STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, ) FLORIDA, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 95-1937
)
ROBERT NOLAN, JR., )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
On May 16, 1996, a formal administrative hearing was held in this case in Miami, Florida, before J. Lawrence Johnston, Administrative Law Judge, Division of Administrative Hearings.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner Luis M. Garcia, Esquire
School Board of 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Dade County: Miami, Florida 33132
For Respondent: Leslie A. Meek, Esquire
United Teachers of Dade 2929 Southwest 3rd Avenue Miami, Florida 33129
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
Whether Respondent's employment with Petitioner should be terminated due to two years of unsatisfactory and unacceptable performance.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Robert Nolan ("Respondent" or "Nolan") has been a math teacher in the School District of Dade County, Florida, assigned to Rockway Middle School and other work sites in Dade County. On April 12, 1995, the School Board took action not to issue Respondent a new Professional Service Contract ("PSC"), but rather to terminate Respondent's employment with Petitioner in accordance with Section 231.36(3)(e), Fla. Stat. (1995), and School Board Rule, 6GX13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties - Employee Conduct. Respondent timely requested a formal hearing on the matter, and the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings by letter dated April 18, 1995. Petitioner's Notice of Specific Charges of Unsatisfactory Performance was mailed on July 17, 1995.
The final hearing in this matter initially was scheduled for December 5-6, 1995, but it was continued until May 16, 1996, due to Respondent's incarceration on or about December 1, 1995.
At final hearing, the Petitioner presented the testimony of: Carol Abrams, Patricia Duncan, Jorge Sotolongo, Dr. Billy Birnie, Carmen B. Marinelli, Dr.
Hector Hirigoyen, Martha P. Boden, Dr. Joyce Annunziata, and Dr. Patrick Gray. Dr. Birnie, Dr. Hirigoyen, Ms. Boden, Dr. Annunziata, and Dr. Gray were all tendered and accepted as expert witnesses. Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 22 and 24 through 39 were admitted in evidence.
The Respondent testified on his own behalf and had Respondent's Exhibits 1 through 3, 6 through 7, and 9 admitted in evidence.
After presentation of the evidence, the School Board ordered the preparation of a transcript of the final hearing, and the parties requested 20 days from the filing of the transcript in which to filed proposed recommended orders. The transcript was filed (in two volumes) on July 29, 1996, but the School Board's unopposed motion for an extension to September 18, 1996, for filing proposed recommended orders was granted. Later, the Respondent filed successive unopposed motions for extensions of the time for filing proposed recommended orders until September 30, and until October 8, 1996; both motions were granted.
FINDINGS OF FACT
At all times relevant, the Respondent, Robert Nolan, Jr., was employed as a seventh and eighth grade math teacher at Rockway Middle School ("Rockway").
Nolan has been employed by the School Board as a math teacher since the 1987/88 school year.
The School Board has adopted Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, V., which provides:
Members of the instructional staff of the public schools, subject to the rules of the State and District Boards, shall teach efficiently and faithfully, using the books and materials required, following the prescribed courses of study, and employing approved methods of instruction as provided by law and by the Rules of the State Department of Education.
Article XI of the Contract between the Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade provides in pertinent part:
Classroom teachers are required to develop weekly lesson plans which shall reflect one or more objectives, activities, homework assignments, and a way of monitoring student progress. Principals or supervising administrators may suggest, but not require, a particular format or organization.
Only where a principal has documented deficiencies through classroom observation, using the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS), may a teacher be required to use a set form in preparation of lesson plans.
Article XIII, Introduction, B., of the Contract between the Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade provides in pertinent part:
The parties agree to the continuation of a developmental approach to improving teaching performance, using the TADS. In accordance with Florida Statutes, no disciplinary action shall be taken, based on incompetence in the absence of documentation and procedures required by TADS.
Article XIII, Section 2, of the Contract between the Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade provides in pertinent part:
Any teacher whose performance is assessed unacceptable in any observation category shall be entitled to a plan of professional growth practices which shall include reason- able timeframes for implementation. . .
Teachers shall follow the growth practices required. Failure to implement required professional growth practices or to correct deficiencies for which professional growth was required shall constitute just cause for disciplinary action in accordance with the due process provisions in this Contract.
Where an administrator has substantiated, through two formal observations, as stipulated above, that teaching is unaccep- table in any of the observation categories, DCPS may utilize diagnostic tests and assessment techniques to identify teaching weaknesses and strengths and to assist in selecting appropriate professional growth practices to improve teaching performance.
. . Where teaching deficiencies are diagnosed as a result of tests or assessment techniques, DCPS shall require professional growth practices which shall be obligatory on the teacher.
Respondent's employment history with the Petitioner includes numerous instances of unsatisfactory and deficient classroom performance reflecting an unwillingness or inability to fulfill his teaching duties and responsibilities.
On June 2, 1993, Carole Abrams ("Abrams"), an assistant principal at Rockway at the time, reviewed Respondent's grade book and noticed that Respondent did not have complete grades for the four nine-week grading periods; Respondent was placed on notice that he was required to have a completed grade book by the end of the school year.
Even though Respondent was directed to complete his grade book by the end of the school year and was offered assistance so that Respondent may complete his grade book, Respondent failed to complete his grade book as directed.
On October 13, 1993, Abrams formally observed Respondent's classroom performance and found Respondent unacceptable in three categories of the Teacher Assessment and Development System ("TADS"): preparation and planning; knowledge of the subject matter; and techniques of instruction.
At the time of the observation on October 13, 1993, Abrams concluded that Respondent was not following a particular lesson plan.
When Abrams asked to see Respondent's lesson plans during the observation on October 13, 1993, Respondent produced lesson plans that were two years old and belonged to another teacher.
During the October 13, 1993 observation, Respondent appeared confused, spent the entire lesson on one mathematical problem, was not able to demonstrate to his students how to complete the problem mathematically, and was unable to accurately answer students' questions regarding the math problem.
Respondent was found unacceptable in the area of techniques of instruction due to his inability to answer students' questions, to demonstrate the mathematical process for arriving at the correct answer, or to address the necessary topics of the lesson that Respondent was attempting to give.
As a result of Respondent's unacceptable classroom performance as demonstrated by the October 13, 1993 observation, Respondent was placed on prescription and was provided with assistance and activities for his performance improvement.
Part of Respondent's prescription required that Respondent provide weekly lesson plans, but Respondent failed to do so, even after receiving memoranda from Abrams reminding Respondent of this requirement.
On December 7, 1993, Respondent's classroom performance was observed by Patricia Duncan ("Duncan"), another assistant principal at Rockway; Duncan found Respondent unsatisfactory in the area of assessment techniques.
Duncan found that Respondent's assessment of students' work was deficient because the grades in Respondent's grade book did not correlate with the days that class was in session, nor with work contained in the students' folders.
During the December 7, 1993 observation, Duncan also noted that Respondent did not have the required work folders for some of the students listed in Respondent's classroom.
In an effort to assist Respondent, Duncan provided Respondent with a prescription for Respondent's performance improvement which required that Respondent produce his grade book and student folders to Duncan for review and seek the assistance of the math department chairperson.
On December 15, 1993, a mid-year Conference-for-the-Record ("CFR"), was held with Respondent and Jorge Sotolongo ("Sotolongo"), the principal of Rockway at the time, to address the results of Respondent's observations, Respondent's unsatisfactory performance, Respondent's failure to timely complete activities and assignments designed to help him reach an acceptable level of performance.
At the CFR on December 15, 1993, Respondent was advised that if he had to remain on prescription, he would receive an unacceptable annual evaluation at the end of the 1993/94 school year.
Although Respondent already had been reminded of the requirement that he complete his prescription, on February 4, 1994, Respondent again had to be notified of his failure to complete his activities and assignments as required by Respondent's prescription.
On April 12, 1994, Sotolongo formally observed Respondent's classroom performance and found Respondent's performance unsatisfactory and unacceptable under TADS in: preparation and planning; and assessment techniques.
During the observation on April 12, 1994, Sotolongo noted: that Respondent did not have lesson plans for the class Respondent was teaching; that Respondent's grade book showed that Respondent did not have the required two grades per week for each student; that Respondent had failed to note assignments contained in the students' work folders in his grade book; and that Respondent had failed to properly identify students in his grade book.
Including the observation on April 12, 1994, Respondent had been formally observed four times during the 1993/94 school year, and Respondent's classroom performance had been found unacceptable in three out of the four observations. (An observation by Sotolongo on February 10, 1994, scored Respondent's performance as satisfactory.)
Since Respondent had received three unacceptable observations during the 1993/94 school year, on May 5, 1994, Sotolongo requested that the School Board perform an external review of Respondent's classroom performance.
On May 16, 1994, an external observation of Respondent's performance was conducted by: Billy Birnie, the School Board's Regional Director of Instructional Support; and the principal, Sotolongo. The external observation of Respondent's performance concluded with Respondent being rated, by both observers, unacceptable under TADS in: preparation and planning; knowledge of the subject matter; and assessment techniques.
The Respondent questioned whether Birnie and Sotolongo improperly collaberated in completing their TADS observation reports on the observation on May 16, 1994. But both explained that their reports were completed separately, after which they conferred, as contemplated (and, indeed, required) by the TADS procedures. There was no evidence of any improprieties.
During the external observation on May 16, 1994, Respondent failed to, and did not even attempt to, follow the lesson plans he had prepared for that day. In addition, the Respondent's lecture was not directed towards any of the objectives listed in Respondent's lesson plans, and Respondent was unable to properly present a lesson on the metric system.
A review of Respondent's student work folders during the classroom observation on May 16, 1994, revealed that Respondent did not employ a variety of test formats as required by TADS; rather, Respondent used only those tests contained in the student textbook.
As a result of Respondent's unsatisfactory performance and unacceptable observation of May 16, 1994, Respondent was provided with additional activities to assist him in improving his performance.
Respondent failed to complete the required assignments and activities related to his unacceptable external observation of May 16, 1994.
On June 8, 1994, a CFR was held with Respondent to address Respondent's continuing unsatisfactory performance, Respondent's failure to complete assigned activities, and Respondent's annual evaluation.
In accordance with TADS, Respondent also was placed on prescription in the area of professional responsibility due to his failure to comply with directives regarding his assigned activities and his failure to complete the assigned activities.
At the CFR on June 8, 1994, Respondent was informed that due to his unsatisfactory performance, he would stay on prescription for the remainder of the 1993/94 school year and that he would start the 1994/95 school year on prescription.
By the end of the 1993/94 school year, Respondent had been formally observed five times and Respondent's performance had been rated unacceptable in four out of the five observations.
On June 8, 1994, Respondent received an unacceptable annual evaluation for the 1993/94 school year, which reflected that Respondent had been rated unacceptable in: preparation and planning; knowledge of the subject matter; assessment techniques; and professional responsibility.
On June 17, 1994, Respondent was notified by certified letter that, because he had received an unacceptable annual evaluation for the 1993/94 school year, Respondent was entitled to request a review of the evaluation.
Respondent started the 1994/95 school year on prescription.
On October 11, 1994, Respondent was again formally observed by Sotolongo and, in accordance with TADS, was found unacceptable in knowledge of the subject matter and techniques of instruction.
During the observation on October 11, 1994, Respondent was unable to provide a correct answer to a mathematical word problem even after resorting to a calculator; the incorrect answer to the problem remained on the board for the duration of the class.
Respondent also was found unacceptable in the area of techniques of instruction in the observation on October 11, 1994. Respondent failed to provide feedback to students who gave incorrect answers to the math problems being discussed.
Respondent was prescribed activities to assist him in overcoming his deficiencies as identified in the classroom observation on October 11, 1994. He was directed to complete these activities by November 4, 1994. By November 22, 1994, Respondent still had not completed the activities.
In a further effort to assist Respondent with his performance improvement, Respondent was referred to the School Board's Employee Assistance Program after Sotolongo learned that Respondent had been arrested for possession of cocaine.
On December 1, 1994, almost a year after Duncan first formally observed Respondent's performance, Duncan again observed Respondent's classroom performance. Duncan found Respondent unacceptable and unsatisfactory under TADS in knowledge of the subject matter after Respondent was unable to correctly present a lesson involving graphs (instead giving inaccurate information to his students.)
On December 7, 1994, a mid-year CFR was held between Respondent and Carmen Marinelli ("Marinelli"), the new principal at Rockway, to discuss Respondent's two unacceptable observations during the 1994/95 school year and Respondent's failure to complete the prescription plan activities assigned him, and to offer Respondent assistance in remediating his unsatisfactory performance.
At the CFR on December 7, 1994, Respondent again was reminded that completion of his assigned activities was part of his professional responsibility, and Respondent was advised that if he did not remediate all of his deficiencies by April, 1995, his Professional Service Contract (PSC) would not be renewed.
On February 13, 1995, Marinelli performed a formal observation of Respondent's classroom performance and, in accordance with TADS, found Respondent unsatisfactory in: preparation and planning; and knowledge of the subject matter.
Respondent was again prescribed activities to assist him in overcoming the deficiencies identified in the classroom observation on February 13, 1995.
During the observation on February 13, 1995, Marinelli noted that Respondent did not have lesson plans for his class and that Respondent was unable to correctly present a lesson which required the use of fractions.
As a result of Respondent having been formally observed three times during the 1994/95 school year and because Respondent's performance had been rated unacceptable in all three observations, Marinelli requested another external observation.
On March 27, 1995, Marinelli and Dr. Hector Hirigoyen, a regional mathematics coordinator, conducted an external observation of Respondent's classroom performance and found Respondent unsatisfactory in: preparation and planning; knowledge of the subject matter; and assessment techniques.
During the observation on March 27, 1995, Respondent's lesson plans did not reflect any planned activities for his class, and Respondent's grade book did not contain any grades for a three-week period. Respondent also gave students incorrect information regarding a mathematics vocabulary lesson.
After the observation on March 27, 1995, Respondent was prescribed still more activities to assist him in overcoming the deficiencies observed. He also was offered additional assistance from the district supervisor, assistant principal, or department chairperson.
By letter dated March 28, 1995, Respondent was notified by the Superintendent of Schools that the deficiencies noted in Respondent's performance during the 1993/94 school year had not been corrected and that the Superintendent was recommending that Respondent not be issued a new PSC.
Additionally, the Superintendent's letter of March 28, 1995, notified Respondent that assessment of Respondent's performance would continue for the remainder of Respondent's contract.
On May 3, 1995, Marinelli held a CFR with Respondent to discuss the status of his prescription, to remind Respondent that if he remained on prescription he may not be reappointed, and to review Respondent's interim annual evaluation of unacceptable performance.
On May 12, 1995, Martha Boden, an outside observer, conducted a formal observation of Respondent's classroom performance and found Respondent's techniques of instruction to be unsatisfactory. Boden cited Respondent's failure to allow students to answer questions and failure to determine whether students understood the lesson being given as the reasons for Respondent's unacceptable performance.
During the observation on May 12, 1995, when the school year was close to ending, the outside observer also found that Respondent had only two grades per student in his grade book.
On June 9, 1995, Marinelli held another CFR with Respondent to address Respondent's unsatisfactory performance during the 1994/95 school year and to advise Respondent that, since he had not remediated his deficiencies, he would receive an overall unacceptable annual evaluation, and that his PSC would not be renewed.
On June 9, 1995, Respondent received an unacceptable annual evaluation for the 1994/95 school year in: preparation and planning; knowledge of the subject matter; techniques of instruction; and professional responsibility.
The Respondent has argued in his Proposed Recommended Order that his unsatisfactory performance evaluations were the result of offense taken at his expression of "concern with the inadequacies of the textbooks that he was directed to use in his math classes." This argument is rejected. First, the Respondent's testimony on the textbook argument consisted of speculation that one assistant principal who evaluated him (Carole Abrams) might have taken offense when the Respondent went "over her head" and took direct action to have copies of textbooks delivered to the school. According to the Respondent's testimony, this argument would not apply to any of the other educators who observed the Respondent and judged his performance to be less than satisfactory. In addition, the Respondent did not testify that any offense was taken even by Abrams at the Respondent's insinuation that the textbooks were inadequate.
There was no evidence that the textbooks were inadequate; rather, the evidence was that they were new and that the Respondent wanted to use his old textbooks because he was more accustomed to and comfortable with them.
The Respondent also argued in his Proposed Recommended Order that his unsatisfactory performance evaluations were the result of envy on account of his successful application for grants from the School Board. Although this argument is based on testimony from the Respondent, that testimony is rejected. It is not found that any, much less all, of the educators who observed the Respondent and judged his performance to be less than satisfactory were envious of the Respondent's grants, or that any of their evaluations were affected by the Respondent's grant applications or grants.
The Respondent also argued in his Proposed Recommended Order that his unsatisfactory performance evaluations were the result of TADS's inflexibility and inability to fairly evaluate the Respondent's performance under his grants.
However, the Respondent's grants had no impact on lesson planning or grading, or on the evaluation of his performance in
those areas under TADS. (Indeed, in response to criticism that he had no lesson plans,
the Respondent produced another teacher's lesson plans from a time period that preceded the Respondent's grant by two years and claimed that he was following them. As for grading, the Respondent already had been cited under TADS for failing to maintain sufficient grades in his grade book during the 1991/1992 school year, which was before he started implementing his first grant.)
As for teaching techniques, another area in which the Respondent consistently performed poorly, it is found that TADS was flexible enough to allow for a fair evaluation of the Respondent's performance under his grants. TADS was specifically formulated to allow for any type of effective
teaching and for a variety of teaching methods, and the areas observed under the techniques of instruction category would not conflict with
an individual teacher's teaching style or method. The problem was not that the Respondent was teaching under a grant; the problem was that he was not teaching well, grant or no grant. (Indeed, for most of the time the Respondent claimed to have been utilizing special teaching techniques under the grant to "teach down" to students in the "At Risk Program" to prevent them from dropping out, he testified that he actually was teaching mainstream students; the problem was the Respondent's inadequacies, not his students.)
The Respondent also argued in his Proposed Recommended Order that he did not get the assistance to which he was entitled so as to improve his unsatisfactory performance. But the proof of the School Board's attempts to assist the Respondent was overwhelming. Indeed, in the face of the evidence, at final hearing, the Respondent testified to the exact opposite of what he then argued in his Proposed Recommended Order--he complained that he was given too much assistance, which hindered his attempts to improve his performance. 1/
Other arguments the Respondent attempted in the course of his testimony were not even argued in his Proposed Recommended Order.
The Respondent testified that some of the people from whom he sought assistance seemed afraid to help, but he did not identify who these people were, and it is
not found that anyone declined to help the Respondent out of fear of repercussions.
He also testified that he was unable to take advantage of planning periods to prepare lesson plans because he was required to cover for other teachers who had to miss classes to coach softball, but softball
season was in the spring and could not excuse the Respondent's failure to prepare lesson plans in the fall and winter.
The Respondent also testified that he tried to avoid having to cover for teachers while he was on prescription and that the persistence of these teachers indicated that administrators had overridden the Respondent; but neither the teachers nor the admin- istrators were identified, and it is not found that any administrator required the Respondent to cover classes for those teachers while he was on prescription.
The Respondent also testified that the grant required him to do extra work arranging field trips, leaving him less time for lesson planning, teaching and completing prescrip- tions; but, in the 1994/1995 school year,
the Respondent used some of his grant money to hire a "para-professional" to help him.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Section 231.09, Fla. Stat. (1995), provides: Duties of instructional personnel.
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.
(See also Section 231.001, Fla. Stat. (1995), which gives the School Board with the authority to "prescribe rules governing personnel matters, including the assignment of duties and responsibilities for all district employees.")
In this case, the School Board adopted School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A- 1.21, V., which required "members of the instructional staff . . . [to] teach efficiently and faithfully, using the books and materials required, following the prescribed courses of study, and employing approved methods of instruction as provided by law and by the Rules of the State Department of Education."
Section 230.23(5)(f), Fla. Stat. (1995), gives school boards the authority to suspend or dismiss members of the instructional staff.
Section 231.36(3)(e), Fla. Stat. (1995), provides in pertinent part:
A professional service contract shall be renewed each year unless the superintendent, after receiving the recommendations required by 231.29(4), Florida Statutes, charges the employee with unsatisfactory performance as determined under the provisions of 231.29 and notifies the employee in writing . . . of performance deficiencies which may result in termination of employment, if not corrected during the subsequent year of employment (which shall be granted for an additional year in accordance with the provisions in subsection (1)).
* * *
4. Not later than 6 weeks prior to the close of the post-school conference period of the subsequent year, the superintendent, after receiving and reviewing the recommendation required by 231.29(4), shall notify the employee, in writing, whether the
performance deficiencies have been corrected. If so, a new professional service contract shall be issued to the employee. If the performance deficiencies have not been corrected, the superintendent may notify the school board and the employee, in writing, that the employee shall not be issued a new professional service contract . . ..
Section 231.29, Fla. Stat. (1995), requires that school superintendents establish procedures to assess the performance of instructional personnel as to, among other professional competencies: knowledge of subject matter; ability to plan and deliver instruction; and ability to evaluate instructional needs.
In this case, the School Board established appropriate procedures for assessment of the Respondent's performance through use of TADS. These procedures were incorporated into the Contract between the School Board and the United Teachers of Dade.
Through the appropriate use of TADS, it was determined that the Respondent's performance during two consecutive school years was unacceptable and unsatisfactory. Numerous formal classroom observations of Respondent's performance conducted over this two-year period revealed that Respondent was unable to accurately convey mathematical concepts to his students. In addition, the Respondent failed to perform the duties required of a teacher employed by the Petitioner by not having lesson plans, by failing to maintain sufficient grades in his grade book, and by not completing prescriptions assigned for his performance improvement.
The Respondent's performance, as measured by TADS, do not comport with School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, V., or Section 231.09, Fla. Stat. (1995), in that Respondent has failed to teach efficiently and faithfully, following the prescribed courses of study, or employing approved methods of instruction. The Respondent also failed to implement required professional growth practices or to
correct deficiencies, as required by the labor contract, warranting non-renewal of Respondent's Professional Service Contract. The evidence proved the Respondent's unsatisfactory performance during two consecutive school years and that proved that the Respondent was unwilling or unable to correct his deficiencies.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County enter the final order: (1)
that Robert Nolan, Jr., not be issued a new Professional Service Contract; (2) that Robert Nolan, Jr., be dismissed as an employee of The School Board of Dade County, Florida; and (3) that Robert Nolan's suspension of April 12, 1995, be sustained and that he receive no back pay for the period of this suspension.
RECOMMENDED this 24th day of October, 1996, at Tallahassee, Florida.
J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON, Administrative Law Judge
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
(904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675
Fax Filing (904) 921-6847
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of October, 1996.
ENDNOTE
1/ At one point, the Respondent testified that he was not given vital "feedback" after an informal observation by Assistant Principal Duncan on October 21, 1994. But to explain why this particular "feedback" would have been beneficial (not a hindrance), the Respondent first testified that he actually thought his performance on that occasion was excellent and would have scored high under the TADS system. (If so, assistance would not have been necessary as a result of that observation.) Then he seemed to change his testimony, saying that feedback from an informal observation would have been "non-threatening."
COPIES FURNISHED:
Luis M. Garcia, Esquire
1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400
Miami, Florida 33132
Leslie A Meek, Esquire United Teachers of Dade 2929 Southwest 3rd Avenue Miami, Florida 33129
Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education
The Capitol - Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Octavio J. Visiedo
Dade County School Board Superintendent 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Number 403
Miami, Florida 33132-1308
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Dec. 09, 1996 | Final Order of the School Board of Dade County, Florida filed. |
| Oct. 24, 1996 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 05/16/96. |
| Oct. 11, 1996 | Respondent`s Proposed Recommended Order (filed via facsimile). |
| Oct. 02, 1996 | Respondent`s Motion for Continuance (filed via facsimile). |
| Oct. 02, 1996 | Petitioner, School Board of Dade County, Florida`s Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| Sep. 17, 1996 | Order for Further Enlargement of Time sent out. (due date for PRO is 9/30/96) |
| Sep. 13, 1996 | Petitioner`s Motion for Permission to Rebut Ex Parte Communication (filed via facsimile). |
| Sep. 13, 1996 | Respondent`s Motion for an Enlargement of Time to File its Proposed Recommended Order (filed via facsimile). |
| Sep. 03, 1996 | Notice of Ex Parte Communication sent out. |
| Aug. 30, 1996 | Letter to Personnel Director from W. Miller Re: Hiring Robert Nolan (filed via facsimile). |
| Aug. 19, 1996 | Order Granting Enlargement of Time sent out. |
| Aug. 09, 1996 | Petitioner`s Motion for An Enlargement of Time to File Its Proposed Recommended Order (filed via facsimile). |
| Jul. 29, 1996 | (Petitioner) Notice of Filing Transcript of Final Hearing filed. |
| Jul. 29, 1996 | (2 Volumes) Transcript filed. |
| May 16, 1996 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
| Feb. 09, 1996 | Third Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for May 16-17, 1996; 9:30am; Miami) |
| Feb. 05, 1996 | (Respondent) Status Report to Hearing Officer filed. |
| Feb. 05, 1996 | (Respondent) Status Report to Hearing Officer filed. |
| Jan. 09, 1996 | Petitioner School Board`s Response to Respondent`s Request for Production filed. |
| Jan. 05, 1996 | Order sent out. (Respondent to give status report by 2/5/96) |
| Jan. 04, 1996 | (Respondent) Status Report to Hearing Officer filed. |
| Dec. 07, 1995 | Order Granting Continuance sent out. (hearing date to be rescheduled at a later date; parties to file status report by 1/4/96) |
| Dec. 04, 1995 | (Joint) Pre-Hearing Stipulation filed. |
| Dec. 04, 1995 | Respondent`s Motion for Continuance filed. |
| Nov. 27, 1995 | (Respondent) Request for Production filed. |
| Nov. 22, 1995 | (Leslie A. Meek) Notice of Filing Answers to Interrogatories; Respondent`s Answer to Request for Production filed. |
| Nov. 20, 1995 | (Petitioner) Motion to Compel Discovery filed. |
| Nov. 09, 1995 | (Petitioner) Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum filed. |
| Nov. 09, 1995 | (Petitioner) Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum filed. |
| Sep. 22, 1995 | Second Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for Dec. 5-6, 1995; 10:15am; Miami) |
| Sep. 21, 1995 | (Petitioner) Response to Hearing Officer`s Order Granting Continuance filed. |
| Sep. 06, 1995 | Order Granting Continuance sent out. (hearing date to be rescheduledat a later date; parties to file status report by 9/20/95) |
| Aug. 31, 1995 | Petitioner's Unopposed Motion for Continuance of Hearing filed. |
| Aug. 17, 1995 | (Respondent) Stipulation for Substitution of Counsel filed. |
| Jul. 19, 1995 | (Petitioner) Notice of Specific Charges of Unsatisfactory Performance; Petitioner's First Interrogatories to Respondent; Request for Production filed. |
| May 05, 1995 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 9/21/95; 9:30am; Miami) |
| May 05, 1995 | Order of Prehearing Instructions sent out. |
| May 04, 1995 | (Petitioner) Response to Initial Order filed. |
| Apr. 26, 1995 | (Joint) Stipulation to Waive 45-Day Time Requirement filed. |
| Apr. 26, 1995 | Initial Order issued. |
| Apr. 20, 1995 | Agency referral letter; Request for Formal Hearing, Letter Form; Agency Action letter filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Nov. 20, 1996 | Agency Final Order | |
| Oct. 24, 1996 | Recommended Order | Recommended Order: Dade School Board should non-renew Professional Service Contract and dismiss middle school math teacher for 2 years unsatisfactory performance despite School Board efforts to help Respondent improve. |
