STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DUVAL COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,

Petitioner,

vs.

JACQUELINE NEELEY,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

) Case No. 04-1974

)

)

)

)

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to appropriate notice this cause came on for formal proceeding and hearing before P. Michael Ruff duly- designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings in Jacksonville, Florida on December 15, 2004.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Andres Rojas, Esquire

City of Jacksonville Office of General Counsel

117 West Duval Street, Suite 480 Jacksonville, Florida 32202

For Respondent: David A. Hertz, Esquire

Duval Teachers United 1601 Atlantic Boulevard

Jacksonville, Florida 32207 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Respondent should be properly discharged from

employment with the Duval County School District in accordance with the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act, 21197 Laws of Florida (1991) (Act), including the issue of whether she has received two consecutive unsatisfactory yearly evaluations as a teacher.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This cause arose on May 6, 2004, when the Petitioner, Duval County School Board, through John C. Fryer, Jr., Superintendent, informed the Respondent Jacqueline Neely, by letter of that date, that she would be discharged as a teacher for violation of the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act, specifically, Subsection

1. of Section 4 of that Act, regarding professional incompetence. The charging letter of May 6, 2004, references two consecutive annual unsatisfactory evaluations for the 2002- 2003 school year and for the following 2003-2004 school year. The letter then informed the Respondent of her right to an administrative hearing before an administrative law judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. The Respondent chose to institute a Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, formal proceeding before the Division of Administrative Hearings and the cause was ultimately assigned to the undersigned administrative law judge for formal proceeding and hearing.

   The cause came on for hearing as noticed. At the hearing, the parties submitted Joint Exhibit A, which was admitted into evidence and the Petitioner presented Composite Exhibits 1 and 2, which were admitted into evidence. The Petitioner presented the testimony of Jacqueline Y. Davis, Karen Diaz, Gail T. Haddon, and Cynthia Thompson. The Respondent testified on her own behalf, offering no exhibits.

   Upon conclusion of the proceeding, the parties requested the opportunity to submit proposed recommended orders. The Proposed Recommended Orders were submitted timely and have been considered in the rendition of this Recommended Order.

   FINDINGS OF FACT

   
   

   1. The Respondent was a certified teacher employed by the Petitioner Duval County School Board at all times pertinent hereto. The governing authority herein is the Act.

   2. Ms. Jacqueline Y. Davis was the principal during the academic year 2002-2003 at Whitehouse Elementary School. She was the Respondent's supervising principal during that year. Principal Davis determined, after observations and other gathering of information, that Ms. Neeley's performance as a teacher was deficient. Among the deficiencies, she found were the following:

      1. Respondent failed to prepare report cards.

      2. Respondent improperly calculated students' grade point averages.

         
         

      3. Respondent failed to prepare Academic Improvement Plans for students.

         
         

      4. Respondent failed to timely complete pre-planning checklists, professional development plans, and class schedules.

         
         

      5. Respondent showed age-improper materials to her students.

         
         

      6. Respondent failed to clearly state the lesson's objective at the beginning of her lessons.

         
         

      7. Respondent exhibited unsatisfactory classroom management techniques, including failure to follow school-wide disciplinary policies, failure to keep students on-task, and failure to maintain order in her classroom.

         
         

      8. Respondent failed to communicate basic concepts clearly to the children.

         
         

      9. Respondent failed to review basic concepts with the children to ensure understanding of the material.

         
         

      10. Respondent failed to call parents back upon request.

          
          

      11. Respondent exhibited use of an intimidating, loud tone with students.

          
          

      12. Respondent failed to provide requested information to parents regarding student progress.

          
          

      13. Respondent failed to send graded papers home for parents' review.

          
          

      14. Respondent failed to collect homework after being assigned.

      15. Respondent failed to maintain a neat and orderly classroom.

          
          

      16. Respondent failed to properly record grades in a grade book, an official record that must be maintained by the teacher and the school.

          
          

      17. On at least two occasions, parents contacted Principal Davis and requested that their child be removed from Ms. Neeley's class due to Ms. Neeley's incompetence as a teacher.

          
          

      18. The Respondent exhibited consistent and chronic tardiness.

          
          

      19. The Respondent exhibited numerous absences during the school year.

          
          

   3. These deficiencies were communicated to Ms. Neeley, which lead to the eventual implementation of a "success plan," listing specific categories in which Ms. Neeley needed instruction and needed to make improvement. Principal Davis assigned a success team to Ms. Neeley when it became evident that her performance as a teacher was unsatisfactory.

   4. Principal Davis observed the Respondent's classroom performance on October 3, 2002, November 19, 2002, and January 21, 2003. On each of those occasions, she found Ms. Neeley's performance as a teacher to be unsatisfactory. Following each observation, Principal Davis communicated her findings orally and in writing to Ms. Neeley.

   5. On January 30, 2003, Principal Davis held a meeting to discuss the success plan with Ms. Neeley and to introduce her to

      the success team members who would assist in providing specific in-service instruction and assistance for Ms. Neeley.

      Ms. Neeley, however, failed to attend that meeting. The meeting was re-scheduled for February 3, 2003, and again Ms. Neeley failed to attend the meeting. The meeting was re-scheduled for February 5, 2003, and again Ms. Neeley did not attend.

   6. On February 10, 2003, Principal Davis observed Ms. Neeley's teaching and again found her performance as a teacher to be unsatisfactory. Again, Principal Davis

      communicated her findings orally and in writing to Ms. Neeley. On February 26, 2003, another success team meeting was scheduled, but Ms. Neeley did not attend.

   7. On March 20, 2003, Principal Davis again observed Ms. Neeley's classroom performance and again found it to be unsatisfactory and that she did not demonstrate adequate required improvement.

   8. Because of Ms. Neeley's continued inability to improve, despite assistance of her success team members and the specific in-service assistance and instruction they provided, she received an unsatisfactory annual evaluation for the 2002-2003 academic year.

   9. Thereafter, the Respondent was assigned to Ortega Elementary School for the 2003-2004 school year. Principal Cynthia Thompson was her supervisor at Ortega.

   10. Almost immediately, Principal Thompson became aware of Ms. Neeley's unsatisfactory performance as an instructor. Among other things, she noted that:

       1. Ms. Neeley was absent from school without arranging for a substitute teacher.

          
          

       2. Did not prepare lesson plans.

          
          

       3. Misspelled words on the board and charts in her classroom.

          
          

       4. Provided incorrect definitions for words on the board.

          
          

       5. Was not able to convey to her students their goals for the class period.

          
          

       6. Was not able to maintain a consistent grade book for her students.

          
          

       7. Failed to attend scheduled conferences with parents.

          
          

       8. Was unable to explain basic concepts to the children.

          
          

       9. Was unable to maintain classroom discipline and control.

          
          

   11. On October 30, 2003, Principal Thompson formally evaluated Ms. Neeley in her classroom, and found her performance to be unsatisfactory. Principal Thompson discussed the unsatisfactory areas with Ms. Neeley both orally and in writing.

   12. Principal Thompson then initiated a formal success plan and formed a success team, including a standards coach and a district coach to help Ms. Neeley in those areas she needed

       improvement in, and to provide specific in-service instruction for Ms. Neeley.

   13. The first meeting of the success team was scheduled for November 3, 2003, but Ms. Neeley failed to attend. The meeting was re-scheduled for November 5, 2003, and on that date, Principal Thompson covered every area of competency in which Ms. Neeley needed improvement. She asked Ms. Neeley to name a success team member of her own choosing; however, Ms. Neeley failed to name any person whom she wanted to be part of the success team. On December 17, 2003, another success team meeting was scheduled, but again Ms. Neeley failed to attend.

   14. Following the Christmas vacation, Ms. Neeley did not return to the school for approximately three weeks and did not explain her absence.

   15. On March 3, 2004, Principal Thompson conducted her final evaluation of Ms. Neeley and found that Ms. Neeley's performance in the classroom was still unsatisfactory and did not demonstrate the required improvement. Because of

       Ms. Neeley's continued inability to improve, despite the assistance of her success team members and the specific in- service assistance and instruction they provided, she received an unsatisfactory annual evaluation for the 2003-2004 academic year.

       CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

       
       

   16. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the subject matter of and the parties to this proceeding. §§ 120.569 and 120.57(1), Fla. Stat.

   17. The dismissal of the Respondent by the Petitioner is governed by the Act, Chapter 21197, Laws of Florida, as amended.

   18. In order for the Act to be invoked by the Petitioner, a first unsatisfactory evaluation must be given to a potential Respondent, followed by a second unsatisfactory evaluation. The Petitioner has successfully demonstrated that the Respondent received an unsatisfactory evaluation for school year 2002-2003, and a second unsatisfactory evaluation for the school year 2003- 2004.

   19. The Petitioner has also successfully demonstrated that in both school years specific in-service instruction and assistance was provided to the Respondent in the form of success plans, success plan groups and teams, and classroom observation, tutoring and coaching. The evidence shows without a doubt that the various areas of incompetency or deficient performance by Ms. Neeley in fact were present, characterized her teaching performance, and completely justified both unsatisfactory evaluations she was given by the Petitioner.

   20. Accordingly, the Petitioner has demonstrated that it has complied with the Act concerning the Respondent's teaching performance, efforts to improve that teaching performance and the evaluations accorded that teaching performance, culminating in the notice of termination. In summary, it is has been amply demonstrated that the Respondent's performance has been so deficient as to justify the Petitioner's loss of confidence in the Respondent's ability to perform adequately as a teacher and to demonstrate her professional incompetence as a teacher.

RECOMMENDATION

Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore,

RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Duval County School Board terminating the Respondent's employment as a tenured teacher for the Duval County School District.

DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 4th day of March, 2005.

COPIES FURNISHED:

John C. Fryer, Jr., Superintendent Duval County School Board

1701 Prudential Drive

Jacksonville, Florida 32207-8182

Honorable John Winn Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514

325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

Andres Rojas, Esquire City of Jacksonville

City Hall, St. James Building

117 West Duval Street, Suite 480 Jacksonville, Florida 32202

David A. Hertz, Esquire Duval Teachers United 1601 Atlantic Boulevard

Jacksonville, Florida 32207

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.

Docket for Case No: 04-001974TTS

Orders for Case No: 04-001974TTS