vs. )
Respondent. )
Case No. 02-2755PL
Upon due notice, a disputed-fact hearing was held on September 24, 2002, in Bonifay, Florida, before Ella Jane P. Davis, a duly-assigned Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
For Petitioner: J. David Holder, Esquire
24357 U.S. Highway 331, South Santa Rosa Beach, Florida 32459
Respondent is charged in a five-count Administrative Complaint with violations of Subsection 231.2615(1)(c), Florida Statutes (gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude); Subsection 231.2615(1)(f), Florida Statutes (personal conduct which seriously reduces her effectiveness as an employee of the
school board); Subsection 231.2615(1)(i), Florida Statutes (violation of the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida as prescribed by the State Board of Education); Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code (failure to make a reasonable effort to protect a student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental health and/or physical safety), and Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code (intentionally exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement).
February 20, 2002, seeking to discipline Respondent's Florida Educator's Certificate, based upon allegations of inappropriate comments and improper discipline of her Middle School students at Poplar Springs School in the Holmes County School District.
Respondent filed an Election of Rights disputing all material allegations and requested a disputed-fact hearing.
The case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings on or about July 11, 2002.
Pursuant to notice, the disputed-fact hearing was convened on September 24, 2002. The taking of evidence was delayed one- half hour to allow for any reasonable late arrival of Respondent. During this delay, the undersigned verified with her secretary at the Division, with the Clerk of the Division,
and with the local room administrator, that Respondent had not communicated any reason for her failure to appear. It is noted that Respondent also had not complied with any discovery requests or with the Order of Prehearing Instructions. After the half-hour grace period, the merits hearing proceeded.
Neither Respondent nor any representative for her appeared prior to the conclusion of the hearing.
At hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of Mary Corbitt, Jerry Dixon, and nine minors, and had four exhibits admitted in evidence.
A Transcript was filed on October 3, 2002. Petitioner timely-filed a Proposed Recommended Order on October 17, 2002, which has been considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order. Respondent filed no proposals.
Respondent has continuously held Florida Educator's Certificate 734274, covering the area of English, since 1996. It is valid through June 30, 2006.
Respondent was first employed by the Holmes County School District in November 2000 and served as a language arts teacher for seventh and eighth grades at Poplar Springs School for the remainder of the 2000-2001 School Year.
During the 2000-2001 School Year, Respondent disciplined students in her seventh and eighth grade language
arts (English) classes as more specifically described below. All instances of Respondent's discipline were employed in response to male students talking inappropriately or "cutting up" in her classroom so as to detract from the educational process.
On one occasion, Respondent placed two pieces of masking tape over the mouth of student C.R. because he was talking in class. C.R. had the tape over his mouth for the remainder of the class period (approximately fifteen to twenty minutes). A science teacher saw C.R. in the hall, en route to his next class, and told him to take the tape off his mouth.
Respondent placed masking tape over the mouth of student J.F. when he laughed out loud after being warned not to continue talking in class. J.F. had the tape over his mouth for approximately twenty minutes, until the bell rang to go to his next class.
Respondent directed student T.J. to place tape on his own mouth after he had talked in class. The tape remained on his mouth until the end of the class period, or for approximately fifteen minutes.
Respondent placed tape over the mouth of student W.W. because he was talking in class. W.W. had the tape over his mouth for the remainder of the class period, which ended approximately thirty minutes later. W.W. experienced difficulty
breathing with the tape over his mouth, because he had a cold at the time and was having trouble breathing through his nose.
Respondent placed masking tape over the mouth of student C.B. for talking in class. The tape remained on his mouth until the end of the class period, or approximately thirty minutes.
All of the foregoing five students admitted that Respondent had warned them at least once not to continue talking, before she resorted to taping their mouths, but each of these students also was embarrassed as a result of sitting through the remainder of the class, surrounded by other students, while their mouths were taped.
Also during the 2000-2001 School Year, Respondent required student C.R. to leave her classroom, stand outside in the hallway with his back against the wall, arms extended, palms up, and hold a stack of three or four heavy dictionaries for approximately fifteen minutes. This method of punishment caused
C.R. to experience physical distress in his back.
Respondent also required student J.C. to leave her classroom, stand outside in the hallway with his back against the wall, arms extended, palms up, and hold a stack of seven or eight heavy dictionaries, stacked to his chin, for approximately twenty minutes. This method of punishment caused J.C. to
experience physical distress. His knees were buckling, and he was slumping against the wall.
Respondent initially required student L.C. to leave her classroom, stand outside in the hallway with his back against the wall, arms extended, palms up, and hold a stack of twelve dictionaries. However, because the books were stacked almost two feet higher than L.C.'s head, Respondent removed four of them from his arms. L.C. was then required to hold the remaining eight dictionaries for approximately fifteen to twenty minutes.
Respondent also required student J.H. to leave her classroom, stand outside in the hallway with his back against the wall, arms extended, palms up, and hold a stack of six or seven heavy dictionaries stacked up to his eyes, for approximately twenty minutes.
Respondent required student E.M., who had talked out of turn early in the class period, to leave her classroom, stand outside in the hallway with his back against the wall, arms extended, palms up, and hold a stack of six or seven heavy dictionaries for approximately ten to fifteen minutes. At one point during this ordeal, Respondent came out of the classroom and felt E.M.'s forehead to see if he were sweating. When she found that he was not sweating, she returned to her classroom, leaving E.M. outside, still holding the dictionaries.
Most students who testified indicated they were disciplined toward the end of a class period, and accordingly, their discipline was automatically ended by the change of classes' bell. However, the foregoing incident, when E.M. was disciplined with books, suggests that Respondent's theory concerning that type of discipline was that once a misbehaving student began to sweat, he had experienced enough punishment.
A teacher saw E.M. in the hallway and went to fetch the Principal, Jerry Dixon. Mr. Dixon observed E.M. to be "in a strain," tired, and drooping. When Mr. Dixon discovered what was going on, he told E.M. to go back into Respondent's classroom and take the books with him.
Each of the five students disciplined with books was embarrassed by the process, and the posture of holding the dictionaries caused most of them discomfort.
After the incident with E.M., Mr. Dixon counseled with Respondent. He advised her that disciplining students as E.M. had been disciplined with the dictionaries was unacceptable and that if she felt future situations were bad enough to warrant punishment, she should send the misbehaving child to his office for him to administer appropriate discipline.
In early April 2001, Respondent approached student
T.W. at his desk, got down "in his face," and told him that if he did not behave, she would paddle him as hard as she had
paddled student C.R., and that was "pretty damn hard." C.R. testified that Respondent had, in fact, actually paddled him, but apparently he was not intimidated or concerned over the paddling. Also, T.W. was not intimidated by Respondent's threat, because he smiled and laughed. However, T.W. was so concerned about Respondent's use of profanity that he approached Principal Dixon in the cafeteria that day and asked the principal if it were "right" for a teacher to curse at a student.
Subsequently, in the principal's office, T.W. explained to Mr. Dixon the situation concerning Respondent's use of profanity. Principal Dixon also then learned for the first time that Respondent had been taping her students' mouths as a form of discipline. Mr. Dixon investigated further by talking with other students who verified all or some of T.W.'s account. Mr. Dixon testified that he also believed the incident of Respondent disciplining J.C. with dictionaries in the hallway (see Finding of Fact 11) had occurred after he had told Respondent not to use that procedure.
On April 5, 2001, Mr. Dixon met with Respondent to discuss the allegations. In their meeting, Respondent admitted placing tape over students' mouths. She also admitted cursing at T.W. She told Mr. Dixon she had been mad and upset at the time.
On April 10, 2001, Mr. Dixon issued Respondent a letter of reprimand for her conduct. In this letter he reminded her that he had, at the time of E.M.'s discipline, told her she was supposed to send students to the office for discipline, not undertake it herself.
On June 6, 2001, Mr. Dixon notified Respondent that he would not recommend her reappointment for the 2001-2002 School Year. His decision to not recommend Respondent's appointment was based, at least in part, upon Respondent's admitted inappropriate discipline and use of profanity.
There is no evidence Respondent's disciplinary method of causing students to hold heavy books while excluded from the classroom learning environment was effective in improving their behavior in the classroom. There is no evidence this disciplinary methodology was sanctioned by the School District, Principal Dixon, or any recognized educational text. Indeed, it was not sanctioned, and it is certain that the boys being disciplined were not being taught any curriculum while they were in the hallway.
There is no evidence Respondent's method of taping her students' mouths shut and deliberately embarrassing them in the classroom before their peers was effective in teaching them to be quiet in class. There also is no evidence that this disciplinary methodology was sanctioned by the School District,
the principal, or any recognized educational text. Indeed, the evidence is contrary.
The disciplinary methods employed by Respondent were not approved or condoned by the Holmes County School Board or by the Poplar Springs School Administration. Her methods were inappropriate. Her inappropriate discipline and use of profanity with her Middle School students exposed them to unnecessary embarrassment and disparagement at a time in their development when they were particularly emotionally vulnerable. Her methods of discipline and use of profanity with her Middle School students seriously reduced her effectiveness as an employee of the Holmes County School Board.
Respondent failed to take reasonable efforts to protect her students from conditions harmful to learning and/or to their mental health and/or physical safety by employing these inappropriate methods of discipline.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this cause, pursuant to Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
Petitioner has the duty to go forward to prove the allegations of the Administrative Complaint by clear and convincing evidence. Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So. 2d. 292 (Fla. 1987).
Section 231.2615, Florida Statutes, under which Respondent has been charged, provides in pertinent part:
The Education Practices Commission may suspend the teaching certificate of any person as defined in s. 228.041(9) or (10) for a period of time not to exceed 3 years, thereby denying that person the right to teach for that period of time, after which the holder may return to teaching as provided in subsection (4); to revoke the teaching certificate of any person, thereby denying that person the right to teach for a period of time not to exceed 10 years, with reinstatement subject to the provisions of subsection (4); to revoke permanently the teaching certificate of any person; to suspend the teaching certificate, upon order of the court, of any person found to have a delinquent child support obligation; or to impose any other penalty provided by law, provided it can be shown that the person:
* * *
(c) Has been guilty of gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude
* * *
(f) Upon investigation, has been found guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces that person's effectiveness as an employee of the district school board.
* * *
(i) Has violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession prescribed by State Board of Education rules.
Rule 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code, sets forth the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education
Profession in Florida. It provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
Obligation to the student requires that the individual:
Shall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental and/or physical health and/or safety.
* * *
(e) Shall not intentionally expose a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement.
Section 231.2615, Florida Statutes, provides, in pertinent part,
(4)(a) A teaching certificate which has been suspended under this section is automatically re-instated at the end of the suspension period, provided the certificate did not expire during the period of suspension. . . .
Rule 6B-11.007, Florida Administrative Code, provides for disciplinary guidelines, subject to increase or decrease upon aggravating or mitigating circumstances, respectively. Subsection (1) addresses specific violations but has not been converted to the new statutory numbering, and the language employed to describe certain actions does not always track the language of the statute/rule being cited. However, Subsection
(2) provides:
The following disciplinary guidelines shall apply to violations and to the described
actions which may be basis for determining violations of particular statutory or rule provisions. Each of the following disciplinary guidelines shall be interpreted to include "probation" with applicable terms thereof as an additional penalty provision.
Under the guidelines, the penalty for the violations charged herein can range from reprimand to revocation.
While the undersigned has no doubt that the chatter in class of Middle School boys can be frustrating and infuriating to a teacher, that frustrating and infuriating chatter "goes with the territory" of being a Middle School teacher, and Respondent's radical methods of discipline are not to be condoned.
Apparently, at least J.C. was disciplined in the hallway with books even after Mr. Dixon had warned Respondent to stop. However, even if Respondent had switched to using tape instead of disciplining with books after his admonition, that would not be sufficient to excuse her conduct.
A violation of Subsection 231.2615(1)(c), Florida Statutes, gross immorality involving moral turpitude, has not been proven. However, Respondent's professional misconduct and loss of effectiveness was clearly demonstrated by her failure to report misbehavior to the principal and her failure to refer students to him for appropriate discipline, and by her use of her own inappropriate methods after being instructed otherwise.
Clearly, Respondent violated Subsection 231.2615(1)(i), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e), Florida Administrative Code, by taping students' mouths and requiring them to hold heavy stacks of dictionaries. It is equally clear that Respondent also violated these rules by cursing at a student in the presence of his classmates.
It is further concluded that Respondent violated Subsection 231.2615(1)(f), Florida Statutes, in that her conduct seriously reduced her effectiveness as an employee of the Holmes County School Board.
Respondent's conduct was not limited to one incident or an isolated instance of inappropriate discipline. Respondent engaged in repeated episodes of inappropriate conduct over a period of several months and probably contrary to direct orders of her principal.
Respondent, who did not appear, failed to present any evidence of mitigation or explanation justifying a reduced penalty.
DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of November, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
ELLA JANE P. DAVIS
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of November, 2002.
J. David Holder, Esquire 24357 U.S. Highway 331, South
Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Bureau of Educator Standards
Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education
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.
