STATE OF FLORIDA EDUCATION PRACTICES COMMISSION PAM STEWART, as Commissioner of Education, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO, 123-3252 ELIZABETH DANELLE KRISTAL, Respondent. 1 ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT Petitioner, Pam Stewart, as Commissioner of Education, files this Administrative Complaint against ELIZABETH DANELLE KRISTAL. The Petitioner seeks the appropriate disciplinary sanction of the Respondent’s educator’s certificate pursuant to Sections 1012.315, 1012.795, and 1012.796, Florida Statutes, and pursuant to Rule 6A-10.081, Florida Administrative Code, Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, said sanctions specifically set forth in Sections 1012.795(1) and 1012.796(7), Florida Statutes. The Petitioner alleges: JURISDICTION 1, The Respondent holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 552864, covering the areas of Elementary Education and English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), which is valid through June 30, 2017. 2. At all times pertinent hereto, the Respondent was employed as a First Grade Teacher at Gulfstream Elementary School in the Miami-Dade County Schoo! District. MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS 4 3. During the 2011/2012 and 2012/2013 school years, Respondent failed to carry out her duties and responsibilities as an educator in a competent and efficient manner. 4. On or about March 27, 2012, Respondent was evaluated by her principal in accordance with the Instructional Performance Evaluation and Growth System (IPEGS). Respondent’s evaluation rated her performance as Unsatisfactory with regard to Standards 2 through 8. Respondent’s deficiencies included but were not limited to: ELIZABETH DANELLE KRISTAL Administrative Complaint Page 2 of 4 A. Failure to develop lesson plans aligned with logical goals and objectives and failure to address the individual needs and differences of her students. B. Failure to engage students by maintaining a steady, uninterrupted pace of instruction delivery. C. Failure to access and properly utilize student assessment data and to adjust her instruction in accordance with the data. D, Failure to properly and positively communicate with parents. E. Failure to provide a stimulating and academically challenging environment for students. 5. On or about April 25, 2012, Respondent’s principal conducted a formal observation of Respondent’s classroom. and rated Respondent below-proficient on multiple performance standards and recommended that an Improvement Plan (IP) be put in place for Respondent, 6. On or about May 4, 2012, with input from Respondent, an IP was put in place to address the following areas; Knowledge of Learners, Instructional Planning, Instructional Delivery and Learning Environment. Additionally, Respondent was placed on Probation for a period of 90 days. 7, On or about September 18, 2012, Respondent’s principal conducted a formal observation of Respondent’s classroom and rated Respondent below-proficient on multiple performance standards and recommended that a new Improvement Plan (IP) be developed for Respondent addressing the same four areas previously identified. 8. On or about October 11, 2012, Respondent’s assistant principal conducted a formal observation of Respondent’s classroom and rated Respondent below-proficient on multiple performance standards. As a result, Respondent and Respondent’s principal developed a new IP for Respondent again addressing the same four areas of concern previously addressed. 9. On or about November 19, 2012, Respondent’s principal conducted a final formal observation of Respondent’s classroom and rated Respondent below-proficient on multiple performance standards. As a result of Respondent’s performance and failure to correct deficiencies, Respondent’s principal recommended that Respondent's employment with the District be terminated. 10. During the 2012 testing period, Respondent’s students tested below other first graders in Respondent’s schoo! and in the District. Most significantly, math scores for Respondent’s students on the 2012 Stanford Achievement Test (SAT) were 14.5 points lower the ELIZABETH DANELLE KRISTAL Administrative Complaint Page 3 of 4 median percentile score for Respondent's school’s first graders and 34.5 points lower than the median percentile score for all first graders in the District. i, On or about January 16, 2013, the District suspended Respondent from her teaching position without pay and began the process for termination of Respondent’s employment. 12. On or about January 17, 2013, Respondent filed notice of intent to appeal the District decision. 13, On or about January 7, 2014, after a formal hearing, an Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings issued a recommended order upholding the District’ s determination of incompetence and recommending termination of Respondent’s employment. 14. On or about February 13, 2014, Respondent was terminated from her teaching position with the District. The Petitioner charges: STATUTE VIOLATIONS COUNT I: The Respondent is in violation of Section 1012.795(1)(c), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent has proved to be incompetent to teach or to perform duties as an employee of the public school system or to teach in or to operate a private school. COUNT 2: The Respondent is in violation of Section 1012.795(1)(g), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent has been found guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces effectiveness as an employee of the school board. RULE VIOLATIONS COUNT 3: The allegations of misconduct set forth herein are in violation of Rule 6A- 10.081G3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, in that Respondent has failed to make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student’s mental health and/or physical health and/or safety. (SIGNATURE ON FOLLOWING PAGE) ELIZABETH DANELLE KRISTAL Administrative Complaint Page 4 of 4 WHEREFORE, based on the reasons set forth herein and in accordance with the Explanation of Rights and Election of Rights forms attached to and made a part of this Administrative Complaint, Petitioner respectfully recommends that the Education Practices Commission impose an appropriate sanction against the Respondent’s educator’s certificate pursuant to the authority provided in Sections 1012.795(1) and 1012.796(7), Florida Statutes, The sanctions imposed by the Education Practices Commission may include, but are not limited to, any one or a combination of the following: issuing the Respondent a written reprimand; placing the Respondent on probation for any period of time; restricting the Respondent’s authorized scope of practice; assessing the Respondent an administrative fine; directing the Respondent to enroll in the Recovery Network Program; suspending the Respondent’s educator’s certificate for a period of time not to exceed five years; revoking the Respondent’s educator’s certificate for a period of time up to 10 years or permanently, determining the Respondent to be ineligible for certification, or barring the Respondent from reapplying for an educator's certificate for a period of time up to 10 years or permanently. EXECUTED on this 7 day of _/arch , 2015, 7 Ay btccaf PAM STEWART, as Commissioner of Education State of Florida

Docket for Case No: 15-005405PL