STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
JIM HORNE, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION,
Petitioner,
vs.
JOSEPHINE J. KNIGHT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
) Case No. 03-4096PL
)
)
)
)
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
This cause came on for formal hearing before Robert S. Cohen, Administrative Law Judge with the Division of Administrative Hearings, on March 10 and 11, 2004, in Fort Pierce, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Kelly B. Holbrook, Esquire
Broad and Cassel
100 North Tampa Street, Suite 3500 Tampa, Florida 33602-3310
For Respondent: Mark F. Kelly, Esquire
Kelly & McKee, P.A.
1718 East 7th Avenue, Suite 301
Tampa, Florida 33605 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
The issue is whether the Education Practices Commission should impose a penalty or sanctions against Respondent’s teaching certificate pursuant to Sections 1012.795 and 1012.796,
Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006, based upon the allegations contained in the Administrative
Complaint.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On November 5, 2003, Jim Horne, as Commissioner of Education, issued an Administrative Complaint against Respondent. On November 5, 2003, Respondent served her Election of Rights and Answer contesting all charges contained in the Administrative Complaint. Because there existed disputed issues of material fact, this matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings (“DOAH”) on November 5, 2003. DOAH issued its Initial Order on November 5, 2003, and thereafter set the date of the Final Hearing for January 27 and 28, 2004. On January 14, 2004, Respondent filed her unopposed Motion for Continuance, which was granted on January 16, 2004,
re-scheduling the Final Hearing for February 18 and 19, 2004. Respondent filed her Second Unopposed Motion for Continuance on February 17, 2004, which was granted on the same date,
re-scheduling the Final Hearing for March 10 and 11, 2004. The Final Hearing was held on March 10 and 11, 2004, in Ft. Pierce, Florida.
At the hearing, Petitioner presented the live testimony of
17 witnesses and the deposition testimony of one additional witness and offered Exhibits numbered 1 through 33 into
evidence, all of which were admitted except Exhibits numbered 25, 26, and 27. Respondent testified in her own behalf and presented one additional witness. Respondent offered Exhibits numbered 1 through 5 into evidence, all of which were admitted.
A Transcript was filed on April 23, 2004. Both Respondent and Petitioner filed their Proposed Recommended Orders on
May 14, 2004, and Petitioner filed a pleading entitled “Petitioner’s Opposition to Respondent’s Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel Arguments” on May 17, 2004. Each of these was considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order.
References to statutes are to Florida Statutes (2003) unless otherwise noted.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Respondent holds Florida Educator’s Certificate
No. 602255, which encompasses Elementary Education and English to Speakers of Other Languages, which is valid through June 30, 2003.
After beginning her teaching career working in its Reading Lab, Respondent began teaching a fourth-grade class at Ft. Pierce Elementary School. After a year in that position, she taught for approximately nine years at Bayshore Elementary School, also teaching fourth grade, then transferred to St. Lucie Elementary School, where she also taught a fourth-grade class her first year.
St. Lucie Elementary School was a new school, which had opened in August, 1996.
Respondent taught third grade during the 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 school years at St. Lucie Elementary School after being reassigned from her fourth-grade class.
Dr. Jane Hartman is, and was, at all material times, principal of the school. Among her many duties, Dr. Hartman evaluates the instructional staff and attempts to be in the various classrooms frequently.
Dr. Hartman provides feedback and support to her teachers in a variety of ways, including staff development days, written suggestions to teachers, and grade chair meetings.
Teachers at St. Lucie Elementary School are given a copy of the school handbook, which is discussed at the beginning of each year.
In the event Dr. Hartman receives a parent complaint, she first contacts the staff member to discuss the issues. Thereafter, Dr. Hartman arranges a face-to-face conference with the parent, administration, and the teacher, to ensure that everyone is “comfortable that the relationship has mended” so they can “move forward.”
During Respondent’s first year at St. Lucie Elementary School, 1997-1998, Dr. Hartman received some complaints from
parents concerning Respondent’s dealings with the parents of her students and with various classroom management issues.
Dr. Hartman engaged in informal counseling with Respondent concerning these complaints, and observed some changes on Respondent’s part, although not enough.
Dr. Hartman and other members of her administration frequently sent notes to Respondent concerning recommendations and criticisms about her classroom performance.
Dr. Hartman reassigned Respondent to a third-grade class at the end of her first year teaching at St. Lucie Elementary School, believing that Respondent would have more success with a smaller number of students who, being younger, might be easier to teach.
The average age of a fourth-grade student is nine years old.
During her career as an educator, Dr. Hartman has both taught fourth graders and had the opportunity to observe fourth graders in the classroom. Fourth graders are normally at that age where they love their teacher; are able to read and write; are creative; and are ready to learn about their world.
Dr. Hartman believed Respondent’s class to be an average class of students, a “sweet class in that they not only
cared what was said to them personally,” but also, “what was said to their friend, what was said to someone who wasn’t as strong academically.”
Respondent referred to many of the students in the class as having behavior problems.
Ms. Drew, a music teacher at St. Lucie Elementary School, taught many of Respondent’s students the year they were in her class. Ms. Drew found these students not to be “bad,” but to be “children who had some bad experiences.” Ms. Drew “felt bad” for many of the students who were in Respondent’s class and agreed to teach a fifth-grade class the next year to help many of Respondent’s former fourth graders.
Petitioner’s witnesses at hearing consisted primarily of students from Respondent’s fourth-grade class and their parents. The students complained that Respondent had belittled them in her class and made their fourth-grade year a miserable experience. The former students related comments having been made that they were “slow,” “stupid,” “babies,” “stupid idiots,” and that Respondent was “smarter and had more education than all your parents put together.”
The students testified that Respondent yelled at them, “was mean,” told them to “shut up,” embarrassed them in front of the other students, and threatened to tape record them so that their parents could hear how much they misbehaved in class.
One student was embarrassed in front of the class when Respondent insisted she call her mother on a speakerphone to address why she had not returned her paperwork and money for a candy sale.
Another student reported to his mother that Respondent, an African-American herself, told him he was “acting like a stupid nigger.”
Many of the students testified that, while they had previously enjoyed school, after being in Respondent’s class, their self-esteem had been shattered by Respondent’s behavior in class.
St. Lucie Elementary School followed “Loving Discipline A to Z,” a guide for teachers to follow regarding discipline. Respondent failed to follow these guidelines.
Respondent would punish the entire class for the actions of a few students by making them write sentences that, in some cases, were grammatically incorrect.
Respondent would also punish the entire class for the actions of a few students by not allowing them to have recess or go to music or art classes outside the regular classroom.
Respondent, for another form of punishment, would not choose “Lynx Leaders,” an award given to students who performed well.
Respondent enforced inconsistent policies concerning use of the restroom. Although she testified that students could use the restroom whenever they needed as long as it was vacant, at times she refused to allow students to use the restroom, resulting in at least one student wetting his pants in class on more than one occasion and being ridiculed by other students in the class.
The allegations by the students against Respondent were made at the time the students were in her class, both verbally to their parents and in writing to their parents and school officials, as well as in testimony at hearing, six years after they had been in Respondent’s fourth-grade class.
Respondent’s disciplinary measures were too harsh for fourth graders.
Assistant Principal Linda Applebee testified that Respondent had problems following directions. Respondent failed to participate in a bus evacuation drill in February of 1998, and failed to perform a required book check at the end of a nine-weeks' period, which resulted in the school not billing parents for missing books and therefore having to pay for books that were not returned.
Dr. Hartman testified that “chaos” reigned in Respondent’s classroom, and that there had never been a teacher, either before or after Respondent, who had such difficulty
maintaining classroom management. Dr. Hartman suggested that Respondent observe other classrooms where her students experienced physical education, art, or music, and did not experience the same disciplinary problems. Respondent never took Dr. Hartman’s suggestion.
Respondent admitted to some chaos in her classroom when she described one day when a student was simulating a sex act on the floor while another one scribbled on her desk with a marker. Respondent blamed these problems on “poor parenting skills” rather than on her inability to control the classroom.
Respondent had a policy of calling a student’s parents when a student refused to follow a warning to behave, but she failed to follow her own procedure.
Dr. Hartman believed that Respondent did not follow school procedures and had difficulties with classroom management.
Dr. Hartman repeatedly gave Respondent advice and support, but Respondent failed to change her behavior. For example, Dr. Hartman met with Respondent on September 7, 1998, to discuss the resources available at the school for dealing with classroom management. Dr. Hartman informed Respondent that
1) Level I infractions should be handled by the individual staff member involved, rather than immediately calling the front office, which Respondent often did; 2) Discussions about a
student should not be held in front of the student or the class;
3) Students should be given supplies needed to participate in class; 4) Students need to be told what to do; 5) Students should be praised for doing what is expected; 6) Students should not be placed in the planning room for time out;
and 7) Respondent should point out only positive behaviors of the students. Dr. Hartman explained that violations of these items as set forth in her letter dated September 7, 1998, would have a negative effect on her competence to perform as a teacher.
Respondent refused to attend monthly faculty meetings on a regular basis. Further, when she did attend, Respondent often had to be called and reminded to attend, then arrived late and refused to sit with her team members, sometimes even typing at a computer during the meeting.
Faculty meetings are important because they help the administration achieve its goals of having a school act with consistency and a common vision and purpose.
Respondent sometimes failed to cooperate with parents and the administration in the scheduling and conducting of parent-teacher conferences. At least one family had to involve both Dr. Hartman and the School Board in order to hold a meeting
with Respondent. Often, the meetings proceeded badly with Respondent taking little or no responsibility for the issues expressed by the parents.
In January of 1998, an incident occurred involving Respondent at a basketball game in St. Lucie County between Lincoln Park Academy and its cross-town rival. Respondent’s daughter, along with one of her friends, was arrested at the game because they refused to listen to law enforcement officers who attempted to remove them from a confrontation with other students who had congregated outside the over-filled gym where the game was taking place.
When Respondent arrived at the rowdy scene outside the basketball game, she began to argue with the two law enforcement officers who were arresting Respondent’s daughter and her friend. Respondent used racial epithets directed at the two officers and engaged in disorderly conduct. She called Officer Terry Miller, an African-American, an “Uncle Tom” which he took to mean an African-American person who takes the side of white people rather than people of his own color. She called Lieutenant David Trimm, who is white, a “cracker,” a racial slur used to describe a white person who is prejudiced against African-Americans.
In addition to the racial epithets, Respondent attempted to incite the crowd by yelling about the Ku Klux Klan
getting away with whatever they want, and that no arrests would have been made had the crowd been predominately white rather than African-American. Based upon Respondent’s actions, both Officer Miller and Lieutenant Trimm feared for their safety.
Both officers had dealt with arrests of minors in the past and with their parents who become upset when they see their sons or daughters in handcuffs, but Respondent’s behavior was “totally different” from what they had experienced in the past. Officer Miller “was shocked” at Respondent’s behavior, especially in light of the fact that she was a teacher, and Lieutenant Trimm would have arrested her had he known at the time she was a teacher.
Respondent’s behavior at the basketball game was unprofessional and so racially charged that a riot could have resulted from her actions.
Dr. Hartman did not reprimand Respondent at the time of the incidents giving rise to this hearing because she believed Respondent could actually improve and change her behavior.
After Respondent failed to take Dr. Hartman’s and Ms. Applebee’s advice, Dr. Hartman decided to change Respondent’s position so that she taught third-grade students, in hopes that “a little bit younger would soften her a bit.”
Dr. Hartman’s reassignment of Respondent to a third- grade class for the following school year necessitated that her classroom be moved. Some of Respondent’s classroom items had been moved at the beginning of the 1999-2000 school year, and Respondent attempted to take compensatory leave at the start of the year, but failed to follow the proper procedures which included seeking prior permission from Dr. Hartman.
Dr. Hartman called Respondent into her office to discuss Respondent’s failure to follow school policies concerning attendance and attitude at faculty meetings and unauthorized use of compensatory time. Respondent did not respond to Dr. Hartman’s questions, but handed her a letter of resignation, accompanied by an anonymous letter criticizing her teaching abilities that had been left in Respondent’s school mail slot.
Respondent claims to have written the resignation letter the night before in response to the anonymous letter that she considered to be “harassment.” The substance of the letter, purportedly from a “very concerned parent,” was that Respondent “will always be remembered as a miserable, nasty, uncaring, cruel teacher that does not deserve to teach anyone, especially children.”
Respondent further claims that she wrote the letter of resignation in an attempt to be transferred from St. Lucie
Elementary to another school. Respondent is aware that, in order to be considered for a transfer to another school, she must first interview with that school and be offered a position. No other school had offered Respondent a position at the time she handed her resignation letter to Dr. Hartman. Therefore, Dr. Hartman could not have considered her request for a transfer.
Initially, Dr. Hartman only read the first part of the resignation letter since, once she realized she was going to be without a teacher on the first day of school, she acted quickly to inform her assistant, Ms. Applebee, so that she could immediately seek a substitute to start the next morning.
Once Ms. Applebee read the letter, she perceived it to be a threat to the safety of the students and faculty of
St. Lucie Elementary School. Dr. Hartman did not read the entire letter until 6:00 p.m., on August 19, 1999, the first day of school because she was busy with all of the special challenges the first day of school presents every year. Once she read the letter, however, Dr. Hartman had “extreme concerns” about the following paragraph:
After considering my remaining options, I decided to depart from this position because of YOU and the lack of professionalism displayed on your behalf. I have been subjective [sic] to an extraordinary amount of harassment every [sic] since I’ve been
under your supervision. This included lack of administrative support, extreme and undue stress, your trifling and vindictive ways, and last but not least, your prejudice and racist attitude toward students, minorities, and me. These are conditions in [sic] which no one should be subjective [sic] in the workplace. In fact, it seems to almost define going postal.
(Emphasis added)
Dr. Hartman believed the “going postal” language meant that Respondent might come in and shoot people. Assistant Principal Applebee was concerned for their safety, after she read the letter. Ms. Jane Grinstead, Executive Director of School Operations for Zone 2, St. Lucie County School District, thought the letter constituted a threat. Even Respondent admitted that her husband warned her that “somebody might take your letter offensively,” yet she still gave it to Dr. Hartman.
The letter came to Dr. Hartman at a time that was close to the shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado. Dr. Hartman was trained to be on alert for the type of traits that might be exhibited by a person who would do violence at a school. Those traits include antisocial behavior and failure to follow procedures, two traits exhibited by Respondent during her tenure at St. Lucie Elementary School. Further concern arose because this was a time when some United States Postal workers had assaulted, shot and killed their supervisors and some innocent bystanders.
As a result of her concerns, Dr. Hartman contacted Ms. Grinstead who put her in touch with Dave Morris, head of security for the St. Lucie County School District. Mr. Morris arranged for a school resource officer to follow Dr. Hartman around the next school day, August 20, 1999. At the end of the day, Assistant School Superintendent, Russell Anderson, spoke with Respondent and informed her that if she wanted to resign, she must leave the school premises, and the resignation would be accepted at the next School Board meeting.
During the meeting with Respondent, Mr. Anderson discussed her claims of harassment with her and offered her the chance to file a formal complaint for harassment against Dr. Hartman. Also, Respondent’s union representative, Ms. Clara Cook, informed her that she could file a formal complaint, yet Respondent declined to do so.
Based upon his safety concerns, Mr. Anderson asked the school resource officer, Mr. McGee, to escort Respondent off campus. He then drafted a Notice of Temporary Duty Assignment which informed Respondent that she is “further prohibited from being on any school district property.”
Respondent requested to rescind her resignation on August 23, 1999.
On August 24, 1999, Respondent’s letter of resignation was rescinded and she was suspended without pay by the St. Lucie County School District.
On October 6, 1999, Respondent was suspended without pay and notified that the St. Lucie County School District would recommend that she be terminated at the next School Board meeting based on her violation of School Board policies.
After a hearing, Respondent was terminated by the
St. Lucie County School District as a result of the contents of the resignation letter.
As a result of the incidents culminating in her dismissal, Respondent’s effectiveness as a teacher has been called seriously into question. Dr. Hartman explained that an effective teacher is one who “cares about children, cares about their learning, knows how to communicate, [is] open to learning themselves at all times, [is] very caring, compassionate, willing to work with others, realizing the accountability and responsibility that we hold each day, celebrating. You have to be very intelligent because you’re constantly thinking on your feet, planning and preparing and organizing.”
Assistant Principal Applebee believes that Respondent did not like the children she taught because she noticed Respondent was not always nice to them; she complained about
them; and the children believed they had no one in the classroom who cared about them.
Ms. Grinstead, a school district administrator with
35 years of experience, believes that an effective teacher is one who is 1) sensitive; 2) caring toward children;
3) communicates well with peers; 4) communicates well with parents and students; and 5) can give suggestions on ways the parents and the school can work together for the children.
Other teachers at St. Lucie Elementary School “rallied to assist” Respondent’s class. Ms. Drew decided to teach fifth grade so she could teach the same students who had been in Respondent’s fourth-grade class.
Dr. Hartman would not reemploy Respondent.
Assistant Superintendent Anderson would not recommend Respondent for re-employment in the St. Lucie County School District based on the seriousness of the charges.
Assistant Principal Applebee would never re-employ Respondent because she did not believe Respondent to be an effective teacher.
Officer Miller believes that Respondent should not be reemployed as a teacher by the St. Lucie County School District.
Each of Respondent’s former students and their parents does not believe that Respondent should be employed as a teacher anywhere.
Respondent takes no responsibility for any of the allegations made against her. She believes that she did nothing wrong, but that the problems complained of by the administrative staff, law enforcement personnel, her former students, and their parents are the result of either discrimination, harassment, or manipulative children and their parents who refuse to take responsibility for their children’s behavior.
Despite all the complaints lodged against Respondent by her former students and their parents, her former principal, assistant principal, school district administrators, and law enforcement officers, Respondent received satisfactory evaluations from Dr. Hartman for the period in question in this case.
Respondent currently works for the Head Start program, caring for three- and four-year-old children.
Before the Administrative Complaint was filed in this case, a substantially similar Administrative Complaint (the same except for the statutory citations which were renumbered by the Florida Legislature) was filed and scheduled for hearing before DOAH. The case proceeded to hearing and the prior Administrative Law Judge opened the record. Petitioner then attempted to amend the Administrative Complaint to correct statutory citations that had been renumbered by the Legislature. Respondent objected to Petitioner’s ore tenus motion to amend.
When the Administrative Law Judge announced that he would not rule on the motion to amend at the hearing, Petitioner announced that it was voluntarily dismissing the Administrative Complaint without prejudice and would thereafter file a new complaint with the revised statute numbers. Respondent asserted at that time that she believed Petitioner’s voluntary dismissal would be dispositive of the claims and allegations in it; that she did not agree to a voluntary dismissal; and that she was prepared to proceed. Nonetheless, Petitioner voluntarily dismissed the Administrative Complaint, and DOAH entered an Order Closing
File.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and the parties to this proceeding. §§ 120.569, 120.57(1), and 120.60(5), Fla. Stat.
Petitioner has the burden of proving the charges set forth in the Administrative Complaint by clear and convincing evidence. Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987). This includes the essential element of showing a serious impairment of Respondent’s effectiveness as an employee. McKinney v. Castor, 667 So. 2d 387,388 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Tenbroeck v. Castor, 640 So. 2d 164,167-68 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).
An individual’s teaching certificate may be suspended or revoked if it can be shown that the person “has proved to be
incompetent to teach or to perform duties as an employee of the public school system.” § 1012.795(1)(b), Fla. Stat.
Section 1012.795(1)(b), Florida Statutes, fails to define the term “incompetent,” but Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009, which sets forth the criteria for suspension or dismissal of a teacher, provides a detailed definition of “incompetency:”
Incompetency is defined as inability or lack of fitness to discharge the required duty as the result of inefficiency or incapacity. Since incompetency is a relative term, an authoritative decision in an individual case may be made on the basis of testimony by members of a panel of expert witnesses appropriately appointed from the teaching profession by the Commissioner of Education. Such judgment shall be based on a preponderance of evidence showing the existence of one (1) or more of the following:
Inefficiency: (1) repeated failure to perform duties prescribed by law; (2) repeated failure on the part of a teacher to communicate with or relate to children in the classroom, to such an extent that pupils are deprived of minimum educational experience. . . .
Incapacity: (1) lack of emotional stability; (2) lack of adequate physical ability; (3) lack of general educational background; or (4) lack of adequate command of his or her area of specialization.
Respondent’s classroom performance while a teacher at St. Lucie Elementary School strongly supports a charge of incompetence. Respondent was assigned to teach fourth graders,
most of whom were nine or ten years old, an age at which children still require nurturing on the part of a teacher. Many of Respondent’s classroom methods bordered on boot camp procedures rather than acceptable elementary school methods.
The students and parents who testified at the hearing, six years after any of them had been students of Respondent, still burned with anger and hurt. Clearly, Respondent has emotionally scarred many of these students and made education for them less than the joy Dr. Hartman, her staff, and the teaching profession in general seeks to instill in young children.
Respondent clearly proved herself to be incompetent to teach at St. Lucie Elementary School. She constantly refused to be a team player at the school, separating herself from the other teachers at faculty meetings; was always defensive whenever the principal or assistant principal made constructive suggestions about how to handle various classroom situations; refused or, at best, neglected to follow prescribed procedures for decorum in the public areas of the school such as the bus ramp and hallways; and exhibited a near total lack of communication with her students’ parents. Respondent failed to communicate with and relate to the children entrusted to her care five days a week. She belittled impressionable students; made examples in front of the class of those who disobeyed her; consistently denigrated students for their perceived failures,
while rarely praising students for their successes; and punished the entire class for the disruptive actions of a few by restricting their access to enriching activities such as art, music, and even recess. Her inefficient and punitive handling of her class deprived her impressionable students of any type of educational experience other than a miserable one.
Respondent appeared to have a good resume when she came to St. Lucie Elementary School. She had taught in St. Lucie County previously with apparent good results. Why she was unable to acclimate herself to St. Lucie Elementary, a school with a dedicated principal and staff who went out of their way to counsel and work with Respondent, remains a mystery. Rather than accepting even the mildest criticisms or suggestions from the administration, Respondent either ignored the repeated suggestions made by Dr. Hartman, or did the opposite of what was suggested. Her class, which she believed was a misbehaving one, behaved well in art and music class with no complaints from those teachers. Unfortunately, Respondent completely lacked control over her class and exercised poor disciplinary methods with her students. She refused to accept the help offered her by the administration, instead taking it upon herself to devise her own methods of discipline that proved not to be appropriate for fourth graders.
“By virtue of a teacher’s leadership capacity and the influence that they have by example upon school children, teachers are held to a higher standard than other regulated professionals.” Adams and Ward v. Professional Practices Council, 406 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Section 1012.795 (1)(c), Florida Statutes, subjects a teacher’s certificate to suspension or revocation for a showing that the teacher “[h]as been guilty of gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude.” That section fails to define the terms “gross immorality” or “moral turpitude.” “Gross immorality” must involve acts or conduct that are serious, as opposed to minor, and evidence a gross disregard for moral standards. “Moral turpitude” is defined in Florida Administrative Code
Rule 6B-4.009(6), as a crime evidenced by an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties, which, according to the accepted standards of the time an individual owes to his or her fellow man or to society in general. The term concerns an individual’s lack of justice, honesty, principle, or good morals.
Respondent’s behavior consisted of acts of gross immorality and moral turpitude. Her behavior towards her young students, their parents, and the administrative staff at
St. Lucie Elementary School is unacceptable for a person placed in a position of trust such as a schoolteacher. Her lack of
ability to control her conduct in the classroom and at the basketball game at Lincoln Park Academy, as well as her lack of respect for her fellow teachers and administrators at faculty meetings, clearly evidence an individual who has a total disregard for the well-being of her students and all those with whom she comes into contact. Six years after teaching the fourth grade class at St. Lucie Elementary School, she still exhibits no remorse for her behavior, and fails to realize the negative impact she had on her students. Moreover, she accepts no responsibility for her actions at the Lincoln Park basketball game, especially for the racial epithets she hurled at the law enforcement officers already in a tense situation, and her actions that could have incited the crowd to a riot. The language concerning “going postal” in her letter of resignation, designed, in her words, to help her get a transfer to another school, show a reckless disregard for the rights and safety of others. Rather than accepting responsibility for any of her actions, Respondent blames her former students for being manipulative; the school administrators for being discriminatory; the law enforcement officers for selective enforcement against African-Americans; and everyone who read the letter of resignation of jumping to conclusions. All this
behavior would be unacceptable for any individual, but when performed by a teacher, the negative impact is greatly magnified.
Section 1012.795(1)(f), Florida Statutes, provides for the sanction of a Florida educator’s certificate where the certificate holder has engaged in personal conduct which has seriously reduced his or her effectiveness as an employee of the School Board. As evidenced at hearing, Respondent’s actions in the classroom rendered her an ineffective teacher at St. Lucie Elementary School and her actions outside the classroom have rendered her ineffective as a teacher in any situation. Respondent’s effectiveness has been reduced significantly for a number of reasons: 1) numerous parents of her students complained to the administration about her teaching and disciplinary methods; 2) students complained to their parents about how they were mistreated by Respondent in the classroom;
3) the students, their parents, the school administration, St. Lucie County school administrators, and law enforcement personnel who had dealings with Respondent do not believe she
should be placed in a teaching situation again; 4) at least one other teacher stepped in the year after Respondent taught the fourth grade class to try and repair some of the damage done by her on the students; and 5) the school district terminated Respondent based upon her misconduct.
Respondent’s behavior in the classroom supports violations of additional provisions of Chapter 1012, Florida Statutes. By ridiculing students in the classroom; calling them names, including at least one incident of a racial slur against a student; engaging in classroom methods that were harmful to her students’ ability to learn and to their mental health, Respondent has violated the provisions of Section 1012.795(1)(i), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e), (g), and (5)(d). Her behavior in this regard was ongoing and exhibited a pattern of lack of appropriate teaching and disciplinary methods in the classroom, especially when considering the age and susceptibility of nine- and ten-year-old students.
This case did not present an isolated incident of misconduct on the part of Respondent. The pattern of Respondent’s misbehavior both in and out of the classroom make her an ineffective and even harmful teacher of children. Her failure to acknowledge both her shortcomings as a teacher and the intentional acts she committed while in a position of great public trust, lead to the inescapable conclusion that Respondent has no business continuing as a teacher at this time. Whether she can rehabilitate herself through her current work at Head
Start remains to be seen, but her total lack of remorse or desire to take responsibility for her actions make such improvement doubtful, at best.
Respondent has raised, as a procedural matter, whether this case should have even proceeded to final hearing since, in a proceeding convened in June of 2003, Petitioner voluntarily dismissed its Administrative Complaint against Respondent for the purpose of re-issuing the complaint with the appropriately renumbered statutory references (Section 231.232 was renumbered Section 1012.795 and Section 231.2315 was renumbered
Section 1012.796 by the Legislature at Chapter 2002-387, Sections 757-58, Laws of Florida). Respondent argues that the dismissal of the previous complaint disposed of all matters that were or could have been raised in such proceeding, and that the Educations Practices Commission was without jurisdiction to proceed further with the case, citing Hoover v. DPR, 620 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); and Nicolitz v. Board of Opticianry, 609 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). At the hearing in June of 2003, Respondent also relied upon the case of Kizner v. State, 654 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). The cases cited by Respondent fail to support her position concerning the voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the Administrative Complaint in DOAH Case No. 03-1123PL.
The Kizner case involved the repeal of a statute since a matter cannot be brought pursuant to a statute that no longer existed at the time of the filing of the complaint. This case involves only the ministerial renumbering of a statute. The substance of the statutory provisions at issue in this case remain unchanged. Further, the Hoover case involved the re- filing of an Administrative Complaint in the same case that had already been dismissed by the Administrative Law Judge. The court noted that the DPR could have issued a new complaint and proceeded with a new case, but for some inexplicable reason chose to re-file in the closed case. Here, Petitioner filed a new Administrative Complaint that was referred to DOAH where a new case file was opened. No attempt was made by Petitioner to re-file the complaint in the previous case. Further, the re- filing of an Administrative Complaint was not barred by any statute of limitations or by a statutory time prohibition against Petitioner. Finally, Florida Administrative Code
Rule 28-106.204(2), the Uniform Rules of Administrative Procedure, provides that “[u]nless otherwise provided by law, motions to dismiss the petition shall be filed no later than
20 days after service of the petition on the party.” Respondent has nether filed a timely motion to dismiss in this case nor offered a provision of law to support a later-filed motion to
dismiss. Therefore, Respondent’s argument for dismissal of the current case is both untimely and not supported by statute or case law.
Petitioner has proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent is incompetent to teach or perform her duties as an employee of the public school system or to teach in a private school; is guilty of gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude; has engaged in behavior or conduct that seriously reduced her effectiveness as an employee of the St. Lucie County School District; and has violated Section 1012.795(1)(i), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006, by her behavior in the classroom. Section 1012.795(1), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Education Practices Commission to suspend, revoke, or otherwise discipline the teaching certificate of individuals found guilty of the offenses enumerated therein. Respondent has clearly violated numerous provisions of Section 1012.795(1), Florida Statutes, and Petitioner has demonstrated that Respondent is unfit to continue to hold a teaching certificate. Respondent has neither shown remorse for her behavior nor taken responsibility for any of her actions in violation of the statute and rules of the Commission. Whether she will ever regain the ability to be an effective teacher is uncertain at this time. The fact that she continues to work with children may lead her to improve her
methods of teaching and discipline over time. Her actions to date, however, warrant a severe penalty against her teaching
certificate.
Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it
is
RECOMMENDED that Respondent’s teaching certificate be revoked for a period of 10 years, with reinstatement subject to the provisions of Subsection 1012.795(4)(b), Florida Statutes.
DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of June, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
S
ROBERT S. COHEN
Administrative Law Judge
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060
(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675
Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of June, 2004.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Kelly B. Holbrook, Esquire Broad and Cassel
100 North Tampa Street, Suite 3500 Post Office Box 3310
Tampa, Florida 33602-3310
Mark F. Kelly, Esquire Kelly & McKee, P.A.
1718 East 7th Avenue, Suite 301
Tampa, Florida 33605
Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education
325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education
325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education
1244 Turlington Building
325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
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 | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Aug. 16, 2004 | Agency Final Order | |
| Jun. 11, 2004 | Recommended Order | Respondent violated numerous provisions of Chapter 1012, Florida Statutes, including incompetence to teach or perform duties, gross immorality, moral turpitude, and embarassing students in class. Recommend teaching certificate be revoked for 10 years. |
DR. ERIC J. SMITH, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs MARY EUGENE ELIZABETH DUPPER, 03-004096PL (2003)
SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY vs. RAPHU S. WILLIAMS, 03-004096PL (2003)
DR. ERIC J. SMITH, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs MARY E. DUPPER, 03-004096PL (2003)
BAY COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs KEITH DAVID CHRISTIE, 03-004096PL (2003)
PAM STEWART, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs TRACEY NEWTON, 03-004096PL (2003)
