JOHN L. RUIS, as Superintendent ) of Schools, NASSAU COUNTY )
vs. ) Case No. 99-2524
LYDIA J. PARRISH, )
Respondent. )
Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held in this case on August 3, 1999, in Fernandina Beach, Florida, before Donald R. Alexander, the assigned Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
For Petitioner: Brian T. Hayes, Esquire
For Respondent: H. B. Stivers, Esquire
The issue is whether Respondent's professional services contract should be terminated because she failed to correct certain performance deficiencies within a specified time period, as alleged by Petitioner.
This matter began on May 5, 1999, when Petitioner, John L. Ruis, as Superintendent of Schools, Nassau County School Board, issued a letter advising Respondent, Lydia J. Parrish, that her professional services contract would be terminated on the ground that she had failed to satisfactorily correct certain performance deficiencies within a period of ninety calendar days.
Respondent denied the allegation and by letter dated May 17, 1999, she requested a formal hearing under Section 120.569, Florida Statutes, to contest the decision. The matter was referred by Petitioner to the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 7, 1999, with a request that an Administrative Law Judge be assigned to conduct a formal hearing. By Notice of Hearing dated June 25, 1999, a final hearing was scheduled on August 3, 1999, in Fernandina Beach, Florida.
At the final hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of John L. Ruis, the Superintendent of Schools; Susan Crews, a classroom teacher at Yulee Primary School; Joyce Menz, director of staff and program development for the School Board;
Linda Jackson, curriculum resource teacher at Yulee Primary School; and Jean Griffin, principal at Yulee Primary School. Also, it offered Petitioner's Exhibits 1-8. All exhibits were received in evidence except Exhibits 2 and 4. Respondent testified on her own behalf and offered Respondent's Exhibit 1, which was received in evidence.
The Transcript of the hearing was filed on September 1, 1999. Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law were filed by Petitioner and Respondent on September 14 and 17, 1999, respectively, and they have been considered by the undersigned in the preparation of this Recommended Order.
In this employment controversy, Petitioner, John L. Ruis, as Superintendent of Schools, Nassau County School Board (School Board), proposes to terminate the professional services contract of Respondent, Lydia J. Parrish, a kindergarten classroom teacher employed by the School Board, on the ground she failed to satisfactorily correct "performance deficiencies" within a period of ninety calendar (school) days. In her request for a hearing, Respondent has denied the allegations. As disclosed by her counsel at hearing, she contended that the assistance given by the School Board to aid her in correcting the deficiencies was inadequate, and that certain "procedural defects" occurred during the evaluation and remediation process.
Respondent has been certified as a classroom teacher for approximately twenty-nine years, and she has worked the last seventeen years as a teacher at Yulee Primary School. She is certified in elementary education and early childhood education and most recently has served as a kindergarten teacher. Prior to
teaching for the School Board, she was employed for nine years in Dade County and three years in Hamilton County, Tennessee.
There are fifteen public schools within Nassau County, including Yulee Primary School, a "pre-K through second [grade]" school. The School Board employs approximately six hundred teachers, and Respondent was one of ten kindergarten teachers assigned to Yulee Primary School.
Under the School Board's assessment program, each teacher with a professional services contract is evaluated by an administrator at least once annually in order to determine if the teacher meets all performance standards. Respondent was employed under a professional services contract and thus was required to undergo an annual evaluation.
The annual evaluation rates a teacher in eight "job context service" categories: planning/preparation; classroom management; assessment/management; intervention/direct services; collaboration; staff/development; professional responsibilities; and student growth. The evaluator then assigns each of these categories a rating code ranging from 1 through 4, which represents a rating of "unsatisfactory," "needing improvement," "effective," and "exemplary," respectively. The assignment of an unsatisfactory rating in any category results in an overall evaluation of unsatisfactory. The foregoing assessment categories and rating criteria have not been challenged by Respondent.
If a teacher receives an overall evaluation rating of unsatisfactory, a professional development plan (PDP) must be established, which includes specific goals for the teacher to achieve; strategies by which these goals may be accomplished; and time lines in which such goals are to be completed. During any given school year, there were around four or five teachers employed by the School Board who had active PDPs.
At Yulee Primary School, Jean Griffin, the principal, has performed most, if not all, of the annual teacher evaluations since becoming principal in school year 1993-94. In this vein, she conducted Respondent's annual evaluations for each of the school years from 1993-94 through 1998-99.
For the first two years, Griffin concluded that Respondent met all performance standards. In school year 1995- 96, even though Respondent received an overall satisfactory evaluation, Griffin noted that Respondent should "continue to work more detailed plans and organization" in the classroom. The following school year, Respondent received another satisfactory evaluation but Griffin again noted that Respondent should continue to work on more detailed plans and organization. In school year 1997-98, a satisfactory rating was given even though Griffin concluded that not only had there been no improvement in the areas noted in the prior years, but additional areas of professional concern were present. By now, Griffin had also received "concerns" expressed by parents of students in
Respondent's classroom and requests by students seeking to transfer out of her classroom.
Griffin attempted to get Respondent to make improvements in the cited areas without having to resort to a formal PDP. To do this, as early as school year 1995-96, she enlisted the aid of the curriculum resource teacher to provide assistance to Respondent. This assistance continued on an "unofficial" basis through school year 1997-98.
On November 13, 1998, Griffin made her first classroom evaluation of Respondent as a part of the 1998-99 annual evaluation. For category 1, planning/preparation, Griffin assigned a rating code of 1 (unsatisfactory) and made the following notation:
Not enough activities planned to develop skill growth in students; use more learning games and use a variety of strategies to develop interest in the lessons to keep students actively engaged in the learning process.
For category 2, classroom management, Griffin also assigned a rating code of 1 and made the following comments:
More structure is needed in the management of her students; more accountability for student behavior; establish routines and be consistent so learning can take place.
For categories 3 through 8, Griffin assigned scores of 3, 2, 2, 3, 3, and 2, respectively. Because a rating of 1 had been assigned to two categories, an overall unsatisfactory rating was given. This meant that a PDP had to be established, and
Respondent would be on "performance probation" for ninety school days.
Respondent's PDP has been received in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 6. The performance probationary period ran from November 23, 1998 until April 21, 1999, and provided a time period of ninety school days in which Respondent could correct her deficiencies. The PDP identified four teacher objectives that related to the cited deficiencies, and it detailed the activities planned to meet each of those objectives. For each activity, the PDP provided a specific anticipated completion date with a blank space to be filled in reflecting if the actual completion date was ever attained. Two activities were to be completed in December 1998; three had completion dates in
January 1999; and the remaining activities were "on-going" throughout the probationary period. When the required post- evaluation conference was held on November 16, 1998, Griffin went over the PDP with Respondent, and Respondent was "amenable" to its terms.
To assist Respondent during her probationary period, Griffin arranged for her to receive extensive video training and to visit another kindergarten classroom (at Southside Elementary School) to observe a teacher who had won an outstanding teacher award. She was also given feedback (suggestions) from School Board and Yulee Primary School personnel who made "numerous" visits (both documented and undocumented) to her classroom during
the probationary period. These personnel included Joyce Menz, who served as the School Board's director of staff and program development; Griffin; and the curriculum resource teacher at Yulee Primary School, Linda Jackson.
At the outset of the process, Griffin verbally advised Respondent of the ramifications of being on probation, and the fact that she could be terminated if she did not satisfy the PDP within the specified time frame. Although the Florida Statutes require that a copy of the time lines under Section 231.29, Florida Statutes, be given to the teacher prior to the implementation of the PDP, this was not done until April 22, 1999, when a "post conference" was held. Even so, Respondent failed to demonstrate that she was prejudiced by the failure to receive a copy of the time lines, especially since this information was orally conveyed to her on November 16, 1998.
Testimony by Griffin, Jackson, and Menz established that while Respondent made "some" improvement in a few areas, she still did not correct the performance deficiencies within the probationary period. Indeed, as late as April 19, 1999, or two days before the PDP ended, Griffin made a final visit to Respondent's classroom and found that the PDP deficiencies had not been corrected. For example, in the area of classroom management, which had been a long-standing problem area for Respondent, Griffin observed a number of students who were not on task while others were creating distractions in the room. This
was contrary to the well-established requirement that a teacher always maintain discipline in the classroom so that the students are on task. Despite Griffin's presence, Respondent failed to correct the students' inappropriate actions that day within a reasonable period of time.
On April 22, 1999, Griffin and Respondent met in a "post conference" where the results of her PDP were discussed. Respondent was told that she would not be recommended for reappointment.
The next day, Griffin sent a letter to the superintendent stating that she did not recommend that Respondent be reappointed as a teacher at Yulee Primary School. This was because Respondent "did not successfully complete her [ninety] day [PDP]." The superintendent accepted Griffin's recommendation and conveyed a similar recommendation to the School Board on May 27, 1999. By then, Respondent had requested a formal hearing tocontest this action, and the School Board has deferred making a final decision until the hearing process has been concluded.
At hearing, Respondent contended that she was never given "in-depth detail" advice on how to correct certain deficiencies nor was she provided with adequate assistance. In other testimony, however, she admitted that Jackson was "very helpful and very detailed" in her advice, and that her "supervisors" (including Griffin) had told her what was necessary in order to comply with the PDP. She also acknowledged that
during the probationary period, Jackson was "very helpful, very precise with her explanations and her willingness to help," and that Jackson continued to make suggestions throughout the probationary period.
Respondent denied that she performed unsatisfactorily during school year 1998-99. Rather, she attributed most of her difficulties to "discipline problems and because of the influx of children going in and out" of the classroom, which caused her "extra" work in terms of "prescreening" and "back testing." She admitted, however, that "in some ways," a PDP was necessary; that during the school year she "most definitely" had a problem with controlling her five year old students; and that she experienced more problems than any other kindergarten teacher at the school. She also complained that she was unsuccessful in getting an outside volunteer to assist her in her classroom; she was, however, given a "paraprofessional" from December 1998 through the rest of the school year to assist her with the extra tasks caused by the influx of non-district students.
Respondent contended that except for one deficiency noted in her lesson plans, no one ever told her she was not completing her PDP tasks until late April, when she received written notice that she would not be reappointed. This assertion is not accepted in view of the testimony of the other witnesses who visited her classroom on "numerous" occasions between
December 1998 and April 1999, and who gave her continual feedback and suggestions regarding her classroom deficiencies.
Through her own testimony, Respondent claimed that she satisfactorily met all PDP goals. This self-serving testimony, while understandable, is contrary to the more credible evidence and the PDP itself, which shows that the last three objectives were never satisfied.
Finally, Respondent asserted that a good measure of her teacher effectiveness was student progress, and that except for one, all of her students were promoted to the first grade at the end of school year 1998-99. While this may be true, a fair assessment as to whether Respondent's students are at a comparable level with other first grade students cannot be made until they are pretested at the beginning of school year 1999- 2000. That information is not of record. Moreover, in school year 1997-98, several of Respondent's students who were promoted to the first grade later experienced "problems progressing" at the higher academic level.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties hereto pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
Because this matter involves Respondent's termination from employment, and not the potential loss of her license, the School Board bears the burden of proving the allegations in its
proposed action by a preponderance of the evidence. See, e.g., Allen v. School Bd. of Dade County, 571 So. 2d 568, 569 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1990).
Section 231.29, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1998), governs this proceeding and sets forth, in a very detailed fashion, the assessment procedures and criteria to be used by the School Board. Because the development and content of the assessment have not been challenged, the statutory provisions governing those requirements need not be repeated. Subsection (3)(d) of the statute goes on to provide that a copy of the assessment be given to the employee within ten days after the assessment takes place, and if an unsatisfactory evaluation is given, written notice, including all procedural requirements, must be given to the employee. In addition, "the evaluator must confer with the employee, make recommendations with respect to specific areas of unsatisfactory performance, and provide assistance in helping to correct deficiencies within a prescribed period of time." The same subsection further provides that during the probationary period, the employee "must be evaluated periodically and apprised of progress achieved and must be provided assistance and inservice training opportunities to help correct the noted performance deficiencies." Finally, "[w]ithin 14 days after the close of the 90 calendar [school] days, the evaluator must assess whether the performance deficiencies have been corrected and forward a recommendation to the superintendent."
The more persuasive and credible evidence shows that the assessment met all statutory requirements; that Respondent was found to have deficiencies in her annual evaluation; that such deficiencies were not corrected within the statutory time period; and that the School Board properly declined to renew Respondent's professional services contract.
In reaching these conclusions, the undersigned has considered, and rejected, Respondent's contention that certain procedural requirements were not met, and that the dismissal was therefore "improper." More specifically, she contends that she was not given a copy of her procedural rights under
Section 231.29(3)(d), Florida Statutes, and that she was not apprised of her progress during her probationary period, as required by Section 231.29(3)(d)2., Florida Statutes.
While it is true that Respondent was not given a copy of her procedural rights until April 22, 1999, the entire process was explained to her in detail by Griffin on November 16, 1998. Moreover, Respondent failed to show that she was prejudiced by this error in procedure. As to the claim that Respondent was not apprised of her progress during the probationary period, the greater weight of evidence shows that she was.
RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Nassau County enter a final order sustaining the Superintendent of School's decision to terminate Respondent's professional services contract.
DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of September, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
DONALD R. ALEXANDER
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of September, 1999.
John L. Ruis, Superintendent of Schools Nassau County School Board
Brian T. Hayes, Esquire
H. B. Stivers, Esquire
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.
