STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 89-2176
)
ANN R. UDEL, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, Jane C. Hayman, held a formal hearing in the above-styled case commencing on October 25, 1989, continuing on through October 26, 1989 and on
November 17, 1989 in Miami, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Suite 301
1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
For Respondent: William DuFresne, Esquire
2929 Southwest Third Avenue Miami, Florida 33129
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
The issue presented is whether Respondent committed the
acts alleged in the Specific Notice of Charges dated May 8, 1989, and, if so, whether Respondent should be dismissed from employment with Petitioner.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
By action taken at a meeting on April 19, 1989, Petitioner, School Board of Dade County, suspended Respondent, Ann R. Udel, from her job as a continuing contract teacher effective the same date, for incompetency, gross insubordination, and willful neglect of duty. By letter dated April 7, 1989, Respondent timely requested a hearing to contest the action. The matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings by Petitioner on April 24, 1989, with a request that a hearing officer be assigned to conduct a hearing.
On May 8, 1989, a Specific Notice of Charges was issued by Petitioner. The Notice sets out in detail the basis for Petitioner's action and contains factual allegations concerning Respondent from the school year 1981-82 through the school year 1988-89.
At the formal hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of Dr. D. Patrick Gray, Dr. Billye J. Lowe, Jacqueline Hinchey, Lilia Garcia, Phyllis Cohen, Clemencia Waddell, Eddie L. Redding, Suzannne Gach, and Marcia Pennington. The testimony of Dr. Glenda Crawford was offered by deposition. Petitioner offered
34 exhibits which were received into evidenced except for Petitioner's exhibit
Respondent testified on her own behalf and presented the testimony of Marlene Mitchell, Vernon Lindsey, Yvonne Perez and Booker T. Long. She also offered five exhibits which were received into evidence. The transcript of the final hearing (three volumes) was duly filed by Petitioner. In accordance with Rule Florida Administrative Code, the parties were granted leave to file proposed recommended orders within the time limit stipulated by the parties at the close of the hearing. A ruling - on each proposed finding of fact has been made and is reflected in the Appendix to this recommended order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
At all times relevant hereto, Respondent, Ann R. Udel was a classroom art teacher for the Dade Counts Public Schools, Petitioner, in Miami, Florida. She has been continuously employed by the School Board of Dade County, Florida since the school year 1981-82. At the time of her suspension on April 19, 1989, she served under a continuing contract.
Prior to her employment with the Dade County Public Schools, Ms. Udel had graduated from the State University of New York at Buffalo, with a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree in 1969. She taught for two years in the Schenectady City School System, New York and then five more years in Massachusetts before moving to Florida.
1981-82 through 1985-86 School Years
In January, 1982, Ms. Udel was assigned to Southwood Junior High School to teach in the Performing Arts Program. She was not successful in teaching art to talented youngsters.
For the 1982/83 school year, she was transferred to Horace Mann Junior High School as an art teacher and continued there through the 1985/86 school year. During the 1982/83 school year, Ms. Udel was rated unsatisfactory in two categories on her annual evaluation. For the remainder of Ms. Udel's years at Horace Mann, she received acceptable annual evaluations by the principal, although she was observed to be lacking in teaching skills, especially classroom management by Jacquelyn Hinchey, the art education supervisor for the Dade County Public Schools at that time, and Lilia Garcia, the successor to Ms. Hinchey.
Al Rothfarb, one of Ms. Hinchey's staff members, assisted Ms. Udel at Horace Mann in lesson planning, techniques of instruction, planning her time better, and getting the students to help clean up after class.
1986-87 School Year
For the 1986-87 and 1987-88 School years, Ms. Udel was transferred to Southwest Miami Senior High School as an art teacher.
On October 2, 1986, Ms. Udel was formally observed in her classroom by her principal, Dr. Glenda Crawford. She was rated unsatisfactory in classroom management and techniques of instruction.
She was rated unsatisfactory in classroom management because she used neither verbal nor nonverbal techniques to redirect off-task students. The learning environment was not good. As part of the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS) used by the Dade County Public Schools, Dr. Crawford prescribed help for Ms. Udel. She directed Ms. Udel to walk around the room in order to keep students on task. She also directed Ms. Udel to tell the students when they were behaving inappropriately.
Ms. Udel was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because she used media which were inappropriate for the lesson. Additionally, she had the students gather around her desk, blocking the view of other students. As a prescription to improve her performance, Ms. Udel was directed to seek assistance with the use of media from the assistant principal, Dr. Billye Lowe.
Ms. Udel was next formally observed in the classroom by Dr. Crawford on December 15, 1986. Ms. Udel was rated unsatisfactory in preparation and planning, classroom management, and professional responsibilities.
She was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because she used only 10 minutes of a 60 minute class period to cover the objectives and activities delineated in her lesson plan. The rest of the time was spent on a previous assignment. Dr. Crawford prescribed help for Ms. Udel in preparation and planning. She directed Ms. Udel to plan the objectives and activities to cover the entire class period.
Ms. Udel was rated unacceptable in classroom management because she allowed the students to stop working too early to clean up the room. During this review, the students were working with a print medium which typically requires a longer period of time to clean up than that required by other media. However, when the students finished cleaning up, they still had five minutes remaining with nothing to do. As a prescription for improvement, Ms. Udel was directed not to start the cleanup process until five minutes before the end of the period.
Dr. Crawford found Ms. Udel unacceptable in professional responsibilities because she failed to identify a student who was inappropriately dressed according too the school dress code.
On December 18, 1986, a conference-for-the-record was held. A conference-for-the-record is a formal fact finding conference which occurs because of unacceptable employee performance and is memorialized by a memorandum. It is intended to put the employee on notice that if the problem is not remediated or resolved, then certain employer actions may follow. At this conference-for-the-record, Ms. Udel's deficiencies and time frame for improvement were discussed. She was told that if she failed to improve, she could receive an unacceptable annual evaluation which could lead to her not being reappointed.
Ms. Udel was next informally observed by Ms. Garcia on February 23, 1987. This was done to assist Ms. Udel. Ms. Garcia found that Ms. Udel had been given a lot of assistance by Assistant Principal Lowe, and by the art resource Marcia Pennington. Ms. Garcia observed that Ms. Udel needed assistance in developing meaningful daily and long range lesson plans. Ms. Udel's lesson plans were not sequential and not meaningful for the students. Ms. Garcia noted that Ms. Udel did not show evidence of understanding the scope and sequence of teaching. She taught one element at a time rather than blending them in a sequential manner. After the informal observation, Ms. Garcia had a conference
with Ms. Udel and attempted to help her with her lesson plans. She also asked Ms. Pennington to assist Ms. Udel, and she recommended that Ms. Udel be permitted to observe other successful senior high school teachers.
Ms. Udel was next formally observed in the classroom by Ms. Garcia on March 26, 1987. She was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning and classroom management.
She was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because her lesson plans did not follow the School Board's sequential art curriculum and she was presenting activities in the classroom which were not in her lesson plans. Although Ms. Udel had previously instructed the students in the meaning of certain vocabulary words, her students appeared not to be properly prepared for the lesson and her explanations were "above the students heads" because they were not properly prepared. Her lesson was not connected to what she had taught before. Ms. Garcia prescribed help for Ms. Udel to improve her preparation and planning. She directed her to visit master teachers and to work with Ms. Pennington on lesson planning, goal setting, and developing sequential lesson plans.
Ms. Udel was rated unsatisfactory in classroom management because she appeared unaware of what some student were doing. It was observed that three students were not working, one was doing work other than art, and one student talked quietly during the entire class period. As a prescription for improvement, Ms. Garcia directed Ms. Udel to observe another teacher who was successful in classroom management.
Ms. Udel was next formally observed in the classroom on April 21, 1987, by Dr. Crawford and Phyllis Cohen, the area director at that time. Under TADS, this is known as an external review. Two administrators, one external to the job site, observe the teachers at the same time and reach independent decisions as to what they see. This is done after a certain number of unacceptable observations. Both administrators found Ms. Udel to be unacceptable in preparation and planning and techniques of instruction.
Overall, Ms. Udel's lesson lacked organization, sequence, and the opportunity to receive adequate feedbacks as to whether the students could demonstrated the objectives or whether they even knew what they were supposed to be doing. Ms.
Udel lacked the ability to break down the lesson into its basic parts so that it could be communicated to the students.
More specifically, Ms. Udel was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because the class activity did not reflect effective planning. The activity was not what was in the lesson plan. The object of the lesson was to produce a drawing using value variations to depict form. After the lesson, the students were to be able to depict two figures demonstrating mood, using a variety of techniques; however the samples Ms. Udel showed to the class did not depict two figures. One was a Chinese landscape and the other was a picture of an eagle. The picture of the eagle was too small to be seen- and tee students crowed around the desk. Ms. Udel had intended to display the pictures through an overhead projector. However, the projector did not work properly. Yet, Ms. Udel did not develop an alternative means to present her lesson. Instead, side used the unenlarged sample. Although the lesson plan listed different techniques such as the ability to analyze light and dark relative to the light source and the ability to project mood, these were not discussed. Ms. Udel did not the in the pictures she was using to the concept of drawing two figures, producing a mood. The students were then asked to find pictures in a magazine depicting two people and to analyze the light sources and to produce a drawing.
The lesson only covered ten minutes of the class period, and for the remainder of the period, the students looked through magazines, not understanding what they were to do. Help was prescribed for Ms. Udel in preparation and planning. She was directed to use the TADS prescription manual. The manual contains activities that go along with each category of assessment. If a teacher successfully completes the activities, the teaching should be improved.
Ms. Udel was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because she did not establish the necessary background for the students and her directions were not clear. She did not give sufficient explanation. She used vocabulary that was too difficult for the students. She failed to explain the difficult vocabulary words, and the students appeared not understand. The materials and methods used by Ms. Udel were inadequate. She could have used pictures which depicted two people communicating a mood to each other. Her pictures should have been larger. She could have used a magazine pictures as a model to demonstrate the techniques that were in her lesson plans. This lesson was not connected with anything that might have come before.
Subsequent to that observation, Ms. Udel met with Ms. Cohen to discuss scope and sequence. In addition, Ms. Cohen referred Ms. Udel to Ms. Pennington for further help, since Ms. Cohen felt that Ms. Pennington was the master of scope and sequence in the area of art deduction.
Ms. Udel was next formally observed in the classroom by Ms. Hichey and Dr. Crawford in another external review on May 29, 1987. Ms. Udel was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction and assessment techniques.
Dr. Crawford found that there was no improvement over her previous observation on April 27, 1987. The planning had not been done carefully or sequentially, and the activities in the classroom did not reflect what was in the lesson plan. The demonstration took only 10 minutes and there was insufficient explanation to introduce the concept. The homework assignment which was on the chalkboard was not in the lesson plan, and it had nothing to do with the lesson.
Ms. Udel was rated unsatisfactory in preparation and planning because her plans did not state an objective and they did not state a way to assess what the students were doing. The timing of the lesson was erratic. Ms. Udel was again teaching one element at a time. She had isolated the element of texture and was not teaching the principles of design as a total. Help was prescribed for Ms. Udel in an effort to improve her teaching. Ms. Pennington and Ms. Garcia were recommended as resources and she was directed to observe other teachers whose lesson plans reflected what was going on in tie classroom.
Ms. Udel was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because she did not know how to teach the art product. As a prescription for improvement, Ms. Udel was directed to decide what she wanted to teach and to plan for it. She was again referred to the same resource people.
Ms. Udel was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because the class could not see the demonstration, the introduction to the lesson was unsatisfactory, and time was wasted. She failed to explain to the class that when they stretched out their canvases, they would lose the of their pictures. The students were audibly surprised and upset when they lost the edges of their pictures. Although a hair dryer was in the room and the children had been instructed on its use for a previous project, the students were not told that
they could use the hair dryer to dry these pictures, and they were blowing on their pictures and fanning them. The prescription was to work with Ms. Garcia and Ms. Pennington and to observe 0th teachers who were teaching more effectively.
Ms. Udel was rated unsatisfactory in assessment techniques because while she had grades for the students in the grade book, she had no rationale for the grades and they appeared to be arbitrary. As a prescription, Ms. Udel was advised to establish grading criteria.
Ms. Udel's annual evaluation for the 1986-87 school year indicated that she was overall unacceptable and unacceptable in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. She ended the year on a prescription status. As a result, her salary level was frozen until such time as she would remediate her deficiencies.
Ms. Pennington gave Ms. Udel frequent help during the 1986-87 school year. Ms. Pennington had conferences with Ms. Udel both by telephone and in her office. They discussed lesson plans and how to sequence them for delivery.
They also discussed how to move students through the lesson and how to red- motivate them for the second, third, and fourth days of the lesson in order to keep them on task. They discussed the scope and sequence of the art curriculum and how to link the lessons together through design, expression, and media. Ms. Pennington watched Ms. Udel teach and gave her suggestions. Ms. Udel's lessons seemed to be taking a long time to finish. It took her an especially long time to complete a unit in block printing. Ms. Pennington and Ms. Udel wrote lessons plans together, and they worked in the classroom together. Ms. Pennington helped Ms. Udel for four to six weeks before her formal observations. Ms. Udel was given trip1e the amount of help that Ms. Pennington gave to teachers who were not having problems.
1987-88 School Year
Prior to Ms. Udel's formal observations during her second year at Southwest, Pennington continued to work with Ms. Udel.
Ms. Udel was next formally observed in the classroom on September 21, 1987, by Dr. Lowe. Ms. Udel was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because it was observed that the students were confused by the lesson and that Ms. Udel was insensitive to their confusion. Her communication was not precise enough for the students, and the media that she used was too faint for them to see due to an equipment change. Her lesson did not appear connected to previous lessons. She went right on with her lesson and did not redirect the students who were having problems or refocus her lesson to accommodate for the substitute equipment. Dr. Lowe prescribed help for Ms. Udel. Ms. Udel was directed to complete certain pages in the TADS prescription manual and to observe effective art teachers. She was told to check out equipment before presenting a lesson and to work with the department head and art supervisor on her problem areas.
Ms. Udel was next formally observed in the classroom by Dr. Crawford on November 13, 1987, and she was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning and techniques of instruction.
Ms. Udel was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because she exhibited the same kinds of problems that Dr. Crawford had observed previously. What was carried out in the classroom was not what was indicated in
the lesson plan. The lesson inadequately covered a new concept. Ms. Udel spent
12 minutes passing out papers. Ms. Udel was not following the School Boards's art curriculum. Dr. Crawford prescribed help for Ms. Udel. Ms. Udel was instructed to review the School Board's art curriculum with Ms. Pennington and to prepare a unit plan and daily plans to be corrected on a daily basis.
Ms. Udel was also rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because her lesson was not in sequence. No background was established and the concepts were not based upon what had come previously. Inadequate examples were given to the students. The students seemed not to know what they were doing. Again, Dr. Crawford prescribed help from Ms. Pennington.
On December 2, 1987, another conference-for-the record was held with Ms. Udel. Ms. Udel's deficient performance was discussed, and it was indicated to her that if she had two years of unacceptable performance, the district would recommend that she not be reappointed.
Ms. Udel was next formally observed in the classroom by Dr. Lowe on January 14, 1988, and she was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction. Dr. Lowe found that there was no improvement over her prior observation of September 21, 1987. Dr. Lowe observed that the students did not understand what was expected and that Ms. Udel spent most of her time attempting to explain the lesson, leaving little time for the students to actually mix the paint. Ms. Udel appeared insensitive to the students' state of confusion. She restated the original communication to the whole class rather than giving individual clarification. As a prescription to improve Ms. Udel's performance, Dr. Lowe directed her to complete specific pages in the TADS prescription manual and to seek help from Ms. Garcia.
Ms. Udel was next formally observed in the classroom by Ms. Garcia and Dr. Crawford on February 22, 1988, in an external review resulting in a rating of unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning and techniques of instruction.
Ms. Garcia saw no improvement in Ms. Udel's preparation and planning over her prior observation. What was going on in the classroom was not what was indicated in the lesson plan. Approximately one-third to one-half of the class was working on a previous activity but Ms. Udel's lesson plans had not been corrected to show this. Ms. Udel did not prepare the students for the lesson. The lesson was way ahead of what the students were prepared to do. The prescription to improve Ms. Udel's performance was to observe an exemplary art teacher who had good lesson plans and a sequential program. Ms. Garcia also asked Ms. Pennington to work with Ms. Udel.
Ms. Udel was rated unsatisfactory in, techniques of instruction because she was unaware of students who were off task. Ms. Udel's vocabulary appeared to be above the student's heads, and she failed to explain the words to them. The prescription for Ms. Udel to improve her performance was to observe other art teachers who had good techniques of instruction.
Crawford also asked Ms. Udel to work, with the assertive discipline coordinator at Southwest because Ms. Udel was having trouble with off-task students. Assertive discipline is a discipline model that uses positive rewards. Every teacher at Southwest was trained in assertive discipline, add the entire faculty was supposed to use it. It is required by School Board policy. Ms. Udel was not using it.
Ms. Udel was next formally observed in the classroom by Dr. Crawford and Ms. Hinchey on June 8, 1988, in an external review. The review found minimal improvement in Ms. Udel's instructions but found that her techniques of instruction had decreased. Although the TADS Monitoring Committee which reviews TADS reports made subsequent positive changes to this observation, Ms. Udel's observation for this date remained overall unacceptable.
A conference-for-the-record was held can June 17, 1988. Ms. Udel's performance assessment was discussed as well as the assistance that had been given to her by Ms. Garcia, Ms. Pennington and Dr. Lowe. Ms. Udel was advised that Dr. Crawford would be recommending that Ms. Udel not be reappointed for employment.
Ms. Udel's annual evaluation for the 1987-88 school year was overall unacceptable, and she was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction. Dr. Crawford recommended that Ms. Udel's employment be terminated.
Ms. Udel's major problem at Southwest was that she did not understand what she was supposed to be teaching. She had problems in developing her lessons sequentially and delivering her lessons. She did not link the lessons together throughout the year so that the students had a cohesive year of instruction. She did not have a grasp of scope and sequence. Even when given one, she could not break it down into small building blocks upon which the students could build. Her students were unmotivated and not on task. She had difficulty moving them quickly and effectively through a lesson.
1988-89 School Year
In lieu of terminating Ms. Udel, the school district exercised its discretion to transfer Ms. Udel to the elementary school level to see if her performance would become acceptable. As is typical at the elementary school level, Ms. Udel shared her time between two elementary schools. She taught first and second graders at Pine Lake Elementary (Pine Lake) for three days a week, and fifth and sixth graders at F. C. Martin Elementary School (Martin) for two days per week. Her classroom was a cart which moved from room to room and was stored in a room which was difficult to access.
Ms. Pennington continued to work with Ms. Udel at the elementary school level. Ms. Udel spent an inordinate number of weeks on weaving. Ms. Pennington gave Ms. Udel help in using visual aids. Ms. Udel attended a ten- week workshop on the School Board's elementary art curriculum, Curriculart. Ms. Pennington did demonstrations in Ms. Udel's classroom. In spite of all of this help, Ms. Udel at times showed spurts of improvements, but these were not consistent. Ms. Udel was never able to effectively link one lesson to the next and follow Curriculart. Even after working with Ms. Pennington on scope and sequence, Ms. Udel still could not plan effectively. Ms. Udel continued to be unaware of what was happening in the classroom.
As the Pine Lake principal, Clemencia Waddell, walked through the building, she realized that Ms. Udel had serious problems with classroom management. The children appeared to be in control of the class and there was much noise generated from Ms. Udel's classroom. However, the instructional area was originally designed as an open concept classroom one space building and there were only partial partitions separating four (4) classrooms with traffic constantly going through the classrooms to other rooms and lavatories.
To help Ms. Udel, Ms. Waddell made some informal observations, one of which was on September 20, 1988, when she observed that Ms. Udel did not listen to the children and that the children ran the class and misbehaved continuously. Ms. Udel did not appear to be aware of their behavior. Ms. Udel lectured to the children and this was not appropriate for such young students. Children who sat quietly were not acknowledged by Ms. Udel. Only the children who made a special effort to call Ms. Udel's attention received it. Ms. Udel's instruction to the children appeared confusing. The pictures she showed to the class were too small to be seen. Ms. Udel moved around with the pictures but the children only got a quick glance at them. Small children need larger samples in order to be effective.
Ms. Waddell spent quite a number of hours in informal conferences in an attempt to help Ms. Udel. Ms. Waddell also made sure that Ms. Pennington helped Ms. Udel with planning, sequencing, and classroom management. This was done on September 6, 7, and 20, 1988. Ms. Waddell also arranged for Ms. Udel to observe a model art class at Leewood Elementary School on September 30, 1988.
Ms. Waddell observed Ms. Udel in the classroom on October 7, 1988. She was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships, and assessment techniques.
Ms. Udel was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because the activities in the classroom did not coincide with her lesson plans. As a prescription to aid Ms. Udel's performance, she was referred to Pennington and directed to observe yet another model art teacher.
Ms. Udel was rated unsatisfactory in classroom management because she did not manage the children's behavior. She sent children to the art table without supplies. Some of the children were not doing what they were supposed to do. Children began to misbehave, clapping their hands and singing rhyming games, but Ms. Udel appeared unaware. As a prescription to improve her performance, Ms. Udel was again directed to observe an exemplary art teacher in the hope that she would learn how to handle the situation when children did not follow her directions.
Ms. Udel was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction. Ms. Udel lectured to the children constantly and nonstop. She gave directions to the class as a whole, and the various groups within the class appeared not to know for whom the directions were intended. Her explanations seemed confusing to the children. She gave the children at least seven different steps to follow at one time, too many for such small children. She had a poster that kept falling down, disrupting the children's attention. She was not aware of the children who tried to get her attention. Only the children who called her were noticed. Ms. Udel was not aware that a student had not received a paper and was not able to start the assignment until ten minutes before the end of class. The finished art products, masks that were cut too small, indicating that the children did not understand the lesson. As a prescription, Ms. Udel was directed to observe an exemplary art teacher.
Ms. Udel was rated unsatisfactory in teacher- student relationships because she was not aware of the students needs and there was no established pupil-teacher rapport. She only acknowledged the children who were insistent upon being acknowledged. Ms. Udel was again prescribed help in that she was directed to observe an exemplary art teacher.
Ms. Udel was rated unacceptable in assessment techniques because her grade book had only the children's names without any grades. The children had been in school for approximately five weeks, and Pine Lake required that there be at least one grade per subject, per student, per week so that the teacher could justify the grades at the end of the grading period and account for each week of instruction. Ms. Udel's grade book gave no indication what the children had done up to that point. Again, the help that was prescribed was that Ms. Udel should observe an exemplary art teacher.
On October 10, 1988, Eddie L. Redding, assistant principal at Pine Lake, informally observed Ms. Udel for an entire class period in an effort to help her. Ms. Redding also spent another full classroom hour observing Ms. Udel in January, 1989, in another effort to help her. After each of these informal observations, Ms. Redding spent a great deal of time talking to Ms. Udel, making suggestions as to how she could improve her techniques.
Ms. Udel was next formally observed in her classroom at Martin by Suzannne Gach, assistant principal, on November 17, 1988. Ms. Udel was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques.
Ms. Udel was rated unsatisfactory in preparation and planning because she was teaching paper weaving to a sixth grade class, and paper weaving is not part of Curriculart for sixth graders. The lesson observed was planned to cover three periods, however, she failed to wrap up the portion of the lesson. Help was prescribed for Ms. Udel. It was suggested that she use a time schedule in her lesson planning so that she could pace herself during the lesson. It was further recommended that she prepare her materials ahead of time.
Ms. Udel was rated unsatisfactory in classroom management because of the confusion in organizing the teacher's and children's materials. Ms. Udel failed to manage the children's behavior by scanning the classroom. She did not notice a child who raised his hand up and down for 20 minutes trying to get her attention. She did not redirect a child who was not doing any work and who was not paying attention during instruction. The last three minutes of the class were chaotic. The children's work was not collected because it had not been completed. The room was being cleaned up while Ms. Udel was trying to grade the children's work. Help was prescribed for Ms. Udel in the area of classroom management. It was suggested that she have table captains pass out materials and that she store incomplete projects in table groups. It was suggested that she scan the room to make sure that all of the children were working. It was further suggested that she grade the children in table groups.
Ms. Udel was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because under Curriculart, paper weaving is used only as a prerequisite for kindergarten weaving. It is not appropriate on the sixth grade level. Help was prescribed for Ms. Udel. She was directed to plan according to Curriculart.
Ms. Udel was rated unacceptable in assessment techniques. This was the eleventh or twelfth week of school and the children had only completed approximately three projects. While there should have been three grades in her grade book corresponding to mastery of the objectives, Ms. Udel had more grades in her grade book. She appeared to be grading on progress, but that was not what was indicated in her lesson plans. As a prescription for improvement, Ms. Udel was direct to plan more one-period projects and to offer opportunities for extra credit projects.
On November 28, 1988, a conference-for-the-record was held with Ms. Udel. During that conference, it became evident that Ms. Udel was teaching to the second and third graders at Pine Lake. This is not in accordance with Curriculart, which has separate grade level objective for each grade level. Sixth graders require totally different activities than second and third graders. Ms. Udel was apprised of the seriousness of her situation and the fact that her employment with the Dade County Public Schools would be in jeopardy unless there was a definite improvement at both schools.
Ms. Udel was next formally observed in the classroom on December 12, 1988, at Pine Lake, by Ms. Redding. She was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning, classroom management, and techniques of instruction.
Ms. Udel was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because she did not follow her lesson plans. As a prescription, Ms. Udel was to observe Pennington doing a demonstration lesson.
Ms. Udel was rated unacceptable in classroom management because she was lecturing to the students and many of the students were walking around and talking. She asked children to take out papers from the prior art lesson, and they were doing that while she was talking. There were monitors passing out papers, which also interrupted the lesson. Ms. Udel continued to lecture as all of this confusion was going on. Ms. Udel was not using assertive discipline techniques, and the children were in control of the class. She was again not using non-verbal techniques to help control the class, which is required by TADS. As a prescription, Ms. Udel was directed to the counselor to get help with and a tape on assertive discipline.. Ms. Redding also gave her books on assertive discipline. She was to observe a model art teacher at another school again.
Ms. Udel was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because of the way she lectured to the children and because her vocabulary was much too difficult for second and third grade students. When the children asked questions, Ms. Udel gave no answers. She continued talking. Second grade students need more demonstration and less talking. As a prescription, Ms. Udel was directed to observe a model art class.
Ms. Udel was next formally observed by Ms. Waddell at Pine Lake on January 17, 1989. Again, Ms. Udel's lesson plans did not coincide with the classroom activity. The lesson plans were well written and acceptable because they were taken directly from Curriculart; however, Ms. Udel was not implementing the Curriculart lesson. The lesson plan listed materials to be used, but Ms. Udel did not use them during the lesson. Again, she was not using appropriate samples for the children. She showed three small illustrations from a book, which is inappropriate for third grade students. Again, Ms. Udel was prescribed help in that she was directed to observe a model art teacher.
Responded was rated unacceptable in classroom management because she was ten minutes late to the class. The children behaved while their regular teacher remained in the room, but once that teacher left, the students began to misbehave. Ms. Udel appeared not aware of that misbehavior. They were talking to each other and playing with each other. One girl had dropped crayons and was on the floor arranging them, and Ms. Udel was not aware of the situation. Help was prescribed for Ms. Udel in that she was directed to observe a class taught by Ms. Pennington.
Ms. Udel was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because she lectured throughout the period, which was not appropriate for third grade class. The children appeared not to understand the terms used by Ms. Udel, and she gave no explanation. Help was prescribed for Ms. Udel in that she was to observe Ms. Pennington to see how she incorporated children who were not actively participating.
Ms. Udel was rated unacceptable in teacher-student relationships because although she questioned the children, she did not give them time to answer. Again, the prescription was to observe Ms. Pennington teach a lesson.
Ms. Udel was next formally observed in the classroom on February 17, 1989, in an external review by Dr. Garcia and Ms. Redding. Ms. Udel was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships, and assessment techniques.
Ms. Udel was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because the lesson was not meaningful to the students. They had no idea why they were doing the lesson. Ms. Udel had not prepared properly for the lesson and had not given any background for it. The visual aids that she used were too small to be seen. As a prescription, Redding provided Ms. Udel with a series of textbooks called "Discover Art", which deal with art for the primary grades. Redding also discussed' with Ms. Udel her vocabulary and sequencing of lessons.
Ms. Udel was rated unacceptable in classroom management because it took her eight minutes to pass out materials, and the students became jittery and talking and looking around. Time was wasted. As a prescription, Ms. Udel was directed to portions of the textbooks dealing with techniques for passing out materials.
Ms. Udel was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because the vocabulary she used was not on a third grade level, and she did not explain her words. The students were lost. The students appeared to do the activity by rote because they had no understanding of the techniques and the words Ms. Udel was using. Ms. Udel inappropriately used writing as a punishment for students. This was not in accordance with the School Board's assertive discipline policy. Ms. Udel failed to recognize a student who had raised his hand for at least three minutes. This is frustrating to students and eliminates motivation. As help, it was prescribed that Ms. Udel review the textbooks. She was still not preparting her lessons in a sequence and she appeared to be grasping at things to teach. There did not appear to be a yearly plan, a unit plan, or goals.
Ms. Udel was rated unsatisfactory in assessment techniques because she did not grade the students. She just had them hold up their papers, and she said how nice they were. She did not give the students any suggestions for improvement nor did she critique their work. She failed to collect their work. There were no grades in her grade book for previous lessons. As a prescription, Ms. Udel was directed to develop a portfolio per class. She was also directed to review the textbooks for methods of assessing student work.
Ms. Udel was next formally observed in the classroom on March 14, 1988, in an external review by Dr. Garcia and Ms. Redding. Ms. Udel was rated unsatisfactory in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships, and assessment techniques.
Ms. Udel was rated unsatisfactory in preparation and planning because she repeated a lesson that she had previously done. The lesson appeared staged. It was not sequential and it was not a carry through of the previous lesson. As a prescription, Ms. Pennington was sent to review Ms. Udel's lesson plans to make sure that the lessons corresponded with the plans.
Ms. Udel was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because she did not provide background for the students. There was no mention of anything they had done previously to prepare them for this lesson. Ms. Udel had no problems with the art concepts, but she did not know how to teach the concepts in a sequential manner so that they meaningful to students. It just appeared to be meaningless activity. As a prescription, Ms. Udel was asked to review the textbooks and to redo her lesson plans to develop a sequence for nine weeks.
Ms. Udel was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because the lesson was a repeat of a previous lesson, and the visual aids that she used could not be seen. Ms. Udel was unaware that the students could not see them. Ms. Udel did not move from one spot as she taught. While the students were working, Ms. Udel interrupted them by giving them books. She talked constantly and disturbed the students trains of thought, interrupting the critical thinking and creating thought processes. Ms. Udel was prescribed help in that she was asked to develop a sequence of the events in teaching art related to the elements and principals of design. She was to review the textbooks and to write a paragraph on age-appropriate vocabulary and sequencing of lesson plans.
Ms. Udel was rated unacceptable in teacher-student relationships because she was again using writing as a punishment. She had the students copy rules she had written which contained misspelled words. There were students with their hands up, but Ms. Udel did not see them. Ms. Udel appeared unaware that she was interrupting the students' work, that some of the students were not working, and that one child was not seated properly to do his art work. Ms. Udel appeared unaware of the childrens frustration. Ms. Udel was attempting to use the assertive discipline plan but she was not successful. Help was prescribed for Ms. Udel in that she was directed to review assertive discipline and to write a summary of it.
Ms. Udel was rated unacceptable in assessment techniques because she did not collect or grade the work. Ms. Udel was not keeping portfolios of the students' work. As a prescription, Ms. Udel was referred to the textbooks to come up with her own way of assessing students. Dr. Garcia discussed portfolios with Ms. Udel.
Generally
As the various administrators walked around their school and came in and out of classrooms, including Ms. Udel's classroom, they were aware that Ms. Udel exhibited the same kinds of problems that she exhibited during formal classroom observations.
Ms. Udel was given class coverage so that she could observe the teachers in other schools.
In addition to the help offered to Ms. Udel as indicated above, Dr. Garcia also spent several hours in conferences with Ms. Udel both in person and by telephone.
All of the times that Ms. Udel's prescriptions listed art coordinator, resource specialist, area resource TSA, area art specialist, and area art TSA, Ms. Pennington helped Ms. Udel.
The administrators who attempted to help Ms. Udel opined that Ms. Udel was not taking them seriously. Ms. Udel appeared unwilling to correct her deficiencies.
Ms. Udel is a talented artist whose artistic ability is undisputed. However, she is lacking in the communication skills necessary to perform satisfactorily in a classroom setting. Throughout the evidence presented and by observation of Ms. Udel's demeanor at the hearing, it was noted that it is difficult for Ms. Udel to understand instruction. Her inability rises almost to the point of giving the appearance that she resists receiving instruction. Further, she is unable to communicate her thoughts in a cogent manner Her talents may better be served by participation in a profession which requires less structure than classroom teaching demands.
On the occasions when Ms. Udel was observed in her classroom and was found to be deficient, her students did not receive the minimal educational experience to which they were entitled.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of these proceedings. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
Since Petitioner seeks only to dismiss despondent as an employee, but not to revoke her teaching certificate, it need only prove the allegations set forth in the Specific Notice of Charges by a preponderance of the evidence. Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So.2d 292 (Fla. 1987).
The Specific Notice of Charges alleges that Respondent is guilty of incompetency, gross insubordination and willful neglect of duties within the meaning of subsection 231.36(4), Florida Statutes. Those terms are defined by Rule 6B- 4.009, Florida Administrative Code, which reads, in pertinent part, as follows:
Incompetency is defined as inability or lack of fitness to discharge the required duty as a result
of inefficiency. ... Such judgment shall be based on the existence of one (1) or more of the following:
Inefficiency: (1) repeated failure to perform duties prescribed by law (Section 231.09, Florida Statues);
repeated failure on the part of a teacher to communicate with an relate
to children in the classroom, to such an extent that pupils are deprived of minimum educational experience; or...
(4) Gross insubordination or willful neglect of duties is defined as a
constant or continuing intentional refusal to obey a direct order, reasonable in nature, and given by and with proper authority.
As referenced in Rule 6B-4.009(1)(a) above, Section 231.09, Florida Statutes provides the following:
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.
In implementing the above provision, Petitioner adopted Rule 6Gx13-4A- 1.21, Florida Administrative Code, which reads, in pertinent part, as follows:
II. Records and Reports
All persons shall keep all records and shall prepare and submit promptly all reports that may be required by State Law, State 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, using the books and material required, following the prescribed courses of study, and employing approved methods of instruction as provided by law and
the rules of the State Department of Education.
As to the allegation of incompetency, Petitioner has met its burden by the greater weight of the competent evidence. As Rule 6B-4.009 dictates, Respondent's incompetency is demonstrated by Petitioner's showing that she acted inefficiently while performing her duties as a classroom teacher. Rule 6B- 4.009(1) goes further to define inefficient acts. Here, the proof indicated that Respondent repeatedly failed to communicate with her students in a meaningful manner, resulting in the deprivation of a minimum educational experience for her students. Those acts alone would be sufficient to classify Respondent as incompetent within the meaning of Rule 6B-4.009(1) and Section 231.36(4). However, Petitioner also demonstrated that Respondent committed acts in violation of 6B-4.009 (1)(a) when she repeatedly failed to teach according to the curriculum prescribed by Petitioner, as prohibited by Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 and Section 231.09, Florida Statutes. Accordingly, Petitioner met its burden of demonstrating Respondent's incompetence.
Petitioner also alleged that Respondent violated Rule 6B-4.009(1)(a) due to her repeated failure to maintain report cards, portfolios and teaching plans as required by 6Gx13- 4A-1.21 and Section 231.09. Although Petitioner demonstrated that it had imposed the requirement for the maintenance of the records and that Respondent at times did not have the information readily available, it did not show, and Respondent credibly refuted, that she failed repeatedly to maintain the records.
The remaining allegation as to gross insubordination or willful neglect of duties on the part of Respondent, were not demonstrated by the preponderance of the competent, substantial evidence. To constitute gross insubordination, a teacher's conduct must be more than an isolated incident of refusing to comply with an order. Indeed, such conduct must be on a constant or continuing basis. Smith v. School Board of Leon County, 405 So.2d 183, 185 (Flu. 1st DCA 1981). As stated in the above paragraph, Respondent failed on several occasions to have certain reports available However, the weight of the competent evidence failed to show that she consistently or continually failed to obey orders. The term "willful neglect of duties" is not defined, but the use of the word "willful" implies that the teacher must intentonally fail to comply with a reasonable and lawful order. The Instructions or prescriptions given to Respondent were reasonable and lawful orders; however, the evidence, as credibly refuted by Respondent failed to demonstrated that Respondent intentionlly failed to respond to them.
Accordingly, Petitioner demonstrated by competent, substantial evidence that Respondent acted incompetently during school years 1986-87, 1987- 88 and 1988-89.
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County, Florida issue a Final
Order dismissing Respondent, Ann R. Udel, as an employee of the School Board of
Dade County, Florida without back pay, for incompetency, pursuant to Section 231.36(4), Florida Statutes.
DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of March, 1990.
JANE C. HAYMAN
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of March, 1990.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-2176
The following represent the rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by parties. The rulings are reflected by the paragraph number of each proposed finding of fact.
PETITIONER
Adopted in paragraph 1.
Adopted in paragraph 3.
Adopted in paragraph 4.
Adopted in paragraph 5.
Adopted in paragraph 6.
Adopted in paragraph 7.
Adopted in paragraph 8.
Adopted in paragraph 9.
Adopted in paragraph 10.
Adopted in paragraph 11.
Adopted in paragraph 12.
Adopted in paragraph 13.
Adopted in paragraph 14.
Adopted in paragraph 15.
Adopted in paragraph 16.
Adopted in paragraph 17.
Adopted in paragraph 18.
Adopted in paragraph 19.
Adopted in paragraph 20.
Adopted in paragraph 21.
Adopted in paragraph 22.
Adopted in paragraph 23.
Adopted in paragraph 24.
Adopted in paragraph 25.
Adopted in paragraph 26.
Adopted in paragraph 27.
Adopted in paragraph 28.
Adopted in paragraph 29.
Adopted in paragraph 30.
Adopted in paragraph 31.
Adopted in paragraph 32.
Adopted in paragraph 33.
Adopted, in part, in paragraph 34; in part, irrelevant.
Adopted in paragraph 35.
Adopted in paragraph 36.
Adopted in paragraph 37.
Adopted, in part, in paragraph 38.
Adopted in paragraph 39.
Adopted, in part, in paragraph 40; in part, irrelevant.
Rejected as not supported by competent, substantial evidence. 4l. Adopted in paragraph 41.
Adopted in paragraph 42.
Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence.
Adopted in paragraph 43.
Adopted in paragraph 44.
Adopted in paragraph 45.
Adopted in paragraph 46.
Adopted in paragraph 47.
Adopted in paragraph 48.
Adopted in paragraph 49.
Adopted in paragraph 50.
Adopted in paragraph 51.
Adopted in paragraph 52.
Adopted in paragraph 53.
Adopted in paragraph 54.
Adopted in paragraph 55.
Adopted in paragraph 56.
Adopted in paragraph 57.
Adopted in paragraph 58.
Adopted in paragraph 59.
Adopted in paragraph 60.
Adopted in paragraph 61.
Adopted in paragraph 62.
Adopted in paragraph 63.
Adopted in paragraph 64.
Adopted in paragraph 65.
Adopted in paragraph 66.
Adopted in paragraph 67.
Adopted in paragraph 68.
Adopted in paragraph 70.
Adopted, in part, in paragraph 71, in part, not supported by competent substantial evidence.
Adopted in paragraph 71.
Adopted in paragraph 72.
Adopted in paragraph 73.
Adopted in paragraph 74.
Adopted in paragraph 75.
Adopted in paragraph 76.
Adopted in paragraph 77.
Adopted in paragraph 78.
Adopted in paragraph 79.
Adopted in paragraph 80.
Adopted, in part in paragraph 81, part, not supported by competent substantial evidence.
Adopted in paragraph 82.
Adopted in paragraph 83
Adopted in paragraph 84.
Adopted in paragraph 85.
Adopted in paragraph 86.
Adopted, in part, in paragraph 87, in part, rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidenced.
Adopted in paragraph 89.
Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence.
Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence.
RESPONDENT
Adopted in paragraph 2.
Adopted in paragraph 1.
Adopted as subordinate to paragraphs 3-5.
Adopted as subordinate to paragraphs 6-30.
Irrelevant.
Adopted, in part, in paragraphs 3-87 in part, not supported by competent substantial evidence.
Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence.
Adopted as subordinated to paragraphs 3-81.
Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence.
Adopted as subordinate to paragraphs 19-22.
Adopted as subordinate to paragraphs 32-37.
Adopted as subordinate to paragraphs 19-23.
Adopted as subordinate to paragraphs 68-77.
Adopted as subordinate to paragraphs 68-77.
Adopted as subordinate to paragraphs 68-77.
Adopted as subordinate to paragraph 57.
Adopted as subordinate to paragraphs 58-62.
Adopted as subordinate to paragraphs 58-62.
Adopted as subordinate to paragraphs 58-62.
Adopted as subordinate to paragraphs 58-62.
Adopted as subordinate to paragraphs 6-30.
Adopted as subordinate to paragraphs 6-30.
Adopted as subordinate to paragraphs 6-30.
Adopted as subordinate to paragraphs 6-30.
Adopted as subordinate to paragraphs 6-30.
Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence.
COPIES FURNISHED:
William DuFresne, Esquire DuFresne & Bradley, P.A. 2929 Southwest Third Avenue Suite One
Miami, Florida 33129
Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire
School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 301
Miami, Florida 33132
Dr. Joseph A. Fernandez Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools
1444 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 215
Miami, Florida 33132
Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Mar. 02, 1990 | Recommended Order (hearing held , 2013). CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Mar. 21, 1990 | Agency Final Order | |
| Mar. 02, 1990 | Recommended Order | Teacher dismissed as employee for incompetence. Teacher lacked communication and instructional skills necessary to satisfactorily perform in classroom. |
BROWARD COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs KATHLEEN FINNERTY, 89-002176 (1989)
SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY vs. SHIRLEY A. HARPER, 89-002176 (1989)
JOHN L. WINN, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs CYNTHIA B. FOY, 89-002176 (1989)
PAM STEWART, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs KAREN ROSALIE SCHIEFLER, 89-002176 (1989)
