to be incompetent within the meaning of Rule 6B-4.09(1) and Subsection 231.36(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1985). In addition, the record amply demonstrates that "every possible effort" was made by school administrators to aid Crumiel in correcting the deficiencies, and she was "given sufficient time, following notification, for improvement." Rule 6B-4.08, F.A.C.
6. Given the seriousness of the established charges, and the overwhelming underlying proof, termination of employment with the school board and revocation of her teaching certificate are appropriate. Compare, Blunt v. State Board of Education, 275 So.2d 303 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973) (termination justified where teacher demonstrated inadequate command of standard English language, her classroom organization and planning were unaccepta- ble, she failed to use standard instructional techniques, and her pupil evaluation, reporting and record keeping were inadequate).
Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is
RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of incompetency, and that she be terminated from employment with the School Board of Dade County, and her teaching certificate number 342743 be REVOKED.
DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of July, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida.
DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building
2009 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of July, 1986.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Dade County Public Schools
Board Administration Bldg., Suite 301 1450 NE Second Avenue
Miami, Florida 33132
Craig R. Wilson, Esquire
215 Fifth Avenue, Suite 302 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Daniel F. Solomon, Esquire 1455 Northwest 14th Street Miami, Florida 33125
Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education
The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Judith Brechner, General Counsel Department of Education
Knott Building
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Room 215, Knott Bldg.
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
APPENDIX
Petitioner (Case No. 85-3673):
Covered in finding of fact 2.
Covered in findings of fact 1 and 2.
Covered in finding of fact 5.
Covered in finding of fact 5.
Covered in finding of fact 6.
Rejected as not being necessary to resolve the issues.
Rejected as not being necessary to resolve the issues.
Covered in finding of fact 5.
Covered in finding of fact 5.
Covered in finding of fact 7.
Covered in finding of fact 7.
Rejected as being irrelevant.
Rejected as being irrelevant.
Covered in finding of fact 9.
Covered in finding of fact 9.
Covered in finding of fact 9.
Covered in finding of fact 10
Covered in finding of fact 11
Covered in finding of fact 12
Covered in finding of fact 12
Covered in finding of fact 8.
Covered in finding of fact 6.
Covered in finding of fact 12
Covered in finding of fact 12
Covered in finding of fact 13
Covered in finding of fact 13
Covered in finding of fact 13
Covered in finding of fact 13
Covered in finding of fact 14
Covered in finding of fact 3.
Covered in finding of fact 3.
Covered in finding of fact 3.
Covered in finding of fact 3.
Covered in finding of fact 15
Covered in finding of fact 15
Covered in finding of fact 15
Covered in finding of fact 13
Covered in finding of fact 13
Covered in finding of fact 13
Covered in finding of fact 13
Covered in finding of fact 28
Rejected as being unnecessary
Covered in finding of fact 29
Covered in finding of fact 28
Covered in finding of fact 29
Rejected as being unnecessary
Covered in finding of fact 29
Covered in finding of fact 16
Covered in finding of fact 16
Covered in finding of fact 17
Covered in finding of fact 16
Covered in finding of fact 16
Covered in finding of fact 16
Partially covered in finding of fact 16.
Covered in finding of fact 16
Covered in findings of fact 18 and 19.
Covered in finding of fact 18
Covered in finding of fact 18.
Covered in finding of fact 18.
Covered in finding of fact 18.
Covered in finding of fact 19.
Covered in finding of fact 19.
Covered in finding of fact 20.
Covered in finding of fact 20.
Covered in finding of fact 20.
Covered in finding of fact 20.
Covered in finding of fact 20.
Covered in finding of fact 20.
Covered in finding of fact 20.
Covered in finding of fact 20.
Covered in finding of fact 20.
Rejected as being unnecessary.
Covered in finding of fact 20.
Covered in finding of fact 21.
Covered in finding of fact 21.
Covered in finding of fact 21.
Covered in finding of fact 21.
Covered in finding of fact 22.
Covered in finding of fact 23.
Covered in finding of fact 24.
Covered in finding of fact 24.
Covered in finding of fact 25.
Covered in finding of fact 25.
Covered in finding of fact 25.
Covered in finding of fact 25.
Covered in finding of fact 26.
Rejected as being unnecessary.
Covered in finding of fact 26.
Covered in finding of fact 27.
Covered in finding of fact 27.
Covered in finding of fact 27.
Covered in finding of fact 27.
Covered in finding of fact 27.
Covered in finding of fact 27.
Covered in finding of fact 30.
Covered in finding of fact 31.
Covered in finding of fact 31.
Covered in finding of fact 32.
Rejected as being unnecessary.
Covered in finding of fact 33.
Covered in finding of fact 34.
Partially covered in finding of fact 34.
Covered in finding of fact 35.
Covered in finding of fact 35.
Covered in finding of fact 36.
Covered in finding of fact 37.
Covered in finding of fact 37.
Rejected as being unnecessary.
Covered in finding of fact 37.
Covered in finding of fact 37.
Covered in finding of fact 38.
Covered in finding of fact 38.
Covered in finding of fact 39.
Rejected as being unnecessary.
Covered in finding of fact 38.
Covered in finding of fact 40.
Covered in finding of fact 41.
Covered in finding of fact 42.
Covered in finding of fact 43.
Covered in finding of fact 43.
Covered in finding of fact 43.
Covered in finding of fact 43.
Covered in finding of fact 43.
Covered in finding of fact 43.
Covered in finding of fact 44.
Covered in finding of fact 43.
Covered in finding of fact 45.
Covered in finding of fact 45.
Covered in finding of fact 45.
Covered in finding of fact 45.
Covered in finding of fact 45.
Covered in finding of fact 46.
Covered in finding of fact 45.
Rejected as being unnecessary.
Covered in finding of fact 45.
Covered in finding of fact 47.
Rejected as being unnecessary.
Covered in finding of fact 45.
Covered in finding of fact 48.
Covered in finding of fact 48.
Covered in finding of fact 48.
Covered in finding of fact 49.
Covered in finding of fact 49.
Covered in finding of fact 49.
Covered in finding of fact 49.
Covered in finding of fact 50.
Covered in finding of fact 50.
Covered in finding of fact 51.
Covered in finding of fact 51.
Covered in finding of fact 51.
Covered in finding of fact 51.
Rejected as being unnecessary.
Covered in finding of fact 52.
Covered in finding of fact 52.
Covered in finding of fact 52.
Covered in finding of fact 53.
Covered in finding of fact 53.
Covered in finding of fact 53.
Covered in finding of fact 53.
Covered in finding of fact 53.
Covered in finding of fact 53.
Covered in finding of fact 53.
Covered in finding of fact 54.
Covered in finding of fact 55.
Covered in finding of fact 55.
Rejected as being unnecessary.
Rejected as being unnecessary.
Covered in finding of fact 56.
Covered in finding of fact 57.
Covered in finding of fact 58.
Covered in finding of fact 58.
Covered in finding of fact 58.
Covered in finding of fact 59.
Covered in finding of fact 59.
Covered in finding of fact 60.
Covered in finding of fact 61.
Covered in finding of fact 61.
Covered in finding of fact 61.
Covered in finding of fact 62.
Covered in finding of fact 63.
Covered in finding of fact 64.
Covered in finding of fact 65.
Covered in finding of fact 66.
Covered in finding of fact 66.
Rejected as being unnecessary.
Covered in finding of fact 67.
Covered in finding of fact 68.
Covered in finding of fact 68.
Covered in finding of fact 68.
Covered in finding of fact 57. Petitioner (Case No. 86-1116):
Covered in finding of fact 1.
Covered in findings of fact 2 and 5.
Covered in finding of fact 3.
Covered in finding of fact 13.
Covered in findings of fact 16 and 17.
Covered in findings of fact 18 and 20.
Covered in finding of fact 20.
Covered in finding of fact 21.
Covered in finding of fact 23.
Covered in finding of fact 24.
Covered in finding of fact 25.
Covered in finding of fact 26.
Covered in finding of fact 27.
Covered in findings of fact 30 and 31.
Covered in findings of fact 35 and 36.
Covered in finding of fact 35.
Covered in finding of fact 37.
Covered in finding of fact 38.
Covered in finding of fact 39.
Covered in finding of fact 40 except that the observation took place on October 1, 1984.
Covered in finding of fact 41.
Covered in finding of fact 43.
Covered in finding of fact 45.
Covered in finding of fact 53.
Covered in finding of fact 58.
Covered in finding of fact 50.
Covered in finding of fact 11.
Covered in findings of fact 3 and 29.
Covered in finding of fact 56.
Covered in findings of fact 11 and 33.
Covered in finding of fact 71.
Covered in findings of fact 5, 6, 9 and 10._
Covered in findings of fact 61, 65 and 66.
Covered in findings of fact 61-63.
Covered in finding of fact 69
Covered in findings of fact 13 and 35.
Rejected as being unnecessary.
Rejected as being unnecessary.
Rejected as being unnecessary.
Covered in finding of fact 70.
Rejected as being a conclusion of law. Respondent:*
Covered in background.
Covered in background.
Covered in background.
Covered in background.
Covered in background.
Covered in background.
Covered in finding of fact 34.
Rejected as being unnecessary.
Rejected as being unnecessary.
Covered in finding of fact 30.
Covered in finding of fact 45.
Partially covered in finding of fact 53.
Rejected as being unnecessary.
Rejected as being unnecessary.
Rejected as being unnecessary.
Covered in finding of fact 21.
Partially covered in finding of fact 53. The second sentence is irrelevant since no formal external observation was performed by Hartner on February 8, 1985.
Rejected as being irrelevant since no formal observation was conducted on February 8, 1985.
Covered in finding of fact 48.
Covered in finding of fact 48.
Covered in finding of fact 53.
Rejected as being unnecessary.
Rejected as being unnecessary. Findings of Fact
Covered in finding of fact 2.
Covered in finding of fact 43.
Covered in finding of fact 1.
Rejected as being a conclusion of law.
Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of evidence.
Covered in finding of fact 45.
Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of evidence.
Covered in finding of fact 48.
Covered in finding of fact 49.
Essentially covered in findings of fact 48-58.
Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of evidence.
Covered in finding of fact 53.
Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of evidence and irrelevant.
Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of evidence.
Rejected as being unnecessary.
Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of evidence.
Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of evidence.
Rejected as being a conclusion of law.
*Respondent's filing contained two sections entitled "Proposed Findings" and "Findings of Fact."
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Jul. 24, 1986 | Recommended Order (hearing held , 2013). CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Aug. 22, 1986 | Agency Final Order | |
| Jul. 24, 1986 | Recommended Order | Teacher was terminated for inefficiency. |
