STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 86-3926
)
ANNA M. BREWER, )
)
Respondent. )
) BETTY CASTOR, AS COMMISSIONER ) OF EDUCATION, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 87-0468
)
ANNA MCCONICO BREWER, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon due notice, final formal hearing was held in this cause by the undersigned duly assigned Hearing Officer, Ella Jane P. Davis, on April 30 and May 1, 1987, in Miami, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Madeline P. Schere, Esquire School Board of Board Administration Building
Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 301 Miami, Florida 33132
For Petitioner: J. David Holder, Esquire Honorable Betty 211 South Gadsden Street Castor, as Post Office Box 1694 Commissioner of Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Education
For Respondent: William DuFresne, Esquire
DuFresne and Bradley, P.A.
2929 Southwest Third Avenue, Suite 1
Miami, Florida 33129 BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURE
By Specific Notice of Charges filed herein dated October 16, 1986 (DOAH Case No. 86-3926) and amended on March 6, 1987, Petitioner School Board of Dade County (School Board) alleged that Respondent, Anna M. Brewer (Respondent) 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, 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, and/or her lack of adequate command of her area of specialization.
By Administrative Complaint filed January 15, 1987 with the Division of Administrative Hearings, Betty Castor, as Commissioner of Education, filed similar charges against Respondent. This case was numbered DOAH Case No. 87- 0468.
At the parties' request, the cases were consolidated for hearing.
At final formal hearing Petitioners presented the oral testimony of Tarja Geis, Dr. Joan Hanley, Dr. Evelyn Evans, Herbert Holmberg, Cynthia Muller, Ellen Supran, Gloria Gray, Phyllis Cohen, and Dr. Patrick Gray. Petitioners had admitted in evidence Exhibits P1-35 (34 was jointly offered). The Respondent testified on her own behalf and presented the oral testimony of Gloria Jackerson, Robert Collins, Linda Dodd, Gloria Sharp, Geraldine Townsend, Charlotte Wise, and Mary Collins. Respondent had admitted in evidence Exhibits R1-4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 17.
Transcript of the hearing was duly filed by the School Board. All parties timely filed their respective proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law within the extended time frame stipulated-to at the close of formal hearing.
These proposals have been ruled upon pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, in the Appendix to this Recommended Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Respondent, Anna M. Brewer, holds Teaching Certificate Number 475518, issued by the Department of Education, State of Florida. Respondent is certified to teach in the area of elementary education, grades 1-6.
From 1968 or 1969 until 1980, Respondent worked for the School Board as a teacher aide.
As a teacher aide, she had approximately twelve years to view a wide variety of teaching strategies, methods, and teaching techniques in the approximately six different schools to which she had been assigned.
While employed as a teacher's aide, Respondent attended Miami-Dade Junior Community College, North Campus, and studied Initial Elementary Education. She then completed Bachelor's Training at Nova University in 1979 and thereafter became employed as a classroom teacher with the Dade County School Board at the Elementary Level beginning in the 1980-1981 school year.
Respondent has been employed as an elementary teacher by Petitioner School Board since the 1980-1981 school year. During all of that period, she has taught at Perrine Elementary School in Dade County, Florida.
During all of the years Respondent taught, except for the first year, she had classes approximately half of a regular size class. This was because she has been teaching Title I/Chapter I classes. "Title I", renamed "Chapter I", classes refer to classes funded and mandated as part of the Education Consolidation Improvement Act which targets children who are deficient in certain areas and concentrates on bringing them into the mainstream of the
education process by concentrated remediation in small, directed education classes. It is a "given" that many of these children are difficult to teach and to control.
1980-1981 SCHOOL YEAR
On October 29, 1980 Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by her principal, Gloria H. Gray. Although rated overall acceptable she was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning and in assessment techniques.
Although rated acceptable in techniques of instruction, Respondent was rated unacceptable in one subcategory thereof because the proliferation of students' questions concerning the work indicated to the observer that the Respondent did not give clear assignments and directions to allow ample time for completion of tasks.
Respondent was next formally observed by Principal Gray on December 12, 1980. Although Respondent was rated overall acceptable, she was rated unacceptable in classroom management because Mrs. Gray found much off-task behavior on the part of students, and Respondent appeared not to notice it.
Through no fault of her own, Respondent had a very difficult first year experience with many interruptions. She was the foreman of the Grand Jury and was absent every Wednesday. In addition, she had legitimate family and medical problems causing frequent absences.
To the extent possible, principal Gray initiated and followed through on numerous attempts to remediate Respondent's deficiencies in teaching. Mrs. Gray also provided an aide for Respondent in order to be assured that the education of her students was not being sorely neglected.
Respondent was in a large pod with two other teachers. They helped Respondent in putting work on the board clearly. They also helped her in getting and using instructional material.
Although Mrs. Gray testified that she was, in the spring of 1981, of the opinion that there was a repeated failure on the part of Respondent to communicate with and relate to the students in her classroom to such an extent that they were deprived of a minimal educational experience, she nonetheless rated Respondent acceptable in all categories and gave Respondent an overall acceptable rating on her Annual Evaluation for the 1980-1981 school year. Mrs. Gray gave Respondent the benefit of the doubt because Respondent had improved her teaching skills during the year, she had a good attitude toward trying to improve, she took Mrs. Gray's recommendations and attempted to implement them, and Mrs. Gray expected further improvement from Respondent the following year. Mrs. Gray further recommended Respondent for re-employment as an annual contract teacher.
1981-1982 SCHOOL YEAR
Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by her new principal Dr. Joan Hanley, on November 23, 1981. While Respondent was very devoted to self-improvement, she was nevertheless rated overall unacceptable and unacceptable in the category of preparation and planning because she did not have complete lesson plans for each of the following subjects she was responsible to teach: social studies, science, art, music, and physical education. Likewise, she did not have plans which could be used by a substitute
in the event of her absence. Although she was rated acceptable in classroom management, Dr. Hanley offered suggestions for Respondent's improvement. It was not clear to Dr. Hanley whether Respondent's students were grouped for math. It is a standard instructional strategy to ascertain the ability levels of the students, group them accordingly, and plan separate instruction for the various groups. She also instructed Respondent to stand up and move between her groups of students in order to monitor the random activity that goes on.
Respondent was formally observed in her classroom by Assistant Principal Ellen Supran on January 6, 1982. Although rated overall acceptable, Respondent was found unacceptable in one subcategory, techniques of instruction. This subcategory deals with the use of instructional strategies for teaching the subject matter. Her students were not grouped for math instruction and the subject matter was too difficult and too abstract for the students. Respondent was not getting feedback from them.
During the remainder of the school year, Mrs. Supran assisted Respondent through informal visitations. On these occasions, Mrs. Supran was concerned about Respondent's lesson plans, her children being off-task, and the appropriateness of the tasks assigned to the students by Respondent. She spent time working with Respondent on lesson plans, materials, instructional strategies, grouping, and monitoring children's progress.
Respondent had an accident during the 1981-1982 school year which resulted in extended sick leave. Dr. Hanley was unable to observe Respondent formally in the classroom for the remainder of that school year. Because Respondent was anxious to improve her teaching and because she had made a good start, Dr. Hanley felt that it was only fair to rate Respondent acceptable in all categories for her Annual Evaluation for the 1981-1982 school year. Therefore, for the school year 1981-1982, Respondent's second annual contract year, Respondent was found acceptable in all categories on her Annual Evaluation and was again recommended for employment.
1982-1983 SCHOOL YEAR
Respondent's next formal observation was on November 23, 1982. Although rated overall acceptable, Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter, because the observer, Dr. Hanley, felt Respondent needed improvement in grammar, particularly verb usage. More specifically, Dr. Hanley observed poor grammar was utilized orally by Respondent in the course of teaching other subjects. Hers was a significant error because Respondent was teaching a resource class in compensatory education. This is a remedial class which addressed the reading, language arts, and mathematics needs of low- achieving students. In every type of class, it is necessary that a teacher set a good example in spoken English. Because elementary school children model the speech of their teacher, Respondent's grammatical errors, which were frequent and excessive, would impede the students' acquisition of appropriate language arts skills. In remedial classes, the effect is more pronounced and reinforces poor language arts skills because the children are already deficient in that area.
Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by Dr. Hanley on December 7, 1982. Although rated overall acceptable, Respondent was again found unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she continued to make the same kinds of grammatical errors she had been observed making at the November 23, 1982 observation.
The December 7, 1982 observation resulted in a prescription for remediation. Dr. Hanley suggested that Respondent record herself on a tape recorder so that she could become sensitized to verb forms. Respondent followed Dr. Hanley's advice and it helped on the subsequent observation, but she did not sustain the improvement as indicated below.
Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by Dr. Hanley on February 10, 1983. She was rated overall acceptable and made only one grammatical error, saying "cent" sometimes instead of "cents." Note was made of excellent behavior modification.
On Respondent's Annual Evaluation for the 1982-1983 school year, Dr. Hanley rated Respondent acceptable in all categories and recommended her for employment for the next school year as a continuing contract teacher. Respondent had achieved tenure.
1983-1984 SCHOOL YEAR
Respondent was next formally observed in her classroom by Dr. Hanley on May 7, 1984. Although rated overall acceptable, she was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter and in a single subcategory of preparation and planning.
She was rated unsatisfactory in the latter subcategory because her room was so cluttered that it was difficult to carry on her instruction. She was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she was again making the same grammatical errors she had made the year before. (See Finding of Fact No. 20 that improvement was not sustained). For example, the following statements were written on Respondent's chalk board: "Dorothy want to go back home", " . . . work that I have not finish." Dr. Hanley reminded Respondent that they had worked on the "ed" and "s" endings on verbs before.
Nonetheless, Respondent was rated acceptable in all areas on her Annual Evaluation for 1983-1984 and was recommended for continued employment as a continuing contract teacher.
1984-1985 SCHOOL YEAR
Through the 1983-1984 school year, the School Board utilized the standard evaluation system which was an undefined system that allowed observers maximum discretion, without any clear or consistent criteria. It was essentially geared toward making any end-of-the year employment decision. With the advent of the 1984-1985 school year, a new method of evaluating teachers was put into effect. Beginning with the 1984-1985 school year, Respondent's performance was assessed under a new form of evaluation which was thoroughly tested by the School Board and which was negotiated and agreed-to between the School Board and Respondent's union. This is the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS). TADS is a highly specific research-based clinical supervision system. State-of-the-art research has characterized certain teaching behaviors that are effective in a learning environment. TADS has grouped these into categories of assessment criteria. Required teaching behaviors are very precisely defined and there is very little room for discretionary interpretation by the observer. Ideally, the system is governed by decision rules which eliminate the potential of an arbitrary or capricious application of the criteria. The system is intended to further develop and upgrade teaching skills and assist the individual teacher to perform better. On the down side, TADS was characterized by the School Board's expert, Dr. Patrick
Gray, as a clinical form of evaluation which primarily identifies teaching behavior which is simply acceptable, but it would not identify behavior of superior or excellent performance. (TR-II 47)
Respondent's first formal classroom observation under TADS was on November 13, 1984. She was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because she only carried out a very small part of the lesson and because she did not follow the assessment item in her lesson plan. She was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she presented the information to the children inadequately. There was no background given to draw out the students' previous understanding; no introduction, reinforcement, and drill; and no form of assessment to ascertain what the children had learned when the lesson was completed. She was rated unacceptable in classroom management, because there was disorder a good part of the time and the class was not conducive to learning. Respondent and students arrived late. There were many delays during the class period. The cardboard coins utilized in the lesson on coin values became a great distraction and Respondent was unable to bring the coins into the lesson. She only got into the very introductory part of the lesson and rambled in her instruction. Respondent was not able to pull the students together into a group of attentive listeners. She was also rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she never fully instructed the students about her expectations regarding what they were to do at their desks. The coins became the major focus of the children's attention and they were tossing them and taking them from one another. Respondent was rated unacceptable in assessment techniques because there was no assessment of the teaching objectives. As a result, there would be no way to tie up a lesson or help a teacher plan subsequent lessons.
In order to aid Respondent in improving her performance, Dr. Hanley prescribed help. Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent develop the skill of pacing her lessons so that she could complete the lesson within the allotted time; that Respondent seek help from Cynthia Muller, a PREP specialist, and that she also seek help from Dorothy Sissel, Chapter I Manager. Dr. Hanley also prescribed help in that she recommended that Respondent reorganize her room to make materials accessible for more efficiency. She recommended Mr. Holmberg, Assistant Principal, as a resource person. She also recommended that Respondent seek help from the Chapter I Specialist. Dr. Hanley recommended the Respondent seek help from Chapter I and PREP specialists because she felt that the on-the- spot classroom training by these very qualified people would be very helpful to Respondent. PREP stands for Florida Primary Education Program, a program mandated by the State of Florida pursuant to Section 230.2312, Florida Statutes. PREP mandates a diagnostic- prescriptive approach that enables each child to have an individualized program to permit development of that child's maximum potential and to achieve a level of competence by that child in basis skills. Pursuant to this approach, students are divided into three categories, with those developing at a normal level being taught with developmental teaching strategies, those having been identified as having potential learning problems, being taught with preventive teaching strategies, and those needing more challenging work, being taught with enrichment teaching strategies. The School Board has developed reading and math programs to comply with the statutory mandate.
Respondent actually received help from Cynthia Muller, the PREP Specialist, in the areas of preparation and planning, classroom management and techniques of instruction. Mrs. Muller helped Respondent approximately on 9 to
10 occasions for a total of approximately 12 hours of assistance. She provided this assistance on November 7, 9, 26, 29 and December 4, 1984, and on February
7, May 28, June 6, and 11, 1985. In the course of her assistance, Mrs. Muller observed several problems with Respondent's teaching. There was a lot of off- task behavior. The children were jittery and walked around the classroom at will. They exhibited little motivation. Mrs. Muller found that much of the work was inappropriate for the students, above the level for which they were competent. That added to the off-task behavior. On November 26, 1984, Mrs.
Muller did a demonstration lesson for Respondent showing her how the children could be motivated to stay in their seats and work quietly. She also demonstrated the use of the teacher manual in planning for the complete class period so that all of the children would receive their reading lessons within the prescribed timeframe. On another occasion, they also discussed the Total Math Program (TMP), Petitioner School Board's diagnostic-prescriptive program for math. TMP provides for pre- and post-testing of students and clustering students into particular groups. They discussed grouping students, assessing them, planning for them, and instructing them using a teacher's manual. Mrs. Muller also suggested a positive re-enforcement type of reward system. She also suggested that Respondent remove books and materials from the instructional area so that the class would have a clean place to work and place their books. Mrs. Muller also noticed misspelled words and improperly used words on the chalkboard e.g., "When he finish the book." Mrs. Muller's assistance, November 7, 1984 to June 11, 1985 overlaps several subsequent formal observations.
Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by Dr. Hanley on December 7, 1984. Despite Mrs. Muller's assessment on November 7 and 11 that there was some improvement, Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning, classroom management, and techniques of instruction by Dr. Hanley on December 7, 1984.
She was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because she had no assessment item in her lesson plan. Because Respondent told Dr. Hanley that she knew what was expected and she promised to do it in the future, Dr. Hanley did not make a further prescription in that area.
Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because her classroom was still very disorderly. Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent designate areas for specific subjects and tasks within her room.
Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because her lesson, again, was considered by Dr. Hanley to be a rambling one. Dr. Hanley found the lesson components not to be sequenced; Respondent did not accent the important points; Respondent was unaware of what her students were doing; she did not provide suggestions to her students for improving performance; she did not adjust her lesson when students were not understanding but went right on with what she was teaching rather than re-teach a concept.
Dr. Hanley did not feel Respondent provided for closure of the lesson so as to help the children pick up the critical areas of the lesson and so as to be ready for the next lesson. Respondent continued to make grammatical and spelling errors, e.g., "...Santa Clause and other tradition."
In order to help Respondent improve her performances Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent observe two fellow teachers whom Dr. Hanley felt had excellent techniques of instruction.
A conference-for-the-record was scheduled for the Respondent in December, 1984, but due to Respondent's illness and impending surgery, it was rescheduled for February 13, 1985. A conference-for-the-record is an official meeting regarding a teacher's teaching performance. It is required so that the
teacher is officially notified that her deficient performance has not been remediated. At the conference, administrators went over Respondent's classroom observations. Respondent was notified that if she was still under prescription at the time of her Annual Evaluation, she would not receive her annual teaching increment (pay raise).
From February through May, 1985, Perrine Elementary School was visited at least once a week by the Chapter I Educational specialist, Tarja Geis. She helped most of the teachers each time she visited. Chapter I is a federally funded program which addresses reading and math deficiencies in children from low income areas. It uses a language experience approach.
Ms. Geis' opportunities to observe Respondent were short and sporadic. Her observations were not "formal" observations. However, when Ms. Geis did observe Respondent in the classroom, she noticed Respondent's inattentiveness to some of the children's behavior. She suggested ways to Respondent to improve that, most of which were "boilerplate" suggestions.
Ms. Geis also observed one of Respondent's lessons and did a demonstration lesson for her on May 22, 1985, in order to show Respondent the language experience approach used in the Chapter I program. Ms. Geis discussed and/or demonstrated techniques to improve class management, student behavior, student comprehension and student attitude.
On March 15, 1985, Ms. Geis gave a workshop for Chapter I teachers. All teachers who would have been working that day would have been in attendance. It is probable that Respondent attended that workshop. She had missed an earlier one in February because of her absence.
Respondent indicated at formal hearing that she was not aware that Tarja Geis was a resource person for her use, but her perception is illogical in that Ms. Geis is a Chapter I Educational Specialist and Respondent teaches in the category of Chapter I students. Respondent also testified that she was not given in-service learning experiences by Dr. Hanley and Mr. Holmberg when she requested them. The workshop given by Ms. Geis would seem to address this request, contrary to Respondent's assertion. Respondent concurs that she attended at least one such workshop.
Respondent was next formally observed in her classroom by Dr. Hanley on March 21, 1985. By this time, Respondent had received help from Mrs. Muller and Ms. Geis. She may have also sought help from the two teachers at her school. By her own testimony, she sought assistance from Ms. Jackerson and by a course taught outside of the usual school day. She showed great improvement and was rated acceptable in every category.
Respondent was next formally observed in her classroom on May 7, 1985, simultaneously by Dr. Hanley and the area director, Phyllis Cohen. Under TADS, this is an external or dual observation where two observers assess the same classroom performance. Its purpose is to assure objectivity and fairness.
Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because her lesson plans were not carried out. While Respondent attempted to work with one group, the other groups' lessons were not implemented. The students were not on task. The group at the listening station was not doing its work. The group doing independent reading did not open their books. At least half the students did not receive their directed reading lesson. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because her development of ideas and
information was unclear and confusing. She would give insufficient definitions and did not reinforce with enough examples so that the students could understand the homework assignment. The lesson was not sequenced and Respondent was again using inaccurate language. The vocabulary words that the students were working on were not introduced to them and did not have any relationship to the lesson. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because her classroom was out of control and because of her problems in managing the transition time, getting and keeping students settled, and managing the different reading groups. Class started ten minutes late, and during transitions in the lesson, approximately twenty minutes were wasted. As the hour progressed, the noise crescendoed. Five to eight students were off-task at different times during the class. One student slapped another during the lesson. Respondent was not aware of the off-task behavior and did not redirect the students. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she did not introduce the lesson, provide opportunities for the students to practice, get feedback whether the students had obtained information, or provide reinforcement and follow-up. In other words the sequence was not appropriate. There was a lot of jumping around in the lesson. Respondent did not address the various learning styles of the students. Her communication was not precise enough for students to understand what she was trying to teach. She did not give the students feedback on their strengths and weaknesses. Although she used the teacher manual, she did not fill in between the questions with her own information. She asked the questions in a distorted manner. The students were unable to answer the questions and Respondent could not elaborate but went on to the next question. Her directions to the students were very poor, as were her explanations. She failed to rephrase explanations that were not understood.
Her instructions to the listening station group were not specific enough. Her questions on the worksheet were not explained in a way that the students were able to proceed independently. They did not do the worksheet at all.
Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in assessment techniques because she did not assess what the students were learning at their levels. Material was presented at a low cognitive level. She did not seem to be able to ascertain whether the students were learning what she was teaching them. She did not walk around to determine what each group was doing.
In order to help Respondent improve her teaching performance, Dr. Hanley recommended that she work with Mrs. Muller again on the execution of her lesson plans in order to facilitate a directed reading lesson for each of her reading groups. To help Respondent improve her teaching performance, Dr. Hanley recommended that she observe another Chapter I teacher during a reading lesson to hone in on the development of ideas and information in a sequential and meaningful manner. Two teachers were named as resources. To help Respondent with her classroom management, Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent work with Ms. Geis and the Assistant Principal to develop strategies for effective student management while beginning classes and during transition periods and that she work with an observer to sensitize herself to off-task, nonproductive activities on the part of students. It was also recommended that Respondent revamp her behavior modification plan to enhance student involvement. To help Respondent improve her techniques of instruction, Dr. Hanley recommended the Respondent again work with Ms. Geis and Mrs. Muller since she had improved after working with these two education specialists the prior year. Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent review the elements in a basal reading lesson, i.e., background, sequence, and closure. She also recommended that Respondent rehearse her reading lesson so that she would think ahead about the main points and key definitions. She recommended that Respondent work with the observers to sensitize herself to situations in which the students are confused, and that she develop strategies to improve clarification. Dr. Hanley was also available to
Respondent as a resource. In order to help Respondent improve techniques of instruction, Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent have a person observe Respondent while she was teachings and help her on the spot when her students were not following the lesson. She suggested the Respondent develop assessment techniques which incorporated multilevel assessment activities. She also recommended that Respondent include development of summative assessment instruments in conjunction with these other activities. She recommended that Ms. Geis and the Assistant Principal be used as resources to help Respondent develop a sensitivity in identifying whether the students were on-track.
On May 28, 19 85, Mrs. Muller discussed reading lessons with Respondent. She went over sequencing. She asked Respondent to rehearse her reading instruction. Mrs. Muller also gave Respondent a PREP teacher guide and a sample directed reading lesson. She referred her to a section on classroom organization and management. On June 6, 1985, Mrs. Muller was to visit Respondent's class and to observe a directed reading lesson. Respondent, however, was doing a different lesson. There was very little organization in the lesson. Mrs. Muller saw some improvement in the Respondent's teaching; however, considering the amount of time she had spent with the Respondent, she would have expected to have seen more progress.
Although Respondent had demonstrated a willingness to receive suggestions for improvement and a willingness to work toward acceptable ratings, her Annual Evaluation for the 1984-1985 school year was unacceptable.
Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. Nonetheless, Respondent was recommended for continued employment for the next school year as a continuing contract teacher. It was Dr. Hanley's hope that Respondent would remediate herself during the next school year.
Respondent remained on prescription and would not be entitled to her pay increment (raise) for the next school year while she was still on prescription.
1985-1986 SCHOOL YEAR
On October 16 and 17, 1985, Respondent received more help from a fellow teacher, Joyce King. Ms. King discussed with Respondent the instructional processes of sequencing, interfacing subjects, and closure. Ms. King also demonstrated a reading lesson for Respondent.
On October 22, 1985, Respondent received further help from another teacher, Doretha P. Thomas. Respondent observed Ms. Thomas during a developmental reading lesson in her class. Ms. Thomas also discussed with Respondent the amount of time used with the reading group, scheduling, and possible changes Respondent could make in her own planning.
Respondent was next formally observed in her classroom by Dr. Hanley on October 30, 1985. The class was working on the Dade County required diagnostic-prescriptive reading curriculum known as RSVP. This curriculum contemplates that students are to be pretested and their deficiencies listed on individual profiles so that the teacher knows what specific skills to teach them. It is mandatory that the students' skills be profiled before the teacher attempts to work with them. Respondent had not completed the RSVP paperwork as of the date of this observation. I accept Respondent's testimony that she only had from October 18 until October 30, 1985 in which to complete these profiles; that she was under some disadvantage in preparing the profiles because of the administration's peremptory move of all her materials to a smaller classroom on Friday October 18; and that her observation rating was somewhat tainted by the
temporary mess that resulted from the move. However, I find that the period involved would have been sufficient to complete at least the profiles if she had performed her tasks diligently in the intervening seven workdays.
Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in classroom management because the class was not well managed and the students were not working. After the midpoint of the period, three students did no work. In the last ten minutes of the periods, six students did no work. Many students completed worksheets during the first twenty minutes of the class and then colored pictures. These students of Respondent's were not re- directed by her. Respondent seemed to be unaware of the off-task behavior.
In order to help Respondent with her classroom management, Dr. Hanley recommended the Respondent move among the students periodically. She also recommended the Respondent plan sufficient work for the instructional period and that she clarify to students what additional study and enrichment activities were available when work is completed.
Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she was not monitoring pupil performance. Students were doing work incorrectly on their worksheets, and Respondent did not circulate and catch the errors or clarify them. Therefore, incorrect material was being reinforced by the students in their work. Several of the students did not understand the follow- up worksheets. The students' confusion indicated that they were not being taught at their appropriate level. They were being taught on a hit or miss method since their profiles had not been completed.
In order to help Respondent improve her techniques of instruction, Dr. Hanley recommended that she fulfill the requirements of RSVP by completing her profiles, grouping her children, and making a class profile chart. Dr. Hanley also recommended that the teacher aide assist Respondent with the pretesting. Dr. Hanley listed the area PREP specialist and herself to review grouping for instruction.
Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in assessment techniques because although she, as part of her school faculty, had been instructed every year as to the School Board requirements for maintaining student folders, her student folders were deficient. She had no papers dated after September 19, 1985 in them.
In order to help Respondent improve her assessment techniques, Dr. Hanley clarified what was expected as far as classroom folders. Respondent must have at least one graded and dated paper per week in reading, math, and writing in each student's folder. Dr. Hanley listed herself and other classroom teachers as a resource for Respondent.
Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by Assistant Principal, Herbert Holmberg. He rated her unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction.
Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because she had grammatically incorrect information and statements on the chalkboard. Knowledge of subject matter was not exhibited as Respondent read verbatim from the teacher manual. She did not address various cognitive levels.
In order to help Respondent improve her knowledge of subject matter, Mr. Holmberg recommended that Respondent prepare her material, information, and
directions in advance and that her verbal and written usage be grammatically correct. He suggested more flexibility and elaboration during reading. He also suggested that the subject matter be presented at more than one level. As recommended resources, he listed the Principal, the Assistant Principal, and a peer teacher.
Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because she did not have a sequence in the lesson. The grammar on the board was incorrect. Her spelling was incorrect. There was no variety to her activities. There was no assessment of closure in the lesson. As resources for help, he recommended the Assistant Principal, the PREP specialist, and a peer teacher.
Another conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent on December 9, 1985. Respondent's teaching performance was discussed. Dr, Hanley was hopeful the Respondent would be able to remediate her deficiencies; however, Respondent was put on notice that if she was not fully remediated by the close of the school year she would be recommended for termination for cause.
Respondent was next formally observed by Charles Sherwood, Directors Basic Skills on December 13, 1985. She was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction and assessment techniques. Respondent testified that Dr. Sherwood orally indicated to her that her rating was satisfactory and created no problems but the business record of the school (P 30) shows that he rated her unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because all of the pupils received the same spelling lesson, despite the differences in their reading levels; and that he rated her unsatisfactory in assessment techniques because, although the school year was very close to being halfway over, Respondent still had not completed her PREP roster.
Respondent was next formally and simultaneously observed in her classroom in another external observation on March 17, 1986, by Dr. Hanley and Mrs. Cohen, and she was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction.
Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because there were a substantial number of errors in teaching the concept "1/2". The words "equal" and unequal" were not used, although they were key vocabulary words in the teacher's manual for the lesson. Respondent told the children that a whole with a line in it becomes one-half. She did not indicate that the line had to be in the middle of the whole in order for there to be halves.
In order to help Respondent improve her knowledge of her subject matter, Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent use the teacher's manual for planning and delivering of instruction. It was requested the Respondent master the use of and use the words "equal" and "unequal" appropriately. She also recommended the Respondent use the area specialists, peer teachers, and the Assistant Principal as resources.
Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because the explanations of the concept of a whole, half, and fractions were not clear to the reviewer, and the reviewers felt the components necessary to address the key concepts were not effectively presented, thereby confusing she children, and an appropriate vocabulary was not used. They felt Respondent's lesson was again lacking in sequence. Additional resources and suggestions for improvement were prescribed to Respondent.
Another conference-for-the-record was held with the Respondent on April 16, 1986. Some of Respondent's concerns regarding the TADS process were addressed. Respondent's improvement was discussed and Respondent was again notified that if she failed to be removed from prescription by the end of this second year of deficiency, recommendation of dismissal for cause would be made.
Respondent was next formally and simultaneously observed in the classroom in another external observation by Dr. Hanley and Evelyn Evans, another area director. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction.
Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because she made errors in subtracting. The errors which she made on the board were not corrected. She also made errors in the process itself. These errors were demonstrated on a chalkboard at formal hearing which was erased without being admitted in evidence, but the oral testimony and business records of this observation are sufficient to support this finding. Respondent did not correct student errors, used inappropriate terminology referred to the one's and ten's columns as the right column and left columns and thereby confused the children. Dr. Hanley found the deficiencies in this lesson very similar to the math lesson observed on March 17, 1986. Respondent was still using her own vocabulary. Despite the fact that most of the children in her class and certainly most of our society could understand Respondent's use of "take away" for "subtract" and use of similar colloquialisms, the School Board established the need for more precise and consistent language in teaching early math skills. Respondent did not show evidence of having mastered the subject matter.
In order to help Respondent improve her knowledge of subject matter, Dr. Hanley again emphasized mastery of vocabulary and concepts in the teacher's manual and advised adhering closely to the recommended word usage and plan of instruction. Respondent was instructed not to use her own vocabulary and methods until she had total command of the material.
Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because of many errors. The lesson was not properly sequenced; the children did not have a basic understanding of subtracting without regrouping before beginning subtracting with regrouping; Respondent's use of her own vocabulary confused the children; Respondent did not clarify by rephrasing with different words, but rather, used the same vocabulary over again that the children had not understood the first time. Respondent blocked the chalkboard while she was demonstrating to the class, was inattentive to the need for a chair by one student, and required a reading level of the children in math for which they were not prepared. Respondent again demonstrated improper subject-verb agreement, e.g., "What is the numbers?" and dropping endings on verbs, e.g., "As time go on", "Three minus two leave one."
In order to help Respondent improve her techniques of instruction, Dr. Hanley again recommended the Respondent work with another second grade teacher to understand and become proficient in following the sequence and the delivery of instructions to include introduction, background, and the other steps in sequencing. She was also instructed to master the vocabulary and instructional plans in the teacher's manual and to adhere to them while teaching. She was instructed to develop a method for re-teaching individual students who appeared not to understand the lesson.
Another conference-for-the-record was held on June 6, 1986. Respondent's unacceptable teaching performance was reviewed. Respondent was
advised that a recommendation for dismissal for cause would be made. Respondent was also given an end of the year prescription, as required by TADS.
Although Respondent had improved her classroom management during the year, she was still unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction for the 1985-1986 school year. The two unacceptable categories are key categories in teaching. Improvement in these had either been slight or not at all, and Dr. Hanley had exhausted the school system's resources in attempting to assist Respondent.
Respondent's testimony at formal hearing corroborates her supervisors' observations as to her failure to exhibit appropriate English grammar and usage with regard to subject-verb tenses.
Gloria Jackerson, a retired teacher, testified on behalf of Respondent. Although this retired teacher of 21 years and a candid witness, she is Respondent's best friend. While this relationship may not have colored her favorable testimony, she admits that she has never observed Respondent teach in the classroom nor has she taught Chapter I students in Miami-Dade County under the present program. Therefore, her testimony with regard to Respondent's competency must be rejected.
Evidence presented by several satisfied parents is all in Respondent's favors however, most had no training in classroom observation nor were they able to observe Respondent teaching in her classroom over any significant period of time. Their observations, therefore, were of minimal duration and purely subjective. No objective records showing whether their children were promoted or how their children progressed under Respondent's teaching were offered to substantiate their layman's viewpoint.
With regard to the testimony of Robert Collins, a Learning Disability teacher in the Dade County School System, who requested that his child be placed in the Respondent's class and who had a brief opportunity to observe Mrs. Brewer in the classroom and who testified that her classes were well managed, his observation opportunities were so brief and so sporadic as to not outweigh the greater weight of the expert testimony of Petitioner's witnesses.
The supportive evidence of Geraldine Townsend, another Perrine teachers is not helpful to Respondent in that this witness also had no truly meaningful observations of Respondent. The testimony of Mrs. Collins, a mother and also a teacher's aide, that some of the formal observers made Respondent's classes nervous and jittery is accepted, but this circumstance does not eliminate or seriously mitigate Respondent's responsibilities to teach effectively and to keep her students under control during observations.
Respondent Brewer has worked hard to obtain her education and position. She is a deeply religious, compassionate, and caring individual. She has the type of supportive personality the young people of this society dearly need to know and relate to. She has good rapport with the young and communicates with them in loving and supportive ways. However, her personal qualifications and attributes do not outweigh the clear and convincing evidence of her incompetency as demonstrated by the foregoing Findings of Fact.
On August 20, 1986, Petitioner School Board suspended Respondent, 55 years old, from employment, 2.20 years short of her attaining full retirement, and further initiated dismissal procedures.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to and subject matter of this cause. 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: Section 231.36(4)(c), Florida Statutes,
provides:
(c) Any member ... of the instructional staff, ... may be suspended or dismissed at any time during the school year; however, the charges against [her] must be based
on ... incompetency, ...
In the instant case, the School Board's charge is incompetence.
Section 231.28(1)(b), Florida Statutes, provides that the Education Practices Commission shall have the authority to suspend or revoke the teaching certificate of any individual who is proved to be incompetent to teach or to perform her duties as an employee of the public school system or to teach in or to operate a private school.
Section 231.28(1)(f), Florida Statutes, provides that the Education Practices Commission shall have the authority to suspend or revoke the teaching certificate of any individual who is guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces that person's effectiveness as an employee of the School Board.
In promulgating Rule 6B-4.009, Florida Administrative Code, the State Board of Education defines "incompetence" for purposes of Section 231.36(4)(c), Florida Statutes. Pertinent to this case, 6B-4.009, Florida Administrative Code, provides:
The basis for charges upon which dismissal action against instructional personnel may be pursued are set forth in Section 231.36,
Florida Statutes. The basis for each of such charges is hereby defined:
Incompetency 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 pupils are deprived of minimum educational experience; . . .
Incapacity: . . .
(4) lack of adequate command of . . . her area of specialization.
Rule 6B-5.01, Florida Administrative Code, provides that the standards of competent professional performance established in Chapter 6B-5, Florida Administrative Code, are the "minimal standards" of competency for the education profession in Florida.
The charge of incompetency includes Respondent's repeated failure to perform duties prescribed by law (Section 231.09, Florida Statutes), 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 Statutes, 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-32) 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 lawn 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 in employing approved methods of instruction as provided by law and by the rules of the State Department of Education.
* * *
Petitioners have established that Respondent was incompetent as defined by Section 231.26 and 231.09, Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-4.009, 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
those pupils were deprived of a minimum educational experience. Respondent lacks adequate command of the area of her specialization, elementary education. These deficiencies seriously reduce her effectiveness as an employee of the School Board.
The transcript of proceedings herein (even as corrected by errata sheets) reports grammatical errors of herself all counsel, and most witnesses which so far as the undersigned can recall never occurred. Therefore, reliance on the transcript made herein to make any finding of fact or conclusion of law on Respondent's grammar would be suspect, indeed. However, Respondent's inadequate command of standard English, which the undersigned personally heard and observed at formal hearing, corroborates extensive testimony by Petitioner's witnesses and both supports Petitioner School Board's termination of Respondent's contract. Blunt v. State Board of Education, 275 So.2d 303, 306 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973).
It is concluded that the Respondent was provided assistance on numerous occasions in an effort to aid her in achieving competency in her areas of deficiency, yet she was unable to remedy her observed deficiencies despite effort.
It is, therefore, concluded that Respondent, Anna M. Brewers is incompetent as charged in the Amended Specific Notice of Charges filed by the School Board of Dade County, Florida, and the Administrative Complaint filed by Betty Castor, as Commissioner of Education.
It is, therefore, determined that the Respondent has failed to meet the minimal standards of competent professional performance for educators in Florida and has, therefore, proved to be incompetent to teach or to perform her duties as an employee of the public school system or to teach in or to operate a private school.
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED:
That Petitioner, School Board of Dade County, Florida, enter a Final Order sustaining the suspension, without pay, as of August 20, 1986, of Respondent, Anna M. Brewer, and dismissing Respondent Anna M. Brewer as a teacher in the Dade County Public Schools.
That the Educational Practices Commission enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's Florida teaching certificate for five years or until she demonstrates competency pursuant to statute and ruled whichever occurs first.
DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of July, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida.
ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 31st day of July, 1987.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOs. 86-3926, 87-0468
The following constitutes specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF).
Petitioner School Board's PFOF
Covered in FOF 1.
Covered in FOF 2 and 3.
Covered and corrected to reflect the record in FOF 5.
Covered in FOF 6.
Covered in FOF 7.
6-8. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary except as set out in FOF 11.
Covered in FOF 8.
Except to the extent it is subordinate and unnecessary, it is covered in FOF 9.
Rejected as subordinate, unnecessary and cumulative. Partially addressed in FOF 11.
Covered in FOF 10.
Covered in FOF 11.
Covered in FOF 12.
Covered in FOF 13. 16-18. Covered in FOF 14.
Covered in FOF 15.
Covered in FOF 16.
Covered in FOF 17. 22-23. Covered in FOF 18.
Covered in FOF 19.
Covered in FOF 20.
Covered in FOF 21.
Covered in FOF 22.
Covered in FOF 23.
Covered in FOF 24.
Covered in FOF 25.
Covered in FOF 26.
Except to the extent it required expansion to fully conform to the record and except to the extent its proposals are subordinate and unnecessary, this proposal is covered in FOF 26.
33.-42. Covered in FOF 27-28.
43.-47. Except as contrary to the record for expression or subordinate, covered in FOF 29.
Covered in FOF 30.
Covered in FOF 31.
Covered in FOF 32.
Covered in FOF 33.
Covered in FOF 34.
Covered in FOF 35.
Covered in F0F 36.
Modified to more accurately reflect the record as a
whole, in FOF 37.
Modified to more accurately reflect the record as a whole, in FOF 38.
Covered in FOF 39.
Covered in FOF 41.
Covered in FOF 42.
, 62., 64., 66. and 68. are covered in FOF 43.
, 63., 65., 67. and 69. are covered in FOF 44.
70.-73. Covered in FOF 45.
Covered in FOF 46.
Covered in FOF 47.
Covered in FOF 48.
Covered, expanded and modified so as to reflect the competent, substantial evidence of record as a whole in FOF 49.
Covered in FOF 50.
Covered in FOF 51.
Covered in FOF 52.
Covered in FOF 50 and 53.
Covered in FOF 54.
Covered in FOF 55.
Covered in FOF 56.
Covered in FOF 57.
Covered in FOF 58.
Covered in FOF 59.
Covered in FOF 60.
89-91. Expanded and modified to reflect the competent, substantial evidence of record and to eliminate the subordinate and unnecessary in FOF 61.
Covered in FOF 62.
Except to the extent it is subordinate and unnecessary, covered in FOF 63 and 65.
Covered in FOF 64.
95-96. Covered in FOF 65 except for cumulative and unnecessary material.
Covered in FOF 66.
Covered in FOF 67.
Covered and expanded in FOF 68.
Covered in FOF 69.
Except to the extent it is subordinate and unnecessary or cumulative, covered in FOF 70.
Covered in FOF 71.
Covered in FOF 72.
Covered in FOF 73.
Rejected as cumulative.
Covered in FOF 74.
Rejected as cumulative.
Covered and expanded in FOF 80.
Petitioner Betty Castor's (EPC's) PFOF
Since this petitioner adopted the PFOF of Petitioner School Board, the rulings are also the same.
Respondent's PFOF
Covered in FOF 1.
Covered in FOF 2-3.
Covered in FOF 4.
There is no PFOF.
Covered in FOF 7-13, most specifically in FOF 13.
Covered in FOF 14-17, most specifically in FOF 17.
Covered in FOF 18-22, most specifically in FOF 22.
Covered in FOF 23-25, most specifically in FOF 25. 9-10. Covered in FOF 26.
Rejected as not supported by the evidence.
Rejected as not supported by the evidence and for the reasons discussed in FOF 75.
Rejected as not supported by the evidence and for the reasons discussed in FOF 77.
Rejected as not supported by the evidence and for the reasons discussed in FOF 76.
Rejected as not supported by the evidence and for the reasons discussed in FOF 78.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Leonard Britton, Superintendent School Board of Dade County 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
Madeline P. Schere, Esquire Board Administration Building Suite 301
1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
J. David Holders Esquire
211 South Gadsden Street Post Office Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
William DuFresne, Esquire 2929 Southwest Third Avenue Suite 1
Miami, Florida 33129
Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission
125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399
=================================================================
AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
BEFORE THE EDUCATION PRACTICES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
BETTY CASTOR, as
Commissioner of Education,
Petitioner, EPC CASE NO. 87-007-RT DOAH CASE NO. 86-3926
vs. 87-0468
ANNA M. BREWER,
Respondent.
/
FINAL ORDER
Respondent, ANNA M. BREWER, holds Florida teaching certificate no. 475518. 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 120.57(1), F.S.; it is attached to and made a part of this Order.
A panel of the Education Practices Commission met on September 25, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida, to take final agency action. The Petitioner was represented J. David Holder, Esquire. The Respondent was present and 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. The panel adopts the recommended penalty of suspension but reduces the number of years from five to three in accordance with Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes. Wherefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Respondent's certificate be suspended for three (3) years. 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 1st day of October, 1987.
ALFRED A. SCOTT, Presiding Officer
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing Order in the matter of
BC vs. Anna M. Brewer was mailed to William DuFresne, Esquire, 2929 S.W. Third Avenue, Suite 1, Miami, Florida, 33129 this 6th day of October, 1987, by U.S. Mail.
KAREN B. WILDE, Clerk
COPIES FURNISHED TO:
Professional Practices Services
Susan Tully Proctor, Esquire Attorney General's Office
Sydney McKenzie, III General Counsel
Florida Admin. Law Reports
Dr. Leonard Britton, Supt. Dade County Schools
Dr. Patrick Gray, Asst. Supt. Office of Prof. Standards Dade County Schools
Ella Jane P. Davis, Esquire Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings
J. David Holder, Esquire
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Jul. 31, 1987 | Recommended Order (hearing held , 2013). CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Oct. 01, 1987 | Agency Final Order | |
| Jul. 31, 1987 | Recommended Order | Teacher found incompetent: repeatedly failed to perform duties prescribed by rule, to communicate, lacked command of subject, 40 grammatical errors. |
