STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY,)
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 86-2182
)
GLORIA E. WALKER, )
)
Respondent. )
) RALPH D. TURLINGTON, as )
Commissioner of Education, )
)
Petitioner, )
vs. ) CASE NO. 86-3930
)
GLORIA WALKER, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, James E. Bradwell, held a public hearing in these consolidated cases on October 9 and 10, 1986, in Miami, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: School Board of Dade County
Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Assistant School Board Attorney Board Administration Building
Attorney's Office
1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
For Petitioner: Ralph D. Turlington,
Education Commissioner William E. Williams, Esquire Fuller & Johnson, P.A.
111 North Calhoun Street Post Office Box 1739 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
For Respondent: Elizabeth J. DuFresne, Esquire
DuFresne and Bradley, P.A.
2950 S. W. 27 Avenue, Suite 310
Miami, Florida 33133
ISSUED PRESENTED
The issues presented are (1) Whether or not despondent should be dismissed from her employment with Petitioner, School Board of Dade County based upon grounds of incompetence and (2) should disciplinary action be taken relative to her teaching certificate.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
By Specific Notice of Charges filed herein dated June 23, 1986 (Case No. 86-2182), Petitioner, School Board of Dade County (School Board) alleged that Respondent, Gloria E. Walker, was incompetent and subject to dismissal Pursuant to Section 231.36(4)(c), Florida Statutes, by reason of her repeated failure to perform duties Prescribed by law and her repeated failure to communicate with
and relate to students in her classroom to such an extent that the students were deprived of a minimal educational experience, in addition to her (Respondent) lack of adequate command of her area of specialization.
By Administrative Complaint filed October 3, 1986, (Case No. 86-3930), Petitioner, Ralph D. Turlington, as Commissioner of Education, seeks to revoke, suspend or take other disciplinary action against Respondent's Teaching Certificate predicated upon allegations that Respondent was incompetent to teach or perform duties as an employee of the public school system; failed to make competent analysis of the individual needs and Potential of students in her classroom; failed to ensure and promote the accomplishment of designated tasks to the Proper selection and use of instructional procedures; failed to maintain consistency in the application of policy and practice by failing to establish routines and Procedures with the use of materials and the physical movement of students; failed in employing the appropriate techniques for the correction of inappropriate student behavior; failed to demonstrate competence in evaluating learning and goal achievement by students and failed to demonstrate the adequate human and interpersonal relations skills required of a teacher. At the Parties' request, the cases were consolidated for hearing.
At final hearing, Petitioners called Maybelline Truesdell, Catherine Dinkins, Marilyn Von Seggern, Caroline L. McCalla, Charles Buckwalter, Gail Wainger, M.D., Elizabeth Tynes, Edwardo Martinez, William Kinney and Dr. Patrick Gray as witnesses. Petitioners offered exhibits 1-36 which were received into evidence. Respondent testified on her own behalf and called her parents, Lola and A. D. Walker, as witnesses. Respondent offered no exhibits.
The transcript of the hearing was filed on November 18, 1986. Pursuant to leave, the parties were allowed through December 2, 1986 to file proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The parties submitted proposed memoranda which were considered by me in preparation of this Recommended Order. Proposed Findings of Fact which are not incorporated herein are the subject of specific rulings in an Appendix to this Recommended Order.
Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following relevant factual findings.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Respondent, Gloria E. Walker, holds Teaching Certificate No. 294140, issued by the Department of Education, State of Florida. Respondent is certified to teach in the area of music education.
Respondent has been employed as a Music Teacher by Petitioner, School Board of Dade County since 1970. From 1973 until 1986, Respondent taught music at Dunbar Elementary School in the Dade County School District.
During the 1970-71 through 1977-78 school years, Respondent received either unacceptable or marginally acceptable scores for five of the seven years on her annual evaluations. (Petitioner's Exhibits 29).
During the 1973-79 school year, the School Board altered its evaluations System for instructional Personnel. During the 78-79 through 83-84 school years, Respondent's annual evaluations were rated as acceptable. However, during the school years 1981- 82 through 83-84, school and district Personnel made comments concerning Respondent's need to improve her performance and development in certain areas. (TR 298).
Commencing with the 1973 school year, Respondent received assistance from Charles Buckwalter, music specialist for elementary schools for the Dade County School District. Respondent was initially contacted by Mr. Buckwalter that year because of concerns the school's Principal expressed regarding Respondent's lack of classroom management. During that year, Mr. Buckwalter visited and provided assistance to Respondent approximately seven (7) times. Mr. Buckwalter's assistance to Respondent continued during the following three
(3) years.
During the 1981-82 school year, Mr. Buckwalter assisted Respondent on more than four occasions during which time he attempted to demonstrate lessons concerning management techniques and the use of new materials; objectives of instruction and on January 26, 1982, Buckwalter, along with Dr. Howard Doolin supervisor of music for Dade County, visited Respondent so that Dr. Doolin could observe Buckwalter's assistance to Respondent.
On April 26, 1982, Respondent and Mr. Buckwalter met for approximately three and one half hours. Buckwalter visited several of Respondent classes and demonstrated the use of certain new materials. As a part of that visit, he observed Respondent's teaching and noted that Respondent abandoned the new materials and returned to teaching the old curriculum.
On November 11, 1982, Mr. Buckwalter spent approximately three hours with Respondent in which time he visited two classes and had a conference with Respondent concerning the new curriculum for level 1 students.
On November 18, 1982, Mr. Buckwalter made a follow-up visit concerning Respondent's lesson plans and objectives. Additionally, he demonstrated a lesson to one of Respondent's classes.
On or about November 29, 1982, Respondent was formally observed by assistant principal, H. Elizabeth Tynes. Ms. Tynes has a wealth of experience lasting more than thirty years in both Hillsborough and Dade Counties. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of classroom management, teacher/student relationship and in a subcategory of assessment techniques. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7).
Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of classroom management based on a large number of disruptive students in her music class and Respondent's inability to control the students' behavior through either verbal or nonverbal strategies.
Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in the area of teacher/student relationship based on her failure to demonstrate consistency as concerns student behavior, failing to praise good behavior and reprimand students for disruptive conduct.
On another occasion, assistant principal Tynes listened to a musical program Respondent's students were giving over the intercom system. Ms. Tynes rated the program a "total disaster". Ms. Tynes and the principal were "ashamed" of what they heard from Respondent's music class. Respondent demonstrated skills preparation for the program as observed by Ms. Tynes.
On May 19, 1983, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Katherine Dinkin, who was then principal of Dunbar Elementary School. Following the observation, Respondent was evaluated unacceptable in areas of classroom management, teacher/student relationship, and techniques of instruction. (Petitioner's Exhibit 17).
Principal Dinkins observed that Respondent's students were not on task, the classroom was chaotic and the students only responded to directives of the Principal, as a Person of authority.
Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instructions based on Ms. Dinkin's observation that students were being taught at levels beyond their ability; class openings and closings were not done appropriately and Respondent failed to develop a plan for the individual needs, interests and abilities of students.
Respondent was rated unacceptable in the category of teacher/student relationships based on her failure to demonstrate warmth toward the students and her inability to command respect.
During this period in 1983, principal Dinkins prescribed help for Respondent as concerns observing and working with other teachers for guidance.
On April 12, 1984, Respondent was again formally observed by principal Dinkins and rated unacceptable in classroom management and techniques of instructions. (Petitioner's Exhibit 21).
Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of classroom management based on her demonstrated inability to keep students on task or to develop strategies to control their behavior.
Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of techniques of instructions based on an inadequately prepared lesson plan and an inability to deliver the instructional components to students. Principal Dinkins observed that the material Respondent attempted to teach was too complicated for the students and she failed to Properly sequence her instructions.
Principal Dinkins, who was tendered and received as an expert in the areas of teacher observation and assessment, was unable to observe any continuum of improvement by Respondent over the extended period of Principal Dinkins' supervision. Principal Dinkins opined that Respondent deprived her students of the minimal educational experience in music.
During the 1983-84 school year, Respondent again received help from Mr. Buckwalter. As part of this help, Mr. Buckwalter organized small study
groups in order to improve instructions throughout the music education department. These groups met on September 28, October 19, November 9 and 30, 1983. Respondent was asked to become part of the study group.
The study group was Particularly concerned with focusing on the scope and sequence of curriculum, students' achievement and implementation of certain aspects of the curriculum, particularly as concern level 1 and 2 students.
On or about August 30, 1983, Mr. Buckwalter spent the day with Respondent and a new music teacher, Ronald Gold.
On or about September 27, 1983, Mr. Buckwalter visited Respondent for approximately 3 and 1/2 hours in which time he visited three of her classes and again attempted to discuss some work with Respondent concerning student management techniques including the use of a seating chart.
On or about October 18, 1983, Mr. Buckwalter visited Respondent approximately four hours during which time he visited several classes and observed her using ideas gleaned from the study group.
On or about November 7, 1983, Mr. Buckwalter again visited with Respondent for approximately four hours. After the conference, he taught classes with her and implemented the use of instruments to enrich the class lesson as well as the implementation and use of progress charts.
On or about December 9, 1983, Mr. Buckwalter visited with Respondent for approximately 3 hours. At this time, Mr. Buckwalter expressed concern in that Respondent was not clearly understanding the intent of the school board curriculum.
Respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of classroom management, techniques of instructions, teacher/students relationships, assessment techniques and professional responsibility during her annual evaluation for the 1984-85 school year.
On or about October 29, 1984, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by assistant principal, Edwardo Martinez. Although Respondent was rated acceptable, this class was not a typical situation but rather a rehearsal of a specific program.
On other occasions, assistant principal Martinez had opportunities to walk by Respondent's classroom. He often noted loud noises emanating from her classroom. During these instances, he would enter the room and immediately settle the students down.
On March 26, 1985, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Maybelline Truesdell, Principal of Dunbar Elementary. Based on this formal observation, Respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of classroom management, instructional techniques and teacher/student relationships. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). As a result of the unacceptable evaluation, Respondent was given a prescription form suggesting methods in which she could improve areas in which she was rated unacceptable. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2).
Respondent was rated unacceptable in the category of classroom management based on her inability to retain the students attention; her failure to open and close classes appropriately and her general observation of students being off task.
Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of instructional techniques based on the observation that she did not interact verbally with students; students were inappropriately excluded from participating in discussions of the lesson and Respondent did not use instructional methods/materials which were appropriate for the students' learning levels. (TR pages 30-35).
Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of student/teacher relationships based on her improper focusing on a small number of students; inappropriately criticizing a student assistant in the presence of other students, and a failure to use sufficient positive interaction to maintain class control.
On may 3, 1985, Respondent was again formally observed by Maybelline Truesdell and rated unacceptable in the areas of classroom management; instructional techniques; student/teacher relationships and assessment techniques. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3).
Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of classroom management as she failed to properly discipline students; failed to maintain classroom control and students were off task.
In the area of techniques of instruction, Respondent received an unacceptable rating in one category which remained unremediated pursuant to a prior prescription issued by Ms. Truesdell.
Respondent was again rated unacceptable in the area of teacher/student relationship based on her inability to display any of the indicators considered necessary to become acceptable and her continued rejection of students who volunteered or attempted to participate; her failure to involve the entire class by focusing her attention on a small number of students to the exclusion of others and her failure to appropriately address students by their name rather than "you." (TR 39-41).
Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of assessment techniques based on her failure to follow county and state guidelines for assessing students. Specifically, Respondent failed to provide substantial evidence of (documentation) to justify grades assigned to students and her grade books did not indicate if or when she was giving formal quizzes or tests. In addition, there was no letter grade or numerical indication in Respondent's grade books to gauge academic progress. Additionally, there was insufficient documentation in the student folders to back-up student progress or to otherwise substantiate the grades assigned to students.
During the 1984-85 school year, Mr. Buckwalter returned to Dunbar Elementary to again assist Respondent. On September 6, 1984, Mr. Buckwalter visited Respondent for approximately three hours during which time he visited a class; co-taught a class and attempted to assist Respondent concerning improvement in areas of student behavior and management.
On November 2, 1984, Mr. Buckwalter visited one of Respondent's classes. He thereafter visited Respondent on March 22, 1985 at which time he spent approximately two hours in her classroom. He taught five classes to demonstrate strategies of progressing students from one level to another. He thereafter conferred with Respondent concerning the need to reflect a positive attitude toward students..
On March 29, 1985, Mr. Buckwalter again visited Respondent. Respondent was then using materials suggested by Mr. Buckwalter although she utilized them in a "rote" manner and included too many concepts within a single lesson.
On April 18, 1985, Mr. Buckwalter returned to observe Respondent. The students were going over materials that had been taught in past years and the new curriculum was not being taught.
On May 23, 1985, Mr. Buckwalter spent four hours with Respondent.
They concentrated on the development of lesson plans; planned activities concerning class objectives and stressed the need to remain-on one concept until it was understood by a majority of the class.
Respondent's evaluation for the 1985-86 school year was unacceptable in the areas of subject matter knowledge instructional techniques; teacher/student relationships; assessment techniques and Professional responsibility.
On October 10, 1985, Respondent was formally observed by assistant principal William J. Kinney. Respondent was rated acceptable in the area of assessment techniques. Mr. Kinney offered certain suggestions to Respondent including the fact that the lesson taught would be more beneficial by more student participation. Respondent was advised of a need to immediately cure problems respecting students who were observed hitting bells with pencils and pens and the need to immediately address problems when students were observed off task.
During the school year, Mr. Kinney made numerous informal visits to Respondent's classroom at which times he observed loud noises coming from Respondent's classes, chanting, fighting, furniture pushed into the walls, student misbehavior and other indications that Respondent's classroom management was ineffective.
On December 3, 1985, Respondent was officially observed by principal Truesdell and was rated unacceptable in the areas of instructional and assessment techniques. (Petitioner's Exhibit 6).
Respondent was made aware of her continuing problems and was provided with an acknowledged receipt of a summary of the conference-for-the-record dated Thursday, December 12, 1985. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7). Additionally, Respondent was given specific instructions in the form of a prescription concerning her grade book and instructed to strictly follow the conduct prescribed. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7).
In the opinion of principal Truesdell (received as an expert in the area of teacher assessment teacher evaluation, teacher observation in the role of school principal) Respondent was unacceptable for further employment by the school district, was continuing to demonstrate ineffective classroom management, instructional techniques, assessment techniques and had done so for such an extended period of time that improvement appeared unlikely.
Additionally, Ms. Truesdell considered that Respondent was unable to make sufficient competent analysis of students' individual needs and potential in the classroom; failed to ensure and promote the accomplishment of tasks to the proper selection and use of appropriate techniques; failed to establish
routine and procedures for the use of materials and physical movements of students in her class; failed to employ the appropriate techniques to correct inappropriate student behavior; failed to demonstrate competence in evaluating learning and goal achievement by her students and failed to demonstrate appropriate interpersonal skills required of a teacher to maintain discipline and effectively teach in a classroom environment.
On February 7, 1986, Respondent was officially observed in her class by Marilyn Von Seggern, music supervisor for Dade County and by Ms. McCalla, assistant principal at Dunbar, under the provision of the TADS program. (Petitioner's Exhibit 23).
Following that observation, Respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of subject matter knowledge, instructional techniques, assessment techniques and teacher/student relationships.
In the Professional opinion of Marilyn Von Seggern, received herein as an expert in the areas of music education, teacher observation and assessment, Respondent was depriving students of the minimum educational experience and had serious problems concerning her ability to communicate and relate to students respecting the music curriculum.
On January 16, 1986, Respondent was formally observed in her classroom by Dunbar's assistant principal Carolyn Louise McCalla, and was rated unacceptable in the areas of classroom management, techniques of instruction and assessment techniques. (Petitioner's Exhibit 24).
Based on Mr. Buckwalter's repeated observation of Respondent's classroom and teaching techniques, Mr. Buckwalter opined that Respondent's students were not receiving the minimum education required by the Dade County School System as concerns the curriculum for music. As example, on one occasion Mr. Buckwalter observed Respondent presenting an organized lesson to students which was quite successful and upon his return approximately five minutes later, Mr. Buckwalter observed that Respondent was not teaching the new successful lesson but had instead reverted back to an old lesson and her students were observed inattentive and generally off task. (TR pages 250-254).
On March 26, 1986, Respondent was having difficulty maintaining her students' attention to the point that the students were out of control. While Respondent was attempting to stop a certain student from chanting and beating on the desk, Respondent tried to restrain the student and in so doing, Respondent broke her watch band and scratched the student on her face. The student required hospitalization and although the injury was deemed an accident, Respondent's lack of classroom control and management played a major part in causing the incident.
Pursuant to a request by the School Board, Respondent, on April 30, 1986, was evaluated by psychiatrist, Gail D. Wainger. Dr. Wainger took a medical history from Respondent which included Respondent's revelation of previous psychiatrist treatment. Dr. Wainger observed that Respondent had a very flattened, blunted affect with little emotional expression. She related that this was a sign of a patient who was recovering from a major psychiatric episode. Additionally, Respondent showed difficulty recalling recent events. Dr. Wainger diagnosed Respondent as having chronic residual schizophrenia with a possible personality disorder including impulsive and avoidance features. Dr.
Wainger opined that a person with such diagnosis would have difficulty being an authority figure and that this would be especially Problematic for students who needed positive reinforcement.
On April 28, 1986, Respondent attended a conference-for-the-record with the school board's administrative staff. A past history of performance and evaluations was reviewed. Additionally, the investigative report concerning the injury of the student which occurred March 26, 1986 was also reviewed. Respondent was informed that the matter would be referred to the School Board for possible disciplinary action. (Petitioner's Exhibit 31).
On May 21, 1986, the School Board took action to suspend Respondent's employment and initiated the instant dismissal proceeding against her. (Petitioner's Exhibit 32).
For the 1985-86 school year, Respondent's annual evaluation indicated that she was rated unacceptable in five of seven categories and was not recommended for re-employment. (Petitioner's Exhibit 13).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of these proceedings. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
The parties were duly noticed pursuant to the notice provision of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.
Section 231.36(4)(c), Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part:
(c) Any member...of the instructional staff,...may be suspended or dismissed at anytime during the school year; however, the charges against [her] must be based on...incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty...
In this case, the School Board's charge is incompetence.
In promulgating Rule 6B-4.09, Florida Administrative Code, the State Board of Education has defined "incompetence" for purposes of Section 231.36 (4)(c), Florida Statutes. Pertinent to this case, 6B-4.09, Florida Administrative Code Provides:
The basis for charges upon which dismissal action against instructional personnel maybe pursued are set forth in Section 231.36, Florida Statutes. The basis for each of such charges is hereby defined:
Imcompetency is defined as inability or lack of fitness to discharge the required duty as a
result of inefficiency or incapacity....
Inefficiency:
Repeated failure to perform duties prescribed by law (Section 231.09, Florida Statutes;
Repeated failure on the part of a teacher to communicate with and relate to children in the classroom, to such an extent that pupil are deprived of minimum educational experience;....
Incapacity:
(4) Lack of adequate command of
...her area of specialization.
The charge of incompetency includes Respondent's repeated failure to perform duties prescribed by law (Section 231.09, Florida Statutes) her repeated failure to communicate with and relate to students in her classroom, to such an extent that pupils are deprived of a minimal educational experience and her lack of adequate command of her area of specialization.
Section 231.09, Florida Statues, provides:
Members of the instructional staff of the public schools shall perform duties prescribed by rules of the School Board. Such rules shall include, but not be limited to, rules relating to teaching efficiently and faithfully, using prescribed materials and methods; record keeping; and fulfilling the terms of any contract, unless released from the contract by the School Board.
Dade County School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21(p.p.35) provides:
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.
Petitioner, School Board of Dade County, has established that Respondent was incompetent as defined by Section 231.36 and 231.09, Florida Statutes, and Rules 6B-4.09, Florida Administrative Code. Respondent repeatedly failed to perform duties prescribed by rules of the School Board. Respondent also repeatedly failed to communicate with and relate to students in her classroom to such an extent that the pupils were deprived of a minimum educational experience. Respondent lacks adequate command of the area of her specialization, music education.
It is, therefore, concluded that Respondent, Gloria E. Walker, is incompetent as charged in the specific notice of charges filed by the School Board of Dade County, Florida.
Section 231.20(1), Florida Statutes (1985), authorizes the Education Practices Commission to revoke, suspend or to otherwise impose any penalty provided by law, if it is shown that a teacher has proved to be incompetent to teach or perform duties as an employee of the Public school system or to teach and operate a private school, or has otherwise violated Provisions of law or rules of the State Board of Education, the penalty for which is revocation of a teacher certificate.
Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions indicating that Respondent is incompetent to teach or perform duties as an instructional employee of the public school system, Respondent has engaged in conduct violative of Section 231.28(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Rule 6B-5.04, Florida Administrative Code Provides that educators shall make competent analysis of the individual needs and potential of students in their classroom. Respondent has violated this rule by failing to make such competent analysis of the individual needs and Potentials of the students in her classroom.
Competent and substantial evidence was offered herein to establish that Respondent, by failing to properly select and use appropriate instructional procedures to promote the accomplishment of designated tasks of students in her classroom and thereby engaged in conduct violative of Rule 6B-5.05, Florida Administrative Code.
Competent and substantial evidence was offered herein to establish that Respondent, by failing to maintain consistency in the application of policy and practice concerning the use of materials and physical movement of students in her classroom and by further failing to employ the appropriate techniques to correct and remediate inappropriate students behavior engaged in conduct violative of Rule 6B-5.07(2), Florida Administrative Code.
Competent and substantial evidence was offered herein to establish that Respondent, by failing to demonstrate any competence to evaluate the learning and goal achievements by her students, engaged in conduct violative of Rule 6B-5.09, Florida Administrative Code.
Respondent, by demonstrating an inability to utilize appropriate human and interpersonal relation skills required of a teacher, engaged in conduct violative of Rule 6B-5.10, Florida Administrative Code.
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED:
That the Petitioner, School Board of Dade County, enter a Final Order sustaining the suspension, without pay, of Respondent, Gloria E. Walker and dismissing Respondent, Gloria E. Walker as a teacher in the Dade County Public Schools.
That the Petitioner, Ralph D. Turlington, as Commissioner of Education, entered a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of incompetency and incapacity.
It is further Recommended that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's Florida Teacher's Certificate No. 294140, issued by the Department of Education, State of Florida, for a period of three
years based on incompetence and incapacity.
DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida.
JAMES E. BRADWELL
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building
2009 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of February, 1987.
ENDNOTE
1/ TADS is an acronym for the Teacher Assessment and Development System.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-2182 and 86-3930
Rulings on Petitioner, School Board of Dade County's Proposed Recommended Order.
Number 5, rejected as irrelevant to determine the issues posed herein.
Paragraph 13, rejected as irrelevant.
Paragraph 30, first three sentences rejected as being irrelevant to a determination of the issues.
Paragraph 43, rejected as irrelevant.
Paragraph 67, rejected, irrelevant.
Ruling on Petitioner, Ralph D. Turlington's Proposed Recommended Order
1. Paragraph 7, rejected as irrelevant.
Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order
Paragraph 2, rejected as contrary to other evidence of record.
Paragraph 3, rejected as irrelevant to determine the issues posed herein.
Paragraph 4, rejected as contrary to other credited testimony.
Paragraph 5, rejected as contrary to other record evidence credited herein.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire School Board of Dade County Assistant Board Attorney Board Administration Building Attorney's Office
1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
Ralph D. Turlington
William E. Williams, Esquire Fuller & Johnson, P.A.
111 North Calhoun Street Post Office Box 1739 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Elizabeth J. DuFresne, Esquire DuFresne and Bradley, P.A.
2950 S. W. 27 Avenue
Suite 310
Miami, Florida 33133
Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1410 N. E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
=================================================================
AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
BEFORE THE EDUCATION PRACTICES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
RALPH D. TURLINGTON, as
Commissioner of Education, Petitioner,
vs. EPC CASE NO. 86-089-RT
DOAH CASE NOS. 86-2182
GLORIA WALKER, 86-3930
Respondent.
/
FINAL ORDER
Respondent, GLORIA WALKER, holds Florida teaching certificate no. 294140. Petitioner filed an Administrative Complaint seeking suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against the certificate.
Respondent requested a formal hearing and one was held before the Division of Administrative Hearings. A Recommended Order has been forwarded to the Commission pursuant to Section 120.37(1), F.S.; it is attached to and made a part of this Order.
A panel of the Education Practices Commission met on April 1, 1987, in Orlando, Florida, to take final agency action. The Petitioner was represented by William Williams, Esquire. The Respondent but represented by Lorraine Hoffman, Esquire. The panel has reviewed the entire record in the case.
The panel adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the recommended order; however, the panel specifically rejects the recommended penalty of three years suspension and increases the penalty to three years revocation. This increase is based upon the following factors present within the record: 1) Respondent having received ten years of unsatisfactory evaluations during her teaching career; 2) Respondent's difficulty, as evidenced in the record, in dealing with teachers and students at the school; 3) Respondent's unacceptable performances in the area of classroom management, as evidenced in the record, specifically, at paragraph 20 on page six of the recommended order; and 4) Respondent's demonstrated inability, as evidenced in the record, to complete recommended remedial prescriptions upon advice. This Order takes effect upon filing.
This Order may be appealed by filing notices of appeal and a filing fee, as set out in Section 120.68(2), F.S., and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(b) and (c), within 30 days of the date of filing.
DONE AND ORDERED, this 10th day of April, 1987.
CAROLYN WILSON, Presiding Officer
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing Order in the matter of RDT vs. Gloria Walker was mailed
to Elizabeth DuFresne, Esq., 2950
S.W. 27 Ave., Suite 310, Miami, Florida, 33133 this 16th day of April, 1987, by U.S. Mail.
KAREN B. WILDE, Clerk
COPIES FURNISHED TO:
Marlene Greenfield, Administrator
Professional Practices Services
Susan Tully Proctor, Esquire Attorney General's Office
Sydney McKenzie, General Counsel Florida Admin. Law Reports William E. Williams, Esquire
James E. Bradwell Hearing Officer
Division of Admin. Hearings
Dr. Leonard Britton, Supt. Dade County Schools
Dr. Patrick Gray, Asst. Supt. Office of Professional standards Dade County Schools
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Feb. 02, 1987 | Recommended Order (hearing held , 2013). CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Mar. 04, 1987 | Agency Final Order | |
| Feb. 02, 1987 | Recommended Order | Respondent found to be incompetent & incapable of teaching. Teaching certificate suspended 3 years. |
