STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, ) FLORIDA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 91-4936

)

BRUCE PESETSKY, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to Notice, this cause was heard by Linda M. Rigot, the assigned Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings, on October 23-24, 1991, in Miami, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire

1450 N.E. Second Avenue, Suite 301

Miami, Florida 33132

For Respondent: William Du Fresne, Esquire

Du Fresne and Bradley, P.A.

2929 S.W. Third Avenue, Suite One Miami, Florida 33129

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Notice of Specific Charges filed against him, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him, if any.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By letter dated July 25, 1991, Petitioner notified Respondent that he was being suspended from his employment and that dismissal proceedings would be initiated against him for incompetency and gross insubordination, and Respondent timely requested a formal hearing. This cause was subsequently transferred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the conduct of that formal proceeding, and a Notice of Specific Charges was filed on August 28, 1991.

Petitioner presented the testimony of Gail D. Wainger, M.D.; Fred Damianos; Shirley Beer; Louis Allen, Jr.; Allen Hindman; Robert W. Fowler; James E. Monroe; Patricia J. Perez; Leonard A. Glazer; Carmen R. Maristany and D. Patrick Gray, Jr. Respondent testified on his own behalf and presented the testimony of Elliott Klein; Wayne Odem; Laurent LaRoche, Jr.; Jack Bobo, Jr.; Otto Dolan; Richard Anderson; Carolyn Reinhardt; Ronald Momplaster; Kenneth Placide; Anthony

Henry; Hector J. Roberts; Sharon Beck and Yvonne Perez. Additionally, Petitioner's Exhibits numbered 1-4, 6-25, 27, 29-42 and Respondent's Exhibit numbered 1 were admitted in evidence.

No transcript has been filed. Pursuant to a Stipulation filed November 14, 1991, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 25 was amended, paragraph numbered 25 of the Notice of Specific Charges was amended, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 28 was withdrawn, and a portion of witness Glazer's testimony was withdrawn. An additional Stipulation, requested by the undersigned and filed on January 10, 1992, establishes that Respondent is employed in a continuing contract status.

Both parties submitted post hearing proposed findings of fact in the form of proposed recommended orders. A specific ruling on each proposed finding of fact can be found in the Appendix to this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At all times material hereto, Respondent has been employed by Petitioner as a high school teacher assigned to Miami Norland Senior High School. Respondent holds a continuing contract.

   
   

2. Respondent began teaching for the Dade County Public Schools during the 1968-69 school year. During that school year, the annual evaluation form utilized by Petitioner provided that a score of below 3.5 indicated unsatisfactory work. During that, his first year of teaching, Respondent received a score of 3.2 on his annual evaluation. For the next 15 years thereafter, Respondent was rated as being acceptable on his annual evaluations for each and every year.

   
   

3. During the 1984 summer session, an incident occurred between Respondent and one of his students. As a result of Petitioner's investigation into the allegation that Respondent had committed a battery on that student, conferences were held between Respondent and administrative personnel. Respondent requested a leave of absence for the 1984-85 school year due to personal reasons, and his request for leave of absence was granted. Respondent was required, however, to undergo a psychological evaluation prior to returning to his duties as a classroom teacher.

   
   

4. During that school year while Respondent was on leave of absence, he was evaluated by Dr. Gail D. Wainger, a psychiatrist to whom he was referred by Petitioner. Respondent thereafter saw Dr. Albert C. Jaslow, a private psychiatrist, on two occasions. Dr. Jaslow submitted two reports which contained, inter alia, a recommendation that Respondent be transferred to a different school. Dr. Wainger reviewed Dr. Jaslow's reports and her own earlier report and, on May 21, 1985, submitted a report to Petitioner stating, inter alia, that there was no barrier to Respondent's being reinstated into active teaching.

   
   

5. Based upon that evaluation, Petitioner permitted Respondent to return to the same teaching position previously held by him for the 1985-86 school year. At the conclusion of that school year, Respondent was rated as being acceptable on his annual evaluation. Respondent again received acceptable annual evaluations for the following two years, i.e., the 1986-87 and the 1987-

   88 school years.

   
   

6. On his annual evaluation for the 1988-89 school year Respondent was rated as being unacceptable in the area of classroom management, one of the six

   categories of classroom performance. Pursuant to the rules governing the TADS evaluation system, a rating of unacceptable in any of the categories covered by the annual evaluation instrument requires an overall rating of unacceptable.

   
   

7. On his annual evaluation for the 1989-90 school year Respondent was rated as being acceptable in all six categories of classroom performance, including the area of classroom management. It was specifically noted on his annual evaluation form that Respondent had performed satisfactorily during both of the official observations made of his classroom performance. However, Respondent was rated as unacceptable in the non-classroom category entitled professional responsibility. That rating of unacceptable in that one category required that Respondent's overall rating be unacceptable.

   
   

8. The basis for the unacceptable rating in the area of professional responsibility involved the determination that Respondent had been disrespectful to students on two separate occasions. On April 16, 1990, one of Respondent's students called another of his students who had an unusual skin pigmentation condition "two-toned." Respondent immediately told the offending student, "do not call the girl two-toned." A conference for the record was conducted with Respondent on April 30, 1990, and Respondent was given a supervisory referral to the Employee Assistance Program.

   
   

9. During the week of May 7, 1990, one of Respondent's students was being verbally abusive to the other students, and Respondent told him to stop. That student thereupon began being verbally abusive toward Respondent and using profanity. Respondent then said to that student, "you should talk. You look like Mr. Spock from Star Trek." A conference for the record was conducted with Respondent, and he was issued a formal reprimand. The summary of the conference for the record dated June 1, 1990, prepared by the principal of Miami Norland Senior High School states that the student involved has physically-deformed ears.

   
   

10. On his annual evaluation for the 1990-91 school year Respondent was rated as being unacceptable in the areas of classroom management, techniques of instruction, and professional responsibility. Accordingly, he received an overall evaluation of unacceptable.

    
    

11. During the 1990-91 school year there were no reported incidents of Respondent allegedly making disrespectful remarks to students. That basis for being rated unacceptable in the area of professional responsibility during the prior academic year was cured.

    
    

12. The rating of unacceptable in the area of classroom management was based upon a number of observations of Respondent during the school year wherein the observers noted a lack of control in the classroom, Respondent's failure or inability to re-direct students who were off-task, Respondent's failure or inability to enforce classroom rules, and Respondent's failure or inability to deal with students who were tardy in coming to his class. As to his techniques of instruction, observers during that school year noted that Respondent was teaching from sub-standard books (without noting whether that was a matter within Respondent's control), that the students were confused by Respondent's directions on several occasions, that the students did not understand the lessons being taught, and that on several occasions Respondent made errors in math when writing examples on the board. Some of the observers also noted that Respondent spent too much time on some of the lessons that he was teaching. Numerous prescriptions were given to Respondent during that school year to improve his instruction and to manage his classroom, such as reading sections of

    the TADS manual and observing other teachers. Respondent complied with each and every prescription given to him.

    
    

13. As to being unacceptable in the area of professional responsibility, Respondent failed to properly maintain student folders reflecting their work to justify grades being given to the students, and there were errors in Respondent's gradebook. It also became apparent that Respondent was not making parental contact for students that were performing unsatisfactorily. By March of the 1990-91 school year Respondent was directed in writing to make parental contact as required by Dade County Public School policy.

    
    

14. By memorandum dated June 3, 1991, Respondent was notified that he was required to produce within 48 hours a complete up-to-date gradebook, a parent contact log substantiating parent contacts for the entire school year, and all student folders substantiating Respondent's gradebook. He was advised that if he did not do so, he would receive an unsatisfactory rating in the area of professional responsibility. The principal and assistant principal understood the directive to mean that Respondent must produce those documents by noon on June 6, and Respondent understood the directive to mean that he was to produce the documents on June 6. At noon, the principal was not available to Respondent. Respondent did produce many of the documents later that day. There was, of course, no parental log for the entire year since one did not exist.

    
    

15. At the end of the 1990-91 school year a recommendation for dismissal was made. Based upon that recommendation, the School Board of Dade County, Florida, suspended Respondent from his employment effective at the close of the workday on July 25, 1991, for incompetency and gross insubordination.

    
    

16. In 1984 Respondent filed a grievance against Assistant Principal Wessel and Principal Fowler at Miami Norland Senior High School. The subject of the grievance was that Assistant Principal Wessel had in a loud voice and in a demeaning manner criticized Respondent's lesson plans in front of other teachers, staff and students. The grievance was also filed against Principal Fowler to enlist his assistance in making Wessel refrain from repeated conduct of that nature. The Union considered the grievance to be valid and processed it through the grievance procedures.

    
    

17. Thereafter, Respondent was advised by Fowler and Wessel that he had made a big mistake and he would be sorry for having filed that grievance. Respondent began to believe that he had lost the support of the administration and that his job was in jeopardy.

    
    

18. When Respondent returned to his teaching duties after his leave of absence during the 1984-85 school year he was moved to a classroom directly across from the main office. Respondent considered that action to be demeaning. He still achieved acceptable evaluations for that year and the following year.

    
    

19. During the next school year, in the middle of February, the administration moved Respondent to an old metal shop room and gave his classroom to a new teacher. He still achieved an acceptable annual evaluation that year.

    
    

20. For the following school year the administrators assigned Respondent to teach five low-level math classes using five different classrooms. For the last three years of his teaching career, the ones during which he received unacceptable ratings in different categories, Respondent was required to teach all low-level math classes. Although administrative personnel testified that some teachers like low-level classes, Respondent repeatedly made it clear that

    he did not want that assignment. Further, there is a specific contract provision between the Dade County Schools and the teachers' union prohibiting teachers from being locked into low-level classes year after year, as Respondent was.

    
    

21. During the last several years while Respondent was achieving unsatisfactory ratings in some categories, while he was being switched from classroom to classroom, and while he was being required to teach only low-level classes year after year, the administrative staff actively undermined Respondent's authority and demeaned him in front of students and other teachers. They told teachers and students that they were trying to get rid of Respondent and that Respondent was a bad teacher. When Respondent referred disruptive students to the office, the administrative staff laughed or simply refused to take any follow-up action. On one occasion when Respondent referred a student to the office for throwing an eraser at another student, an assistant principal told the misbehaving student that he should have thrown the eraser at Respondent instead. Respondent "lost face" around the school. It became known that the students could misbehave in Respondent's classes with impunity. Even the students understood that Respondent was assigned only the most difficult of students.

    
    

22. Although there was a new principal at Miami Norland Senior High School during Respondent's last year of teaching, the new principal, coincidentally, had been the principal for the 1984 summer session at Parkway Junior High School where Respondent had been involved in an incident with a student prior to taking his year's leave of absence from teaching. Under the new principal's administration, Respondent was retained in his assignment of five low-level math classes and was moved to the classroom directly across from the office. No evidence was offered that the new principal understood that efforts had been made to keep Respondent's authority undermined and to make him quit. It is clear, however, that no steps were taken to stop or reverse the damage to Respondent's reputation and ability to teach.

    
    

23. In response to Respondent's referral to the Employee Assistance Program, Respondent did make the contact required of him. In fact, there were numerous contacts between Respondent and the personnel involved in that program. Additionally, Respondent was seen by Dr. Goldin, a mental health professional, on four occasions between April and June of 1990. Between June and September of 1990, he also saw an associate of Dr. Goldin eight times in individual sessions and four times in joint sessions with his wife.

    
    

24. Respondent repeatedly requested transfers from his teaching assignment at Miami Norland Senior High School. Some of the requests were made to his principals and some of them were sent to the Office of Professional Standards. From the time that Respondent returned to his teaching duties after his leave of absence during the 1984-85 school year, he requested transfers each and every year. He requested a transfer at least twice during his last year of teaching. Some of the requests for transfer were hardship requests and others were normal requests. Additionally, both Dr. Jaslow in 1985 and Dr. Goldin in 1990 recommended to the Office of Professional Standards that Respondent be transferred to a different school. All requests for transfer were ignored.

    
    

25. During the last years of Respondent's teaching career, in addition to the stress placed upon him by the administrative staff's efforts to undermine and ridicule him, he experienced additional stress as a result of his wife's serious illness. He told a number of the administrative staff about the problem

    at home. The difficulty under which that placed him was part of the reason for the referral to the Employee Assistance Program.

    
    

26. During those last years, during conferences with administrative staff regarding his performance, Respondent exhibited anxiety and showed signs of stress. He accused the administration of undermining him and of treating him unfairly. He even attributed some of the problems he was experiencing in the classroom to the administrators. Their reaction to Respondent's accusations was to accuse Respondent of being paranoid.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

27. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties hereto and the subject matter hereof. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

    
    

28. The Notice of Specific Charges, as amended by agreement of the parties during the final hearing in this cause, alleges that Respondent is guilty of incompetency and gross insubordination. Section 231.36(4)(c), Florida Statutes, provides that any member of the instructional staff who is under continuing contract may be suspended or dismissed at any time during the school year based upon, inter alia, incompetency and gross insubordination. Definitions for those terms are found in Rule 6B-4.009, Florida Administrative Code, which reads, in pertinent part, as follows:

    
    

    1. Incompetency is defined as inability or lack of fitness to discharge the required duty as a result of inefficiency or incapacity....

       Such judgment shall be based on a preponderance of evidence showing the existence of one (1) or more of the following:

       1. Inefficiency: (1) repeated failure to perform duties prescribed by law (Section 231.09, Florida Statutes); (2) repeated failure on the part of a teacher to communicate with and relate to children in the classroom, to such an extent that pupils are deprived of minimum educational experience; or...

       2. Incapacity: (1) lack of emotional stability;...

          
          

          (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.

          
          

29. As referenced in Rule 6B-4.009(1)(a), Section 231.09, Florida Statutes, provides that:

    
    

    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; recordkeeping; and fulfilling the terms of any contract, unless released from the contract by the School Board.

30. School Board of Dade County Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 reiterates the language contained in Section 231.09, Florida Statutes, and further requires employees to conduct themselves in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system and to keep all records and submit promptly all reports required by state law, state department of education rules, School Board rules, and administrative directives. School Board Rule 6Gx13-5B-1.02 pertains to student evaluation, the necessity therefor, and provides that oral and written tests, group discussions, written work, student folders, check lists, and observations are representative of the means to be used to determine students' progress.

    
    

31. School Board Rule 6Gx13-5B-1.04, the Pupil Progression Plan, provides, in part, that parents must be notified in writing at any time during a grading period when it is apparent that the student may fail or is doing unsatisfactory work in any course or grade assignment, that parents must be notified at any time during the grading period when it becomes evident that the student's conduct or effort grades are unsatisfactory, and that teacher-parent conferences are required when students display a consistent pattern of disruption and demonstrate unacceptable academic achievement. The collective bargaining agreement between the United Teachers of Dade and the School Board also addresses teacher-parent communications, contains the same language as School Board Rule 6Gx13-5B-1.04, and also requires that teachers log teacher-parent conferences in their official gradebooks and specify whether such contacts were in person, by telephone, or through written communication.

    
    

32. Petitioner also relies on School Board Rule 6Gx13-5D-1.08 which provides that teachers or other members of the staff of any school shall have authority for the direction and discipline of students and shall keep good order in the classroom and in other places in which responsibility for students is assigned. Similarly, Petitioner relies on School Board Rule 6Gx13-6A-1.07, entitled Moral and Ethical Values, which provides, in part, that teachers should attempt to teach values such as respect, thoughtfulness of others, dependability, conscientiousness in accepting and discharging one's responsibility at work, a willingness to strive to reach the maximum in helping others, consistency and understanding in disciplinary dealings with students, mutual courtesy and respect between teachers and students, and good human qualities and relations. Lastly, Petitioner relies on the collective bargaining agreement between the teachers' union and the School Board which provides that lesson plans reflect objectives, activities, a way of monitoring student progress, and homework assignments.

    
    

33. The evidence is clear that Respondent received an annual evaluation of

    3.2 on a system which provided that an evaluation of below 3.5 was unsatisfactory in 1968-69, his first year of teaching. For the next almost 20 years he received an annual rating that showed his performance to be acceptable, and he was recommended for re-employment each year. During that 20-year span of acceptable performance, there was an incident with a student during a summer school session at a school where Respondent did not normally teach. Whose version of what happened during that incident is not the subject of this proceeding. The result of the incident was that Respondent was referred for a psychiatric evaluation and treatment, that he took a year's leave of absence, and that at the end of that year the psychiatrist to whom Petitioner had referred him determined that he was capable of returning to work. Respondent did return to work and received acceptable ratings for the next three school years. His performance during the following three years wherein he was rated as unacceptable in different categories is what is at issue in this proceeding.

34. A number of students and teachers supported Respondent's testimony regarding the conditions under which he was forced to perform his assigned duties. There was no suggestion that those witnesses were not truthful, and there is no evidence of any motive on behalf of any of them to have been less than truthful. In fact, one of those teachers was a teacher to whom Respondent was referred as a resource for assisting Respondent in improving his performance.

    
    

35. Those witnesses testified as to how the administrative staff at Miami Norland Senior High School ridiculed Respondent and demeaned him in front of other teachers and in front of students with the result that Respondent "lost face" in that school. The administrative staff undermined his authority with the students at the school, and they refused to support Respondent when he attempted to discipline students. The students were aware that Respondent could do nothing to them if they misbehaved, and that made him a "push-over." One of the students testified that he was a bad student and that he had never seen so many bad students in one class as he did in Respondent's class.

    
    

36. For those last three years Respondent was assigned to teach five classes of low-level math students. During at least one of those years he was required to change classrooms every period. During one of those years he was placed in a classroom directly across from the office. He was also shuffled between classrooms during the middle of a semester. He was marked down on a evaluation for using sub-standard textbooks; yet, no witness suggested that the textbooks available to Respondent was a matter of his choice.

    
    

37. The administrative staff accused him of being paranoid in believing that they were out to get him while they were telling others directly that that was their intent. They questioned Respondent's emotional stability when he protested that they were being unfair to him. They noted in his records that he was stressed, anxious and argumentative when they called him in for conferences for the record.

    
    

38. He was referred to the Employee Assistance Program, and he went. He testified that he had approximately 20 contacts with that office. Petitioner countered with hearsay evidence that he only had 9 contacts. He privately went for counseling on a regular basis from April through September of 1990 pursuant to the direction from his supervisor that he do so.

    
    

39. The testimony is uncontroverted that every prescription given to Respondent to improve his performance was fulfilled by him. But for the making of parental contacts, the appropriate upkeep of his gradebook, and the maintaining of work in student folders during the last year, Respondent complied with every directive given to him.

    
    

40. He requested transfers to a different teaching assignment at a different school on a continual basis. Two mental health professionals with whom he consulted also recommended to the Office of Professional Standards that he be transferred to a different school. Respondent testified as to a number of years during which he made requests for transfer both on a hardship basis and on a normal basis. The exhibits admitted in evidence during the final hearing reflect requests for transfer made during conferences with administrative personnel, including two requests made during the 1990-91 school year, his final year of teaching.

    
    

41. Many observations were made of Respondent's classroom performance during those last three years. Many criticisms were made. Many of the

    criticisms were valid. All of those evaluations ignore the conditions under which Respondent was required to teach and the punitive nature of some of those conditions. His repeated assignment to low-level classes year after year is prohibited by the collective bargaining contract in effect between the teachers' union and the School Board of Dade County.

    
    

42. For the 1988-89 school year Respondent received a rating of unacceptable in classroom management and, therefore, an unacceptable overall evaluation. Although a witness who did not perform the evaluation testified that Respondent should have been marked unacceptable in the area of techniques of instruction rather than in the area of classroom management, Respondent completed all prescriptions required of him and received a rating of acceptable in all six classroom areas on his 1989-90 annual evaluation. Accordingly, Respondent did improve and correct any deficiency he may have had during the prior year, whether those deficiencies were in fact in the area of classroom management or in the area of techniques of instruction.

    
    

43. Despite receiving an acceptable evaluation in all six classroom areas during the 1989-90 school year, Respondent received an overall rating of unacceptable due to the fact that he received a rating of unacceptable in the area of professional responsibility. That unacceptable rating was the result of the two incidents where he was accused of being disrespectful to two students. Respondent was given a formal reprimand because he was disrespectful a second time after being told to not be disrespectful following the first incident. Respondent was rated as unacceptable in the area of professional responsibility for being disrespectful, and he, therefore, received an overall annual evaluation of unacceptable. During the following school year, 1990-91, Respondent exhibited no disrespect to the students in such a manner. He, accordingly, corrected that deficiency.

    
    

44. During that final year, a new principal came to Miami Norland Senior High School. He knew that Respondent was on prescription. His prior experience with Respondent had been during the summer session of 1984 when he had been required to look into the incident between Respondent and a student which had occurred before that principal arrived at that school. There is no evidence that the new principal understood the circumstances surrounding Respondent's teaching conditions at Miami Norland Senior High School. He continued Respondent in the assignment of all low-level classes, placed Respondent in a classroom across from his office, and did not understand why Respondent appeared stressed, anxious, and argumentative when criticized for not having his classes under control and for being unable to teach properly. He referred Respondent to other resources and gave Respondent numerous prescriptions. Respondent complied with all of those prescriptions.

    
    

45. As to the specific charges involved in this proceeding, Respondent has been charged with incompetency as a result of inefficiency or incapacity. As to inefficiency, Respondent did fail to perform duties prescribed by Section 231.09, Florida Statutes, during the 1990-91 school year in that he failed to make parental contact regarding students who were performing unsatisfactorily, failed to maintain student work in the students' folders, and failed to maintain his gradebook properly although directed to do so. Although Respondent was not in a position to maintain control in his classroom due to the administrative approval of disruptive behavior by the students assigned to Respondent, he was in a position to maintain work in their folders, keep his gradebook properly, and make parental contact. Petitioner has met its burden of proof regarding this allegation.

46. Regarding Petitioner's allegation that Respondent repeatedly failed to communicate with and relate to children in the classroom to such an extent that pupils were deprived of a minimum educational experience, Petitioner has failed in its burden. Other than conclusory testimony that such occurred, no evidence was offered to support that conclusion. Further, Respondent's communication with and relation to the children in his classroom was interfered with by administrative staff.

    
    

47. Regarding Petitioner's allegation that Respondent was incompetent due to incapacity, i.e., lack of emotional stability, Petitioner has failed in its burden. Petitioner's proof of emotional instability was, essentially, questioning the psychiatrist to whom it had referred Respondent in 1984 and having her assume that Respondent had received unacceptable evaluations for three years in a row. That expert witness was not given the benefit of knowing the circumstances under which those evaluations were given. Petitioner has simply not proven by competent evidence that Respondent is emotionally unstable.

    
    

48. Regarding the allegation that Respondent is guilty of gross insubordination or willful neglect of duties, Respondent did during the last year of teaching fail or refuse to make parental contact, maintain student work in their files, and keep his gradebook properly. When it became apparent that Respondent was not fulfilling those requirements, he was directed to do so. He failed to comply with the directives.

    
    

49. It is appropriate that disciplinary action be taken against Respondent for failure to make parental contact, failure to maintain student folders, and failure to maintain his gradebook during the 1990-91 school year. It is not appropriate that Respondent be disciplined for deficiencies which did not continue from school year to school year and which appeared during those last three years of his teaching career during the administrative efforts to undermine him. Respondent has been suspended without pay since July 25, 1991. He has missed a substantial portion of the 1991-92 school year and placing him back into a classroom at this time may well be disruptive to the educational program which has been ongoing.

    
    

50. Respondent's suspension through the close of the 1991-92 school year is an appropriate punishment for the deficiencies he exhibited during the 1990-

91 school year which he had the ability to control. Continuing his suspension through the remainder of the 1991-92 school year, however, is ample disciplinary action for Respondent's own conduct. Respondent should receive no back pay for the period of his suspension. Thereafter, he should be reinstated to a full- time teaching position in an area in which he is certified at a school other than Miami Norland Senior High School. He should not be given only low-level math classes upon his reinstatement. Returning Respondent to a teaching position at Miami Norland would prevent Respondent from having a fair opportunity to exhibit his teaching skills and would likely assure for him an unacceptable rating on his next annual evaluation. Respondent's repeated requests for a transfer should be granted so that his next annual evaluation will be based on his abilities alone.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered suspending Respondent without pay

for the 1990-91 school year and reinstating him as a full-time classroom teacher thereafter at a school other than Miami Norland Senior High School.

DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of January, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida.

LINDA M. RIGOT

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 27th day of January, 1992.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 91-4936

1. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 4, 33, 35-37, 65, 67, 68, 72, and 74 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order.

2. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 2, 3, 8, 11, 19, 32, 38, 58, 71, 75, and 77 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence in this cause.

3. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 5-7, 9, 10, 12-18, 20-31, 39-57, 59-64, 66, 69, 70, 73, and 76 have been rejected as being unnecessary in determining the issues involved in this proceeding.

4. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 34 has been rejected as being contrary to the weight of the evidence in this cause.

5. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 4-11, 13, and 14 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order.

6. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 2, 3, 12, and 15 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony.

Copies furnished:

Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

Octavio J. Visiedo Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools

School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue

Miami, Florida 33132

Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire

1450 N.E. Second Avenue, Suite 301

Miami, Florida 33132

William Du Fresne, Esquire Du Fresne and Bradley, P.A.

2929 S.W. Third Avenue, Suite One Miami, Florida 33129

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS:

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, ) FLORIDA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 91-4936

)

BRUCE PESETSKY, )

)

Respondent. )

)

ORDER CORRECTING RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to Rule 22I-6.032(2), Florida Administrative Code, the Recommendation set forth on page 22 of the Recommended Order entered in this cause on January 27, 1992, is hereby corrected, sua sponte, to read as follows:

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final order be entered suspending Respondent without pay

for the 1991-1992 school year and reinstating him as a full-time classroom

teacher thereafter at a school other than Miami Norland Senior High School.

DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of February, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida.

LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675 Suncom 278-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this

3rd day of February, 1992.

Copies furnished to:

Hon. Betty Castor Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

Octavio J. Visiedo Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools

School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue

Miami, Florida 33132

Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire

1450 N.E. Second Avenue, Suite 301

Miami, Florida 33132

William DuFresne, Esquire Du Fresne and Bradley, P.A.

2929 S.W. Third Avenue, Suite One Miami, Florida 33129

=================================================================

AGENCY FINAL ORDER

================================================================= IN THE SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 91-4936

BRUCE PESETSKY,

Respondent.

/

FINAL ORDER

OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

THIS CAUSE coming on to be heard before The School Board of Dade County, Florida, at its regular meeting of March 18, 1992, and the Board having heard argument of counsel on the exceptions filed by the Petitioner herein, and having read the complete record in this case and being fully advised in the premises, it is therefore ordered as follows:

1. The School Board accepts the findings of fact of the Hearing Officer, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

   
   

2. The School Board accepts the conclusions of law of the Hearing Officer, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

   
   

3. The School Board rejects the recommendation of the Hearing Officer that the Respondent be suspended for one school year and that he be reinstated to a school other than Miami Nor land Senior High School.

4. In addition, the School Board makes the following findings of fact 1/ supplementing and expanding the Hearing Officer's findings with greater and more specific detail:

   
   

   1. The Hearing Officer found that Bruce Pesetsky was rated unacceptable in classroom management for the 1988-89 school year, but in a conclusion of law recognized that, as

      amended during the hearing, the correct unacceptable category was techniques of instruction. During that school year, Bruce Pesetsky had

      deficiencies in classroom management, assessment techniques, and techniques of instruction (P.8, 9, 10, 11). Although he remediated his deficiencies in classroom management and assessment techniques by the end of that year, he was still deficient in techniques of instruction (T.273) because he was failing to explain and clarify instruction, failing to vary instructional techniques and materials, and failing to encourage students' participation. His instruction confused the students (P.8, 9, 10, 11, T.132-133, 136-137, 155, 240).

      
      

   2. The Hearing Officer found that for the 1989-90 school year, Bruce Pesetsky was rated acceptable in all classroom categories but was rated unacceptable in professional responsibilities for allegedly making derogatory statements to students.

      
      

   3. The Hearing Officer found that during the 1990- 91 school year, there were no further allegations of disrespect so that particular basis for an unacceptable rating in professional

      responsibilities was cured; however, the Hearing Officer found Bruce Pesetsky unacceptable in professional responsibilities because he failed to properly maintain student folders to justify grades given to students and there were errors in his gradebook. He failed to make parental contact for students who were performing unsatisfactorily. The Hearing Officer concluded that Bruce Pesetsky was to be held accountable for those failures.

      
      

   4. During that same school year, the Hearing Officer also found Bruce Pesetsky unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction. The Hearing Officer found that Bruce Pesetsky failed to or was unable to redirect students who were off-task. A preponderance of the substantial, competent evidence supports the finding that this was because he ignored or dealt inadequately with students who were talking (T.140, 207), sleeping (T.55, 66, 118), riffling through their pocketbooks (T.118, 207), tardy and hanging around outside of his class (T.56, 74, 126, 208, 225), putting on makeup and manicuring their fingernails (T.55, 118, 207), hanging out a fire exit and windows (T.145), doing work for other classes (T.118), writing notes (T.118), and reading newspapers (T.144).

      
      

   5. Further, the Hearing Officer found that Bruce Pesetsky made math computation errors on the board and took too long to teach some of the lessons. A preponderance of the substantial, competent evidence supports the finding that this was because his own errors caused up to 30 minutes of class confusion

      (T.54-55) and he would spend a whole class period on only one or two problems (T.117, 228).

      
      

   6. Further, the Hearing Officer found that Bruce Pesetsky's students did not understand the lessons. A preponderance of the

      substantial, competent evidence supports the finding that this was because Bruce Pesetsky dwelled on routine computation rather than explaining the directions and the concepts underlying the lessons and that he failed to vary his explanations when they did not understand (T.67, 116, 155, 210-212, 228).

   7. Further, the Hearing Officer found that Bruce Pesetsky was teaching from substandard books and appears to question whether this matter was within his control. A preponderance of the substantial, competent evidence supports the finding that Bruce Pesetsky's students' needs exceeded the textbooks that he was using and he failed to use other materials to supplement the textbook. Moreover, students failed to have their textbooks in class (T.67, 127, 210-211, 240).

      
      

   8. During that same school year, the Hearing Officer also found Bruce Pesetsky unsatisfactory in classroom management because there were a number of observations wherein Bruce Pesetsky lacked control of the classroom. A preponderance of the substantial, competent evidence supports the finding that Bruce Pesetsky's class was chaotic on a daily basis, with destroyed furniture and carpeting and numerous fights (T.73-74, 149, 227).

      
      

   9. The Hearing Officer found that administration undermined Respondent's authority to the extent that students knew they could misbehave with impunity; however, a preponderance of substantial, competent evidence supports the finding that Respondent played a large role in undermining his own authority by failing to test students (T.68), failing to document and record his students' progress, and failing to contact parents of students who were misbehaving or not achieving, thereby encouraging the students' failure to stay on task and work. Students were making Ds when there was no evidence that they were passing, and making As and Bs in spite of inordinate numbers of unexcused absences and no evidence of work (P.30, T.69-70, 82-85). Students could fail to work with impunity because they knew that Respondent "passed anybody" (T.372).

      
      

   10. The Hearing Officer found that Bruce Pesetsky was experiencing stress because of his wife's serious illness and that he was referred to the employee assistance program because of it. A preponderance of substantial, competent evidence supports the finding that Respondent's home problems caused an escalation in his school problems to the point that these interfered with his adequate preparation for class and upkeep of his gradebook (T.86, 175, 119, 217). Respondent's personal problems admittedly interfered with the education of his students.

       
       

   11. The Hearing Officer found that Bruce Pesetsky completed all of his prescriptions. A preponderance of the substantial, competent evidence supports the finding that while he physically completed all prescriptions, he did not internalize what he learned and failed to incorporate it into his teaching (T.7). He wasted two hours per day of his planning time doing leisure or real estate business activities instead of attempting to improve his teaching and contacting parents, as required (T.72-73, 86, 216, 219-220, 252).

       
       

   12. Although the Hearing Officer found that Bruce Pesetsky thought it was demeaning to be placed across the hall from the office, a preponderance of the substantial, competent evidence supports the finding that it is not demeaning (T.49, 436-437).

       
       

   13. Although the Hearing Officer found that Respondent was using five different classrooms, a preponderance of the substantial, competent evidence supports the finding that once it was brought to administration's attention, the amount of "floating", was reduced during the 1988-89 school year (T.244, P.8). subsequently, Respondent was placed in one room across from the office for the last two years of his teaching (T.49, 252, 388).

   14. The Hearing Officer has recommended that after Bruce Pesetsky's suspension, he be reinstated to a different school and informally suggests that he be given some higher level classes. This creates a dilemma for the School Board in deciding where to place a teacher who cannot fulfill such basic instructional requirements as substantiating student progress with work folders and a gradebook (T.94-95, 277-279).

       
       

5. In addition, the School Board reaches the following conclusions of law:

   
   

   1. Respondent has been deficient in professional responsibilities for two of his last three years and he has been deficient in various classroom competencies for two of his last three years. The very same shortcomings that Respondent exhibited during the 1988-89 school year, resurfaced during the 1990-

      91 school year, i.e., failing to explain and clarify instruction, failing to vary instructional techniques and materials, and failing to encourage students' participation. Curing classroom deficiencies for one intervening year or changing the character of deficient professional responsibilities from one year to the next does not excuse Bruce Pesetsky's lack of such basic teaching skills as testing students and maintaining a gradebook and work samples. The School Board cannot be placed in the dilemma of choosing another school in which to place such a teacher who has been found by the

      Hearing Officer not to instruct, test, or document student progress with student work folders and a gradebook.

      
      

   2. Petitioner's Exceptions were timely filed on February 7, 1992. They gave notice to Respondent that the grounds for exceptions were based on an increase of penalty. Petitioner reserved the right to amend the exceptions to add greater specificity after receipt of the transcript.

Petitioner was under no statutory or regulatory duty to give greater specificity to Respondent. Petitioner could have filed a memorandum of law in support of its original exceptions or could have simply argued before the Board with greater specificity and not have amended the exceptions at all. The statutes and regulations requiring the Board to state its reasons for increasing the penalty with particularity by citing to the record pertain to the Board's Final Order, not the exceptions. The amended exceptions, therefore, relate back to the original exceptions, which are incorporated therein by reference as if fully set forth.

IT IS THEREUPON ORDERED by The School Board of Dade County, Florida, that:

1. the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact be and the same are adopted in this the Final Order of The School Board of Dade County, Florida;

   
   

2. the Findings of Fact cited above to supplement the Findings of Fact in the Recommended Order be and the same are adopted in this Final Order of the School Board of Dade County, Florida;

   
   

3. The Hearing Officer's Conclusions of Law be and the same are adopted in this Final Order of The School Board of Dade County, Florida;

   
   

4. the Conclusions of Law cited above be and the same are adopted in this Final Order of the School Board of Dade County, Florida;

   
   

5. Bruce Pesetsky be and is hereby found guilty of incompetency and gross insubordination;

6. Respondent's objections to Petitioner's Amended Exceptions be and are hereby denied;

   
   

7. the suspension of Bruce Pesetsky be and is hereby affirmed; and

   
   

8. the continuing contract of Bruce Pesetsky be and is hereby terminated, and Bruce Pesetsky shall forfeit all compensation from July 25, 1991 to present.

DONE AND ORDERED this 18th day of March, 1992.

THE SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

By Chairman

Filed with the Clerk of The School Board of Dade County, Florida, this 19th day of March, 1992.

ENDNOTES

1/ In this Final Order, references to the record are indicated as follows: "T" refers to transcript of the hearing, "P" refers

to Petitioner's exhibits, and "R" refers to Respondent's exhibits.

APPEAL OF FINAL ORDER

This Order may be appealed by filing notices of appeal and a filing fee, as set out in Section 120.68(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(b) and (c), within thirty (30) days of the date of the rendition of this Order.

=================================================================

AGENCY FINAL ORDER

================================================================= IN THE SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY,

Petitioner,

vs. CASE NO. 91-4936

BRUCE PESETSKY,

Respondent.

/

FINAL ORDER

OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

THIS CAUSE coming on to be heard before The School Board of Dade County, Florida, at its regular meeting of March 18, 1992, and the Board having heard argument of counsel on the exceptions filed by the Petitioner herein, and having read the complete record in this case and being fully advised in the premises, it is therefore ordered as follows:

1. The School Board accepts the findings of fact of the Hearing Officer, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

   
   

2. The School Board accepts the conclusions of law of the Hearing Officer, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

   
   

3. The School Board rejects the recommendation of the Hearing Officer that the Respondent be suspended for one school year and that he be reinstated to a school other than Miami Norland Senior High school.

   
   

4. In addition, the school Board makes the following findings of fact /1 supplementing and expanding the Hearing Officer's findings with greater and more specific detail:

   
   

   1. The Hearing Officer found that Bruce Pesetsky was rated unacceptable in classroom management for the 1988-89 school year, but in a conclusion of law recognized that, as amended during the hearing, the correct unacceptable category was techniques of instruction. During that school year, Bruce Pesetsky had deficiencies in classroom management, assessment techniques, and techniques of instruction (P.8, 9, 10, 11). Although he remediated his deficiencies in classroom management and assessment techniques by the end of that year, he was still deficient in techniques of instruction (T.273) because he was failing to explain and clarify instruction, failing to vary instructional techniques and materials, and failing to encourage students' participation. His instruction confused the students (P.8, 9, 10, 11, T.132-133, 136-137, 155, 240).

      
      

   2. The Hearing Officer found that for the 1989-90 school year, Bruce Pesetsky was rated acceptable in all classroom categories but was rated unacceptable in professional responsibilities for allegedly making derogatory statements to students.

      
      

   3. The Hearing Officer found that during the 1990- 91 school year, there were no further allegations of disrespect so that particular basis for an unacceptable rating in professional responsibilities was cured; however, the Hearing Officer found Bruce Pesetsky unacceptable in professional responsibilities because he failed to properly maintain student folders to justify grades given to students and there were errors in his gradebook. He failed to make parental contact for students who were performing unsatisfactorily. The Hearing Officer concluded that Bruce Pesetsky was to be held accountable for those failures.

      
      

   4. During that same school year, the Hearing Officer also found Bruce Pesetsky unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction. The Hearing Officer

      found that Bruce Pesetsky failed to or was unable to redirect students who were off-task. A preponderance of the substantial, competent evidence supports the finding that this was because he ignored or dealt inadequately with students who were talking (T.140, 207), sleeping (T.55, 66, 118), rifling through their pocketbooks (T.118, 207), tardy and hanging around outside of his class (T.56, 74, 126, 208, 225), putting on makeup and manicuring their fingernails (T.55, 118, 207), hanging out a fire exit and windows (T.145), doing work for other classes (T.118), writing notes (T.118), and reading newspapers (T.144).

      
      

   5. Further, the Hearing Officer found that Bruce Pesetsky made math computation errors on the board and took too long to teach some of the lessons. A preponderance of the substantial, competent evidence supports the finding that this was because his own errors caused up to 30 minutes of class confusion

      (T.54-55) and he would spend a whole class period on only one or two problems (T.117, 228).

      
      

   6. Further, the Hearing Officer found that Bruce Pesetsky's students did not understand the lessons. A preponderance of the

      substantial, competent evidence supports the finding that this was because Bruce Pesetsky dwelled on routine computation rather than explaining the directions and the concepts underlying the lessons and that he failed to vary his explanations when they did not understand (T.67, 116, 155, 210-212, 228).

      
      

   7. Further, the Hearing Officer found that Bruce Pesetsky was teaching from substandard books and appears to question whether this matter was within his control. A preponderance of the substantial, competent evidence supports the finding that Bruce Pesetsky's students' needs exceeded the textbooks that he was using and he failed to use other materials to supplement the textbook. Moreover, students failed to have their textbooks in class (T.67, 127, 210-211, 240).

      
      

   8. During that same school year, the Hearing Officer also found Bruce Pesetsky unsatisfactory in classroom management because there were a number of observations wherein Bruce Pesetsky lacked control of the classroom. A preponderance of the substantial, competent evidence supports the finding that Bruce Pesetsky's class was chaotic on a daily basis, with destroyed furniture and carpeting and numerous fights (T.73-74, 149, 227).

      
      

   9. The Hearing Officer found that administration undermined Respondent's authority to the extent that students knew they could misbehave with impunity; however, a preponderance of substantial, competent evidence supports the finding that Respondent played a large role in undermining his own authority by failing to test students (T.68), failing to document and record his students' progress, and failing to contact parents of students who were misbehaving or not achieving, thereby encouraging the students' failure to stay on task and work. Students were making Ds when there was no evidence that they were passing, and making As and Bs in spite of inordinate numbers of unexcused absences and no evidence of work (P.30, T.69-70, 82-85). Students could fail to work with impunity because they knew that Respondent "passed anybody" (T.372).

      
      

   10. The Hearing Officer found that Bruce Pesetsky was experiencing stress because of his wife's serious illness and that he was referred to the employee assistance program because of it. A preponderance of substantial, competent evidence supports the finding that Respondent's home problems caused an escalation in his school problems to the point that these interfered with his adequate preparation for class and upkeep of his gradebook (T.86, 175, 119,

       217). Respondent's personal problems admittedly interfered with the education of his students.

       
       

   11. The Hearing Officer found that Bruce Pesetsky completed all of his prescriptions. A preponderance of the substantial, competent evidence supports the finding that while he physically completed all prescriptions, he did not internalize what he learned and failed to incorporate it into his teaching (T.7). He wasted two hours per day of his planning time doing leisure or real estate business activities instead of attempting to improve his teaching and contacting parents, as required (T.72-73, 86, 216, 219-220, 252).

       
       

   12. Although the Hearing Officer found that Bruce Pesetsky thought it was demeaning to be placed across the hall from the office, a preponderance of the substantial, competent evidence supports the finding that it is not demeaning (T.49, 436-437).

       
       

   13. Although the Hearing Officer found that Respondent was using five different classrooms, a preponderance of the substantial, competent evidence supports the finding that once it was brought to administration's attention, the amount of "floating" was reduced during the 1988-89 school year (T.244, P.8). subsequently, Respondent was placed in one room across from the office for the last two years of his teaching (T.49, 252, 388).

       
       

   14. The Hearing Officer has recommended that after Bruce Pesetsky's suspension, he be reinstated to a different school and informally suggests that he be given some higher level classes. This creates a dilemma for the School Board in deciding where to place a teacher who cannot fulfill such basic instructional requirements as substantiating student progress with work folders and a gradebook (T.94-95, 277--279).

       
       

5. In addition, the school Board reaches the following conclusions of law:

   
   

   1. Respondent has been deficient in professional responsibilities for two of his last three years and he has been deficient in various classroom competencies for two of his last three years. The very same shortcomings that Respondent exhibited during the 1988-89 school year, resurfaced during the 1990-

      91 school year, i.e., failing to explain and clarify instruction, failing to vary instructional techniques and materials, and failing to encourage students' participation. Curing classroom deficiencies for one intervening year or changing the character of deficient professional responsibilities from one year to the next does not excuse Bruce Pesetsky's lack of such basic teaching skills as testing students and maintaining a gradebook and work samples. The School Board cannot be placed in the dilemma of choosing another school in which to place such a teacher who has been found by the Hearing Officer not to instruct, test, or document student progress with student work folders and a gradebook.

      
      

   2. Petitioner's Exceptions were timely filed on February 7, 1992. They gave notice to Respondent that the grounds for exceptions were based on an increase of penalty. Petitioner reserved the right to amend the exceptions to add greater specificity after receipt of the transcript.

      Petitioner was under no statutory or regulatory duty to give greater specificity to Respondent. Petitioner could have filed a memorandum of law in support of its original exceptions or could have simply argued before the Board with greater specificity and not have amended the exceptions at all. The statutes and regulations requiring the Board to state its reasons for increasing the penalty with particularity by citing to the record pertain to the Board's Final Order, not the exceptions. The amended exceptions, therefore, relate back to

      the original exceptions, which are incorporated therein by reference as if fully set forth.

      
      

      IT IS THEREUPON ORDERED by The School Board of Dade County, Florida, that:

      
      

      1. The Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact be and the same are adopted in this the Final Order of The school Board of Dade County, Florida;

      2. the Findings of Fact cited above to supplement the Findings of Fact in the Recommended Order be and the same are adopted in this Final Order of the School Board of Dade County, Florida;

      3. The Hearing Officer's Conclusions of Law be and the same are adopted in this Final Order of The School Board of Dade County, Florida;

      4. the Conclusions of Law cited above be and the same are adopted in this Final order of the school Board of Dade County, Florida;

      5. Bruce Pesetsky be and is hereby found guilty of incompetency and gross insubordination;

      6. Respondent's objections to Petitioner's Amended Exceptions be and are hereby denied;

      7. the suspension of Bruce Pesetsky be and is hereby affirmed; and

      8. the continuing contract of Bruce Pesetsky be and is hereby terminated, and Bruce Pesetsky shall forfeit all compensation from July 25, 1991 to present.

DONE AND ORDERED this (undated) day of March, 1992.

THE SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

Chairman

Filed with the Clerk of The School Board of Dade County, Florida, this 19 day of March, 1992.

ENDNOTE

1/ In this Final Order, references to the record are indicated as follows: "T" refers to transcript of the hearing, "P" refers to Petitioner's exhibits, and "R" refers to Respondent's exhibits.

APPEAL OF FINAL ORDER

This Order may be appealed by filing notices of appeal and a filing fee, as set out in Section 120.68(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida Rule of

Appellate Procedure 9.110(b) and (c), within thirty (30) days of the date of the rendition of this Order.

Docket for Case No: 91-004936

Orders for Case No: 91-004936