The Issue The issue is whether Petitioners are entitled to the Best and Brightest Scholarship as established and defined by section 1012.731(3)(c), Florida Statutes (2017).
Findings Of Fact In 2015, the Legislature enacted, by way of a line item in the annual appropriations bill, the Best and Brightest Program to award cash scholarships to Florida teachers who have been evaluated as “highly effective” by their school districts and who scored at or above the 80th percentile (top 20%) on the SAT or ACT when they took the test. Ch. 2015-232, § 2, line item 99A, Laws of Fla.1/ In 2016, the Legislature enacted a stand-alone statute for the Best and Brightest Program, codifying the appropriations bill language and providing that the program is to be administered by the Department of Education (the “Department”). Ch. 2016-62, § 25, Laws of Fla., codified at § 1012.731, Fla. Stat. (2016). Rather than enacting a statutory scholarship amount, subsection (5) of the 2016 version of section 1012.731 provided that the scholarships would be awarded to every eligible classroom teacher “in the amount provided in the General Appropriations Act.”2/ The 2016 statute also explained that the Best and Brightest Program was intended to provide “categorical funding for scholarships to be awarded to classroom teachers, as defined in s. 1012.01(2)(a), who have demonstrated a high level of academic achievement.” § 1012.731(2), Fla. Stat. (2016). Section 1012.01(2) defines “instructional personnel,” including “classroom teachers,” as follows: INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL.— “Instructional personnel” means any K-12 staff member whose function includes the provision of direct instructional services to students. Instructional personnel also includes K-12 personnel whose functions provide direct support in the learning process of students. Included in the classification of instructional personnel are the following K-12 personnel: Classroom teachers.--Classroom teachers are staff members assigned the professional activity of instructing students in courses in classroom situations, including basic instruction, exceptional student education, career education, and adult education, including substitute teachers. Student personnel services.--Student personnel services include staff members responsible for: advising students with regard to their abilities and aptitudes, educational and occupational opportunities, and personal and social adjustments; providing placement services; performing educational evaluations; and similar functions. Included in this classification are certified school counselors, social workers, career specialists, and school psychologists. Librarians/media specialists.-- Librarians/media specialists are staff members responsible for providing school library media services. These employees are responsible for evaluating, selecting, organizing, and managing media and technology resources, equipment, and related systems; facilitating access to information resources beyond the school; working with teachers to make resources available in the instructional programs; assisting teachers and students in media productions; and instructing students in the location and use of information resources. Other instructional staff.--Other instructional staff are staff members who are part of the instructional staff but are not classified in one of the categories specified in paragraphs (a)-(c). Included in this classification are primary specialists, learning resource specialists, instructional trainers, adjunct educators certified pursuant to s. 1012.57, and similar positions. Education paraprofessionals.--Education paraprofessionals are individuals who are under the direct supervision of an instructional staff member, aiding the instructional process. Included in this classification are classroom paraprofessionals in regular instruction, exceptional education paraprofessionals, career education paraprofessionals, adult education paraprofessionals, library paraprofessionals, physical education and playground paraprofessionals, and other school-level paraprofessionals. In 2017, the Legislature amended section 1012.731(3) to establish that the scholarship award would be $6,000 for those classroom teachers rated “highly effective” who also had the requisite SAT or ACT scores: (3)(a) To be eligible for a scholarship in the amount of $6,000, a classroom teacher must: 1. Have achieved a composite score at or above the 80th percentile on either the SAT or the ACT based on the National Percentile Ranks in effect when the classroom teacher took the assessment and have been evaluated as highly effective pursuant to s. 1012.34 in the school year immediately preceding the year in which the scholarship will be awarded, unless the classroom teacher is newly hired by the district school board and has not been evaluated pursuant to s.1012.34. * * * In order to demonstrate eligibility for an award, an eligible classroom teacher must submit to the school district, no later than November 1, an official record of his or her qualifying assessment score and, beginning with the 2020-2021 school year, an official transcript demonstrating that he or she graduated cum laude or higher with a baccalaureate degree, if applicable. Once a classroom teacher is deemed eligible by the school district, the teacher shall remain eligible as long as he or she remains employed by the school district as a classroom teacher at the time of the award and receives an annual performance evaluation rating of highly effective pursuant to s. 1012.34 or is evaluated as highly effective based on a commissioner- approved student learning growth formula pursuant to s. 1012.34(8) for the 2019-2020 school year or thereafter. Ch. 2017-116, § 46, Laws of Fla. The 2017 amendment to section 1012.731 also added a new subsection (3)(c), providing that lesser amounts could be awarded to teachers rated “highly effective” or “effective,” even if they could not demonstrate scores at or above the 80th percentile on the SAT or ACT: Notwithstanding the requirements of this subsection, for the 2017-2018, 2018- 2019, and 2019-2020 school years, any classroom teacher who: Was evaluated as highly effective pursuant to s. 1012.34 in the school year immediately preceding the year in which the scholarship will be awarded shall receive a scholarship of $1,200, including a classroom teacher who received an award pursuant to paragraph (a). Was evaluated as effective pursuant to s. 1012.34 in the school year immediately preceding the year in which the scholarship will be awarded a scholarship of up to $800. If the number of eligible classroom teachers under this subparagraph exceeds the total allocation, the department shall prorate the per-teacher scholarship amount. This paragraph expires July 1, 2020. Id. By December 1 of each year, each school district must submit to the Department the number of eligible classroom teachers who qualify for the scholarship, as well as identifying information regarding the schools to which the eligible classroom teachers are assigned. § 1012.731(4)(a)-(c), Fla. Stat. For the 2017-2018 school year, the December 1, 2017, submission deadline was extended to January 2, 2018, due to a hurricane. The School Board’s deadline for teachers to apply for the scholarship was accordingly extended from November 1, 2017, to December 1, 2017. By February 1 of each year, the Department is required to disburse scholarship funds to each school district for each eligible classroom teacher to receive a scholarship. § 1012.731(5), Fla. Stat. By April 1, each school district is required to award the scholarship to each eligible classroom teacher. § 1012.731(6), Fla. Stat. In 2018, the Legislature amended section 1012.731 to provide that a school district employee who is no longer a classroom teacher may receive the $6,000 award if the employee was a classroom teacher in the prior school year, was rated highly effective, and met the requirements of this section as a classroom teacher. § 1012.731(3)(b)2., Fla. Stat. (2018). The Legislature did not add a similar provision stating that former classroom teachers who are still school district employees remain eligible for the $1,200 and $800 awards. § 1012.731(3)(c)2., Fla. Stat. (2018). The Legislature funds the Best and Brightest Program. The School Board had no role in creating the Best and Brightest Program. The School Board is required to determine the eligibility of classroom teachers who qualify for the Best and Brightest Program pursuant to the requirements of the statute. Petitioners in this case claim entitlement only to the $1,200 award established by the 2017 version of the statute. Brenda Troutman, director of Instructional Personnel, is the School Board employee in charge of the Best and Brightest Program application and submission process. Ms. Troutman has worked for the School Board for 17 years. She has been a junior high classroom teacher and an assistant principal and vice principal at the high school level. Though no longer teaching in the classroom, Ms. Troutman retains her certifications in math grades 5-9, exceptional student education (“ESE”), educational leadership, and school principal. When working as a high school administrator, Ms. Troutman was the master scheduler for her school, meaning that she built the schedule for every teacher at the school. This task required that she become very familiar with the School Board’s course code directory. Ms. Troutman also had to understand the certification system in order to hire and assign teachers. If a teacher asked to teach a certain course, Ms. Troutman had to know both the course requirements and the teacher’s certifications to determine whether the teacher was eligible to teach the course. As part of her current position in the School Board’s human resources department, Ms. Troutman is required to know the School Board’s various job titles and descriptions. She is responsible for replacing obsolete job descriptions and posting current job descriptions on the School Board’s website. Ms. Troutman testified as to how she manages the application and submission process of the Best and Brightest Program. She starts by making herself familiar with any changes the Legislature may have made to the program. She then issues a notice to teachers about the program and the current eligibility requirements. For the 2017-2018 Best and Brightest Program, Ms. Troutman prepared a draft email that Superintendent Addison Davis reviewed and sent to all of the school district’s teachers and administrators on September 28, 2017. The email explained that to be eligible for the $6,000, $1,200 or $800 scholarship, an applicant must meet the definition of classroom teacher as set forth in section 1012.01(2)(a). Ms. Troutman developed the School Board’s application for the Best and Brightest Program, based upon her understanding of the statutory requirements. All completed applications for the Best and Brightest Program come into Ms. Troutman’s office. Ms. Troutman testified that she received approximately 2,000 applications for the 2017-2018 award. Ms. Troutman, with the aid of her assistant, reviews and verifies the information on the applications. If Ms. Troutman has any questions about an application, she seeks the opinion of her direct supervisor David Broskie, the director of Human Resources. In some cases, they also have discussions with Superintendent Davis and School Board Attorney David D’Agata. The School Board employs two major data programs. FOCUS is the program/database that holds all student information, including attendance, grades, disciplinary actions, test information, and demographics. TERMS is the program/database that houses all employee information. When verifying information on the Best and Brightest Program applications, Ms. Troutman uses both FOCUS and TERMS, and on occasion conducts additional investigation. The School Board’s application asks for the teacher’s assignment. Because the application was titled “2017-2018 Clay County Application: Florida Best & Brightest Teacher Scholarship,” Ms. Troutman believed that the teachers were required to provide their 2017-2018 teacher assignments. As will be discussed in more detail below, the year of the teacher assignment was a major point of disagreement between Petitioners and the School Board. The application provided a checkmark system for the teacher to indicate which scholarship was being sought. The $1,200 scholarship line provided as follows: I am applying for the $1,200.00 highly effective scholarship. I have attached a copy of my 2016-2017 highly effective final evaluation (with student performance measures). The application’s language led Petitioners to believe that the 2017-2018 scholarship awards would be based on their teacher assignments and evaluations for 2016-2017. Ms. Troutman explained that this belief was incorrect. Eligibility for the 2017-2018 scholarship was based on a teacher’s assignment for the 2017-2018 school year. The plain language of the statute requires that one must be a “classroom teacher” in order to be eligible for the scholarship; having been a classroom teacher in a previous year does not suffice. Ms. Troutman stated that she verified with Mr. Broskie, Mr. Davis, and Mr. D’Agata that the School Board should base the award on the teacher’s 2017-2018 assignment. Petitioners, on the other hand, argue that the statutory language requires only an evaluation of “highly effective” for the 2016-2017 school year. The statute is silent as to whether a teacher applying for the $1,200 scholarship must be teaching in a classroom situation during the 2017-2018 school year. Petitioners argue that the School Board is reading a requirement into the statute that is not evident from the plain language. Ms. Troutman further explained that the applications for the 2017-2018 scholarships were to be submitted prior to the conclusion of the 2017-2018 school year. Therefore, as required by section 1012.731(3)(a)1. and (3)(c), the application requested the evaluation for “the school year immediately preceding the year in which the scholarship will be awarded.” Ms. Troutman testified that it is sometimes obvious from the teaching assignment that the teacher qualifies as a “classroom teacher.” If an application states that the assignment is “chemistry teacher” or “algebra teacher” or “fifth grade classroom teacher,” it is clear that the applicant meets the definition. Aside from verifying the assignment in the TERMS database, Ms. Troutman takes no further action. However, some applications require additional research before Ms. Troutman can conclude that the applicant qualifies as a classroom teacher. For example, Petitioner Abbie Andrews identified her assignment on her application as “classroom teacher.” Ms. Troutman went to TERMS and saw that Ms. Andrews was designated as an “ESE Support Facilitator” for the 2017-2018 school year. Ms. Troutman testified that ESE Support Facilitators are sometimes assigned to teach classes and therefore could be classified as “classroom teachers” for purposes of the Best and Brightest Program. Ms. Troutman examined both the master schedule and the teacher’s personal account in FOCUS to determine whether Ms. Andrews was assigned to teach any courses. Ms. Andrews had no teaching assignments for 2017-2018 in FOCUS. Ms. Andrews and fellow Petitioners Cherry Deaton, Donna Foster, and Danielle Perricelli held the position of ESE Support Facilitator during the 2017-2018 school year. The School Board concluded that these Petitioners did not qualify for the $1,200 scholarship because their schedules did not assign them the professional activity of instructing students in courses in a classroom situation, as required by the statute. It was undisputed that these Petitioners had been rated “highly effective” for the 2016-2017 school year. It was also undisputed that Ms. Andrews, Ms. Deaton, and Ms. Foster met the statutory definition of a classroom teacher for the 2016-2017 school year. The School Board’s general job description for an ESE Support Facilitator provides as follows: The teacher is responsible directly to the Principal. He/she provides for the instruction, supervision, and evaluation of assigned students on an as needed basis. He/she supports both general education and ESE teachers. He/she serves in a staff relationship with other teachers and supports and promotes ESE inclusion activities. (Emphasis added). The School Board contrasts this job description with that of “Classroom Teacher,” which provides: “The teacher is responsible directly to the principal for the instruction, supervision, and evaluation of students.” The classroom teacher is fully responsible for the “instruction, supervision, and evaluation” of the students in her classroom, whereas the ESE Support Facilitator performs those activities only “as needed.” The School Board also points out that, unlike a classroom teacher, an ESE Support Facilitator is not required to be certified in-field for the position. The ESE Support Facilitator is not the teacher of record for any particular course. Their schedule is fluid. The ESE Support Facilitator comes and goes as needed (“pushes in,” to use the teaching vernacular) in the classroom, and is expected to be wherever the ESE student assigned to them needs their services. Sometimes they push into the classroom and sometimes they pull students out of the class to work on a specific concept or skill. An ESE Support Facilitator is assigned “contact students” for whom individualized educational plans (“IEPs”) are prepared. The classroom teacher of record is responsible for giving the student course credit or a grade and is responsible for recording attendance in FOCUS. One-third of the classroom teacher’s evaluation is tied to student performance. Only the classroom teacher has default access to FOCUS in order to enter attendance and grade information for the students in the class. An ESE Support Facilitator must seek and be granted access to student’s FOCUS information. An ESE Support Facilitator is expected to meet with each contact student at least once a month; in practice, these meetings tend to occur more frequently. The ESE Support Facilitator goes over accommodations the student needs and assignments the student did not understand. The facilitator reteaches the course material if need be and stays in touch with the student’s teachers and parents, making sure all stakeholders in the student’s success are on the same page. The evidence presented at the hearing indicated that all of the students served by the ESE Support Facilitators in this case attended classes in regular classrooms, not in separate ESE classes. In such “inclusion” classes, the ESE Support Facilitator’s role is to push in and assist contact students in the regular classroom, ensuring that their IEP requirements are met and that the students are progressing satisfactorily through the course material. Based on these definitional and operative distinctions, Ms. Troutman considered ESE Support Facilitators to be “other instructional staff” as defined by section 1012.01(2)(d), rather than “classroom teachers” as defined by section 1012.01(2)(a). Ms. Andrews was employed as an ESE Support Facilitator at Middleburg High School during the 2016-2017 school year. She taught two periods of English and spent the remaining four periods fulfilling her ESE duties. She was evaluated as “highly effective.” As noted above, there was no dispute that Ms. Andrews met the definition of a “classroom teacher” for the 2016-2017 school year. During the 2017-2018 school year, Ms. Andrews was a full-time ESE Support Facilitator at Middleburg High School, not assigned to teach any courses. In FOCUS, she was assigned as the “contact teacher” for approximately 60 students, meaning that she was primarily responsible for writing their IEPs and ensuring that they made adequate progress in their classes. She met with all of her contact students on an as needed basis, at least once per month but often as much as twice per week. However, Ms. Andrews was not listed in FOCUS as the teacher of record for any class. Even though she routinely pushed into classes to support her assigned ESE students, Ms. Andrews was not the primary teacher of record. She was there to assist her contact students with whatever they needed to learn the course, but the course was not assigned to her to teach. Ms. Andrews did not have a traditional classroom. She was not the teacher of record in any course for which students received academic credit, and she did not assign grades to students for the material she was teaching. Ms. Andrews prepared IEPs that were individualized to particular contact students. She did not prepare daily lesson plans in the manner of a classroom teacher. Ms. Andrews described her job as an ESE Support Facilitator as follows: My job is to teach, mentor, challenge students to make them -- make them ready for graduation, become productive members of society. I believe that’s the same thing a classroom teacher does. I am using the Florida standards to prepare lessons for remediation if a student needs it. I am constantly having conversations with not just students, but their parents, keeping them on track or making sure their students are on track because ultimately, a parent wants that student to graduate on time as well. I believe that the questions that are asked of me as a support facilitator are the same questions that parents would ask of a classroom teacher because they are very concerned. I am not just answering questions based on one classroom. I'm answering questions based on six classes. I'm responsible for that student being successful in six classes. The IEPs that I write, they're legally binding. I am involved in the academics, behavior, discipline. I deal with discipline problems. All of these things are the same things that a classroom teacher would deal with. I do not have a schedule in Focus; however, when a need arises, I'm there, I'm in a classroom, I'm helping, and I'm doing what's needed to be done for the kids to be successful. Ms. Deaton was employed as an ESE Support Facilitator at Middleburg High School during the 2016-2017 school year. She taught two periods of English and spent the remaining four periods fulfilling her ESE duties. She was evaluated as “highly effective.” As noted above, there was no dispute that Ms. Deaton met the definition of a “classroom teacher” for the 2016-2017 school year. In 2017-2018, Ms. Deaton was a full-time ESE Support Facilitator at Middleburg High School, with approximately 60 contact students assigned to her in FOCUS. She was not assigned to teach any courses. If she pushed into a class to support her assigned ESE students, she was not the primary teacher of record. She was not designated as a co-teacher,3/ but she would assist teaching classes on an as-needed basis if she was not busy testing students or preparing IEPs. For those classes, she was provided access to view grades in FOCUS, but she did not have access to give grades. She would meet students as needed in her office, in another teacher's classroom, or in the computer lab. She did not develop lesson plans on her own, but provided suggestions and advice on lesson plans to the primary teacher. As an ESE Support Facilitator, Ms. Deaton did not have a classroom or teach a classroom full of students. She had no schedule assigned to her in FOCUS, but had contact students assigned to her in FOCUS. Ms. Foster was employed as an English/language arts and ESE Inclusion Teacher during the 2016-2017 school year. She taught four classes as ESE inclusion teacher. The remaining two periods were devoted to her position as ESE department head. Ms. Foster had a schedule in FOCUS. She had her own classroom and students, prepared daily lesson plans, and assigned grades. Students in her classes received academic credit. Ms. Foster was evaluated as “highly effective.” As noted above, there was no dispute that Ms. Foster met the definition of a “classroom teacher” for the 2016-2017 school year. Ms. Foster was employed as an ESE Support Facilitator and ESE department head during the 2017-2018 school year. She retired at the end of the school year, effective June 7, 2018. As an ESE Support Facilitator, Ms. Foster did not have a set schedule. Ms. Foster’s assigned ESE students did not receive academic credit for the services she provided, but her assistance was integral in helping them pass their courses. Ms. Foster assisted with an American history class during the 2017-2018 school year, but was not assigned as the primary teacher in FOCUS. Ms. Foster testified that she did not believe she had ever been identified as a co-teacher in FOCUS, though she thought she should have been. Ms. Foster testified that she had IEPs for the American history class that listed both the class setting and the service delivery method as “co-teach.” She explained that because the class had both general education and ESE students, the teacher had to be certified in both the subject matter and ESE. Because the primary teacher was certified only in the subject matter, it was necessary for Ms. Foster to co-teach the class. Ms. Foster testified that she split lesson plan preparation with the primary teacher. Ms. Foster believed she was not listed in FOCUS as the co-teacher because the school administration never bothered to remove the name of Kristin Heard, the ESE teacher originally assigned to the class, who was moved to a science class early in the year. Ms. Foster pursued the matter with the assistant principals at Lakeside Junior High, but nothing came of it. Mallory McConnell, the principal at Lakeside Junior High School during the 2017-2018 school year, confirmed that Ms. Foster was not listed as a co-teacher on the master schedule. Ms. McConnell testified that in 2017-2018 there were no “true co-teacher” situations, by which she meant two teachers who equally shared responsibility for the instruction and grading of every student in the class. Ms. McConnell was aware of situations in which a student’s IEP mandates co-teaching in a class, but she testified that she was unaware of any student at Lakeside Junior High School in 2017-2018 whose IEP required a co-teacher. Ms. McConnell conducted infrequent walkthrough observations of the American history class. She testified that she saw Ms. Foster providing support services to the ESE students but never saw Ms. Foster teaching at the front of the class. Ms. McConnell stated that she would not have expected to see Ms. Foster teaching the class or creating lesson plans for the class as a whole because those tasks were not her job responsibility. Ms. McConnell was in no position to state whether Ms. Foster did, in fact, prepare lesson plans and teach the class. Ms. McConnell was able to state that for at least one month during the school year, Ms. Foster administered tests to her ESE students, meaning that she could not have been co- teaching the American history class. Ms. Foster did not tell Ms. Troutman that she had assisted teaching the American history class during the 2017- 2018 school year, nor did she include such information on her application for the Best and Brightest Program, because she believed the award was based upon her position in 2016-2017 and because she believed the school administration’s failure to include her as teacher of record in FOCUS was an “in-house” issue. Ms. Perricelli was employed as an ESE Support Facilitator, ESE department head, and MTSS intervention team facilitator at Orange Park Junior High School. “MTSS” is an acronym for Multi-Tiered System of Support, a framework for providing support to students who are struggling academically or have an identified need in a specific area such as speech, language, or behavior. MTSS interventions may be used for regular education or ESE students. Ms. Perricelli testified that she was not the teacher assigned by FOCUS for any class in 2016-2017. In addition to her regular ESE duties, Ms. Perricelli taught “grade recovery” to two students in language arts, science, and math. Grade recovery is a class offered to students who have failed a course and lack the credits to move on to the next grade level. Ms. Perricelli designed lesson plans and curriculum assessments for each subject, graded papers and tests, and reported the students’ grades to the school. Ms. Perricelli testified that she was not given the authority to enter the grade recovery students’ grades into FOCUS in 2016-2017. She requested a course code but was never provided one. Ms. Perricelli taught grade recovery for two periods, one for each student. For the other four periods of the school day, Ms. Perricelli would push into classrooms and work with ESE students, usually in small groups with students who needed remediation. She had around 40 contact students and developed IEPs for each of them. Most of her contact students were in the classrooms that she was going into, so she would see them throughout the week. She would meet with her other contact students about once a week. Ms. Perricelli would work with the assigned teacher to modify the course material to meet the needs of the ESE students. Ms. Perricelli was evaluated as “highly effective” for the 2016-2017 school year, based on standard classroom teacher criteria. She was observed working with her grade recovery students and in the classrooms in which she pushed in. Ms. Perricelli testified that her assignments were the same for the 2017-2018 school year. She taught one student in a grade recovery course. Due to her persistence, Ms. Perricelli was able to get a course code from Ms. Troutman for the grade recovery course in 2017-2018. The grade recovery course was named “Unique Skills.” In 2017-2018, Ms. Perricelli was assigned around 70 contact students for whom she prepared IEPs. As department head, Ms. Perricelli oversaw 22 ESE instructors. She was the only ESE Support Facilitator at the school. Janice Tucker was vice principal at Orange Park Junior High School in 2017-2018. She testified that early in the school year, the assigned teacher for seventh grade math left for another county. A long-term substitute, Lashonda Campbell, took over as teacher of record. Ms. Perricelli testified that she developed some of the curriculum in Ms. Campbell’s math classes, which included ESE and non-ESE students. She stated that she taught the class alone once a week when Ms. Campbell started, then tapered off into pulling out small groups of ESE students who needed remediation. She worked with four periods of seventh grade math classes that year. Ms. Perricelli testified that she gave grades to students in those courses and gave them to Ms. Campbell for entry into FOCUS. Ms. Tucker testified that Ms. Perricelli was not a co- teacher for the math class. Ms. Campbell was the teacher of record. Ms. Tucker testified that when she observed the math class, she saw Ms. Perricelli working with small groups in the back of the class or at a table in the hallway, and Ms. Campbell at the front teaching the class. Ms. Tucker never saw Ms. Perricelli at the front of the class teaching. Ms. Tucker conceded that she had no knowledge whether Ms. Perricelli was involved in creating lesson plans or assigning grades for the math class. Ms. Perricelli was evaluated by Ms. Tucker for the 2017-2018 school year. Ms. Tucker observed Ms. Perricelli in the seventh grade math class and in the Unique Skills class. Ms. Perricelli was again rated “highly effective.” Ms. Perricelli testified that she did not mention teaching the math class on her scholarship application. She stated that she did not tell Ms. Troutman about the math class because at the time, the school was still attempting to get a full-time teacher for the class. Ms. Troutman obviously knew about the “Unique Skills” class, having issued the course code to Ms. Perricelli. Ms. Troutman testified that she consulted with Mr. Broskie and Mr. D’Agata as to whether having one assigned class in FOCUS should qualify Ms. Perricelli for the scholarship. They concluded that teaching one class with one student was insufficient to qualify as a “classroom teacher” for purposes of the Best and Brightest Program. Ms. Troutman testified that this conclusion was consistent with the School Board’s historic practice of considering two or more classes as the “cutoff” for a classroom teacher. Ms. Troutman believed that if an ESE Support Facilitator taught two classes, then she would qualify as a “classroom teacher.” Petitioner Easter Brown taught a fourth grade classroom at Grove Park Elementary School during the 2016-2017 school year and was rated “highly effective.” It is not disputed that Ms. Brown met the definition of a “classroom teacher” for the 2016-2017 school year. In 2017-2018, Ms. Brown was a full-time SPRINT specialist. “SPRINT” stands for Supervisor of Pre-Interns and New Teachers. SPRINT specialist is a support position for teacher trainees and new teachers, operating under an agreement between the School Board and the University of North Florida (“UNF”), each of which pays half of the SPRINT specialist’s salary. Ms. Brown taught field classes at UNF and conducted workshops for clinical educator training and professional development. Ms. Brown kept Grove Park Elementary as her home base and shared a classroom there with two other teachers. She taught UNF students in classes at the university and worked with new teachers at the school. She estimated that she spent half her time at UNF and half at Grove Park Elementary. Ms. Brown had no K-12 courses or K-12 students assigned to her in 2017-2018. She had no courses assigned to her in FOCUS. She gave grades to only UNF students. Ms. Brown did not create traditional lesson plans but did assist new teachers in writing lesson plans. Ms. Brown testified that she did some teaching in a regular classroom for purposes of modeling teaching techniques for her student teachers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Clay County School Board enter a final order: Finding that Petitioners Abbie Andrews, Cherry Deaton, and Donna Foster were not eligible for a $1,200 scholarship under the 2017 Florida Best and Brightest Teacher Scholarship Program because they were not classroom teachers during the 2017-2018 school year; and Finding that Petitioners Easter Brown and Danielle Perricelli were eligible for a $1,200 scholarship under the 2017 Florida Best and Brightest Teacher Scholarship Program because they were classroom teachers during the 2017-2018 school year, and directing staff to take all practicable measures to secure the scholarship monies for Ms. Brown and Ms. Perricelli. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of March, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of March, 2019.
The Issue Whether Respondent should be transferred to Jan Mann Opportunity School.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Antwan Clark (Antwan), attended the sixth and seventh grades at Carol City Middle School during the academic years 1991-1992, and 1992-1993, respectively. On October 10, 1991, Antwan was suspended outdoors for three days for fighting. On October 22, 1991, Antwan was caught running in the school hallways by the assistant principal Don DeLucas. When Antwan was told to stop, he ignored the verbal request. Antwan was given a detention for his behavior. On November 5, 1991, Antwan was referred by his sixth period teacher to Assistant Principal DeLucas for being tardy to class, refusing to sign for detention, and walking out of class without a pass. Antwan was issued a reprimand/warning for his behavior and a conference was held with school administrators and his parents. After school was dismissed on March 10, 1992, the school principal Mary Henry walked toward the Carol City Elementary School while watching the students leave the middle school grounds. Antwan, across the street in a gas station parking lot, threw rocks across the street in the direction of Ms. Henry. Police Officer Christopher Burgain observed Antwan tossing the rocks. When Antwan saw the police officer, he moved to another group of students in the parking lot. Officer Burgain got Antwan and took him to Ms. Henry who told him to take Antwan back to the school. Ms. Henry called Antwan's parents. Antwan was suspended outdoors for two days for this incident. On March 16, 1992, Antwan's teacher, Ms. Viamonte, referred him to Assistant Principal DeLucas for getting out of his seat, coming to class unprepared, responding to the teacher when she asked for his daily progress report that she "was wasting his time" and threatening to tear up the daily progress report. Antwan was given a reprimand/warning and a conference was held with his parents. On April 16, 1992, Antwan cut his sixth period and was given a three- day indoor suspension. Another conference was held with his parents. On May 11, 1992, Antwan was caught gambling at a nearby senior high school. The assistant principal for the senior high school returned Antwan to Ms. Henry at the middle school. Antwan was suspended outdoors for three days. On July 22, 1992, Antwan was referred to Assistant Principal John Strachan for disciplinary action for telling a teacher that he didn't have to do what the teacher told him to do. Antwan was suspended outdoors for one day. During the 1992-1993 school year, Antwan was placed in the Student At Risk Program (SARP), which is a program designed for students who are at risk of dropping out of school. Students participating in SARP are given more attention than the students in the mainstream population. A counselor is assigned to the SARP program. On September 21, 1992, Ms. McGraw, Antwan's fifth period teacher referred Antwan to Assistant Principal Strachan for refusing to do his work, yelling at her about a pass to the office after she told him he could not have a pass, and refusing to give her a working telephone number for his parents so that she could call them. Antwan was given an indoor suspension until school administrators could meet with his parents. Antwan failed to stay in his class area during physical education class. His teacher, Janet Evans, would have to stop her class and call Antwan back into the class area. On September 24, 1992, Antwan left class without permission, and Ms. Evans found him and some other students outside the girls' locker room gambling by flipping coins. For these actions he was given a one- day indoor suspension. On October 29, 1992, Antwan was referred to Assistant Principal Strachan for excessive tardiness to school. Antwan refused direction by Mr. Strachan and was verbal and disruptive about being given a suspension. Antwan's mother was called to come and pick up him. Antwan was given a three-day outdoor suspension. On November 20, 1992, Teacher Golditch referred Antwan to the principal for shouting across the room to the extent that the teacher had to stop the class lesson and change what the class was doing. When Antwan got to the principal's office he got out of his seat, made noises, and went to the staff's counter when he was not supposed to do so. Antwan was given a one-day outdoor suspension for these actions. On January 6, 1993, Antwan and four other students were horseplaying in the cafeteria, resulting in the breaking of a window. He received a three- day indoor suspension for this behavior. On February 11, 1993, Antwan was walking around in Ms. Schrager's class and would not take his seat even though Ms. Schrager repeatedly asked him to do so. Antwan was distracting other students in the class, and Ms. Schrager had to stop the class to correct Antwan. Ms. Schrager referred the matter to Assistant Principal Strachan. A security officer was required to remove Antwan from the classroom. When asked by Mr. Strachan why he would not take his seat when asked by Ms. Schrager, Antwan responded that he wanted to sit where he wanted to sit. For this incident, Antwan received a five-day indoor suspension. Cheryl Johnson, Antwan's math teacher, had witnessed incidents in Ms. Schrager's class when Antwan would get out of his seat, walk around the classroom, and talk to other students, thereby disrupting Ms. Schrager's class. Ms. Johnson also had problems with Antwan in her classroom. Antwan would bring his drumsticks to class and tap on his desk. He was tardy to class, failed to do his homework assignments and participated very little in class. On March 8, 1993, Antwan and other students were throwing books at each other in Ms. Schrager's classroom during class. Ms. Schrager referred the incident to Mr. Strachan, who talked with Antwan. Antwan told Mr. Strachan that a student had hit him so he threw several books in retaliation. Other students were also written up for this incident by Ms. Schrager. Antwan received a five- day outdoor suspension for this episode. On March 23, 1993, Ms. Kramer, Antwan's language arts teacher, referred him to Mr. Strachan for disciplinary action for the following behavior: walking around the classroom, talking to other students, refusing to take his seat when asked to do so by his teacher, telling his teacher he didn't have to do what she was telling him to do, and rolling his eyes while continuing to move around. He received a detention. On April 21, 1993, Ms. Schrager observed Antwan showing his friend an object which resembled the outline of a gun. She asked Antwan to come talk to her. He began to walk toward her and then walked to the other side of the room. She called a security guard to come into the classroom but they were unable to find the object. Antwan was given a ten-day outdoor suspension which was reduced to a six-day suspension after school administrators talked with Antwan's parents. On May 7, 1993, Antwan was in the hallway and was fifteen minutes late for class. Mr. Strachan saw him and told Antwan to come to him. Antwan ran away from Mr. Strachan. When Mr. Strachan caught up with him, Antwan wanted to know what he had done wrong. Antwan received two detentions for the incident. On May 13, 1993, Antwan chased a female student into Ms. Arlene Shapiro's classroom. He grabbed the front of the girl's blouse trying to get a beeper which she had underneath her blouse. The girl called for help. Antwan was not Ms. Shapiro's student and was not supposed to be in her classroom. Ms. Shapiro told Antwan to let the girl go and he replied, "No. Make me." She put her hand on his back to guide him out of the classroom, and he told her not to touch him or he would hit her. She took her hand away. He punched her on her arm and then ran down the hall. Ms. Shapiro referred the matter to Assistant Principal DeLucas. Mr. DeLucas questioned Antwan about the incident and Antwan admitted hitting the teacher. Antwan received a ten-day outdoor suspension. Antwan was not doing well academically at Carol City Middle School. His report card for the school year ending June, 1993, showed final grades of four "F's" and three "D's." While at Carol City Middle School, Antwan received numerous group and individual counseling sessions with guidance counselors. Additionally, Ms. Henry, the principal, took Antwan "under her wing" and tried to counsel him. School administrators met with Antwan and his parents to discuss the problems that Antwan was having at school. However, these efforts to correct Antwan's disruptive behavior were unsuccessful. Additionally, as Antwan's disruptive behavior continued to escalate, resulting in more frequent conferences with his parents, Mr. and Mrs. Clark's attitude seemed to change from conciliatory to hostile and defensive. Antwan was reassigned to Jan Mann Opportunity School during the summer of 1993. The classes are smaller than the traditional school class. There are counselors and a full-time psychologist on staff. The focus at Jan Mann is to try build self-esteem, teach conflict resolution, develop social skills, and correct past behavior problems.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered affirming the assignment of Antwan J. Clark to the Jan Mann Opportunity School. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of March, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of March, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-5483 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraph 1: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 2: Rejected as unnecessary and subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 3: The first two sentences are accepted in substance. The first part of the third sentence stating that Mr. Strachan personally removed Antwan from the classroom from five to ten times is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. The remainder of the sentence is accepted in substance. Paragraph 4: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 5: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 6: The first three sentences and the first half of the fourth sentence are rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. The second half of the fourth sentence and the last two sentences are accepted in substance. Paragraph 7: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 8: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 9: The first sentence is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Ms. Schrager saw an object which resembled a cap gun. The second sentence is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. The first part of the third sentence is accepted in substance. The second part of the third sentence is rejected as constituting argument. The last sentence is accepted. Paragraph 10: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 11: Rejected as unnecessary and subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 12: The first sentence is rejected as constituting argument. The remainder of the paragraph is accepted in substance. Paragraph 13: The first sentence is rejected as constituting argument except the fact that Antwan threw rocks at Ms. Henry is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is accepted in substance. Paragraphs 14-15: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 16: The first three sentences are accepted in substance. The last sentence is rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 17-19: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 18: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 20: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 21: The two sentences are accepted in substance. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as constituting argument. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1-3: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 4: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 5: Accepted in substance except to the extent that gambling occurred on only one occasion. Paragraph 6: The first two sentences are accepted in substance. The last sentence is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 7: The first two sentences are accepted in substance. The second sentence is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. The last sentence is accepted in substance. Paragraph 8: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 9: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Respondent's Exhibit 1 shows numerous counseling sessions between Antwan and his counselor and at least one conference between Antwan's parents and a counselor. Paragraph 10: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 11: Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Paragraphs 12-14: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 15: The first sentence is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. The second and third sentences are accepted in substance. The last sentence is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. I find that the parents' testimony is not credible. Paragraph 16: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 17-19: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 20: Rejected as irrelevant to this proceeding. Paragraph 21: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 22: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 23: The first sentence is accepted in substance as it relates to early conferences with the parents and school officials. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as constituting argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Anne G. Telasco, Esquire First Nationwide Building 633 NE 167th Street, Suite 304 North Miami Beach, Florida 33162 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Jaime C. Bovell, Esquire 3211 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Suite 210 Miami, Florida 33134 Mr. Octavio J. Visiedo 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, #403 Miami, Florida 33312-1308 Douglas L. "Tim" Jamerson Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether the Superintendent of Hamilton County Schools recommended that the Respondent enter into a professional services contract with the Petitioner, Gene Starr?
Findings Of Fact Gene A. Starr has been continuously employed by the School Board of Hamilton County as an agriculture teacher since the 1985-1986 school year. On March 18, 1988, the principal of Hamilton County High School recommended to the Superintendent of the Respondent that the Respondent enter into a professional service contract with Mr. Starr. At a meeting of the Respondent held on April 12, 1988, the Superintendent made recommendations to the Respondent concerning reappointment of a number of employees. The Superintendent specifically recommended that Mr. Starr receive a professional service contract. A motion was made and seconded by members of the Respondent to accept the recommendations of the Superintendent. The following events took place, as reported in the minutes of the Respondent's April 12, 1988, meeting: At the Board's request, Mr. Lauer [the Superintendent] appeared to discuss the recommendation of Gene Starr. The consensus of the Board was that the agriculture program has not progressed as per expectations, and that Mr. Starr's coaching duties conflict with his duties as an agriculture teacher. It was the opinion of some members that there should be more emphasis on crop production and harvesting and on supervision of home projects. Following the discussion of the Superintendent's recommendation concerning Mr. Starr, the Superintendent "asked for and was granted permission to withdraw his recommendation on & Mr. Starr and to resubmit another recommendation on him at a subsequent meeting." The Superintendent then "amended his recommendation to omit Mr. Starr" and the motion to accept the Superintendent's recommendations was amended to reflect this change. The Respondent then approved the Superintendent's recommendations, as amended. The Respondent did not consider whether there was "good cause" to reject the Superintendent's recommendation concerning Mr. Starr. At a May 10, 1988, meeting of the Respondent the Superintendent recommended that Mr. Starr be reappointed to an instructional position for the 1988-1989 school year and that Mr. Starr serve in the instructional position for a fourth year on annual contract instead of being granted a professional services contract. The recommendation was withdrawn on advice of counsel for the Respondent. At a May 23, 1988, meeting of the Respondent Mr. Starr and the Respondent agreed that Mr. Starr would agree to a fourth year on annual contract, "subject to and without prejudice to a formal hearing on his right to a professional services contract." Mr. Starr was informed of this action in a letter dated May 31, 1988. Mr. Starr filed a Petition for a Formal Hearing challenging the Respondent's action with regard to the Superintendent's recommendation to the Respondent that Mr. Starr receive a professional services contract. In the Petition, Mr. Starr specifically requested the following relief: That the matter be assigned to the State of Florida Division of Administrative hearings [sic] for the assignment of a hearing officer. That a formal hearing be held on this particular petition pursuant to Sec. 120.57(1), Fla. Stat. as to Petitioner's entitlement to employment under a professional services contract.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the recommendation of the Superintendent of Hamilton County Schools be accepted by the School Board of Hamilton County unless the School Board of Hamilton County concludes that there is good cause for rejecting the recommendation. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of April, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-4116 The Petitioner has submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 3-9. 3 10. 4-8 Statement of events which occurred at the formal hearing and some of the arguments advanced by the parties at the formal hearing. COPIES FURNISHED: Edwin B. Browning, Jr., Esquire Post Office Drawer 652 Madison, Florida 32340 Donald K. Rudser, Esquire Post Office Drawer 151 Jasper, Florida 32052 Owen Hinton, Superintendent Hamilton County School Board Post Office Box 1059 Jasper, Florida 32052 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondents demoted the Petitioner from the position of school principal to that of assistant principal in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes, by reason of his race.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was the principal at Rosenwald at times pertinent hereto. He had been the principal of that school since July 1, 1980. The Petitioner had had generally satisfactory performance evaluations for the school years up to and including 1987-1988. In November 1988, Respondent, Jack Simonson, was elected superintendent of the Bay County school system. Mr. Simonson, had run on a platform which included a position that he would insure that school administrators and employees at all levels were rigorously and objectively evaluated as to their performance. It is undisputed that the Petitioner was employed on an annual contract which had to be renewed each year upon renomination by the superintendent. Upon until the first year of Mr. Simonson's tenure as superintendent, the Petitioner had received overall evaluations of achievement "at the level of expectation", which are generally satisfactory evaluations overall. In those evaluations, however, the Petitioner's evaluator did find that the Petitioner needed to communicate on a more ready, relaxed or less formal basis with his personnel and needed to create an atmosphere in which others working with him would feel freer to express themselves in a constructive and orderly manner. In the 1985-86 evaluation, it was found that the Petitioner needed to improve in areas of proper care and maintenance of the school plants, as to plant materials and equipment, and to improve in the area of employee discipline. Although these evaluations were overall at a satisfactory level of performance, these problems or areas of improvement correspond to deficiencies later determined under evaluations under Mr. Simonson's administration. In the first year of Mr. Simonson's administration, which was the 1988- 89 school year, assistant superintendent, Curtis Jackson, was assigned to evaluate the Petitioner. He was unable to complete that evaluation, and Mr. Simonson ultimately declared the evaluation incomplete and unofficial on June 28, 1989. The Petitioner, however, has admitted that this inability to complete the evaluation is not evidence of racial discrimination. The Petitioner had been having problems with a particular student and felt it necessary to request a meeting with Mr. Simonson to discuss those problems. Accordingly, a meeting was held on May 2, 1989 between the Petitioner and Mr. Simonson. The Petitioner's problems with the student in question were discussed, and Mr. Simonson also discussed several areas of dissatisfaction he felt with the Petitioner's performance as principal. The meeting concluded and thereafter on June 21, 1989, the Petitioner, by memorandum, advised Mr. Simonson that his evaluation for the 1988-89 school year had not yet been completed. After declaring the Petitioner's evaluation incomplete on June 28, 1989, on August 1, 1989, Mr. Simonson drafted a memorandum describing the matters discussed at the May 2, 1989 meeting and further addressing areas of the Petitioner's performance as principal, which he viewed as substandard. Mr. Simonson met with the Petitioner on August 24, 1989 to discuss the contents of that memorandum and to discuss the areas in which Mr. Simonson felt the Petitioner's performance to be inadequate. A copy of that memorandum was placed in the Petitioner's personnel file on August 24, 1989. The Petitioner then prepared a statement of his contentions of what had occurred or been discussed at the May 2, 1989 meeting. That statement or memorandum does not appear to have been placed in his personnel file apparently because the Petitioner did not request that it be so placed. In both the August 1, 1989 memorandum and the meeting of August 24, 1989, Mr. Simonson expressed dissatisfaction with a number of performance areas concerning the Petitioner's performance as principal at Rosenwald. He perceived an apparent lack of direction and supervision of staff and students; was concerned about alleged incidents involving sexual acts and acts of violence among students which resulted in the transfer of several students away from Rosenwald. He felt this indicated student unrest and lack of maintenance of disciplinary standards and which ultimately required the placement of a deputy sheriff at the school. He was concerned about complaints he had received concerning a "black heritage program". He admonished the Petitioner that no sort of racism, black or white, would be tolerated in the school system and that racist comments or inappropriate programs should not occur at the school site. Mr. Simonson apparently felt that the Petitioner had made an inappropriate response to the May 2, 1989 meeting consisting of criticizing other school personnel rather than focusing on constructive improvement ideas for the areas Mr. Simonson felt needed improvement in the Petitioner's performance. Mr. Simonson also expressed concern with the Petitioner's handling of school personnel matters and employee evaluations and his skill in staff selection. Mr. Simonson was also concerned with a perceived lack of support for school and district personnel, possible insubordination on the part of the Petitioner and his poor communication skills or efforts with staff and students. Mr. Simonson then advised the Petitioner, by memorandum, that the following areas needed improvement: (1) student discipline, (2) recording keeping on discipline referrals of students, (3) administration of teacher evaluations in terms of the evaluations needing to be more rigorous and thorough, (4) school assembly programs should emphasize Americanism and not embarrass any child because of his or her race, (5) statements made to members of the public should be factually accurate, (6) Petitioner's acceptance of responsibility, (7) support for assistant principals, (8) need for improvement in cleanliness and appearance of the school, and (9) use of school facilities to conduct personal business. Mr. Simonson then advised the Petitioner that the means or methods to correct these perceived deficiencies should be in place by the end of the first semester of the 1989-90 school year, at which time another conference would be scheduled to review the areas of concern. This memorandum was designed to give further notice to the Petitioner that Mr. Simonson perceived there were problems in his performance at Rosenwald and that the Petitioner was expected to make improvement in the areas of perceived poor performance. The memorandum was not and was not represented to be an annual evaluation for the year 1988-89 and states that the Petitioner did not receive an evaluation for that year. The Petitioner, in turn, prepared a memorandum in response to that August 1, 1989 memorandum and had that memorandum placed in his personnel file. The school district administration, including Mr. Simonson, received complaints from various sources in the 1988-89 and 1989-90 school years concerning disciplinary problems, safety problems, and problems involving poor academic progress of students at Rosenwald. Incidents occurred and others were alleged from reports of parents, students, or school employees concerning student violence and possible sexual assaults at Rosenwald. The concern over student safety ultimately culminated in the necessity of placement of a deputy sheriff as a school resource officer at the school. Through repetitive complaints of parents and others having contact with the school and its operations, Rosenwald had acquired a poor reputation for its academic quality and the safety of its students in terms of disciplinary problems and resulting dangers to student safety. Aside from the Petitioner's denial that Rosenwald had such a reputation, the evidence concerning it was unrebutted. The evidence establishes that there were a number of areas where the Petitioner's performance was unsatisfactory. In such areas as mentioned above concerning discipline and student safety, as well as the scope of their duties, the Petitioner had communication and personal relationship problems with both his assistant principals in the 1988-89 school year. Those assistant principals had been assigned to Rosenwald with the Petitioner for several years. Until the 1988-89 school year, they had had a cordial working relationship, as well as a friendly, warm social relationship even to the extent of socializing with the Petitioner away from the school environment. They became disappointed with the Petitioner's performance as their leader and principal during the 1988-89 school year in such areas as his handling of student discipline, particularly his alteration of their disciplinary measures, as well as disagreements with the Petitioner concerning the scope of their duties, in terms of additional duties he delegated them. These problems culminated in these assistant principals being reassigned by Mr. Simonson so that the Petitioner had a new set of assistant principals for the 1989-90 school year, Ms. Love and Ms. Stryker. However, the problems of poor communication and poor interpersonal relationships, particularly with Ms. Love, continued in that second school year. There was also poor communication and interaction between the Petitioner and other district and school personnel. The Petitioner on a number of occasions did not appropriately handle severe disciplinary problems. He allowed the parents of a student, who had committed a severe disciplinary violation, to berate the assistant principal who had sought to impose discipline on the student. He should not have allowed a confrontation between the assistant principal and the student's parents to occur. There was a severe disciplinary incident where a number of male students had stripped the clothes from a female student in the gymnasium while several teachers stood by and allowed the incident to happen. Even though the incident happened rather quickly, the teachers did not act quickly and decisively enough to prevent the incident from happening or happening in the severe manner in which it did. Mr. Simonson learned of the incident and wrote a letter to the Petitioner indicating his assumption that the Petitioner would certainly reprimand the teachers. After a substantial number of days elapsed and no reprimands were issued to the teachers, Mr. Simonson, in effect, ordered that they be reprimanded. He felt that the Petitioner displayed indecisive and weak leadership in handling this disciplinary situation, as well as others set forth in the evidence of record. On another occasion, a teacher brought several male students to the Petitioner's class for discipline because of disruptive, disrespectful conduct, including their reference to the Petitioner as "Uncle Eli" in the vein that he was thusly related to one of the miscreant students. It was their belief that "Uncle Eli" was their ally. The Petitioner heard the teacher's explanation of the problem and seemed to handle it in a lighthearted or casual fashion and dismissed the teacher from the presence of himself and the students and had an undisclosed discussion with the students out of the teacher's hearing. The result was that very little was done to discipline the students and the problem continued. The student related to the Petitioner continued to refer to him as "Uncle Eli" and appeared to rely on his relationship with the Petitioner to fail to follow proper rules of deportment. The Petitioner displayed poor leadership abilities. He has typically blamed his disciplinary problems and other problems, such as poor communication skills at Rosenwald, on other teachers or non-instructional personnel and even blamed the disciplinary problems on the high number of minority students and students of a low socioeconomic class, which he characterized as the minority or black students. This was a pattern observed by Mr. Simonson and the assistant principals assigned in both years to the Petitioner, by which the Petitioner, instead of attempting to resolve the problem in a decisive way himself, would shift the blame for problems which were his responsibility to others. He was repeatedly unable or unwilling to accept responsibility for his own mistakes or for decisions that he was required, in his position as principal, to make without delegating them to others. He had a habit of delegating duties or responsibilities of his office to others without following up to see that the delegated duties were carried out. Then when the desired results were not achieved by the person to whom they were delegated, he would fail to accept responsibility for the failed task and instead would blame the failure on the person to whom the task had been delegated without accepting any responsibility himself. He displayed a substantial degree of disorganization in his administrative duties and responsibilities. He did the required teacher evaluations belatedly and hurriedly so that they were fraught with numerous mistakes. In the course of attempting to do the teacher evaluations, he asked his assistant principals to make negative comments about certain teachers which made them uncomfortable because this was not appropriately their duty. Rather, the evaluations of the teachers was the sole responsibility of the principal. The Petitioner asked a parent to sign an affidavit in his support which was later listed as a potential exhibit in this proceeding during a meeting with the parent where the parent's stepchild's discipline was discussed and on that occasion, reduced. In the instance where the female student's clothes were torn off by a group of boys in the gymnasium, the Petitioner was slow to investigate and to make a decision concerning whether or not the teachers involved were negligent and whether or not they should be reprimanded. This necessitated Mr. Simonson's intervention in the question of discipline of the teachers who allowed the situation to occur. The condition of the school plant and grounds was another matter of concern of the county administration and Mr. Simonson. The plant condition had been allowed to deteriorate over time during the Petitioner's tenure as principal. His attention was called to it by Mr. Simonson and the county administration, and his reaction was that he had sent in work orders and the maintenance department had repeatedly refused to act upon them in a timely way. He also maintained that Rosenwald was getting reduced funds with which to make capital improvements or repairs, compared to other middle schools which he seemed to allude was for racially discriminatory reasons. In fact, it was established that the maintenance personnel of the county system had not delayed or refused to act upon maintenance request orders submitted by Rosenwald or the Petitioner, and it was established that Rosenwald had suffered no deficit in terms of capital outlay funds as compared to other schools. In fact, it had received more than some schools. When funds were not forthcoming for the projects which the Petitioner wanted accomplished, it was because of the great expense of constructing a new school and because of the preexisting maintenance, repair and capital outlay schedule arrived at and imposed by the prior superintendent's administration. Mr. Simonson was not able to alter this in a short period of time. Funds were scarce and had to be parceled out and scheduled for each school, taking into account that scarcity. The evidence shows in an unrefuted way, however, that Rosenwald received as much as any other school for the same items of maintenance or capital outlay and, in fact, received more than some schools. The Petitioner's testimony was impeached in these particulars. In short, it was demonstrated that the Petitioner exhibited poor leadership skills and abilities in a substantial number of the areas that, indeed, Mr. Simonson had complained to him about, verbally and in the above- mentioned memoranda. In these memoranda, and particularly the August 1, 1989 memorandum, Mr. Simonson gave specific directions to the Petitioner regarding improvement of his performance and regarding the expectations the superintendent had regarding the Petitioner's administration of the Rosenwald school for the upcoming 1989-90 school year. Thus, the Petitioner was clearly on notice that he was expected to improve his performance with regard to the areas Mr. Simonson had discussed and forewarned him about as early as the spring of 1989, if he wished to remain as principal of Rosenwald. There is no question that Mr. Simonson attributed the various discipline, leadership, organizational and management problems existing at Rosenwald to the Petitioner's poor performance as a principal. Although some improvement was noted by assistant superintendent Hamby when she evaluated the Petitioner during the 1989-90 school year, in large part, the Petitioner, instead of conscientiously seeking to effect improvements in his administration, embarked on an effort to challenge Mr. Simonson, in the electronic media and otherwise, regarding his views about the Petitioner's performance, even to the extent of publicly challenging various steps Mr. Simonson took to improve the situation at Rosenwald including his appointment of Ms. Love as assistant principal. He otherwise sought to transfer blame for shortcomings existing in the administration and management of Rosenwald to others, and to make excuses, including the attempt to publicly allege that his problems were the result of racial animus. He rallied the assistance of some of the faculty and black community to assist him in his effort to challenge Mr. Simonson. One of Mr. Simonson's major campaign positions in seeking election as superintendent was to more rigorously evaluate school personnel. He carried this intent out after his election by regularly reminding administrators of his desire that they conduct accurate evaluations of the employees they supervised. During his term as superintendent, he strictly pursued the evaluation of district administrators. This policy resulted in the non-renewal of the contracts of four administrators, who were white. They were either returned to the classroom or left the school system. During his term, he reduced one black administrator from principal to assistant principal, the Petitioner. No black administrators were either returned to the classroom or terminated. Mr. Simonson repeatedly reminded the assistant superintendents and other administrators under him, responsible for evaluating the employees they supervised with the necessity for accurate, objective, and fair evaluations. Accordingly, with a view toward evaluating the Petitioner for the 1989-90 school year, Mr. Simonson sought an evaluator who could objectively, fairly and accurately evaluate the Petitioner. Assistant superintendent, Glenda Hamby, had been hired as an assistant superintendent in June of 1989. She had not been in the Bay County school district administration or employ during the previous 1988-89 school year, having been a school superintendent herself in another county at that time. Mr. Simonson believed, because she had not been a part of the school system or administration, that she could have an objective, fresh approach in the evaluation process for the Petitioner with no preconceived notions concerning his capabilities or past or current performance. Therefore, Ms. Hamby commenced the evaluation process for the Petitioner for the 1989-90 school year. She evaluated him in accordance with appropriate, applicable procedures, and he was evaluated in the same manner as were all other principals. In accordance with Mr. Simonson's instructions to her, she actively lent assistance to the Petitioner to aid him in improving his performance in certain areas, such as pupil discipline. Ms. Hamby visited Rosenwald and the Petitioner numerous times during the 1989-90 school year. She observed him at monthly principal meetings, middle school curriculum meetings, and sometimes at special curriculum meetings. She tried to help him by suggesting that he be more visible on campus, visit classrooms more frequently, in order to project the image that learning is important, as well as to help him in making teacher evaluations. She, at all times, "bent over backwards...to be very fair". Ms. Hamby found that the Petitioner needed to make improvements in the area of leadership skills through better communication with students, faculty and other staff members, as well as administrators. She explained that an effective leader communicates well with students, parents, and staff. She rated the Petitioner "below expectation" in communicating skills because of a need to improve on internal communications with his staff, the need to give clear directions, make sure that his expectations were clearly understood, and the need to give clear, concise and properly-structured written communications. Ms. Hamby gave the Petitioner an overall evaluation of "below expectation" for the 1989-90 school year. He was given "below expectation" ratings in the areas of leadership, decisiveness, managing interaction, and communication skills. In the area of "persuasiveness", he was rated between "at expectation" and "below expectation". She tried to give him the benefit of the doubt in this area and used her discretion to not rate him at "below expectation", even though that was the category next lower than "at expectation", because she was trying to assist the Petitioner and be fair to him. Some specific examples of the communication problems exhibited by the Petitioner in his performance as principal included miscommunication concerning the location and number of students to be in attendance at the "Freedom Shrine" dedication ceremony, a faculty meeting misunderstanding between the Petitioner and assistant principal, Ms. Love, exhibited in front of the other staff members, and a misunderstanding concerning funding for an ESOL program which resulted in the Petitioner erroneously firing an aide at Rosenwald because of his belief that funds for the program were exhausted. His misunderstanding concerning the aide's salary, funding situation, and his failure to accurately investigate the situation before acting is a clear example of poor communication skills, efforts and leadership. Poor communication skills by the Petitioner are also evidenced by a summary he prepared of the May 2, 1989 meeting with Mr. Simonson. This summary, which was attached to Petitioner's FCHR complaint, contained numerous grammatical errors. The Petitioner acknowledged that the summary contained grammatical errors and admitted that improper grammar in a written communication diminishes the effectiveness of that communication. Additionally, while he attempted to blame the numerous errors in Respondent's exhibit 1 on "typos" (although it was attached to his FCHR complaint) a handwritten memorandum from the Petitioner also contains fundamental grammatical errors. See Petitioner's exhibit 68D in evidence. Ms. Hamby rated the Petitioner "below expectation" in the area of decisiveness, because she had observed the Petitioner "a number of times" not being as decisive as he should have been. She particularly noted that he had the habit of delegating tasks to other staff members without accepting any further responsibility for those tasks. He would typically not follow up on a task he delegated, but later, if he disagreed with the way the task was handled, he would disclaim responsibility on the basis of the delegation and blame mistakes on the staff person carrying out the delegated task involved, even though his was the ultimate responsibility as principal to see that the task was accurately carried out. In regard to the Petitioner's "below expectation" rating in managing interaction, Ms. Hamby recommended that he participate in a review seminar or in-service program on problem-solving techniques. Some of the reasons for the "below expectation" rating in managing interaction were the considerable difficulties he had in his relationships with two different sets of assistant principals and complaints from parents concerning discipline problems or miscommunications. Although Ms. Hamby explained her rating as to persuasiveness "at expectation" but above the "below expectation" rating as an attempt to be fair, she stated that she did see some improvement in this area in terms of persuasion and motivation of staff and students and focusing on learning, although not sufficient improvement. Her rating of the Petitioner at "below expectation" in the area of organizational ability and delegation of authority was also based upon poor communication with his staff and failure to follow up and accept responsibility for delegated tasks. Ms. Hamby explained her overall evaluation of "below expectation" in terms of the Petitioner being an administrator of substantial years of experience but who was still demonstrating many of the behaviors seen most frequently in a first-year administrator which should be corrected after the first year. In a veteran administrator, Ms. Hamby felt one should not observe those same inadequate performances. Therefore, she ranked him at "below expectation". When Ms. Hamby finished this evaluation, she wrote a memorandum to Mr. Simonson recommending that the Petitioner be re-assigned because she felt that he was simply not competent to be a principal at Rosenwald, especially given the fact that he had been a principal for a number of years and had not improved to an adequate degree. Thus, based upon her observations and consideration over the course of a substantial part of the school year, she made this recommendation to Mr. Simonson, and he approved it. In many or most of the areas concerning the Petitioner's performance, the testimony of Ms. Hamby and Mr. Simonson is in direct opposition to that of the Petitioner. In this regard, it is determined that the Petitioner was the least credible witness of the three. He was impeached a number of times upon cross-examination. He testified, for instance, in a deposition, that three maintenance directors under three different superintendents' administrations had refused to timely perform work orders requested of them for work to be done at Rosenwald. At hearing, however, the Petitioner testified that, instead, he did not feel this was the case. He answered evasively concerning whether he had really meant capital improvement projects, instead of mere maintenance work orders (capital improvement projects are not necessarily the sole decision- making responsibility of maintenance directors), and testified, in effect, that he did not feel that that was the case until he was confronted by his earlier testimony, which he attempted to rationalize. Additionally, he testified at hearing that he had never attributed disciplinary problems at Rosenwald to the large number of blacks at the school, while in his written summary of the May 2, 1989 meeting with Mr. Simonson, he repeatedly does so and blames the disciplinary problems at Rosenwald on the large number of blacks with their attendant socioeconomic disadvantages and cultural differences. In this document and in his testimony at hearing, he affirmatively expressed the desire that the proportion of blacks in the "mix" of the student population at Rosenwald be reduced in order to improve the disciplinary problems. Another instance of the Petitioner's testimony being impeached occurred when, in the course of his testimony, the Petitioner disputed the testimony of David Ruttenberg. The Petitioner emphatically testified that Mr. Ruttenberg had signed a letter of reprimand issued to him by the Petitioner. The letter was then produced and introduced into evidence and clearly was unsigned by Mr. Ruttenberg. Further, in carefully considering the testimony of Mr. Simonson, Ms. Hamby, and the Petitioner, and in observing their various personal demeanors on the witness stand, it is obvious to the Hearing Officer that the Petitioner in delivering his testimony was repetitively evasive and argumentative. He repeatedly sought to avoid directly answering questions, particularly those posed upon cross-examination. His evasiveness and argumentativeness effectively rendered his testimony pervasively self-serving. Contrastingly, the testimony of Mr. Simonson and Ms. Hamby was not effectively impeached. Their testimony regarding the deficiencies in the Petitioner's performance, when considered with that of the Petitioner, is more credible and worthy of belief. The Petitioner claimed repeatedly, but never established, that Mr. Simonson and Ms. Hamby, the various assistant principals and other administrators who had served under the Petitioner and Mr. Simonson were part of an illegal conspiracy to demote the Petitioner on account of his race. He never established that those persons had any communication between themselves concerning a scheme or concerted plan of action to get rid of the Petitioner for any reason, much less that of his race. Mr. Simonson may have expressed the intention to the Petitioner that he intended to remove him from his position if improvements were not made in the following school year, but there is no evidence whatever that Mr. Simonson and the other persons whom the Petitioner accuses of engaging in an illegal conspiracy ever communicated any illicit desire to demote or "get rid of" the Petitioner among themselves. In summary, the evidence establishes that the Petitioner did not possess the qualities of leadership, communication skills, and disciplinary effectiveness, and other skills to a sufficient degree in order to be an effective principal at a middle school such as Rosenwald. The evidence establishes that he was unable to adequately perform those duties and functions as principal. It is important to note, and it is found, that although the evidence establishes that the Petitioner did not possess these skills to a sufficient degree to justify his retention as principal at Rosenwald, it is also established that Mr. Simonson had a good faith belief that the Petitioner's performance as principal in these particulars was so deficient and acted on that belief, rather than for reasons of discrimination against the Petitioner because of his race. Upon receipt of Ms. Hamby's evaluation of the Petitioner, with the accompanying memorandum, Mr. Simonson recommended to the Respondent, Bay County School Board (Board), that the Petitioner be removed from the position of principal of Rosenwald. He did not, however, recommend his termination but rather that he be reassigned to another position. In due course, the Board voted 4 to 1 to adopt Mr. Simonson's recommendation that the Petitioner's principal contract not be renewed. Before taking the vote, the Board was advised that they could reject Mr. Simonson's recommendation that the Petitioner not be renominated should they believe it to be for discriminatory reasons and in violation of relevant federal law. The Board voted 4 to 1 to adopt Mr. Simonson's recommendation. In discussing this course of action and recommendation with the Petitioner, Mr. Simonson told the Petitioner that there was a need for and that he had a desire to create a position in the county administrative office for which he felt the Petitioner would be well-suited, which was a position that would promote the recruitment of minority teachers. It would involve a lateral transfer at the same salary level. The Petitioner said that the offer "sounded good" and that he would like to discuss it with his wife and advise Mr. Simonson at a later time whether he wished to accept the position. Mr. Simonson agreed, but the Petitioner later advised Mr. Simonson that he did not want to accept that position and thereafter, the Petitioner embarked on the campaign culminating in the filing of the petition with the Human Relations Commission accusing Mr. Simonson and the Board of racial discrimination. Thus, the evidence reveals that, initially, Mr. Simonson did not intend to demote the Petitioner, but rather, sought to reassign him to a different position in the county administration at the same salary level. Ultimately, thereafter, the Petitioner was assigned to an available position as assistant principal at MowatMiddle School. The assistant principal's position in the school district's pay scale of necessity carried a lower salary level associated with it so that the Petitioner's salary was, therefore, reduced by his assignment to that position instead of the one offered by Mr. Simonson. Mr. Simonson stated, when asked his reasons "in a nutshell" for reassigning the Petitioner, were that he had not seen the degree of improvement in the situation at Rosenwald that he would have liked to have seen exhibited during the past school year. Mr. Simonson testified that he felt Rosenwald needed a "change in direction" and it is obvious that Mr. Simonson meant that he was dissatisfied with the performance of the Petitioner as principal of Rosenwald and that, as described in his testimony, the degree of improvement he had indicated to the Petitioner was required before the 1989-90 school year commenced had not been realized at the end of that school year and the Petitioner was re-assigned. It is obvious that Mr. Simonson believed and testified, in effect, that a change in principals could bring a change in direction toward improvement of the conditions at Rosenwald, which he described in his testimony needed improvement, and which he had described as needing improvement to the Petitioner. Mr. Simonson was the decision-maker who recommended to the Board that the Petitioner be removed as principal for reasons of inadequate performance and the Board adopted that recommendation and reasons by its 4 to 1 majority vote. The evidence in the record clearly demonstrates in the form of Mr. Simonson's direct testimony that the above-mentioned reason articulated for the removal of the Petitioner as principal and his reassignment was for reasons of inadequate performance, in the context of the reasons clearly articulated in Mr. Simonson's direct testimony as the decision-maker who made the decision and recommended it to the Board. Mr. Simonson has clearly and adequately articulated nondiscriminatory reasons for the action he took and recommended to the Board and which the Board adopted. During Mr. Simonson's four years as superintendent of Bay County schools, no other black employees instituted charges against him involving racial discrimination. During his tenure as superintendent, which was only one term, Mr. Simonson hired six black administrators. This was three times more black administrators hired than had been the case with the previous administration. When the Petitioner was removed as principal, Mr. Simonson recommended, and the Board approved, the non-renewal of the contracts of four other administrators, all of whom were white. Two of those white administrators were reassigned as classroom teachers, rather than being afforded the opportunity afforded the Petitioner to remain in an administrative capacity, albeit at reduced salary. At least one of those four white administrators who were demoted left the school district either by discharge or voluntarily in order to avoid the effect of demotion. Upon the Petitioner's removal as principal, Mr. Simonson recommended, and the Board approved, his assignment of Ms. Carol Love, an assistant principal at Rosenwald, to be principal. Ms. Love is a white female. The evidence establishes that Ms. Love did provide a change in direction toward improvement of the conditions perceived as problems by the Petitioner. Students' test scores improved, discipline improved, and communication with the district personnel and amongst the school staff improved. Progress was made in terms of awards earned by the school and its students, as for instance in the local science fair competition. Under Ms. Love's administration at the school, parental and community involvement improved; and improvement was shown in instructional operations. Planning and involvement of the staff in planning and carrying out plans were shown to be improved, as were staff evaluations. Gradually, as a result of these measures, the community image of Rosenwald as an effective school improved. More efforts were made to seek new and different learning opportunities for students and educational enhancements for the school. The evidence clearly establishes that Mr. Simonson and the Board's intent and reasons for re-assigning the Petitioner was not to discriminate against him because of his race or for any other discriminatory reason, but rather to seek improvements in the educational and disciplinary environment at Rosenwald. The remarks made by Mr. Simonson during a Lions Club meeting speech concerning which there was testimony and argument in this proceeding or those made regarding the celebration of "black history month" at Rosenwald did not establish that his reasons for demoting the Petitioner were pretextual. The remarks did not express any contempt, hostility, or a discriminatory animus toward blacks as a race or toward any blacks, including the Petitioner, in particular. In fact, Mr. Simonson expressly stated that he cared for his students, both black and white, and that he desired that the Bay County school system would begin to observe Martin Luther King Day as an official holiday. He stated that while he did not have any particular strong feeling about Dr. Martin Luther King and stated, in effect, that his attitude was essentially neutral concerning the subject of Dr. King and the holiday (much like he felt about Columbus Day) that he understood that it meant a great deal to black people and black students, or words to that effect. He also stated that he would not tolerate racism of any kind in his administration and the school system, or words to that effect. These statements, and the statements he was reputed by the Petitioner to have made, concerning the manner in which the "black history month assembly" was conducted and concerning the purported singing of the song "we shall overcome" at that assembly also did not exhibit any racial animus toward the Petitioner or any other black person, individually, or as a race. The gravamen and tenor of the remarks made by Mr. Simonson were clearly to the effect that he would not tolerate racism of any kind perpetrated by any person and expressed a particular concern that no student should be made to feel embarrassed on account of his race. Such remarks and statements do not show that the employment action taken, and the reason given, was a pretext for discrimination nor do they constitute direct evidence of racial discrimination because of the substance of the statements themselves, and the context in which they were made clearly shows that Mr. Simonson did not intend to express nor to mean by the statements any verbal act of hostility or discriminatory attitude, motive, or animus directed toward any individual because of his or her race, or to any group, because of the racial makeup of that group. There was no evidence establishing an immediate past history of discrimination in the Bay County school system. Bay County had not just recently converted from a racially-dual system. The desegregation order in the Youngblood case was entered in 1970. The consent order concerning which testimony and argument has been elicited was entered in 1988. The consent order, however, cannot constitute evidence of an immediate past history of discrimination because there was no admission or proof, in the proceeding culminating in that consent order, that the Board and school district had engaged in racial discrimination. Rather, the consent order is merely a contract between the Board and school district and the potential litigants who entered into the agreement culminating in the consent order. That agreement was entered in hopes of avoiding litigation and in order to satisfy the concerns of one segment of the community concerning the issue of closing of some "sixth grade centers". The Board did not admit in the discussions culminating in the consent order, nor in the consent order, that any discrimination had or was taking place. Consequently, there has been no evidence in this case which can show an immediate past history of discrimination with regard to the Bay County school district. Neither has there been any evidence which establishes that Rosenwald had been discriminated against in terms of capital outlay funding or in the completion of work orders for maintenance or other work. Concerning capital outlay, more money per student was spent at Rosenwald than at the other three middle schools. Additionally, nine out of every ten work orders submitted by Rosenwald were performed by the district. Mr. John Bruce, chairperson of the executive council of Acure (Advisory Committee for Urban Revitalization Equity), a plaintiff in the Youngblood case and a community supporter of the Petitioner during his tenure as principal at Rosenwald and during his efforts to regain that position, admitted that he did not contend nor believe that the Respondents had not fulfilled their obligations to eliminate discrimination in the area of facilities for a period of three years or longer. In summary, the greater weight of the probative and relevant material testimony and evidence establishes that the Respondents, including Mr. Simonson, never took any discriminatory action against the Petitioner on account of his race. Mr. Simonson, as the decision-maker in the employment decision regarding the Petitioner, clearly articulated in his testimony a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the action taken in removing the Petitioner as principal of Rosenwald, offering him another position suited to his talents and of equal salary, and ultimately, because he refused that position, appointing him as an assistant principal at reduced salary. The evidence establishes that the Petitioner's performance as principal at Rosenwald during the two school years in question was deficient and inadequate in such a way as to render him not qualified to hold or retain that position. The Petitioner has simply failed to prove his case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order by entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations finding that the Respondents have not violated Section 760.10, Florida Statutes, with regard to the employment action taken against the Petitioner, Eli Campbell. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of August, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of August, 1993.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Stanley McIntyre, was employed by the Petitioner as a custodian at Apalachicola High School in July 1984. Mr. Philip Michael Fox was the principal at Apalachicola High School at that time. Petitioner is a governmental agency charged with providing public educational instruction to students in the school district of Franklin County, and enforcing State laws embodied in Chapters 230 and 231, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 6B-4, Florida Administrative Code, which pertain as pertinent hereto, to the hiring, termination or suspension of non-instructional employees such as Mr. McIntyre. Mr. McIntyre's duties as custodian included opening the front office of the school every morning, cleaning that front office daily, as well as cutting the grass on the school lawn. Mr. McIntyre was to work on a regular schedule for grass cutting such that the grass was supposed to be cut each Monday. On the morning of July 3, 1984, Mr. Fox approached Mr. McIntyre on his way into the school building in the morning and mentioned to him that the grass in front of the school needed to be cut. Mr. Fox stated that the grass was approaching knee length. Mr. McIntyre explained to him that he was letting the grass grow higher because of the summer heat and that it was harmful to the grass and its roots if the grass was cut too short during hot, dry weather. Mr. Fox indicated to Mr. McIntyre that he understood that reason, but still required the grass to be cut lower. In fact, the Superintendent and School Board members had complained to Mr. Fox about the unkempt appearance of the lawn. Shortly before July 3, 1984, an incident had occurred at the high school office involving the safe being left open and some money being stolen. The Respondent and two other custodians had evidently been questioned about the incident, taken to the local police station and finger printed. Mr. McIntyre was sensitive and upset about the incident, evidently believing that others working at the school believed him to be one of the culprits in the incident, especially the secretaries in the front office. Shortly before noon on July 3, 1984, Mr. Fox was departing the school to attend a Rotary Club meeting. The Respondent approached him to discuss this incident concerning which he believed he was under suspicion. Mr. McIntyre related to Mr. Fox that he was tired of being accused of things that went wrong in the front office and did not desire to work there any more. Mr. Fox assured Mr. McIntyre that he was not accused of any wrong-doing and that Mr. Fox had been assured by the school Superintendent that the matter had already been resolved. Mr. Fox assured Mr. McIntyre of this and told him that he was not accused of anything and not to worry about it, but that they would discuss it when he returned from lunch. After Mr. Fox returned to the school that day, Mrs. Martina, an employee in the office, informed him that Mr. McIntyre had put his keys on the front desk and informed her that he was leaving for the rest of the week. The keys Mr. McIntyre left with Mrs. Martina included those: to the front office door. In any event, Mr. McIntyre remained away from work for the remainder of that week, which included the fourth of July holiday. No arrangements had been made with Mr. Fox for Mr. McIntyre to be away from work and Franklin County School Board policies require that non-instructional employees have approval of their immediate supervisor before taking annual leave. There is no question that Mr. McIntyre had sufficient annual leave accrued so that he was not absent without leave for the remainder of that week. Although Mr. McIntyre obtained no approval from Mr. Fox, his immediate supervisor, he did inform Mrs. Martina that he would be on annual leave and such a practice had become customary at the school. In any event, the question of unauthorized absences is not properly at issue in this case since no such charge was made against the Respondent prior to hearing so that he could prepare to defend against it. On the Monday following the above incident, that is Monday, July 9, 1984, Mr. Fox instructed Mrs. Martina to inform McIntyre to come to his office to see him when he returned to work. Upon Mr. McIntyre's arrival, Mr. Fox questioned him concerning why he left his keys in the office the previous week. Mr. McIntyre again told Mr. Fox that he was tired of being accused of stealing from the front office and did not intend to work there any more. Mr. Fox informed him that it was not his proper place to tell the principal what he would and would not do, (meaning that he was subject to the principal's supervision and not independent of him), and reminded Mr. McIntyre that he had previously changed Mr. McIntyre's work schedule at his own request so that he would be able to work in the front office because of friction he was having with another custodial employee who had been associated with McIntyre because of their identical work schedules. After reminding Mr. McIntyre of this, Mr. Fox requested that he take back the keys to the front office and proceed to perform his job as previously instructed, including opening up the front office and cleaning it. Mr. McIntyre, however, stated several times that he was not going to work in the front office any more. Mr. Fox told him that he needed to simply do his job, whereupon Mr. McIntyre replied that Mr. Fox needed to make the secretaries do their jobs (in other words, to refrain from accusing McIntyre of any wrong-doing). Mr. Fox assured Mr. McIntyre that he would take care of any problem he was having with the secretaries and not to worry about it, but in the meantime to be sure to perform his own job properly. Fox told Mr. McIntyre more than once that his only concern should be proper performance of his own job. Mr. McIntyre responded that he was doing his job and so Mr. Fox responded that he needed to do it correctly because the grass in the front of the school needed to be cut. Mr. McIntyre, at this juncture, reiterated his reason for allowing the grass to grow long and Mr. Fox remonstrated that it was not short enough and he wanted it cut shorter. The grass was quite long, approaching knee length at that time. Mr. McIntyre then became excited and raised his voice at Mr. Fox, stating in effect that he was doing the best he could and that if Mr. Fox did not like the way he was doing his job, then Mr. Fox could fire him. Mr. Fox then asked him to simply go cut the grass and perform his other duties as instructed and that that was all he needed to worry about. Mr. Fox and Mr. McIntyre repeated themselves several times with Fox directing McIntyre to cut the grass and perform his job in the front office as instructed and McIntyre stating that he was doing his job and that if Fox did not like it he could fire him if he wished. Finally Mr. McIntyre stated his belief that Mr. Fox was "picking on him" because of an incident in which several black players boycotted the football team and intimating that Mr. Fox had blamed the Respondent for this dissension on the team. At this point Mr. Fox told Mr. McIntyre that the conversation was ended and that he should go to work. Mr. McIntyre persisted in responding to Mr. Fox in the above fashion and in effect challenging Fox to fire him if he was dissatisfied with his performance. After several such repetitions, Mr. Fox obliged him, requested his keys and told him he was fired. The doors to the office were closed during this conversation but Mrs. Martina overheard Mr. McIntyre shouting at Mr. Fox concerning his belief that he was performing his job adequately and challenging Mr. Fox to fire him. Mrs. Martina was not able to overhear everything stated by Mr. Fox, however. In any event, it has been established that on both July 3 and July 9, 1984, Mr. McIntyre informed Mr. Fox that he would not work any more in the front office. Mr. McIntyre, in his testimony, attributed his firing to an incident in which the black players quit the football team. Mr. McIntyre had worked as an assistant football coach at the high school at that time, some eight months before his firing. According to Mr. McIntyre, the incidents occurred in September and November 1983. Mr. Fox indicated that the incidents stemmed from a conflict between McIntyre and the head football coach, who were blaming each other for the problems with the recalcitrant black players. Mr. Fox indicated that he received the information from third parties, did not truly know who was responsible and had never blamed anyone for the dissension on the team. Mr. Fox felt that he had always had a good relationship with Mr. McIntyre and after the incident had spoken with him about it. Mr. Fox related that it was in the best interest of the players that they continue to play football, and Mr. McIntyre apparently agreed. The situation apparently resolved itself with the departure of the head football coach from the Franklin County School System. In any event, both McIntyre and Fox apparently discussed the matter at the time with no apparent conflict or animosity. These incidents occurred in September and November 1983, approximately eight months before McIntyre was terminated and thus Mr. McIntyre's contention that Mr. Fox recommended his firing because of the "football incidents" is not convincing. The Respondent's three witnesses, including Respondent, testified that on July 3, he mowed the grass as requested by Mr. Fox. The Petitioner's witnesses, including Mr. Fox, Mrs. Martina, and Ms. Diane Abel, testified that the grass was not mowed when they observed it on July 3. Mrs. Martina left the building at about 4:30 and Ms. Abel left about 4:00 in the afternoon, after the Respondent had given his keys to Mrs. Martina and taken annual leave. They testified that the grass was not mowed at that time and was quite long. Mrs. Martina testified that the grass at the front of the school had not been mowed at that time. It is possible that some of the school grounds were mowed that day. Be that as it may, whether the grass was mowed or not on July 3 is not material to resolution of the material issues in this case. The fact remains that on both July 3 and July 9, Mr. Fox told the Respondent that he simply needed to do his job and not worry about the alleged accusations, after explaining to Mr. McIntyre that he had not been accused of anything and that the matter had already been resolved. Mr. McIntyre, on both occasions, expressed his refusal to work in the front office, including unlocking the door of the office in the mornings, after Mr. Fox instructed him to continue performing those and his other duties, including cutting the grass.
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 the Respondent, Stanley McIntyre, be suspended without pay from his employment with the School Board of Franklin County, with such suspension without pay to terminate upon the Petitioner's entry of a Final Order herein, if on the date of that Final Order a similar and suitable position is available to which he may be reinstated. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of March 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of March, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-2601 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted, but not dispositive of material issues. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: a) Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. a) Rejected inasmuch as the various charging documents also notified Respondent that his prosecution involved neglect of his duties. Rejected inasmuch as the various charging documents also notified Respondent that his prosecution involved neglect of his duties. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted as to the issue of unauthorized absence only. Accepted as to the issue of unauthorized absence only. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the findings made by the Hearing Officer on this subject matter. Rejected as subordinate to the findings made by the Hearing Officer on this subject matter. Rejected as subordinate to the findings made by the Hearing Officer on this subject matter. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and not Findings of Fact. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and not Findings of Fact. Accepted, but not dispositive. Rejected as not comporting with the weight of evidence adduced or the lack thereof. Rejected as a discussion of the evidence rather than a Finding of Fact. Rejected as a discussion of the evidence rather than a Finding of Fact. Accepted, but not dispositive of the material issues presented. Accepted, but not dispositive of the material issues presented. Rejected as not being established by the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as immaterial and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact on this subject matter. Rejected as immaterial and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact on this subject matter. Rejected as discussion of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Accepted. Accepted, but not dispositive of the material issues presented. Rejected as not in accordance with the clear and convincing evidence adduced. Rejected. Accepted. Rejected as not in accordance with the clear and convincing evidence adduced. Accepted. Accepted, but not in itself dispositive of the material issues presented. Rejected. Accepted, but not in itself dispositive of the material issues presented. Rejected as not consonant with the clear and convincing evidence adduced. Rejected as to its overall import. Rejected as not constituting a Finding of Fact. Rejected as not constituting a Finding of Fact. Rejected as not constituting a Finding of Fact. Rejected as not consonant with the clear and convincing evidence adduced. COPIES FURNISHED: Van Russell, Esquire WATKINS RUSSELL 41 Commerce Street Apalachicola, Florida 32320 Paolo G. Annino, Esquire Legal Services of North Florida, Inc. 822 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Sydney McKenzie Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gloria Tucker Superintendent Franklin County School Board 155 Avenue E Apalachicola, Florida 32320
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was an instructional employee of the School Board of Dade County. In that capacity, Respondent was employed on an annual contract basis at Rainbow Park Elementary School from the beginning of the 1974-1975 school year through the end of the 1976-1977 school year. During this period, Respondent was placed on continuing contract on the recommendation of Andel W. Mickens, Principal of Rainbow Park Elementary School. During the 1976-1977 school year, after he had been placed on continuing contract, Respondent, while employed as a physical education instructor at Rainbow Park Elementary School, was involved in an altercation with students from another school in which Respondent suffered some injury, the nature of which is unclear from the record. It is, however, clear that after this altercation, Respondent's effectiveness as an instructor at Rainbow Park Elementary School, suffered dramatically. After the incident, Respondent was unable to control or discipline students in his classes, and was, therefore, unable to adequately organize students for instructional work. In fact, the school principal or another member of the administrative staff was required to be present in Respondent's classes to insure that some instructional progress could occur. As a result, the principal of Rainbow Park Elementary School recommended at the conclusion of the 1976-1977 school year that Respondent be transferred to another school. Respondent was transferred to Crestview Elementary School for the 1977-1978 school year. However, problems which had initially surfaced while he was still at Rainbow Park Elementary School continued at the new location. Respondent was instructed by the principal of the Crestview Elementary School that uniforms were not to be utilized as part of that school's "after-school programs", and that "all-star" games against other schools in the area were not to take place. Respondent, in direct disregard of these instructions, collected monies from students at Crestview Elementary School for the purchase of uniforms, and scheduled "all-star" games between Crestview Elementary School and other area schools. In the scheduling of these games, Respondent did not obtain the prior permission of, nor in fact did he consult, the principal of Crestview Elementary School. One of the "all-star" games was cancelled by the principal when he learned, the day before the game was to be played, that it had been scheduled by Respondent. When it was discovered that Respondent had collected monies for the purchase of uniforms for use in the after-school program, he was directed to return these monies to the individual students. In addition, Respondent on several occasions left classes unsupervised during his tenure at Crestview Elementary School. One of these occasions occurred when Respondent was contacting students scheduled to participate in the aforementioned "all-star" game. Another of Respondent's problem areas while at Crestview Elementary School dealt with his inability to organize his classes. Students were observed climbing trees during times when they should have been participating in Respondent's physical education class. A representative from the Area Office of the Dade County School Board specializing in physical education was called in specifically to consult with Respondent concerning the organization of his classes. Few, if any, of the consultant's suggestions were implemented by Respondent, whose classes remained disorganized. Finally, notwithstanding direct instructions to the contrary, Respondent allowed one of his physical education classes to participate in "tackle" football. There was no equipment at Crestview Elementary School to insure that participation in this type of activity would not result in injury to elementary school children. In fact, one child was injured in the course of one of these games, and reported this fact to the principal, who then prevented Respondent from continuing these activities. Although Respondent started the 1977-1978 school year at Crestview Elementary School, he was returned at the request of the Crestview principal to Rainbow Park Elementary School on November 9, 1977. The principal of Rainbow Park Elementary School, who had earlier suggested that Respondent be given a continuing contract, testified that Respondent appeared to be a "totally different person" upon his return to Rainbow Park Elementary School. She testified that Respondent evidenced irrational and bizarre behavior, and, on one occasion after a teacher-principal conference, Respondent snatched written suggestions concerning conduct of his classes from her hand, ripped them up before her and stalked from the room. Respondent could not control discipline in his classes and would, on occasion, scream and curse at his students. On one occasion, Respondent used excessive physical force in removing a student from one of his classes to the principal's office. Respondent would often not be in place to receive his classes when they were brought to him by the classroom instructor, and, on occasion would bring his classes back from the physical education fields before their class time was completed. Respondent's classes were disorganized to the point that activities occurring in his classes bore no resemblance to lesson plans. The principal of Rainbow Park Elementary School attempted to assist Respondent in organizing his classes by making suggestions and calling in consultants from the Area Office, but Respondent refused to accept constructive criticism. As a result, the principal of Rainbow Park Elementary School again requested that Respondent be transferred, which, in fact, occurred on December 12, 1977, when Respondent was reassigned to Carol City Senior High School. Respondent was employed at Carol City Senior High School from December 12, 1977 through the end of the 1977-1978 school year. At this new location, Respondent again encountered problems with school administrative and instructional personnel. According to the principal of Carol City Senior High School, Respondent repeatedly arrived late for classes, and submitted only "sketchy" lesson plans for his classes. In addition, the principal of Carol City Senior High School requested that Respondent be transferred to another school when it came to his attention that Respondent had attempted to "recruit" athletes from another area high school in order for them to participate in athletic programs at Carol City Senior High School. Respondent continued to experience problems with controlling his classes, and with using profanity toward students and members of the school administration. On one occasion, Respondent, a physical education teacher, called the chairman of the Physical Education Department at Carol City Senior High School a "mother fucker" in the presence of other teachers and students, and told him "to sit [his] ass down." Respondent continued to react negatively to evaluations or critiques, and, on one occasion snatched an evaluation from the hands of an assistant principal at Carol City Senior High School, and used profanity in response to that negative evaluation. At the beginning of the 1978-1979 school year, Respondent was assigned to Carol City Elementary School. Although there is no reason clearly reflected in the record, Respondent was transferred from Carol City Elementary School to Parkway Junior High School on October 27, 1978. The principal at Parkway Junior High School was the assistant principal at Carol City Senior High School with whom Respondent had had earlier difficulties. Respondent continued to experience these same difficulties at Parkway Junior High School. The school's principal received a complaint shortly after Respondent's conduct of his classes. Specifically, the complaints concerned Respondent's lack of control of students in the classes, and his failure to remain in the area where his classes were meeting. The school principal contacted Respondent to attempt to arrange a conference with other instructional personnel to resolve these problems. However, when the principal spoke with Respondent, Respondent began to use abusive language toward him. The school principal advised Respondent not to report back to Parkway Junior High School, but instead to report directly to the Area Office. Respondent indicated that he would not report to the Area Office, whereupon the principal advised him that if he returned to Parkway Junior High School, he would be arrested. Respondent then advised the school principal that if he had him arrested " . . . I will kill your mother fucking ass." Thereafter, Respondent was suspended as an instructional employee, and these proceedings ensued. Both Petitioner and Respondent have submitted Proposed Findings of Fact in this proceeding. To the extent that proposed findings of fact have not been adopted in, or are inconsistent with, factual findings in this order, they have been specifically rejected as being either irrelevant to the issues in this cause, or as not having been supported by the evidence.
Findings Of Fact The Public Employer filed a petition for determination of managerial and confidential employees with PERC on February 21, 1975. The job positions for which managerial or confidential status is requested, and the persons who occupy the positions are set out in the petition. The petition was presented to the Public Employee Relations Commission on May 8, 1975. The hearing in this case was scheduled by notice dated August 1, 1975. The Public Employer recognized the MCEA as the exclusive bargaining agent of instructional personnel employed by the Public Employer prior to the instant petition being filed. A contract between the Public Employer and MCEA was signed on August 26, 1975, and was received in evidence at the hearing as Public Employer's Exhibit 5. The Public Employer's evidence respecting the responsibilities, duties, and day-to-day activities of the persons who occupy the positions for which managerial or confidential status is being sought was received primarily in the form of job descriptions, and a chart showing the functions of each position which justify managerial or confidential status as perceived by the Public Employer. The job descriptions were received in evidence as Public Employer's Exhibit 2. The chart was received in evidence as Public Employer's Exhibit 3. The job descriptions accurately describe the duties, responsibilities, and day- to-day activities of each position. If the persons who occupy the positions are not performing their duties in accordance with the descriptions, then they are performing their duties improperly. It is likely that if the jobs were being performed contrary to the descriptions, this fact would be known to the Superintendent. The positions for which managerial or confidential status is being sought are described in Public Employer's Exhibit 2 beginning at the following indicated page: the Assistant Superintendent for Service at page 27, the Assistant Superintendent for Instruction at page 5, the Assistant Superintendent for Business Affairs at page 32, the Director of Personnel at page 24, the Director of Instructional Support and People Personnel Services at page 20, the Director of Adult Education at page 17, the Director of Exceptional Child and Special Services at page 13, the Director of Federal Programs at page 22, the Director of Career Education at page 16, the Director of Secondary Education at page 7, the Director of Elementary Education at page 9, the Director of Vocational Education at page 15, the Director of Community Manpower Programs at page 18, the Director of Planning and Research at page 14, the Maintenance Supervisor at page 28, the Transportation Supervisor at page 29, the Supervisor of Custodial Services at page 30, the Food Service Supervisor at page 34, the High School Principal at page 8a, the Middle School Principals at page 8f, the Elementary School Principals at page 11, the Assistant High School Principals at page 8c, the Assistant Middle School Principals at page 8h, the High School Department Heads at page 8d, the Curriculum Coordinators at page 8i and 12a, the Helping Teacher at page 12c. The references in the chart which was received as Public Employer's Exhibit 3 are to paragraphs in the job descriptions set out in Public Employer's Exhibit 2. The Public Employer is seeking to implement what was described at the hearing as a "team management system" in order to accomplish management a baser level. Under this system Principals, Assistant Principals, and department Heads would take on increased management functions. Principals are expected to initiate action respecting policy changes which they consider appropriate. The School Board, the Public Employer's legislative body, is ultimately responsible for adopting policy. The School Board typically adopts policies based upon the recommendations of the elected Superintendent, the Public Employer's chief executive officer. The Principal's recommendations respecting policy, especially policy which would be applicable primarily in the Principal's school are given great weight. One recent policy making decision in which a principal played a part involved parking at Martin County High school. The school Principal advised the superintendent of a need for a change in rules and regulations respecting parking. The principal went before the Board to describe the problem, and the Board directed the Principal and the Assistant Superintendent for Service to write a new policy for the Board's consideration. This policy was formulated primarily by the school Principal and was presented to the superintendent. The superintendent presented the policy to the School Board and recommended its adoption. The School Board adopted the policy without amendment. There are ten Principals employed by the Public Employer. There are one High School Principal, three Middle School Principals, and six Elementary School Principals. The High School Principal, one Middle School Principal and one Elementary School Principal were appointed by the Public Employer to the team which negotiated a contract with the MCEA. Under the agreement that has been signed by the Public Employer and by the MCEA, the Principal is charged with administering the agreement within his or her school. The Principal takes on a primary responsibility in the grievance procedure established in the agreement. The Principal is primarily responsible for making determinations respecting hiring and firing of personnel employed at his or her school. The Principal does not have the absolute authority to hire or fire personnel. The Principal makes recommendations to the superintendent, who in turn makes recommendations to the School Board. The School Board has the ultimate authority. In Martin County the Principals' recommendations respecting hiring and firing are followed, possibly without exception. The Principal is responsible for evaluating the personnel employed at his or her school. The evaluation is done on a form that has been adopted by the School Board. The evaluation goes into the employee's personnel file, and becomes a part of the employee's permanent employment record. The Public Employer's system for formulating and administering its budget is somewhat decentralized. Money is budgeted to a school based on the number of students. The school budget, which does not include expenditures for salaries or capital improvements, is prepared by the Principal. The Principal's budget is for all school supplies including textbooks. The central administration reviews the Principal's budget and would have authority to change items that were out of line. The budget ultimately adopted by the School Board actually reflects ten separate school budgets. The Principal has no control over the amount of money that will be budgeted to his or her school, but the Principal does have considerable latitude in setting the budget priorities for his or her school. Once the budget is adopted, the Principal has the authority to make expenditures based upon the budget. The Principal signs all purchase requisitions emanating from his or her school. The duties of Assistant Principals vary among the schools in Martin County, depending in part upon the responsibilities which are delegated by the Principal to the Assistant Principal. Virtually any of the Principal's responsibilities can be delegated by the Principal to the Assistant Principal, although ultimate responsibility would remain with the Principal. Generally Assistant Principals are charged with establishing schedules, and assigning teachers. The witness Clara Bevis Fulton is presently Principal at Martin County High School. She was previously Assistant Principal. As Assistant Principal she would hold initial interviews with job applicants. If the applicant appeared satisfactory she would call in the Department Head in the area in which the applicant works and would check the applicant's references. She would evaluate the teachers based on information given to her by Department Heads, and based upon her own classroom visits. She made recommendations to the Principal respecting hiring and firing. The Principal's budget responsibilities were handled by Mrs. Fulton while she was Assistant Principal at Martin County High School. There are six Department Heads employed by the Public Employer. All of the Department heads work at Martin County High School. The Department Heads typically spend approximately 4/5 of their time as classroom teachers, and the remaining time fulfilling administrative duties. The Director of Guidance, who is classified as a Department Head, spends more than half of his time on administrative duties. Department Heads are paid on a management pay scale rather than on a teacher's pay scale. The opinions of the Department Heads respecting new employees and old employees are solicited by the Principal or Assistant Principals. The Department Heads give considerable input into teacher evaluations. Department Heads serve as the first step in the grievance procedure adopted in the collective bargaining contract that has been signed by the Public Employer and by the MCEA. The School Superintendent refers to Department Heads as the front line of management. The Principal or Assistant Principals seek information from the Department Heads respecting the budgetary needs of their department. This information would primarily amount to an explanation of the coming year's needs in relation to the past year. This budget information relates to supplies and textbooks, not to salaries. The primary function of Curriculum Coordinators is to plan and administer a school's curriculum. The Curriculum Coordinator plays a role in evaluating teachers by forwarding information to the Principal or Assistant Principals. Information is sought from the curriculum Coordinators respecting budgetary needs, especially from the perspective of the priority of conflicting needs. The Curriculum Coordinator has no classroom duties. ENTERED this 16 day of January, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida COPIES FURNISHED: All parties of record
Findings Of Fact William Haynes Gandy, for 17 years a school teacher and coach, began his most recent stretch of employment with the Santa Rosa County School Board in the fall of 1978 at Jay High School. He coached football and taught girls' physical education and math courses during the 1978-1979 school year, even though he held a teacher's certificate in physical education only, at all pertinent times. Coaching assignments entail a certain amount of prestige and entitle their recipients to a salary supplement. In Santa Rosa County, school principals make coaching assignments in their unfettered discretion. LETTER NO FACTOR On July 1, 1979, Mary Cecelia Diamond Findley, assistant principal of Jay High School during the preceding school year, became principal. During Dr. Findley's first year as principal, Mr. Gandy taught math and science courses. In the fall of the year, a student asked petitioner to write a letter on her behalf, because she had been accused of a burglary. Dr. Findley's son had also been charged with this crime. On November 30, 1979, Mr. Gandy addressed the following letter "To Whom it May Concern" and gave it to the student's parents: I, W. H. Gandy, being employed by Santa Rosa County School Board as an in- structor at Jay High School do hereby give the following statement in behalf of Karen Cooley. I have known this student for several years. She was in my class last year and was an excellent student. I found her to be very cooperative, initiative [sic] and enthusiastic young student. Her capabilities and talents are unlimited if she applied herself. I know of no past conflicts or involvements in our community or school which would reflect on her character. In working directly with young people for the past 15 years, I have found that most all students need help at one time or another. Of course, their needs vary, from personal, emotional problems, school discipline problems, to problems with the laws of our society and state. I feel Karen realized what she did was wrong and now must face the consequences. She has already been subjected to the scrutiny of her classmates at school, to the embarrassment of hurting her parents and family, and to the fact that she took part in crime and now has a record which will remain with her the rest of her life. Karen cannot undo the wrong she has done, but certainly since this is her First Offense, and she has the ability and desire to mature into a useful citizen in our community, she should be given this opportunity. I hope and pray that she will be given some kind of a probation period and given the opportunity to finish school and start a meaningful life of her own. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 He told no one other than the Cooleys and Karen's attorney about the letter, at the time. Dr. Findley did not learn of the letter until this year. Dr. Findley's decision not to reappoint Mr. Gandy as assistant football coach, more than two and a half years after the letter was written, took place after discussions with the head football coach and had nothing to do with the letter or any other exercise by petitioner of his first amendment rights. TRANSFER Beginning with the 1979-1980 school term, Mr. Gandy has been on continuing contract as a teacher for respondent. On Dr. Findley's recommendation, at the close of the 1982-1983 school year, and that of Bennett C. Russell, respondent's superintendent, respondent transferred Mr. Gandy to the Gulf Breeze Middle School. Originally he was to teach health classes there, but he was assigned physical education classes after his request for formal hearing was filed. Respondent had taught some classes out of his field every year he was at Jay High School. Before the letter on behalf of Ms. Cooley was ever written, and, according to petitioner, before there were any ill feelings between Dr. Findley and himself, he was assigned exclusively math and science courses for the 1979-1980 school year. In 1980-1981, and again the following school year, Mr. Gandy taught a single physical education class and several math classes. He taught math courses exclusively during the 1982-1983 school year. By the spring of 1983, there were five teachers at Jay High School who had taught there shorter periods than the five years petitioner had taught at Jay High School. Of these, Oliver Boone, the band director, and Deborah Walther, who was certified in art and science, were retained. Desiree Jamar, who was certified in art, was transferred; and the two other junior teachers did not have their annual contracts renewed. One of these two, Deborah Gomillion, who is certified to teach exceptional education classes, was subsequently rehired to head the exceptional education program at Jay High School. Five of the 32 teachers at Jay High School for the 1982-1983 school year were certified in physical education, but, unlike respondent, some of them were certified to teach other subjects, as well. Respondent transferred another coach from Jay High School who was certified in social studies as well as physical education. There was only one teacher certified in mathematics for the 1982-1983 school year. Respondent hired a second certified mathematics teacher for 1983-1984 who was to teach five mathematics courses and coach football at Jay High School. On July 28, 1983, respondent hired a teacher certified in physical education to teach at Pace High School. Dr. Findley and Mr. Gandy had their differences. She believed him guilty of certain improprieties never formally established. He resented a notice of non-renewal Dr. Findley, under the erroneous impression that Mr. Gandy had not yet been awarded a continuing contract, sent in response to instructions so to notify all annual contract teachers who taught compensatory classes like the math classes he was teaching at the time. The low esteem in which Dr. Findley held petitioner was a factor in her recommending that he be transferred. The superintendent was aware of the friction, but he made his decision "because we were cutting back personnel at Jay High School and we had a position available at Gulf Breeze Middle School." (T. 129) Respondent's superintendent did not accept her recommendation that petitioner be transferred just to keep the peace. Dr. Findley herself was transferred from Jay High School for the 1983-1984 school year. The continuing contract of employment between the parties does not grant petitioner the right to teach in a particular school. Joint Exhibit No. The master contract in effect between Santa Rosa County School Board and the Santa Rosa Professional Educators provides: Involuntary transfer of teachers shall be made by the Superintendent and Board based upon: l) Santa Rosa County School District needs as determined by the Superintendent and the Board; 2) certification; 3) length of service in Santa Rosa County; and, 4) any other data. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6, p. 8. Article IV of the same agreement establishes in detail a grievance procedure, but does not make it mandatory or exclusive.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent dismiss petitioner's request for hearing, without prejudice to his filing a grievance as regards his transfer. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip J. Padovano, Esquire 1020 East Lafayette Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Paul R. Green, Esquire Post Office Box 605 Milton, Florida 32570
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent, Glover E. Jones, was licensed as a teacher in the State of Florida holding certificate number 556798, covering the area of mathematics, and was employed by the Madison County School Board as an adjunct instructor at Madison County High School, Madison, Florida. The uncontroverted facts in this case show that Pamela Ann Hale, the alleged recipient of the remarks in question here, was born on August 28, 1969. As of the date of the hearing, she was living with her mother in Live Oak, Florida, attending the 10th grade at Suwannee High School there. At the time of the alleged incident here, she was living with her father in Madison and attended Madison County High School. Her mother and father are divorced. While attending Madison County High School, Hale had the Respondent as her math teacher during the third period of the school day during the month of September 1984, at the beginning of the 1984-1985 school year. She did not have him for any other subjects nor did she know him prior to the beginning of the school year. This class was made up of students who required extra assistance and consisted of approximately 15 to 16 students in remedial math. On the day in question, Hale was selling candy during the class period to raise money for a school organization. She sold candy not only to her fellow students but also to the Respondent. At this point the stories told by Ms. Hale and by the Respondent begin to diverge. Ms. Hale contends that when she approached Jones on the date in question to buy candy he advised her to come back after class and she could sell him some. She contends, also, that she came back after the other students left even though she had another class (health) to attend, sat down at a student desk, and Respondent sat down facing her approximately three or four feet away. It is at this point that, she says, he asked her simple questions about herself and her family. When she answered, he then allegedly asked her if she had ever "fucked" a black man before. He allegedly told her she looked sexy that day. She says he asked her if she noticed that he "had a hard on" and touched himself in the genital area, asking her if she thought she could handle that. At no time, however, did Respondent ever touch the witness. She says he asked her if she had ever "fucked" anyone while someone else was in the room. She replied that she had not. He allegedly asked her if she had a boyfriend and when she said she did, he is alleged to have responded, "I'll bet you fuck him because he's not black." This conversation went on until about 10 or 15 minutes before the fourth period was over. As was stated previously, the witness had health the fourth period and cut the class because, as she tells it, Respondent asked her to stay. While she was in the room with Jones alone, a Mr. Alexander, also a math teacher, entered, along with two other students. While in the room, Alexander asked Respondent if the witness was having any trouble with her work to which Respondent replied that she was, but indicated he would take care of it. Alexander verifies this with the exception that according to his testimony, when he came into the room, Respondent was seated at his desk writing a note and Hale was standing in front of him. This is not a significant difference. After Alexander left, Respondent asked the witness several questions about her siblings including her sister who formerly went to Madison High, but who quit when she had difficulty with some black students the previous year. He asked her if she was going to go to the ball game the following Thursday and, when she replied that she was, she says he suggested that perhaps they could get together that night. Ms. Hale contends she was amazed that Respondent talked to her in this fashion but she also contends she did not leave because she was afraid of him, though he made no threats, either verbal or physical, toward her and made no effort to prevent her from leaving. She also made no comment to Alexander when he and the other students came into the room even though these suggestive statements had already been made. She finally terminated the conversation toward the end of the fourth period by stating she had to go to her next class. Before she left, she asked Respondent for a note, which he gave her and asked her not to repeat the conversation they had had. During fifth period, Hale had lunch scheduled and during lunch with Loretta Sealy, she related in general terms, to Sealy, what had happened. After lunch, she went to the remainder of her classes and went home but even that night, she failed to tell her father of the incident because she was afraid he might do something as a result of his hot temper. Sealy indicates that when she first saw Hale after the incident, when Hale came into the ladies' room, she appeared nervous, upset, and near tears. She said that Respondent had said things which upset her--in essence propositioning her. At first, Hale did not want to report the incident because she felt nobody would believe her. However, Sealy finally convinced her to do so and the two girls went to see the assistant principal, Ms. Miller, two days after the incident took place. Hale told Ms. Miller what had happened and signed the first of several written statements which was prepared for her signature by Miller based on the report given. Later on, she agreed to take a polygraph examination regarding her story. No evidence was presented as to whether the exam was given or not. Ms. Hale attended class with the Respondent during the several days between the time of the alleged incident and the report to Ms. Miller, but once the story came into the open, she was removed from his class. She talked with Miller rather than the principal because she had known Ms. Miller from her prior school. The fact that she did not talk with the principal had nothing to do with the fact that he is black. Respondent's version of the story differs from that of Hale in that he contends that at the end of the class period on the day in question, Hale asked him if she could stay after class. He contends that her remaining had nothing to do with buying candy because he bought candy from her when she came to class. He also claims that she did her homework during this fourth period when she and he were the only people in the room. While she was working, he was behind his desk and she was sitting at a student desk off to his left. Respondent contends that it was Hale who made the first non-business statement by asking him if she could go smoke. He told her that she could not since smoking was not allowed on campus. She responded that another teacher, Mr. Hendrix, had allowed her to smoke in the school building and then went on to indicate that she had "messed" with guys in their twenties when she was twelve. This statement, which came immediately after the comments about Mr. Hendrix and smoking, shocked him. The only reason he did not ask her to leave was because she appeared to have a problem and he thought he might be able to help her. During the course of the conversation she indicated that some blacks had attacked her sister the previous year on campus which had caused her sister to leave school and that, in general, all black students at Madison High were wild. Though Ms. Hale, in her testimony, indicated that when asked by Respondent if she had ever fucked a black man, she responded by asking him if he'd ever fucked a white woman, Respondent denies that Hale ever asked him this question nor did she mention drugs to him in any fashion. He denies making any of the comments attributed to him by Hale or any of the suggestive movements she claimed he made, though in the letter he submitted to the principal the morning after being confronted by the accusations against him, denials were not so strong or so widespread. In fact, in that written statement, he commented, "I'm not saying that the statement made is totally wrong, but there are two things that trouble me most about it." He then goes on to list these two troublesome areas as the statement makes it appear as though he is the culprit and that some things in it are either false or turned around. He then goes on to list the several things Hale is supposed to have said to him that were not included in her statement, such as her sexual activity and her obvious antipathy toward black men. When Hale finally went to see Miller, she appeared to be quite upset though she was not crying. She was somewhat reluctant to talk to Ms. Miller until finally Miller released Sealy to go back to class and after Sealy left, Hale told Miller her entire story. Once Hale had completed her version of the story, Miller asked her to wait and went to talk with the principal who returned to the office with her to talk with Hale. After discussing with the resource officer how to take a statement, Miller returned to the office and took a detailed statement from Hale a second time in the form suggested to her and had it signed by Hale and notarized. Later that morning, Ms. Miller, the principal, Mr. Yanessy, the resource officer, and Mr. Buchanan called Respondent into the principal's office and showed him a copy of Hale's signed statement. Respondent read it, handed it back, and said that the statement was not "exactly" true--that Hale had twisted a lot of things around. He contended that in reality it was Hale who asked a lot of the questions, not him, and that he would do anything to clear his name. Respondent contended he had no interest in either Hale or any other young girl. At this point the investigating group advised him that they would talk with him later and take a statement from him. About two hours later they did meet again and at this time, Respondent repeated his comments made earlier in the day to the extent that while a conversation took place, it did not happen as Hale said it did. At this point, though the school officials wanted to take Respondent's statement, Respondent did not want to speak on the record then. The following morning he gave the principal the letter which was referred to above. Based on an evaluation of the testimony of Ms. Hale, Ms. Sealy, the Respondent, and Ms. Miller, all of which bears on the credibility of the Respondent vis-a-vis his accuser, it becomes clear, and it is so found, that a conversation did take place in the classroom during the fourth period on September 10, 1984, between Respondent and Ms. Hale when the two of them were the only persons in the room. It most likely will never be determined exactly as to who said what to whom. There is no doubt, however, that the Respondent permitted a student who he knew had a class to attend, to remain in his classroom with him at the expense of her absence from that succeeding class. Though Respondent advised Mr. Alexander that he was helping Hale with her school work, there is no other evidence that he did so. Ms. Hale contends he did not and he admits he did not stating only that she did her homework while in the room with him. Whatever the conversation was, it is clear that it was sexually oriented and Respondent used extremely poor judgment in allowing the situation to develop as far as it did. The evidence establishes that Ms. Hale's background is not without cloud. At the age of sixteen she is admittedly sexually experienced and has experimented with various controlled substances such as marijuana and cocaine. Ms. Miller indicated that her academic background was marginal--that while she can do her work and can be an average student, she has, nonetheless, failed. The nature of her testimony on the stand was not so clear as to give a certain picture as to what happened. It is most likely that Ms. Hale herself does not recall the incident with certainty. What is clear is that aside from her discussion with Ms. Sealy over lunch, she failed to make any complaint to anyone with authority to do something about it until several days after the incident took place and then only upon the urging of her friend. In substance then, it is obvious that the truth no doubt lies somewhere between the two stories. When Respondent found out that Ms. Hale had no legitimate reason to be in his classroom, he allowed her to remain and engaged in a conversation with her that should not have taken place. While the exact words are in question, the subject matter is not. It was sexually oriented and the parties were a twenty-five-year-old male teacher and a fifteen- year-old female student. His judgment in allowing that to happen is abysmal and his professionalism in that instance was nonexistent especially in light of the fact that he was warned twice at the beginning of his employment with the school system by his principal, to be very careful of his conduct in dealing with female students. Mr. Ray, the principal, indicates that if the allegations against the Respondent are true, it would seriously reduce his effectiveness as a classroom teacher because of the need for a teacher to observe the strictest propriety in his relationships with students. Such conduct as alleged here would undoubtedly be harmful to the learning process and would create an embarrassment to the student. If the allegations are true he would not want Respondent back working for him. In his opinion, for a situation such as this, if established, there are no less drastic remedies than termination. He believes that there is no place in Madison County for a teacher guilty of these allegations and in addition to termination, revocation of the teaching certificate would be appropriate. On the other hand, if it were to be established that the allegation was not true, then Respondent's effectiveness would not be diminished and the credibility of the student would be damaged. However, in his experience it is very unusual for female students to make sexual advances toward teachers. While it could occur, in his opinion it is not likely and over the 19 years he has been in education, it has never happened to him. Mr. Buchanan, who has been in place as Superintendent of Schools in Madison County for over 8 years, is familiar with the allegations in this case and Respondent's denial. His analysis of the case resulted in his recommendation that the School Board suspend the Respondent from his teaching position and in addition, he reported Respondent to the Education Practices Commission. He took this step because he felt an obligation to report substandard conduct of an educator. Assuming that the allegations are true, in his view, the effectiveness of the Respondent is reduced because in a case like this the teacher loses credibility with his students. He feels that if true, Respondent's conduct would be harmful to the learning process and embarrassing to the student and would have an adverse impact on the relationship between the parents and the school system. Viewing the evidence in its totality and weighing the credibility of all witnesses, as alluded to before, it becomes clear that a one on one conversation took place between the Respondent and Ms. Hale. It is most likely that Respondent did not prompt the conversation and did not request that Ms. Hale remain after class. To the contrary, it would appear that she requested to remain after class. No doubt improper comments were made by both Ms. Hale and the Respondent and it makes no difference whether Ms. Hale or the Respondent initiated the colloquy. It is quite clear that subject matter improper for a conversation between a student and a teacher of opposite sexes, involving sexually suggestive comments took place and that both Respondent and Ms. Hale used language of this nature.
The Issue Did Petitioner successfully complete the necessary requirements for the Polk County School Board's (Board) Interim Principal Program as mandated in the Program for Preparing New Principals, promulgated under Section 231.087(5), Florida Statutes, by the Board and if so, should Petitioner be granted certification as a school principal in the Polk County School District?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: In accordance with Section 231.087(5), Florida Statutes, the Board adopted a certification program for new principals in Polk County titled Program for Preparing New Principals (Program). All new principals in the Polk County School System are required to successfully complete and be certified under the Program. The Program is composed of several different programs. One of the programs is the Interim Principal Program which provides as follows: Introduction The Interim Principal Program provides a year-long experience which is designed to assist the Interim Principal in enhancing his/her administrative competencies. The Interim Principal Training Program is designed as a support program rather than performance appraisal mechanism. Goals The goal of the Polk County Interim Principal Program is to enable the Interim Principal to: Practice the skills of administration with the support and coaching of a supervisory team. Determine needs, set goals, establish priorities and seek avenues for achieving positive results. Adapt to stressful situations. Effectively and clearly express information orally and through written means, in both formal and informal situations. Develop self-confidence in a work setting and work role. Develop the expertise to manage a school site. Meet the requirements of Section 231.0861 (3), Florida Statutes. Be creative, maintain a positive climate and encourage teamwork within the school organization. Assume responsibilities at the school site with the guidance and support of peer principals. Participate in additional learning experiences to enhance the on-the-job experiences. Program Goals/Strategies Documentation will consist of the Interim Principal's goals expressed in a way which identifies the objective, lists the activities leading to the attainment of the objective, and the expected results in specific, measurable terms when possible. Two types of goals are to be formulated by the Interim Principal. They are: Organizational Goals Professional Growth Goals (developmental) The Interim Principal will formulate a minimum of two (2) goals within each of the categories. Formative Checklists These instruments are based on the Florida Principal Competencies and Job Function/Task Analyses. They are used as resources for identifying developmental needs of the Interim Principal and may provide a basis for the goals and related strategies and/or the off-site experiences and other training activities. Developmental Activities Program This is a calendar of events/activities which lists the specific activities in which the Interim Principal participates during the school year. These activities may be related to district, regional and state-wide training workshops or any off-site experiences in which the Interim Principal participates. Handbook of Helpful Hints for the First Year Principal Summative Checklist The handbook contains a "list of things to do" for the first year principal and is used by the Interim Principal to document areas of focus related to job expectations. Items are checked-off as they are handled. Supervisory Team The supervisory team for an Interim Principal consists of: The appropriate area superintendent Two peer principals Human Resource Development representative The two peer principals are selected by the area superintendent in consultation with the Human Resource Development representative and Interim Principal. They will also serve as members of his/her support team. The supervisory team's function is to review the Interim Principal's program and to provide input regarding the progress of the Interim Principal to insure the completion of his/her goals and developmental activities program. Each member of the supervisory team will interact with the Interim Principal at the school at varying times during the year. At least three (3) team conferences will be held with the Interim Principal, one meeting by the end of month three, one by the end of month eight and one by the end of month eleven. These meetings are in addition to the regular meetings with the area superintendent as a part of the district's performance appraisal system. Support Team Support team consists of: 1. Two peer principals The support team provides guidance and aid to the Interim Principal in the development of the goals and assists the Interim Principal as needed. Support team members serve as professional resource persons with whom the Interim Principal may consult during the year. Portfolio A portfolio for each Interim Principal will be housed in the Area Superintendent's office. The portfolio will include the names of the support staff, the written development goals, the formative checklists, Developmental Activities Program, "Handbook For The First Year Principal" checklist and a copy of the annual performance appraisal forms. Performance Appraisal The evaluation process for Interim Principals will be the same as that for experienced principals, and the same performance appraisal instruments will be used. Procedures Procedure Dates/Time Parameters Step No. 1 First/Month The Human Resource Development representative will provide an orientation concerning the Interim Principal Program, with emphasis on documentation methods. The Interim Principal and previous supervisor complete formative checklists related to Florida Principal Competencies and Job Function/Task Analyses. Interim Principal plans potential goals. Step No. 2 End of First Month The Interim Principal schedules a meeting with area superintendent and Human Resource Development representative to discuss possible goal statements, discuss formative checklists, select members of peer support team, and schedule supervisory team meetings. Step No. 3 Second Month The Interim Principal and Human Resource Development representative meet to establish Developmental Activities Program and to devise an action plan for the attainment of the potential developmental goals. Step No. 4 End of Second Month The Interim Principal prepares annual goals to include at least two developmental (professional growth) goals and two organizational goals. He/she submits copy to Area Superintendent and Human Resource Development representative. These goals will be a part of the district performance appraisal procedure. The Interim Principal meets with the peer principals to provide them with an orientation to the school, its programs, etc. Step No. 5 Third Month The Interim Principal experiences a two hour "shadowing activity" by each peer principal on separate dates. Peer principals record observations which will be shared at the initial meeting of the supervisory team to be scheduled by the end of the third month. The Interim Principal also may schedule time to shadow each of the peer principals prior to their shadowing visit. Shadowing experiences may occur throughout the interim principal program. Step No. 6 End of Third Month The Interim Principal schedules the initial meeting of supervisory team and provides agenda. First half of the meeting should include a status report of activities/progress made on each of the organizational and developmental goals. Second half of agenda will involve support team and Interim Principal in any additional planning that might be appropriate. The peer principals also discuss observations from their "shadowing" experience. **Additional meetings of the supervisory/support team may be scheduled on a group or individual member basis as needed. Step No. 7 End of Fifth Month The Interim Principal meets with the peer principals to review goals and strategies and to seek their input concerning goal/strategy adjustment and/or revision. Step No. 8 End of Eighth Month The Interim Principal schedules a second team meeting. The purpose is to prepare for major activities in function/task areas as are appropriate to the calendar. Plans and concerns are shared. Team members provide input and assistance. Step No. 9 Eleventh Month The Interim Principal schedules the final meeting of supervisory team and provides agenda. The purpose of the meeting is to review the results obtained by the Interim Principal in reference to his/her goals and participation in DAP activities and to reach a consensus among team members concerning a recommendation for Level II certification. Step No. 10 Eleventh Month The Area Superintendent and Human Resource Development representative verify portfolio. The Area Superintendent completes summary appraisal forms (if necessary) and makes the appropriate recommendation to the superintendent related to Level II certification. In 1996, Petitioner was appointed by Dr. John Stewart, who was then Superintendent of the Polk County Schools, to participate in the Interim Principal Program. Petitioner was assigned to the Haines City High School as principal for the 1996-97 school year, and remained there as principal through the 1997-98 school year. Petitioner had not participated in the Principal Intern Program. Shortly after being appointed as Interim Principal, Petitioner, in consultation with his area superintendent, Carolyn Baldwin, selected Sharon Knowles and David Lewis as his peer principals, who together with Carolyn Baldwin and the Human Resource Development representative, William P. Strouse, was the Team for the Petitioner's Interim Principal Program. As required by the Interim Principal Program, William Spouse conducted the orientation program for all new interim principals for the Polk County School District on September 30, 1996. The Interim Principal Program is driven by the interim principal who has the obligation of organizing the activities and scheduling of the activities and meetings. Petitioner did not schedule any activities or meetings in his Interim Principal Program during the Fall of 1996. In December 1996, Carolyn Baldwin directed David Lewis to set up an appointment with Petitioner for an orientation with Petitioner at Haines City High School The orientation occurred in January 1997. The orientation consisted of a walk around the campus of Haines City High School and a discussion that focused on the concern for the number of uncertified personnel on the staff at that time and the need for improving student achievement. On April 3, 1997, prior to any Team meeting, Petitioner was provided a copy of the Administrative Performance Appraisal (Appraisal) completed by Carolyn Baldwin, Area Superintendent. The categories provided in the Appraisal only provided for "Above Expectations," "At Expectations," and "Below Expectations." Although Ms. Baldwin had some reservations, she, in fairness to Petitioner, rated him "at expectation" in all 19 of the Performance Expectations listed in the Appraisal. To the Performance Expectation "Commitment to School Mission" Ms. Baldwin added the comment "real sense of commitment to Haines City High School." To the Performance Expectation "Managing Interaction" Ms. Baldwin added the comment "develop a system for prompt attention to parents with problems." The Appraisal also included three individual or unit goals stated by Petitioner as goals to be accomplished. Ms. Baldwin rated Petitioner "at expectations" on all of Petitioner's stated goals. After Petitioner's stated goal, "Enhance and improve the overall appearance and function of the school - this 1st impression for the community, parents, staff and students should be one to be proud of, appealing, and reflective of the academic attitude of the school," Ms. Baldwin added the comment "school climate enhanced significantly in this area, good public relations." After the meeting with David Lewis, there was no further formal activity in Petitioner's Interim Principal Program until April 1997. On April 16, 1997, the Team met with Petitioner. During this meeting, the Team reviewed Petitioner's program and found that there were no interim program professional development goals, no development activities, no complete developmental monthly activities plans, and no peer shadowing had taken place. Also at the April 16, 1997, meeting, Petitioner was advised that it was unlikely that Team would recommend him for certification under the Interim Principal Program. Petitioner proceeded to work on the deficiencies expressed by the Team at the April 16, 1997, meeting. After the April 16, 1997, meeting, the Team expressed concern related to Petitioner's complacency with respect to the Interim Principal Program and Petitioner's level of completion up to that point. It was suggested, and agreed to by the Team, that Knowles, Lewis, and Baldwin would complete an analysis of their interactions with Petitioner related to the Florida Principals Competencies. During April and May 1997, Petitioner conducted shadowing activities and peer principal visits with Lewis and Knowles. On June 11, 1997, Carolyn Baldwin met with Petitioner and discussed her concerns as well as Petitioner's concerns regarding Petitioner's activities, job performance as Principal of Haines City High School, and his progress in the Program. The meeting apparently ended on a positive note. On June 13, 1997, Petitioner conducted another shadowing at the Haines City High School. In June 1997, the Team met to determine Petitioner's areas of need and development. Petitioner was neither invited nor did he attend this meeting. In June 1997, Strouse circulated a list of the 19 Florida School Principal Competencies among the Team members and requested that each Team member identify those areas in which Petitioner had developmental needs. Strouse took the areas in which all members of the Team specified that Petitioner had developmental needs and developed a program for Petitioner to address those needs. This program was titled Florida Principal Competencies -- Analysis of Developmental Needs for Lonnie Smith, Interim Principal Haines City High School (Plan). There was no team meeting with Petitioner or with the team as a whole to discuss the outcome of the survey, the compilation of the results, or to jointly draft the Plan. Petitioner was not aware of, nor did he have knowledge of, the Plan prior to the August 14, 1997, meeting with Superintendent Reynolds. The Plan was presented to Petitioner at the August 14, 1997, meeting with Superintendent Reynolds, Area Superintendent Baldwin, William Strouse, and Assistant Superintendent of Personnel Denny Dunn. Petitioner was advised at this meeting that his Interim Principal Program would be extended a year. The Plan dated August 1997, provides as follows: CLUSTER CONSTANCY OF PURPOSE COMPETENCIES COMMITMENT TO VISION AND MISSION CONCERN FOR THE SCHOOL'S REPUTATION ORGANIZATIONAL SENSITIVITY COMMITMENT TO VISION AND MISSION is a pledge to develop and act in accordance with the shared vision, mission and values of the school. The principal needs to exhibit COMMITMENT TO VISION AND MISSION in which he: *personally holds a set of values which are in harmony with the vision and mission of the school; e.g., respect and caring for each individual, belief that everyone can succeed, etc. *is purposeful about linking the school's mission to expected behavior *identifies, models and reinforces behavior which is congruent with the mission and goals of the schools CONCERN FOR THE SCHOOL'S REPUTATION is caring about the impressions created by self, the students, the faculty, the staff, and parents, and how these are communicated both inside and outside the school. The principal needs to demonstrate a greater CONCERN FOR THE SCHOOL'S REPUTATION in which he: *Maintains a safe, orderly and clean school and expects everyone to assume their responsibility for doing so *builds a school culture that provides the best possible teaching/learning environment *controls the flow of negative information. ORGANIZATIONAL SENSITIVITY is an awareness of the effects of one's behavior and decisions on all stakeholders both inside and outside the organization. The principal needs to demonstrate ORGANIZATIONAL SENSITIVITY by documenting that he: *considers the overall consequences to the school's culture before initiating changes *keeps individuals, both inside and outside the school, informed when data are relevant to them *considers the position, feelings and/or perspectives of other parts of the organization when planning, deciding and organizing *develops and maintains a school climate conductive to learning *is open to discussion and change *builds coalitions and seeks, secures and recognizes allies CLUSTER: PROACTIVE ORIENTATION COMPETENCIES PROACTIVE ORIENTATION PROACTIVE ORIENTATION is the inclination and readiness to initiate activity and take responsibility for leading and enabling others to improve the circumstances being faced or anticipated. The principal must demonstrate a more PROACTIVE ORIENTATION in which he: *provides support for teachers, staff and parents as they take initiative for school improvement CLUSTER: CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT COMPETENCIES ACHIEVEMENT ORIENTATION DEVELOPMENTAL ORIENTATION ACHIEVEMENT ORIENTATION is having to do things better than before by setting goals that encourage self and others to reach higher standards. The principal give more attention to ACHIEVEMENT ORIENTATION in which he: *shows appreciation for individual and group efforts and accomplishments *identifies discrepancies between goals and the current status in order to stimulate achievement *uses criteria for effective schools to assess the status of the school as one basis for school improvement. DEVELOPMENTAL ORIENTATION is holding high and positive expectations for the growth and development of all stakeholders through modeling self-development coaching and providing learning opportunities. A principal needs to enhance his DEVELOPMENTAL ORIENTATION in which he: *builds a school, community and culture that supports learning and growth for everyone including self *participates in professional developmental activities as a learner. CLUSTER: COMMUNICATION COMPETENCIES IMPACT/PERSUASIVENESS SELF PRESENTATION IMPACT/PERSUASIVENESS is influencing and having an effect upon the school stakeholders by a variety of means...e.g., persuasive arguments, setting an example or using expertise. The principal needs to demonstrate IMPACT/PERSUASIVENESS in which he: *persists until ideas, beliefs and goals are clear to all stakeholders *uses personal presence to influence others, maintains visibility and accessibility. SELF PRESENTATION is the ability to clearly present one's ideas to others in an open, informative and non-evaluative manner The principal must enhance his skills of SELF PRESENTATION in which he: *checks to see that messages are received, and persist until ideas, beliefs and goals seem to be understood *models effective interpersonal communication skills *uses effective listening skills before responding to questions by others. CLUSTER: FACILITATION COMPETENCIES MANAGING INTERACTION TACTICAL ADAPTABILITY INTERPERSONAL SENSITIVITY MANAGING INTERACTION is getting others to work together effectively though the use of group process and facilitator skills. A principal needs to improve his skills of MANAGING INTERACTION when in which he: *facilitates team and group membership *moderates group discussions and encourages consensus *facilitates interpersonal and intergroup communication *creates a non judgmental atmosphere in order to stimulate open communication personally *promotes collegial behavior. TACTICAL ADAPTABILITY is the ability to adapt one's interaction and behavior to meet the situation. The principal needs to develop skills of TACTICAL ADAPTABILITY in which he: *adopts various roles of listener, facilitator, and confronter as needed *understands how own behavior affects others and makes appropriate adjustments. INTERPERSONAL SENSITIVITY is the ability to discover, understand, verbalize accurately and respond empathetically to the perspectives, thoughts, ideas and feelings of others. The principal must demonstrate greater INTERPERSONAL SENSITIVITY in which he: *encourages others to describe their perceptions, thoughts, feelings and perspectives *listens attentively and accurately describe others' behavior, expressed ideas, feelings, and perspectives CLUSTER: CRITICAL THINKING COMPETENCIES INFORMATION SEARCH AND ANALYSIS CONCEPT FORMATION CONCEPTUAL FLEXIBILITY INFORMATION SEARCH AND ANALYSIS is the gathering and analysis of data from multiple sources before arriving at an understanding of an event or problem. The principal needs to display an enhanced competence in INFORMATION SEARCH AND ANALYSIS in which he: *creates and manages a systemic informational gathering process among the various stakeholders of the school community *keeps up-to-date, striving to gather new information from research and other sources which can then be used by the school CONCEPT FORMATION is the ability to see patterns and relationships and form concepts, hypotheses and ideas from the information. The principal must evidence CONCEPT FORMATION when he: *processes data logically and intuitively to discover and/or create meaning *presses self and others to define and understand issues so that problem solving techniques can be applied *practices reflective thinking CONCEPTUAL FLEXIBILITY is the ability to use alternative or multiple concepts or perspectives when solving a problem or making a decision. The principal must demonstrate CONCEPTUAL FLEXIBILITY in which he: *views the situation being faced and the events leading up to it from multiple perspectives *values divergent thinking and considers conflicting or differing views in the process of identifying options for actions *appreciates different perspectives, and ensures that alternative courses of action and their consequences are considered before decisions are made *makes decisions based upon an analysis of options *demonstrates contingency planning skills. CLUSTER: DECISION-MAKING COMPETENCIES DECISIVENESS DECISIVENESS is the readiness and confidence to make or share decisions in a timely manner, using appropriate levels of involvement so that actions may be taken and commitments made by self and others. The principal needs to exhibit greater DECISIVENESS in which he: *recognizes the importance of sharing decisions and decision-making with stakeholders as integral part of organizational learning and development *recognizes that decisions are made at several levels by different people *faces personnel problems as they occur, provides feedback on performance, and makes difficult personnel decisions when necessary *acts quickly to stop possible breaches of safety and/or interruption in operations in discipline situations *decides to let others decide. CLUSTER: MANAGERIAL COMPETENCIES ORGANIZATIONAL ABILITY DELEGATION MANAGEMENT CONTROL ORGANIZATIONAL ABILITY is the "know-how" (knowledge and skill) to design, plan and organize activities to achieve goals. The principal must improve his ORGANIZATIONAL ABILITY in which he: *develops action plans for goal achievement in collaboration with the school improvement team *recruits teachers whose goals align with the mission and goals of the school community DELEGATION is entrusting of jobs to be done, beyond routine assignments, to others, giving them authority and responsibility for accomplishment. The principal must improve his DELEGATION COMPETENCE in which he: *assesses the expertise of self and others and, whenever possible considers the developmental needs and aspirations of others in relation to the jobs and tasks to be assigned *seeks outside help and assistance for tasks or jobs for which time and talents are not available within the school *gains understanding and acceptance for delegated tasks *specifies responsibility and authority for delegated tasks MANAGEMENT CONTROL is the establishment of systematic processes to receive and provide feedback about the progress of work being done. The principal must improve his skills of MANAGEMENT CONTROL in which he: *walks around campus purposefully to check the status of events *holds frequent conferences with staff about student progress *asks for feedback to see how well self is doing *reconsiders, at least annually, the shared vision of the school, its mission and the stated goals *schedules follow-up for all delegated and assigned activities. RECOMMENDED ACTION PLAN FOR THE NEEDS RELATED TO THE FLORIDA PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES AS IDENTIFIED BY THE SUPPORT TEAM Lonnie Smith, Interim Principal, Haines City Senior High, will implement the following activities as a way to document successful achievement of the Florida Principal Competency criteria for certification as a School Principal: Develop and maintain a portfolio which contains artifacts related to each of the indicators (as appropriate) for the Florida Principal Competencies as identified by the support team in July of 1997. Provide written behavioral examples for specific competency indicators for which artifact documentation is inappropriate. Provide oral behavioral examples in an interview setting to his supervisor related to specific competency indicators as identified in the summary of developmental needs. Read the Polk County School Board Policy Book and consult with his supervisor and/or other appropriate district level resource people when specific policy questions arise. Participate in Leadership Academy training activities as follows: Facilitative Leadership Leadership Self-Assessment Seven Habits Of Highly Effective People Schedule, plan, and facilitate at least four (4) meetings of the Interim Principal Support Team to provide status reports concerning the developmental needs as identified and action plan accomplishments. One meeting should be scheduled in each of the following months: October, 1997; January, 1998; March, 1998; June 1998. Meet all expectations/processes as outlined in the performance appraisal procedures for school-based administrators. Participate in other training as might be suggested by the Assistant Area Superintendent and where time and content are appropriate. Secure and administer the "School Climate Quality Survey" from Anchin Center, USF (813- 974-5959). Develop an action plan to address any areas of need as identified by the survey results. Participate in additional shadowing experiences with each peer principal at least twice during the 1997-1998 school year. Limit military leave time to a minimum so as to concentrate on successful demonstration of all duties comprehensive of the principalship. Despite several objections to the Plan, including the requirement to reduce his military obligation, Petitioner accepted the Plan and proceeded to work on the 11-point recommended action set out in the Plan. Petitioner did not at this time, or at any previous time, advise the Team that he was of the opinion that he had successfully completed the Program. In accordance with the recommended action set out in the Plan Petitioner: developed and maintained a portfolio; provided written behavioral examples for specific competency indicators for which artifact documentation is inappropriate; provided his Team and supervisor with oral behavioral examples; read the Polk County School Board Policy Book and consulted with his supervisor or other appropriate district level resource personnel when specific policy questions would arise; participated in the leadership academy training activities and completed the three courses outlined in the recommended action set out in the Plan; d scheduled, planned, and facilitated at least three meetings of the Interim Principal Support Team. A fourth meeting of the Interim Principal Support was scheduled and planned by Petitioner but did not occur due to the Program being terminated prematurely in March 1998; participated in other training that was suggested by Area Superintendent Carolyn Baldwin, went to training titled Building a Team, and also went to training provided by the Board and Ms. Baldwin in particular. secured and administered the "School Climate Quality Survey" and, pursued furthering shadowing with the two peer principals. On January 26, 1998, the Team met to review Petitioner's progress, The Team member expressed concern regarding Petitioner's leadership in the instructional/academic programs at Haines City High School, and the need for an academic plan for the school was discussed. On March 5, 1998, the Team met to review Petitioner's progress on the Plan and the Program. The Team's concern regarding the school's academic plan was again discussed. Petitioner was requested to prepare a written description of a plan for improving the school's academic and instructional performance. Petitioner subsequently submitted such a plan to the Team members. Each of the Team members found shortcomings in Petitioner's academic plan. Petitioner's plan: (a) did not address what Petitioner had been asked to address by the Team; (b) lacked substance; (c) lacked quality; and (c) was difficult to understand. On March 16, 1998, the Team met without Petitioner to discuss his progress with the Plan and Program. Petitioner was not present at this meeting due some minor surgery. Petitioner was offered the opportunity to postpone the meeting but decided to let the Team meet without him. However, Petitioner had submitted material to the Team regarding the Plan. After reviewing the material submitted by Petitioner (which apparently included Petitioner's portfolio), the Team, individually and collectively, concluded that Petitioner had not successfully completed the Program in that he had failed to demonstrate satisfactory performance of the 19 Florida Principal Competencies. At this meeting the Team reached a consensus that the Team could not recommend Petitioner for certification as a principal. A memorandum was prepared advising Superintendent Reynolds that the Team was recommending that Petitioner should not receive certification as a principal. Additionally, the memorandum advised Superintendent Reynolds that although Petitioner had made some improvements there had not been a demonstration of performance whereby the Team could recommend School Principal Certification for Petitioner. The Team also agreed at the March 16, 1998, meeting that since Petitioner's evaluation was an integral part of the certification program that Ms. Baldwin, as Petitioner's supervisor, would complete Petitioner's evaluation. On March 17, 1998, Ms. Baldwin prepared Petitioner's Principal Performance Summary Assessment and rated Petitioner "Ineffective" in the following Clusters of Florida Principal Competencies: Proactive Orientation with the following comments: has been proactive in relationship to the physical facility and grounds needs of Haines City High School. lacks proactive orientation in relationship to school's academic performance. discipline issues often become complaint status. Parents express concern about the accessibility of the principal for problem resolution and frequently report referral to the staff persons when the [sic] specifically request to speak with the school principal. Some parents say they do not know who the principal is. lack of participation in decision making regarding emergency plans for school double session (December 1997). decisiveness in relation to safety issues questionable, i.e. bomb threat incident and delay of school evacuation as documented by investigation of Mr. Fred Murphy, Director of Disaster Preparedness; also lack of a clear plan even after numerous bomb threats (which staff members were to search which parts of the building) staff report hesitancy in interaction in planning meetings (guidance staff, specifically) difficulty in simple decision making and follow through (i.e., FBLA supplements, principal awarded 2 available supplements at 100% and 2 more at 33 1/3% with conflicting paperwork on file at the county level.) complaints re: cheerleaders coaching and advertisement of supplemental positions as per collective bargaining agreement affecting basic program start up timeliness and county requirements Sensitivity does not seem to have recognition of consequences of his actions in the larger organization (i.e., letting teachers go home during duty day perceived as abdication of responsibility) development of team approach weak considering 2 years to accomplish (relationships with other administrators disjointed and awkward) tends to isolate himself and participate in peripheral ways only (observed in East Area principal's meetings as well as reported by school staff) lack of networking with peer principal's [sic]; evidences reluctance to use peer principals as resources Analysis weakness in interpreting school's academic data. Uses large minority population and high mobility rate as reasons for school underachievement no observation in concept through conversation or practice of elements of concept formation or conceptual flexibility at a proficient level Leadership Managing interaction weak in group problem solving high number of parent complaints about interaction with school personnel (principal and others) as compared to other area high schools. Four times the number of complaints requiring intervention compared to the next highest number from another high school (48:12 ratio). One other area high school has only 3 complaint calls Work Standards have not observed level of developmental orientation expected of a principal performing effectively Written Communication some ambiguity in written communication, some ideas not clearly communicated (i.e., materials provided to team for interim principal program) Sharon Knowles concluded that Petitioner had failed to adequately perform in the competency of proactive orientation which includes decision-making, improving the school, and decisiveness. Knowles cited specific examples such as Petitioner's decision to delay evacuating the school upon being advised of a bomb threat and his decision to attend a scholarship competition at another school during the time that a law enforcement officer had been killed in the community and his school was in a lock-down. To Knowles this indicated a lack of decisiveness. Also, Knowles concluded that Petitioner's failure to move the Program along in the beginning indicated a lack of responsibility on the part of Petitioner. David Lewis concluded that Petitioner had failed to adequately perform in the competency of proactive orientation. Lewis cited specific examples such as Petitioner's delay in responding to a bomb threat and his lack of involvement in taking the leadership role in diffusing the situation. Lewis cited Petitioner's lack of leadership in responding to a tornado disaster. Lewis cited Petitioner's failure to return to his school during a lock-down of the school after the shooting death of a law enforcement officer in the neighborhood. Lewis also concluded that Petitioner had failed to perform in the cluster of Critical Thinking (Information Search and Analysis, Concept Formation, and Conceptual Flexibility). As a specific example, Lewis cited Petitioner's inability to properly prepare and present an academic and instructional plan for Haines City High School.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board enter a final order finding that Petitioner did not successfully complete the necessary requirements for the principal certification under the Interim Principal Program and, is further recommended that Petitioner be denied principal certification under that program. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of July, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of July, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert H. Grizzard, II, Esquire Post Office Box 992 115 Trader's Alley Lakeland, Florida 33802-0992 Donald H. Wilson, Jr., Esquire Boswell and Dunlap LLP Post Office Drawer 30 Bartow, Florida 33831 Mr. Glenn Reynolds Superintendent of Schools Polk County School Board 1915 South Floral Avenue Bartow, Florida 33830-0391 Tom Gallagher Commissioner of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
