The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's employment with the District School Board of Taylor County, Florida, should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact The School Board has employed Dr. Whalen since 1997. She was, when first employed, a teacher at Gladys Morse Elementary School and then was employed as a teacher at Taylor Elementary School. Until January 19, 2005, she taught at Taylor Elementary School. Her employment was pursuant to a professional services contract. Dr. Whalen has been confined to a wheelchair for almost 55 years. She cannot move her lower extremities and she is without feeling in her lower extremities. On January 19, 2005, she was approximately 58 years of age. During times pertinent Dr. Whalen taught a "varying exceptionalities" class. A "varying exceptionalities" class is provided for students who have a specific learning disability, or have emotional difficulties, or have a physical handicap or handicaps. She has been an exceptional student education teacher for about 20 years. She has never been disciplined by an employer during her career. In addition to her teaching activities, she is County Coordinator for the Special Olympics. The School Board operates the school system in Taylor County. The School Board is a party to a Master Teacher Contract (Master Teacher Contract), with The Taylor Education Association, which is an affiliate of the Florida Education Association, the American Federation of Teachers, the AFL-CIO, and the National Education Association. This contract governs the relations between teachers, and others, and the School Board. Accordingly, it governs the relations between the School Board and Dr. Whalen. Kathy Kriedler is currently a teacher at Taylor Elementary School. She is certified in teaching emotionally impaired children and has taught emotionally impaired children in Taylor County since 1983. She is an outstanding teacher who was recently named Taylor County Elementary School Teacher of the Year and Taylor County District Teacher of the Year. Ms. Kriedler is a master level instructor in Nonviolent Crisis Intervention, which is a program of the Crises Prevention Institute. The use of skills associated with the program is generally referred to as CPI. CPI arms teachers with the skills necessary to de-escalate a crisis involving a student, or, in the event de-escalation fails, provides the skills necessary to physically control students. Ms. Kriedler has been the School Board's CPI teacher since 1987. CPI teaches that there are four stages of crisis development and provides four staff responses to each stage. These stages and responses are: (1) Anxiety-Supportive; (2) Defensive-Directive; (3) Acting Out Person-Nonviolent Physical Crisis Intervention; and (4) Tension Reduction-Therapeutic Rapport. The thrust of CPI is the avoidance of physical intervention. The CPI Workbook notes that, "The crisis development model . . . is an extremely valuable tool that can be utilized to determine where a person is during an escalation process." It then notes, helpfully, "Granted, human behavior is not an orderly 1-4 progression." The CPI Workbook provides certain responses for a situation that has devolved into violence. CPI physical control techniques include the "children's control position" which is also referred to as the "basket hold." CPI also provides a maneuver called the "bite release" which is used when a child bites a teacher and the "choke release" which is used when a child chokes a teacher. CPI specifically forbids sitting or lying on a child who is lying on the floor because this could cause "positional asphyxia." In other words, the act of lying upon a child could prevent a child from breathing which could result in injury or death. Ms. Kriedler teaches CPI throughout the District. The School Board encourages teachers to learn and apply CPI in their dealings with students. The use of CPI is not, however, mandatory School Board policy nor is it required by the State Board of Education. Dr. Whalen took and passed Ms. Kriedler's CPI course and took and passed her refresher course. She had at least 16 hours of instruction in CPI. She could not accomplish some of the holds taught because of her physical handicap. A memorandum dated April 7, 2003, and signed by Principal Sylvia Ivey, was presented to Dr. Whalen by Principal Ivey. The memorandum addressed conversations that Dr. Whalen had with two of her colleagues on April 3, 2003. The memorandum recited that these conversations raised concerns with regard to whether Dr. Whalen was using appropriate CPI techniques. The memorandum stated that Dr. Whalen's classroom would be video- taped for the remainder of the school year, that Dr. Whalen was to document each case of restraint used, that she should use proper CPI techniques, and that she should contact the office should a crisis situation arise in her classroom. The record reveals that Dr. Whalen's classroom was already being video-taped as early as November 20, 2002. It is certain that the classroom was being video-taped daily from April 2003, until the end of the school year. By January 2005 the practice of video-taping Dr. Whalen's classroom on a daily basis had ended. The incident giving rise to this case was not video-taped. Principal Ivey's memorandum of April 7, 2003, specified that ". . . Mr. Howard and I informed you that we will video-tape your Classroom . . . ." Thus it is clear that it was not Dr. Whalen's duty to cause the classroom to be video-taped. During January 2005, a school resource officer, who is a deputy sheriff, was available should it become necessary to physically restrain a child who was a threat to himself or herself or others. On January 19, 2005, J.R. a female, was a student in Dr. Whalen's classroom. J.R. was ten years old and in the third grade. J.R. had been a student in Dr. Whalen's classroom since about January 10, 2005. Dr. Whalen did not know much about J.R.'s history on January 19, 2005. At the hearing J.R. appeared physically to be approximately as large as Dr. Whalen. A determination as to exactly who was the larger could not be made because Dr. Whalen was seated in a wheelchair at the hearing. Assistant Principal Verges found that J.R.'s physical strength was greater than average for an elementary school student when once he had to restrain her after she bit another person. J.R. brought a CD player to class on January 19, 2005, and after lunchtime, Dr. Whalen discovered the CD player and confiscated it. Dr. Whalen took possession of the CD player because school rules forbid students to have CD players in class. Dr. Whalen put it in a drawer by her desk. When this happened, in J.R.'s words she, "Got mad." A heated discussion between Dr. Whalen and J.R., about the dispossession of the CD player ensued, but after a brief time, according to Dr. Whalen's aide, Angela Watford, "the argument settled." Even though Ms. Watford's lunch break had begun, she remained in the room, at Dr. Whalen's request, until she was satisfied that the dispute had calmed. Subsequent to the departure of Ms. Watford, J.R. approached Dr. Whalen who was seated behind her desk working. The configuration of the desk and furniture used by Dr. Whalen was such that she was surrounded by furniture on three sides. In order to obtain the CD player, it was necessary for J.R. to enter this confined space. J.R. entered this space, moving behind Dr. Whalen, and reached for the drawer containing the CD player in an effort to retrieve it. When Dr. Whalen asked her what she was doing, J.R. said, "I am getting my CD player and getting out of this f class." Dr. Whalen told J.R. to return to her desk. J.R. continued in her effort to obtain the CD player and succeeded in opening the drawer and grasping the headset part of the CD player. Dr. Whalen attempted to close the drawer. J.R. reacted violently and this surprised Dr. Whalen. J.R. attempted to strike Dr. Whalen. Dr. Whalen reared back to avoid the blow and then put her arm around J.R. When J.R. pulled away, this caused Dr. Whalen to fall from her wheelchair on top of J.R.'s back at about a 45-degree angle. Immediately thereafter, J.R. bit Dr. Whalen several times. The bites broke Dr. Whalen's skin in three places and the pain caused her to cry. J.R. began cursing, screaming, and kicking. J.R. said she was going to "kick the s _ _ _" out of her teacher. In fact, while on the carpet, J.R. kicked Dr. Whalen numerous times. Dr. Whalen believed she would be in danger of additional harm if she allowed J.R. to regain her feet. This belief was reasonable. J.R. was in no danger of asphyxiation during this event because Dr. Whalen removed part of her weight from J.R. by extending her arms. Upon returning from lunch Ms. Watford spotted T.B., a boy who appears to be eight to ten years of age. T.B. was standing outside of Dr. Whalen's classroom and he calmly said to Ms. Watford, "Help." Ms. Watford entered the classroom and observed Dr. Whalen lying on top of and across J.R., who was face down on the carpeted floor, and who was cursing and kicking while Dr. Whalen tried to restrain her. Ms. Watford ran over to assist in restraining her by putting her legs between J.R.'s legs. J.R. thereafter tried to hit Ms. Watford with her right hand. Ms. Watford grabbed J.R.'s right arm and was severely bitten on the knuckle by J.R. The three of them ended up, Ms. Watford related, "in a wad." Within seconds of Ms. Watford's intervention, Frances Durden, an aide in the classroom next door came on the scene. She was followed by Takeisha McIntyre, the dean of the school, and Assistant Principal Vincent Verges. Ms. McIntyre and Mr. Verges were able to calm J.R. and safely separate her from Dr. Whalen. Then J.R. stated that Dr. Whalen had bitten her. Dr. Whalen and Ms. Watford went to the school's health clinic to have their wounds treated. The wounds were cleaned and Ms. Watford subsequently received an injection. While Dr. Whalen and Ms. Watford were at the health clinic, J.R. was ushered in by Ms. McIntyre. J.R.'s shirt was raised and the persons present observed two red marks between her shoulder blades. Dr. Whalen said that the marks must have been produced by her chin or that possibly her teeth may have contacted J.R.'s back. She said that she had forced her chin into J.R.'s back in an effort to stop J.R. from biting her. Ms. McIntyre took photographs of the marks. The photography was observed by Mr. Verges. The photographs reveal two red marks positioned between J.R.'s shoulder blades. The two marks are vertical and aligned with the backbone. They are from one, to one and one half inches in length. The skin is not broken. There is no wound. Teeth marks are not discernible. A teacher who has years of experience in the elementary or kindergarten education levels, and who has observed many bite marks, may offer an opinion as to whether a mark is a bite mark. Mr. Verges has the requisite experience to offer an opinion as to the nature of the marks on J.R.'s back and he observed the actual marks as well as the photographs. It is his opinion that the two marks were caused by a bite. Ms. McIntyre, who has also observed many bite marks in her career, and who observed the actual marks as well as the photographs, stated that the marks were consistent with a bite. Registered Nurse Cate Jacob, supervisor of the School Health Program observed J.R.'s back on January 19, 2005, and opined that the red marks on J.R.'s back were bite marks. J.R. reported via her mother, the day after the incident, that she had been bitten by a boy on the playground of Taylor Elementary School, by a black boy with baggy pants, possibly before the incident with Dr. Whalen. Facts presented at the hearing suggest that it is unlikely that J.R. was bitten under the circumstances described. T.B. was the only nonparticipant close to the actual combat who was a neutral observer. He did not see Dr. Whalen bite J.R., but did see her chin contact J.R.'s back and he heard Dr. Whalen say words to the effect, "I am going to make you say 'ouch.'" Dr. Whalen denied biting J.R. She stated at the time of the event, and under oath at the hearing, that she forcibly contacted J.R.'s back with her chin. She stated that it was possible that in the heat of the struggle her teeth may have contacted J.R.'s back. The opinion of the school personnel as to the origin of the marks upon J.R.'s back is entitled to great weight. On the other hand, a study of the photographs exposed immediately after the incident, reveals no teeth marks and no broken skin. The marks are consistent with pressing one's chin upon another's back or pressing one's teeth in one's back. In the latter case, whether J.R. was bitten may be a matter of definition. Generally, a bite occurs when the victim experiences a grip or wound like that experienced by Ms. Watford or Dr. Whalen in this incident. Although J.R. asserted that the marks occurred because of the actions of, "a boy on the playground," given J.R.'s general lack of credibility, that explanation is of questionable reliability. The evidence, taken as a whole, does not lend itself to a finding as to the origin of the marks on J.R.'s back. Principal Ivey's memorandum of April 7, 2003, specified that ". . . Mr. Howard and I informed you that we will video-tape your classroom . . . ." Thus it is clear that it was not Dr. Whalen's duty to cause the classroom to be video-taped. It is found that the assault on Dr. Whalen was sudden and unexpected. J.R. was suspended from Taylor Elementary School for ten days following this incident. Sylvia Ivey has been the principal of Taylor Elementary for three years. She has evaluated Dr. Whalen three times. She has evaluated Dr. Whalen as "effective," which is the top mark that a teacher may receive. Dr. Whalen received memoranda of counseling on December 2, 2002, and April 7, 2003.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Dr. Whalen be immediately reinstated to her former position without diminution of pay or benefits, pursuant to the Master Teacher Contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of June, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary F. Aspros, Esquire Meyer and Brooks, P.A. 2544 Blairstone Pines Drive Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Angela M. Ball, Esquire Post Office Box 734 Perry, Florida 32348 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Honorable John L. Winn Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Oscar M. Howard, Jr., Superintendent Taylor County School Board 318 North Clark Street Perry, Florida 32347
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Carolyn T. Smith, holds teaching certificate number 105319, issued by the State of Florida, Department of Education. Respondent is certified to teach French and Spanish through the junior college level. Respondent has been employed as a French and Spanish teacher by Petitioner, School Board of Dade County (School Board) since 1961. From 1961 to 1966, Respondent taught at Mays Junior High School, and from 1966 through 1976 at Southwest Miami Senior High School. During the 1976-77 and 1977-78 school years Respondent was on a leave of absence. In 1978 Respondent resumed her teaching career and was assigned to Palmetto Senior High School (Palmetto). Respondent taught at Palmetto until her suspension from teaching at the conclusion of the 1982-83 school year. Respondent's annual evaluations extending from the 1961-62 school year through the 1978-79 school year were acceptable. It is Respondent's performance from the 1979-80 through 1982-83 school years which is at issue in these proceedings. During the 1979-80 school year the normal work day at Palmetto was 7:20 a.m. to 2:40 p.m. Due to personal hardship, however, Respondent was granted permission to alter her schedule to an 8:10 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. work day. Despite the accommodation afforded Respondent, on at least seven occasions between September 7, 1979 and February 21, 1980, Respondent was from five minutes to one hour and ten minutes late to work. Not only was Respondent late to her first class, she occasionally missed the class entirely as well as the beginning of her next class. On February 21, 1980 Respondent was formally observed by Elaine Kenzel, assistant principal at Palmetto. Ms. Kenzel's observation specifically apprised Respondent that she had been rated unacceptable in professional responsibility because of her tardiness. Ms. Kenzel's observation noted several other areas of performance in which Respondent was unacceptable or needed improvement. These matters were reviewed at conferences with Respondent on February 26 and 28, 1980. Portions of the conferences were attended by Francis Wargo, the principal at Palmetto. Among the topics broached at the conferences were Respondent's failure to properly maintain her grade book, her failure to follow proper grading procedures, her failure to properly assess each student's progress, her failure to use assessment techniques which motivate and enable students to learn, and lack of teacher-student rapport. Respondent's grade book for the 1979-80 school year was messy and, in large measure, incomprehensible to anyone other than Respondent. The grade book failed to indicate the grading period, failed to specify the grade source, failed to weight the grades for various tasks, and was uncoded. It depicted a poor professional image and failed to fulfill its basic purpose--to enable students, parents, replacement teachers and other authorized persons to review a student's achievement. Despite repeated critiques, Respondent's grade books showed little improvement during her tenure at Palmetto. Ms. Kenzel also counseled Respondent about her obligation to maintain a representative sampling of each student's work in her student folders. These samples were necessary to assess student progress, and should include graded tests, homework, classwork and reports. At the time of Ms. Kenzel's observation, six months into the 1979-80 school year, there were few samples of any student's work. What did exist were, in large measure, short quizzes of a vocabulary nature. The student folders were inadequate to assess a student's progress. Finally, Ms. Kenzel critiqued Respondent's instructional technique. Ms. Kenzel suggested that Respondent's students should not be simply repeating lessons in rote fashion, but should be involved in a variety of activities. This would improve student attention and enthusiasm, which Ms. Kenzel perceived was lacking. Final examinations for the 1979-80 school year were scheduled to commence at 7:30 a.m., June 9, 1980. The scheduling of examinations required a rearrangement of the normal class schedule. Fifth period, which normally began at 1:30 p.m., was scheduled for 7:30 a.m. This change required that Respondent report at 7:20 a.m. on June 9, instead of 8:10 a.m. The examination schedule was published, and discussed with Respondent at a faculty meeting. On June 9, 1980, Respondent failed to report for work until 8:15 a.m., 45 minutes after her fifth period examination was scheduled to commence. Respondent's tardiness created a poor testing atmosphere and was a cause of anxiety and frustration for her students. Respondent offered no explanation for her tardiness. On June 11, 1980, a conference for the record was held between Mr. Wargo and Respondent. Respondent's tardiness of June 9, 1980 was discussed, and she was reminded that her work day for the next year would be the same as other teachers, 7:20 a.m.-2:40 p.m. Respondent was told that disciplinary action would be recommended if she failed to observe the prescribed working hours. Respondent was also reminded that school policy forbade a teacher to permit a student to hand-carry any part of an examination to the office for duplication. Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1979-80 school year recommended Respondent for continued employment, but found her unacceptable in classroom management and teacher-student relationships. It is worthy of note that this evaluation was dated June 2, 1980, and therefore predated Respondent's tardiness of June 9, 1980 and the conference for the record held June 11, 1980. The 1980- School Year The 1980-81 school year produced few observations of Respondent's performance. During that year a massive rebuilding project was underway and the administration's attention was directed toward that project and coping with the upheaval it caused. Normal classroom assignments and instruction were often disrupted. Teachers were often moved in and out of classrooms on one day's notice. Consequently, a great deal of latitude was afforded all teachers, and all were rated acceptable. That is not to say Respondent's performance was unblemished. The evidence established two definite areas of deficiency again were present. Respondent's tardiness to school and to class continued, and Respondent was again deficient in her student assessments. In November 1981, Ms. Mona Sowers visited Respondent's class to discuss the progress of her daughter, Carolyn Ann. She was concerned because conversations she had overheard between her daughter and friends left her with the impression they were not being tested. Respondent's grade book demonstrated that no testing or grades were present for Carolyn Ann. Although she inquired of her daughter's progress, Ms. Sowers was not shown any papers, or any other work, which would objectively demonstrate her daughter's progress. Respondent's sole explanation was that she tested her students orally. There were no grades in the grade book for oral or written tests, however, and Respondent was unable to recognize Ms. Sowers' daughter as one of her students until prompted by Ms. Sowers. For the 1981-82 school year, Respondent was again scheduled to work the normal 7:20 a.m. to 2:40 p.m. work day. On the first day of class Respondent was 20 minutes late. During much of the 1981-82 school year Respondent was tardy in arriving, from two to five occasions each week. Teacher tardiness impacts directly on the quantum of education offered the students. While first period is scheduled to begin at 7:30 a.m., adherence to the 7:20 a.m. arrival time is essential if the teacher is to be prepared to start class promptly. Otherwise, 5-10 minutes of class time are wasted by the teacher in organizing herself for that day's lesson. Promptness is particularly crucial for first period since daily announcements, which can occupy up to five minutes of the period, are given at that time. Since each class period is 55 minutes in duration, a loss of only 10 minutes per day equates to a loss of one day of instruction each week. Respondent's tardiness deprived her students of valuable instructional time, and left them unsupervised--a condition not helpful to their safety. Respondent was formally observed on six separate occasions during the 1981-82 school year. Mr. Wargo's observations of September 25, 1981 and November 5, 1982, and Ms. Kenzel's observation of October 12, 1981, rated Respondent overall acceptable, but each noted some areas of unacceptable performance. The deficiencies noted in these three observations were similar to those observed in preceding years. Respondent was unacceptable in classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships and professional responsibility. Respondent wasted up to 20 minutes of class time on extraneous matters, failed to establish or enforce classroom policies on decorum or procedure, and her instruction evidenced a lack of planning. Respondent's classroom was messy and disorganized. Her tardiness continued. Each of these observations was critiqued with Respondent and suggestions to improve her performance were made. She was advised to start classes promptly, establish classroom policies and enforce them, vary her methods of instruction, and visit other classes and observe other teachers' performance. Respondent was reminded that her contract work day was 7:20 a.m. to 2:40 p.m. On February 2, 1982, Mr. Wargo stopped two students leaving Respondent's room. He discovered they had been visiting other students in Respondent's classroom, and that she was unaware of their presence. Respondent was observed passing out papers during a movie, and her students were talking and walking about. This occasioned Respondent's next formal observation. On February 4-5, 1982, Mr. Wargo formally observed Respondent's classes. He rated her overall unacceptable, and unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships and professional responsibility. Apart from Respondent's continuing tardiness, which accounted for her unacceptable rating in professional responsibility, the gravamen of her unacceptable rating in the other areas was basically inadequate planning and variety. Respondent's class was dull, her voice a monotone. Students responded in rote fashion to Respondent's singular questions. There was no variety of instruction or student feedback. Mr. Wargo directed Respondent to use the prescribed lesson plan form that had been developed at Palmetto. It was his opinion that if Respondent prepared a detailed lesson plan her classroom management would improve, student confusion would be avoided, and a more stimulating and organized presentation achieved. On February 9, 1982 Mr. Wargo held a conference with Respondent, Ms. Kenzel and Ms. Patrylo, Respondent's department head, to discuss the unacceptable observation of February 4-5, 1982, the incident of February 2, 1982, and ways to improve Respondent's techniques of instruction. During the course of that meeting, Respondent was advised that Ms. Wally Lyshkov, foreign language supervisor for Dade County Schools, would observe her class on February 19, 1982. On February 19, 1982 Respondent was formally observed by Ms. Lyshkov. While she rated Respondent overall acceptable, Ms. Lyshkov was of the opinion that Respondent's presentation was "staged" for her benefit. Her opinion was formed as a result of student comments that they did not usually do what they were doing, and by the lack of smoothness that results when activities are routine. Although "staged," Respondent's presentation indicates she knows how to teach effectively if she chooses to do so. Respondent had a very detailed lesson plan for the day Ms. Lyshkov observed her. Ms. Lyshkov reviewed Respondent's prior plans and found them to be sketchy. She recommended that Respondent continue to formulate detailed lesson plans, since Respondent's success that day proved their effectiveness. Respondent's last formal observation for the 1981-82 school year occurred on March 2, 1982. Mr. Wargo observed her classes for periods 1 and 2, and Ms. Kenzel observed for a portion of the same classes. Respondent was rated overall acceptable. The results of these observations establish that Respondent is capable of presenting a good lesson when she chooses to prepare herself. The 1981-82 school year evidenced other indications of Respondent's disposition. She was late turning in emergency lesson plans, lesson plans, course outlines and grade sheets. She was late to departmental meetings and to teacher workdays. She occasionally left her classes unsupervised. Despite her previous warning, Respondent continued to permit students to hand-carry examinations to the xerox room for copying. In May 1982 Mr. Wargo issued Respondent a letter of reprimand for unprofessional conduct in calling a student "trash." During the 1982-83 school year Respondent was heard to call various students "cabbage head," "stupid," "dumb," "disgusting," "fools," and "disgusting little creature." On May 27, 1982 Mr. Wargo completed Respondent's annual evaluation and recommended her for continued employment. While Mr. Wargo rated Respondent unacceptable in teacher-student relationships, he was apparently satisfied that she was improving her other areas of deficiency. Subsequent to the annual evaluation a significant number of serious problems surfaced which reflected on Respondent's performance and which caused Mr. Wargo to seriously question his recommendation for continued employment. Respondent was absent, without satisfactory excuse or authorization, from school during the final examination period of June 14 through June 17, 1982. According to Respondent it was not until 2:00 p.m. the preceding Friday that she first learned she would have to take her son, a 12-year-old junior high school student, to Talladega College, Talladega, Alabama, to enroll him in a "Super Stars" summer program she had selected. According to Respondent, her husband could not take their son because he was "on call" at his work. Respondent's explanation for abandoning her obligations is unpersuasive. Respondent had at least four weeks' notice that her son had been accepted for the program. Ms. Patrylo, Respondent's department head, was at school the Friday before exams until 2:45-3:00 p.m. At no time during the preceding four weeks, or on the Friday preceding exams, did Respondent advise the administration or her department head that she would need to be absent that week. Instead, Respondent "fulfilled" her obligations by "informing" the principal's and assistant principal's secretaries late Friday afternoon that she would be absent and left her final examinations in the office. Ms. Patrylo did not become aware of Respondent's absence until the morning of June 14, 1982. During the course of administering the French I final examination to Respondent's first period class Ms. Patrylo discovered a number of significant problems which reflected adversely on Respondent's competence. Respondent's French I examination was a travesty. It was not a French I examination but a French II placement test the department had previously prepared to gauge at what level an incoming student should be placed. Respondent had simply taken a copy of the placement test and written "French I Final" on it. Respondent had been previously instructed that the examination was to be thorough and cover a significant amount of the year's course content. Essay questions were to be included. The French II placement test which Respondent proposed to give her students was composed of 47 questions; no essay questions - were included. Over 50 percent of the test, 25 questions, dealt with the passe' compose', yet that grammatical structure had not been extensively taught. Twenty-five percent of the examination dealt with verbs in the past tense, yet Respondent's students had not studied the past tense. Moreover, the test only required the "bubbling in" of answers on a computer card and did not require any writing. While two hours were allotted for the examination, this exam could be completed in ten minutes. Respondent's classroom was in disarray. Maps valued at $300 were abused. Respondent's closet contained flash cards, audio visual materials, food and other materials haphazardly thrown about. The room was completely disorganized. Respondent left no instructions for completing her book inventory. Consequently, 56 of her textbooks, valued at $11.00 each, were never accounted for. When school started the next year the class was short of books. On June 18, 1982, the last day of school, Respondent was due at school at 8:00 a.m. She failed to arrive until 8:45 a.m. Because of Respondent's tardiness three members of her department had to record grades for four of her classes in order to assure timely delivery of the grade sheets to the computer center. In working with Respondent's grade book to establish final grades, these teachers noted several shortcomings. Respondent's grade book contained no code for weighting of grades, it was impossible to tell which student absences were excused or unexcused, and on some lines two students' names appeared, rendering it impossible to decipher which grades belonged to which student. On June 23, 1982 a conference for the record was held to discuss the shortcomings of Respondent's performance, which were revealed during the last days of the school year. During this conference Mr. Wargo addressed Respondent's historical and current problems in record keeping, tardiness, following district, area and school policies, and classroom management. Mr. Wargo advised Respondent, by memorandum dated June 28, 1982, that he would not recommend Respondent for continued employment for the 1983-84 school year unless she showed marked improvement during the 1982-83 school year in the following areas: Accuracy and completeness of required record keeping. Strict adherence to contracted working hours of 7:20 a.m.-2:40 p.m. You will be expected to be in your classroom no later than 7:25 a.m. Compliance with district, area, and school level directives and policies. Improved classroom management procedures to insure the following: Classroom organized and neat; Attendance and tardy procedures enforced. Seating charts available and up-to-date. Rules and procedures consistently applied. Teacher-student relationships resulting in mutual respect. Consistent classroom performance resulting in continuous acceptable ratings. Respondent agreed to follow Mr. Wargo's suggestions to improve her performance, and to cooperate with the department chairperson. She stated that she would work very diligently the next year, and promised that Mr. Wargo would see considerable improvement. The observations, evaluations, conferences and suggestions made over the preceding three years, and Respondent's commitment to improve her performance and cooperation during the 1982-83 school year, proved futile. From September 1982 through April 1983, Respondent's teaching was observed on one or more occasions by her principal and assistant principal, an area director of the Dade County public schools, and the foreign language supervisor of the Dade County public schools. Each concurs that Respondent's performance was unacceptable in preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques; the same reasons she was found unacceptable in previous years. The root of Respondent's poor performance was indolence. Although proficient in her languages, Respondent demonstrated an unwillingness to change her methods or to plan, deliver and critique her lessons. Throughout the 1982-83 school year, despite numerous conferences, prescriptions, and requests, Respondent's lesson plans were submitted late and evidenced no continuity of purpose. At best, they were sketchy, disorganized and unduly repetitive. At worst, they were incomprehensible and illegible. Their content and appearance compel the conclusion they were hastily prepared to superficially comply with the requirement that she have lesson plans, but without any attention to their content or purpose. Respondent's classroom management was unacceptable throughout the school year. Frequently, less than one-half of available class time was devoted to foreign language instruction. Students were often unruly and undisciplined. They were permitted, without censure, to read novels, listen to radios, gossip, and apparently sleep during Respondent's classes. Respondent's inability or failure to manage her classroom was in large measure a product of her failure to prepare her lessons. Because of the low cognitive level at which Respondent taught, her classes were dull and conducive to student disruption. Her techniques of instruction were unacceptable. Respondent emphasized memorization, recall and drill on a purely audio-lingual basis and ignored the variety and repetitive reinforcement benefits that could be derived from reading and writing a foreign language. Respondent's assessment techniques were unacceptable. After three months into the 1982-83 school year, Respondent's grade book reflected only one written test and her student folders contained no assessment of her students' reading and writing skills. This situation did not improve over the course of the year. At no time during the course of the final hearing did Respondent concede she needed improvement in her techniques. The evidence, however, renders it painfully apparent that a serious problem did exist. Respondent testified that she practiced the audio- lingual method of foreign language instruction, which emphasizes listening and speaking, through level III of a foreign language. Repetition, she says, is essential. Accordingly, Respondent concludes, the presence of repetition in her lesson plans was essential, and the absence of many written tests in her grade book, or student papers reflecting reading and writing skills in the student folders, not unusual. Respondent's explanation ignores some very salient factors, to which she was privy. The Dade County curriculum requires that the four skills-- listening, speaking, reading and writing--be taught at each level of foreign language instruction. Further, Respondent had received unsatisfactory ratings in student assessments during the preceding three years because of her failure to properly test and her failure to document her students' progress in the student folders. By her own testimony Respondent concedes she did not teach the prescribed curriculum. Because of that failure she was unable to assess her students' skills in reading and writing since she had not developed them. By neglecting the reading and writing skills, Respondent not only deprived her students of the skills themselves, but also of the stimulation such variety in technique would have brought to her classroom, the reinforcement that would have been achieved by developing those skills, and the positive impact it would have had on class management. Respondent's attendance history during the 1982-83 school year was poor. As early as September 1982 Respondent was admonished by her principal for her failure to observe the 7:20 a.m. to 2:40 p.m work day, yet she subsequently arrived, on a number of occasions, after 7:30 a.m. During the second semester her tardiness took a new twist. During this time period, while Respondent would apparently arrive at school by the mandated 7:20 a.m. deadline, she would not open her classroom door until 7:30 a.m. While apparently in her classroom at 7:20 a.m., Respondent would not turn on any lights and, consequently, neither student nor administrator could assure her presence. Ms. Patrylo, Respondent's department head, asked Respondent to leave a light on in the room so that Respondent's students would know she was there, and so Ms. Patrylo would not have to be concerned about her absence and the need to unlock the door to admit Respondent's students. Respondent refused Ms. Patrylo's request because "she did not want to run up the electric bill for the Dade County schools." Respondent's response to Ms. Patrylo is not indicative of a cooperative attitude. It is, however, indicative of a plan to frustrate the administration in its attempt to monitor Respondent's compliance with the contracted work hours. The evidence establishes, however, that Respondent failed to adhere to her contracted work hours for the 1982-83 school year. The administration of Palmetto Senior High School, and the School Board, went to considerable lengths in the 1982-83 school year to rehabilitate Respondent. Their efforts were, however, met by little or no effort by Respondent to improve herself. Respondent asserts, rather incongruously since she acknowledges no imperfection in her teaching techniques, that the cause of her failure to improve was caused by the observations and prescriptions themselves and because she had four preparations that school year. Respondent's assertions are unpersuasive. At no time during the 1982-83 school year did Respondent render any such objections. The number of preparations Respondent had was not excessive. Respondent could have obviated the necessity of any prescriptions, and most observations, by abiding the commitment she had given Mr. Wargo at the close of the 1981-82 school year--to improve her performance in these same areas. In short, Respondent's attempt to excuse her "failures," because of the administration's statutorily and contractually mandated efforts to assist her, lacks substance. While occasional improvement in Respondent's performance was seen over the course of the 1982-83 school year, it was sporadic and short-lived. Despite counseling, prescriptions, and workshops, Respondent continued to perform at an unsatisfactory level in the same areas as previous years. It was the consensus of opinion of the professional educators and experts who observed Respondent's classroom performance that she repeatedly failed to teach effectively and faithfully as required by Rule 6Gx 13-4A-1.21V, School Board of Dade County, and failed to communicate with and relate to the children in her classroom to such an extent that they were deprived of a minimum educational experience. The evidence compels the same conclusion. Respondent's tardiness further deprived her students of the minimum educational experience to which they were entitled and her frequent absences from the classroom could have placed her students in physical jeopardy. At the conclusion of the 1982-83 school year Respondent was suspended from her position as a classroom teacher in the Dade County school system.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED That: Petitioner, School Board of Dade County, enter a Final Order in Case No. 83-3067, sustaining Respondent's suspension from her employment, and dismissing Respondent as an employee of the School Board of Dade County; and Petitioner, Ralph D. Turlington, as Commisioner of Education, enter a Final Order in Case No. 84-0149 revoking the teacher's certificate of Respondent, Carolyn T. Smith, for two (2) years. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 1985, at Tallahassee Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Craig R. Wilson, Esquire The Law Building Suite 204 315 Third Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Ellen L. Leesfield, Esquire DuFresne and Bradley, P.A. 2929 S.W. 3rd Avenue Miami, Florida 33129 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an annual contract teacher with the Dave County Public Schools and hold a Florida State teacher's certificate. Although she had worked as a teacher assistant in the past, her first year of employment as a full time teacher was the 1980-81 school year. Respondent was a teacher at Melrose Elementary School for the 1981-81 school year. At the beginning of the school year, she was assigned to teach a Compensatory Education Class. These are small classes and, in Ms. Harper's case, never exceeded 11 students. She was, however, required to keep and retain student records to enable subsequent teachers to determine at what level the student was functioning. After Respondent was transferred from the Compensatory Education classroom, the assistant principal requested that she turn in the records for the class. Respondent stated that she had destroyed them. Respondent's next assignment at Melrose Elementary School was as the teacher of a fifth-sixth grade combination regular education class. The assistant principal officially observed Respondent in the classroom three times and unofficially observed her on additional occasions. She found that Respondent lacked effective instructional planning based on Respondent's failure to complete lesson plans. The collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the Respondent's union stated that lesson plans were an essential part of the teaching process and a proper subject for evaluation. On one occasion, the school was preparing for and audit. Auditors (administrators from other schools) check teacher's plan books, grade books and other teaching materials. The assistant principal contracted Respondent several times in advance of the audit in an attempt to prepare her for it. However, Respondent failed to develop the required lesson plans, so the assistant principal wrote out a week's plans for her. She asked Respondent to take the plans home over the weekend and copy them in her own handwriting. The following Monday at the beginning of the audit, Respondent had only filled out plans for Monday, Tuesday and Friday. There were no lesson plans to be delivered to the auditors regarding Wednesday or Thursday. Testimony of Respondent's supervisor established that she was unable to control the students in her classroom, primarily because she did not assign them anything to do. Furthermore, she sent her students out to play without supervision and left her classroom unattended on several occasions, even though she had previously been instructed by her supervisor not to do so. Respondent received an unacceptable performance rating in the area of "techniques of instruction." This rating was based on the fact that Respondent did not pretest her students and therefore had no knowledge of what the student did or did not know, what he needed to be taught or where to place him in the classroom. As a result, she attempted to teach students division when those students had not yet mastered prerequisite skills. She did not divide her class into ability groups so that she could teach groups of students at their levels of comprehension, and she did not maintain student profiles which would have shown her a particular student's abilities and deficiencies. Respondent either did not assign homework to her students or they did not return it because she had no records to indicate such assignment or files containing student homework. Her records of student grades were incomplete and only sporadically maintained. In the spring of 1982, two students from Respondent's class ran into the principal's office crying. The female student had welts on her chest and face; and the male student had similar injuries to his arms. These injuries were the result of an attack by Respondent. She had not been authorized to administer corporal punishment by her supervisor. Although there was another incident where Respondent chased a student with a ruler, this was the only situation in her teaching career where her loss of control had serious consequences. She appears to regret this incident. Ms. Harper was reassigned to South Hialeah Elementary School for the school year 1982-83. When she reported to South Hialeah Elementary School on September 20, 1982, she was given a lesson plan format, a teacher handbook and other pertinent teaching materials. Respondent received a two day orientation during which she was permitted to read the handbook, observe other teachers and talk with the grade level chairman. She was given instruction in writing lesson plans in the format used throughout the county and required by the UTD-School Board Contract. She was then assigned a regular fourth grade classroom. On her second day of teaching, the assistant principal noted an unacceptable noise level emanating from Respondent's classroom during the announcement period. When she walked into the room, she found Respondent preparing her lesson plans with the students out of control. The assistant principal advised Respondent that this was not the proper time to prepare lesson plans. The next day the situation was the same, and fights broke out between students. The assistant principal was concerned for the safety of these students because of the fights and because Ms. Harper's classroom was on the second floor and students were leaning out of the windows. On October 4, 1982, the assistant principal conducted a formal evaluation of Respondent's classroom teaching, and initially found Respondent preparing lesson plans and not instructing or supervising her students. During the reading lesson, Respondent did not give individual directions to the students, but merely told them all to open their books to a particular page. Since the students were not all working in the same book because they were functioning at different levels of achievement, this created confusion. Finally, the students who had the same book as Respondent were instructed to read, while other students did nothing. After a brief period of instruction, the class was told to go to the bathroom even though this was the middle of the reading lesson and not an appropriate time for such a break. The assistant principal noted that Respondent did not have a classroom schedule or rules. The classroom was in constant confusion and Respondent repeatedly screamed at the children in unsuccessful attempts to maintain order. The assistant principal determined that these problems had to be addressed immediately. Accordingly, in addition to a regular long-term prescription, she gave Respondent a list of short-term objectives to accomplish within the next two days. These objectives consisted of the development of lesson plans and a schedule, arranging a more effective floor plan in the classroom, making provisions for participation by all of the students and developing a set of classroom rules. The assistant principal advised Respondent that if she had any difficulty accomplishing these objectives, she should contact her immediately. The short-term objectives were never accomplished. Respondent did not develop classroom rules. Although the assistant principal and other teachers attempted to teach her to write lesson plans, this was relatively unsuccessful. The principal observed the classroom on October 6, and found that no improvements had been made. She also noted that Respondent had not complied with the outline for lesson plans required by the contract between the UTD and the School Board. Neither had she complied with school's requirements for pupil progression forms. The principal advised Respondent to attempt once again to work on the short-term prescription assigned on October 4, 1982. Subsequent observations and assistance did not result in any noticeable improvement. Respondent was unable to understand the need for organizing students in groups according to their abilities. Her students contained to wander aimlessly about the classroom. She was unable to document required student information even after repeated demonstrations. She did not test students and she failed to record their grades, except sporadically. Other teachers and parents complained about classroom conduct. Some parents requested that their children be moved out of Ms. Harper's class. Others complained to school officials about telephone calls from Ms. Harper at 2:00 a.m. or 6:00 a.m. Even the school custodian complained because Respondent's students repeatedly threw papers out of the windows. The principal arranged for Respondent to meet with the grade level chairman and the assistant principal to learn to develop lesson plans. She obtained information about classes at the Teacher Education Center of Florida International University and directed Ms. Harper to attend the classes. She subsequently determined that Respondent had not attended. Respondent told the principal that she could not attend because of car trouble. At the hearing, Respondent stated that not only did she have car trouble, but since she was a single parent, she lacked the time and money to attend the classes. She conceded, however, that the classes were free. In a further effort to assist her, Respondent was excused from her regular classroom duties to observe successful teachers. On one occasion she was found taking a coffee break instead. Again, there was not improvement apparent from this remedial measure. At the principal's request, the School Board's area director observed Respondent on November 11, 1982. Her testimony established that Respondent worked with only one group of three students in the classroom and the reading lesson being taught to those children was below their appropriate level. She also observed that there were no records indicating the progress of Respondent's students and that the students were talking continually. Due to her numerous difficulties in teaching and the lack of progress in correcting the deficiencies, the principal, assistant principal and area director concluded that Respondent lacked the requisite competence to continue in her contract position. A recommendation of dismissal to the School Board followed on January 6, 1983, Respondent was suspended. After her suspension, Respondent secured employment as a teacher of English for speakers of other languages (ESOL) at the Tri-City Community Association. Testimony of its director established that Respondent is an effective teacher of ESOL and that she trains other teachers to perform this function.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order revoking Respondent's Florida teaching certificate and providing the right of reapplication after one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, 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 20th day of December, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig R. Wilson, Esquire 315 Third Street, Suite 204 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Ellen Leesfield, Esquire 2929 S.W. Third Avenue Miami, Florida 33129 Donald L. Griesheimer, Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue The issues are as follows: (a) whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment action by discriminating against Petitioner based on his age and gender in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes; and (b) whether Respondent retaliated against Petitioner for filing a grievance.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a public taxing district responsible for educating Bay County's children from pre-kindergarten through high school. Respondent employs roughly 6000 instructional, support, and administrative personnel. Respondent's instructional employees are covered by Respondent's anti-discrimination policy and a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between Respondent and the local bargaining unit, the Association of Bay County Educators (ABCE). The CBA governs many aspects of the employment relationship between the District and its teachers, including procedures for involuntary transfers and lay offs due to funding issues. Respondent's schools are divided as follows: (a) high school includes ninth grade through twelfth grade; (b) middle school includes sixth grade through eighth grade; and (c) elementary school includes kindergarten ages through fifth grade. Petitioner is a 51-year-old male. He began working for Respondent as a teacher in 1990. For the 2008/2009 school year, Petitioner worked as a teacher at Respondent's Haney Technical High School and Center (Haney). At that time, Haney operated two concurrent programs: a technical education program and a high school program. Petitioner taught physical education and science in the high school program. During the 2008/2009 school year, Respondent decided to eliminate the Haney high school program due to budget cuts and lower student census. Respondent also made the decision to combine the Haney technical education program with an adult education program from another closed school. The Haney high school program was not Respondent's only major adjustment for economic reasons. Respondent also closed five other schools and cut over 100 positions. This process resulted in 154 displaced teachers. All of Haney's high school teaching positions, including Petitioner's, were to be eliminated. Sandra Davis, principal at Haney, asked for voluntary transfers. No one in the high school program volunteered to transfer. Ms. Davis requested that certain high school teachers remain at Haney to teach in the restructured program at Haney. Ms. Davis made the decision to keep the teachers at Haney based on consideration of the projected need in the restructured Haney program for the upcoming year and after considering the teachers' certifications and experience. Teachers with continuing contracts or professional service contracts, who were not to remain at Haney, were placed in the displaced teachers' pool. The pool included Petitioner and all teachers who worked in schools or programs that Respondent intended to eliminate. There was a meeting on April 20, 2009, between Superintendent William Husfelt, the District's Personnel Department, and the displaced teachers in the District. At the meeting Respondent explained the procedures for transferring/reassigning displaced teachers. The displaced teachers were provided with a list of all of Respondent's vacant positions. Respondent then asked each displaced teacher to list their top three positions. Every teacher was granted an interview for their top three positions. Petitioner selected positions at Hiland Park Elementary School, Lynn Haven Elementary School, and Mowat Middle School. According to Petitioner, he listed the middle school because it was close to his home. He was granted and attended interviews for all three positions. Petitioner recently obtained his certification in elementary education. However, he had no recent substantive experience teaching elementary students. The principals who interviewed the displaced teachers selected the people to fill vacant positions at their respective schools on a competitive basis. During one such interview, it became apparent that Petitioner was not as familiar with the method of teaching reading as more experienced teachers and/or even other recently certified elementary education professionals. The vast majority of Petitioner's experience was teaching high school students. He was used to working with students more similar in age and behavior to middle school students. The principals who interviewed Petitioner did not select him to fill any of his top three positions. At the end of this interview/selection process, there were 34 teachers who were not selected for any position, including Petitioner. During the hearing, Petitioner confirmed that he did not believe any discrimination or retaliation took place prior to and through the time of the interviews. Petitioner understood it was a competitive selection process with over 100 applicants. On or about April 28, 2009, Respondent conducted a second meeting with the remaining displaced teachers. At the meeting, displaced teachers were again asked to list their top three choices for placement from the remaining vacant positions. Petitioner listed Hiland Park Elementary, Tommy Smith Elementary, and Lucille Moore Elementary. Superintendent considered the displaced teachers' lists, their certifications and experience, the vacant positions, and other factors. At no time did Respondent promise to place a displaced teacher in a position of the teachers' choice. Superintendent Husfelt placed Petitioner at Everitt Middle School, teaching science. Petitioner was qualified to fill the position, but it was not one of his choices on his second top-three list. Female applicants were appointed to fill all of the positions at the elementary schools. On or about May 11, 2009, Petitioner and Ms. Davis met to discuss Petitioner's informal grievance relative to his involuntary transfer. Ms. Davis denied the informal grievance. On May 26, 2009, Petitioner filed a formal Grievance with Ms. Davis regarding his involuntary transfer/reassignment. She denied the grievance. On June 10, 2009, Petitioner and Superintendent Husfelt's designee, Pat Martin, had a Step II grievance meeting. Respondent subsequently denied Petitioner's grievance. Sometime in June 2009, Petitioner applied for five vacant positions at Hiland Elementary School. There were fifth grade vacancies, two fourth-grade vacancies, and one third-grade vacancies. Petitioner received an interview for these positions. However, all five positions were filled with female teachers. The involuntary transfer did not cause Petitioner to suffer any loss of pay, benefits, or seniority. The new position was approximately five miles away from his former position. During the hearing, Petitioner testified that he researched the Internet to determine the percentage of male teachers in Respondent's elementary schools, kindergarten through grade five. According to Petitioner, four percent of the teachers are male. Respondent presented evidence that approximately 11.58 percent of its elementary school teachers, kindergarten through sixth grade, are male. These raw statistics, standing alone, are not competent evidence that Respondent is intentionally excluding male teachers in its elementary schools. Petitioner admitted during the hearing that he had no evidence regarding the age of Respondent's elementary school teachers, male or female. Therefore, there is no evidence of age discrimination. Petitioner stated at hearing that the transfer to the middle school caused him to suffer an adverse action because industrial air pollution in the area caused him to take more sick leave than when he taught at Haney, about five miles away. This argument has not been considered here because Petitioner raised it for the first time during the hearing and because Petitioner had no competent medical evidence to support his claim.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 30th day of June, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Christopher Jackson, Esquire Harrison, Sale, McCloy, Duncan & Jackson, Chtd. 304 Magnolia Avenue Panama City, Florida Gerry D. McQuagge 1608 Georgia Avenue 32401 Lynn Haven, Florida 32444 Jerry Long, Ed. D. 803 Skyland Avenue Panama City, Florida 32401 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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 The issued posed herein is whether or not the Respondent School Board of Dade County's reassignment of Petitioner/student, Valerie Patrice McDonald, from Miami Springs Junior High School to the Jan Mann Opportunity School North, should be upheld.
Findings Of Fact Valerie Patrice McDonald, Petitioner, is a student enrolled in the Dade County Public School System. Petitioner was enrolled in Miami springs Junior High School in August of 1978. Petitioner's guidance records indicates no serious behavioral problems and that her attendance at school is excellent. Her academic progress has been a steady B and C average since enrolling in the public school system. Petitioner was referred to the guidance office of Miami Springs Junior High School on numerous occasions during the 1978-1979 school year for various disciplinary problems. For example, on September 25, 1978, Petitioner was referred by her mathematics teacher for playing and not working in class. For this referral, she was counseled. Again, on October 25, 1978, she was referred by the social studies teacher for "being involved in a classroom disturbance with another student wherein pencils were broken, books were thrown out the window and the students began kicking each other. A parent conference was requested." On November 3, 1978, Petitioner was referred by the physical education teacher for "striking another student in the locker room for no apparent reason. Petitioner counseled and warned by principal." Again, on November 16, 1978, Petitioner was counseled for being loud and for refusing to remain quiet when requested. Petitioner was placed outside the classroom door by her English teacher. This pattern of disruptive behavior continued through March of 1979 when Petitioner was involved in a fire incident in the girl's physical education locker room. Based on this incident and the culmination of the prior behavioral problems, an administrative placement was requested by the school board for Petitioner to be assigned to the Opportunity School, which request was approved on April 3, 1979. Since that time, Petitioner has been attending the Jan Mann Opportunity School. Charles W. Bales, principal of Miami Springs Junior High School, testified that the assignment of Petitioner to the Opportunity School is beneficial inasmuch as it permits the student to utilize the benefits of smaller class settings, better individualized instruction; smaller class enrollments; better counselor to pupil ratio and basic educational program which enables a "disruptive" student to succeed in an individualized instructional setting. (TR 18-20) Testimony also reveals that the Opportunity School has a full-time visiting teacher who serves as the contact person for resolving any individual problems such as attendance or other behavioral problems for students at the Opportunity School. Ms. Helen Wilson, Petitioner's mother, requested that Principal Bales reassign Petitioner from three of her teachers due to matters which Ms. Wilson considered to be personal in nature. Principal Bales explained that there were approximately 1500 students at the school and that it was impossible for him to reassign students when personal differences of opinions exist between their teachers. Additionally, Principal Bales testified that students reassigned to the Opportunity School may request a transfer back to the regular school program following the close of the grading periods. Inasmuch as Petitioner has been attending the Jan Mann Opportunity School since March, 1979, it appears that she will be eligible for a reassignment to the regular school program provided that her grades, attendance, and behavioral pattern is such that she can function normally in the regular school program.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner's petition filed herein be dismissed. Additionally, it is requested that the Respondent give full consideration to Petitioner's request that she be reassigned to the regular school program when such a request is properly filed with the school board. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of August, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of August, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Helen Wilson 3311 North West 52 Street Miami, Florida 33142 Michael J. Neimand, Esquire Dade County School Board Lindsey Hopkins Building Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Deborah Green, hold Florida teaching certificate 586445, covering the areas of Math, Elementary Education and Educational Leadership. The certificate is valid through June 30, 1997. During the 1992/1993 school year, the Respondent was a teacher in the Pinellas County Schools GOALS program at Dixie Hollins High School. GOALS stands for Graduation Options - Alternative to Leaving School. It is a drop-out prevention program. Although the evidence did not describe the GOALS program in detail, the evidence suggests that GOALS teachers may be in the position of having to change some of the rules of regular education in order to keep students from dropping out and yet may still be subject to criticism for not conforming to the rules of regular education. Put another way, there appears to be the potential for some of the priorities of the GOALS program to be inconsistent with some of the priorities of regular education, and it was not clear from the evidence how GOALS teachers are supposed to balance the competing interests. One of the Respondent's GOALS students in history class during the 1991/1992 school year was Andrew Patrick. By definition, as a GOALS student, he was at risk to drop out when he entered the program. He also was a poor student, especially in math. Emotionally, Patrick seemed to suffer from an abnormally strong need to feel popular while at the same time failing to realize that the results of his efforts to be popular generally were the opposite of what he intended. After letting down his guard and allowing himself to be friendly and civil with the Respondent, he soon came to like her personally. At the same time, he seemed to sense (probably correctly) that a personal relationship with the Respondent, who was a very popular teacher, could make him popular by association. Over time, a close teacher-student relationship developed between the Respondent and Patrick. The Respondent was able to use this relationship to further her goal of keeping Patrick interested in school. In addition, the Respondent discovered that Patrick became more interested in school the more he was allowed to help the Respondent in the classroom. As a means of legitimate "positive stroking," the Respondent gave Patrick more and more responsibilities in her classroom and praised him for carrying them out successfully. Over time, Patrick developed an adolescent crush on the Respondent. He became unusually interested in her and in the details of her personal life. He learned, accidentally at first, that the Respondent was dating a man named Michael Miller, who was married and who was the principal of another Pinellas County high school. He questioned her repeatedly about her relationship with Miller and also pestered the Respondent's adopted daughter, who also was in the GOALS program, for information about the Respondent and her personal life. (Actually, the girl was the daughter of a close friend of the Respondent. The Respondent and her friend helped each other raise their children. Both families lived in the Respondent's home, and the Respondent referred to the girl as her daughter.) In addition, for a student, he bought her relatively expensive gifts; he also bought her gifts more frequently than the other students. The Respondent did little to discourage Patrick's obvious crush on her. Instead, she exploited it, in part in furtherance of her objectives as his GOALS teacher but also, during the 1992/1993 school year, in part for her benefit. During the 1992/1993 school year, Patrick's role in the Respondent's pre-algebra classroom expanded to what seemed to be practically the Respondent's personal assistant. The Respondent gave Patrick a desk at the front of the classroom near her teacher desk, facing the students, such as a teaching assistant might have. The Respondent had Patrick prepare weekly GOALS progress reports for her to fill out for each student. (He wrote her name in the appropriate blank, but it was not proven that the blank necessarily called for her signature or initials, as opposed to just her identity as teacher.) The Respondent also had Patrick maintain the hall passes for her use. When a student needed a hall pass, she referred the student to Patrick to get one. Patrick would fill out the hall pass and give it to the student. Usually, the hall pass required the Respondent's signature but, on occasion, Patrick forged the Respondent's signature. When the Respondent was made aware that Patrick had forged her signature, she admonished him not to, but she did not monitor very closely or control him very well. The Respondent also had Patrick complete daily attendance slips to be picked up by a runner from the administrative offices. The Respondent also had Patrick use an answer key to grade daily class assignments and some quizzes for his class and other classes she taught and had him enter the grades in a grade book. (There also was one other student who used an answer key to grade some daily class assignments and some quizzes and enter the grades in a grade book for the Respondent, but the other student was not nearly as heavily involved in these activities as Patrick.) It is not clear from the evidence whether Patrick and the other student entered the daily class assignment and quiz grades in the Respondent's official class grade book or in one of the other grade books that the Respondent maintained for other purposes. Patrick usually performed tasks for the Respondent during math class, but sometimes (as the Respondent was aware) he left other academic classes during the school day to the Respondent's classroom to perform tasks for her. Patrick rarely took quizzes himself. The Respondent had determined that Patrick did not test well, and she devised alternative means of measuring his progress in her classroom. Often, Patrick didn't even know when the Respondent was evaluating and grading what he was doing for her in the classroom. Patrick relished his role as the Respondent's assistant, applied himself to it and did a very good job in the role. He obviously tried very hard to please the Respondent, and she gave Patrick credit for his effort and performance. But it seems questionable how the Respondent fairly and accurately could have evaluated and graded Patrick's progress, especially in a class like pre-algebra, based on his performance in the tasks she was assigning him to do for her in the classroom. On the other hand, what she was doing kept Patrick in school, and there was no evidence that the general approach was incorrect in the context of a GOALS program pre-algebra class. During the 1992/1993 school year, the Respondent was under stress at least in part due to her relationship with Miller. It probably comforted her to an extent to allow Patrick to draw her into discussions about subjects such as her relationship with Miller. She stopped short of discussing the intimate details of the relationship, but in some respects Patrick could use his imagination to fill in the blanks. Later in the fall, the Respondent had to deal with the additional stress of having to decide whether to accept an offer of marriage from a well-to-do friend from Texas. She freely discussed her dilemma with Patrick. By January, 1993, the Respondent was having serious difficulty handling the stress and began to suffer physical symptoms. She accepted the advice of her chiropractor, who was treating the physical symptoms of her stress, to take a medical leave of absence. Her application for leave was approved through June 11, 1993, and she began her leave on January 27, 1993. When Patrick inquired about the Respondent's absence from school, and was told that she was gone and probably would not be back, he became hysterical. He went to the principal's office and angrily accused the principal of getting rid of the Respondent because of her relationship with Miller (which the principal knew nothing about) because he was confidant that his (Patrick's) relationship with the Respondent was much too close for her to have left voluntarily without consulting with him. He described the nature of their relationship. When the principal denied that he had anything to do with it, Patrick began to blame himself, saying that he had encouraged the Respondent to drop her relationship with Miller and marry the friend from Texas. The principal calmed Patrick down and had him sent home. That evening, Patrick's mother telephoned the principal to complain about the Respondent. She had talked to her son and obtained new information from him about his relationship with the Respondent and his role in her classroom. After receiving the mother's telephone call, the principal telephoned the Respondent to inform her that a student had made serious allegations about her and that the student's mother had called him very upset. He would not tell her what the allegations were but told her the name of the student. The Respondent declined to talk about it further over the telephone but readily agreed to meet with the principal, Patrick and his mother the next day at 1:00 p.m. The Respondent also agreed to write Patrick and his mother to explain that she was on medical leave of absence. It was not proven that the principal told the Respondent not to talk to Patrick before their meeting the next day. On the morning of the next day, the Respondent telephoned the school office to have Patrick paged to speak to her. The office assistant told her that she only could do so if it was an emergency. The Respondent told her that it was. The Respondent spoke with Patrick for about ten minutes. She asked Patrick what he had said to the principal. When he told her, she admonished him that his statements had put her at risk of losing her job and that he had better "get his story straight." He correctly interpreted her to mean that she wanted him to recant his statements in order to protect her and her job. At the meeting at 1:00 p.m., Patrick recanted his earlier statements and claimed that his mother had blown everything out of proportion. It was improper for the Respondent to use Patrick (and, to a lesser extent, the other student), as she did during the fall of the 1992/1993 school year, as a personal assistant to grade class papers for her and enter grades in grade books for her. Her practice gave Patrick improper access to too many students' grades on papers and quizzes. It also tended to create an unhealthy appearance of favoritism. Although it was not proven that a certain amount of special treatment for good behavior and effort would be inappropriate especially in the context of a GOALS class, the Respondent went overboard when it came to Patrick.) It was improper for the Respondent to engage in the close personal relationship that developed between her and Patrick during the fall of the 1992/1993 school year. It became harmful to the learning environment, it changed the relationship from a teacher-student relationship to a friend-friend relationship, and it tended to create an unhealthy appearance of favoritism. Encouraging Patrick to lie for the Respondent in order to protect her job (and Miller's reputation) exposed him to conditions harmful to his learning and mental and emotional health and safety. The Respondent exploited her relationship with Patrick for personal gain or advantage during the fall of the 1992/1993 school year in that she used him improperly as her personal assistant. Except for the incidents that were the subject matter of this case, the Petitioner has a fine record as a teacher. In fact, at the time she took her medical leave of absence, she was about to be interviewed as part of the School Board's Targeted Selection Process for recruiting and training qualified teachers for promotion to a managerial position. The Respondent's inappropriate conduct during the fall of the 1992/1993 school year resulted from the exercise of poor judgment in the degree to which she varied from the conduct expected of a teacher in regular education while teaching in the GOALS program. The Respondent's poor judgment may have resulted in part from the debilitating personal stress from which she was suffering and which, actually on the eve of her Targeted Selection interview, required her to take a medical leave of absence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order suspending the Respondent for 45 days based on the charges that have been proven in this case. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of May, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 17th day of May, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-1629 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-5. Accepted and incorporated. First sentence, rejected as not proven. Second sentence, accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that either graded test papers or that test grades were entered or that grades were entered in the Respondent's official grade book. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. First sentence, rejected as not proven. (She gave them A's in part for the work they did for her, rather than solely for scores earned on tests and quizzes administered to the other students.) Second sentence, accepted and incorporated. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that a "sexual relationship" with the Texan was discussed. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven. Accepted and incorporated. First sentence, rejected as not proven. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. First sentence rejected as not proven that she did not agree to meet until after talking to the student. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Rejected in part as conclusion of law. Also, rejected as not proven that it is improper for a teacher to have a student grade another student's daily class assignments and homework assignments for immediate feedback. (This usually is done by exchanging papers in class.) Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. (The extensive use of Patrick as if he were the Respondent's personal assistant was improper.) Rejected as not proven as to Shannon. Accepted and incorporated as to Patrick. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. (It was not proven that the Respondent allowed Patrick to forge her signature to hall passes.) Rejected as not proven in the context of the GOALS program. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven as to Shannon. Accepted and incorporated as to Patrick. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. (For purposes of these rulings, consecutive numbers have been assigned to the unnumbered paragraphs of proposed findings of fact in the Respondent's proposed recommended order.) 1. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary or conclusion of law. 2.-3. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence that the Respondent just told Patrick to "tell the truth." Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Generally accepted but subordinate, some to facts contrary to those found. The documents in evidence reflect that the Respondent did give quizzes in her GOALS classes. And, while evaluators who observed her classrooms saw students grading class assignments, the evidence was not clear that they were aware of the extent of Patrick's role as the Respondent's personal assistant. Last sentence, rejected as contrary to the evidence. But the rest is accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 7.-8. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. First sentence, rejected as to Patrick as contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Last sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Second sentence, accepted and incorporated. The rest is rejected as contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence. Fourth sentence, rejected as contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence. The rest is rejected as contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire Suite 100 1408 North Piedmont Way Tallahassee, Florida 32312 Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire 501 First Avenue North Suite 600 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Marguerite Longoria Robinson, Esquire Kelly & McKee, P.A. 1718 E. 7th Avenue, Suite 301 P. O. Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 Karen Barr Wilde Executive Director 301 Florida Education Center 325 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Kathleen M. Richards, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Patrick M. Hill, Respondent, is guilty of immorality and misconduct in office as more specifically alleged in letters of April 6, 1990 and May 18, 1990.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Patrick M. Hill held a professional services contract with the Polk County School Board as a remediation teacher at Lakeland High School. He also served as wrestling coach and cross country coach at Lakeland High School. During the spring break of the 1989-90 school year, Respondent told some students they could earn some extra money if they helped him paint his house. Erik Greatens, an 18 1/2 year old senior, agreed to help, and he, with a 25 year old man, John, and Respondent, worked all day painting. Around noon that day when all were hot and thirsty, Respondent told them there was beer in his refrigerator. Both Erik and John accepted the offer. Erik had one beer. When they stopped painting around 5 p.m., Respondent told them he would order pizza if they wanted to return later. Erik accepted and went home to shower and change clothes. He returned around 6:30 p.m. and shared pizza with Respondent. Erik testified that he had only the one beer that day at Respondent's home and that his father permitted him to drink an occasional glass of wine at home. He did not drink beer or any other alcoholic beverage while at Respondent's home that evening. Around 8:30 p.m., Erik left Respondent's residence and went to the Publix parking lot to meet some friends. At the parking lot that evening with his friends, Erik consumed 11 or 12 cans of beer before driving the four or five blocks to his home. When he arrived, his mother was up and considered her son was inebriated and that he had received the beer at Respondent's home. At the time, Erik told her he had only the one beer at Respondent's home, but, from his condition, the mother was sure he had drunk more than one beer. The following day, Mrs. Greatens called the Superintendent's office to complain about Respondent providing Erik with beer. Based upon that complaint, Respondent was suspended from his position as teacher at Lakeland High School. The professional Practices Council of the State Department of Education was notified of the charge so they could institute an investigation to determine if Respondent's state certificate should be disciplined. To date, no charges have been brought by the Department of Education. Subsequently, Petitioner learned that Respondent had pleaded guilty in New Jersey to a charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor in 1973. A copy of this court record was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 3. In 1973, Respondent was a tenured teacher in the school district of the Township of Pemberton, Burlington County, New Jersey. Charges were preferred against Respondent by the Board of Education, and an administrative hearing was held to determine if the charges and circumstances surrounding the charges warranted dismissal of Respondent from his position as a tenured teacher. Following that hearing, the hearing examiner submitted a report recommending the charge and evidence insufficient to warrant a dismissal or reduction in salary. The Commissioner of Education adopted the finding and recommendation of the hearing examiner. In the instant proceedings, Respondent testified to the facts regarding the 1973 incident. That testimony is essentially the same as found by the hearing examiner in 1973 reported in Exhibit 4 as follows: The testimony offered by the Superintendent of Schools and respondent's building principal was that respondent is a good teacher, as evidenced by his past evaluations, and his record has been unblemished since his employ- ment by the Board. This matter has been brought to the attention of the Commissioner solely because of an incident which occurred on March 8, 1972, and that incident alone is the basis for the Board's action. On the evening of March 8, 1972, respondent was returning to his home after working late at his school on some extra curricular project. The record shows that Respondent was very active in the school community, and that he coached sports activities, served on the executive board of the local P.T.A., and served as President of the Pemberton Township Police Athletic League, in addition to his regular teaching duties. Respondent testified that it was a rainy night. On his way home, he picked up a hitchhiker who told him that he had a job in north Jersey and was on his way to visit his father in the Tuckerton area (approxi- mately thirty miles away). Because of the late hour and the poor weather conditions, Respondent offered the hitchhiker a place to spend the night in his home and told him he would drop him off at the inter- section of Routes #9 and #37 the next morning on his way to school. The hitchhiker accepted the offer and spent the night in respondent's home. Respondent testified that he also offered the use of his telephone so the hitchhiker could call his father, but that he refused saying that he was not expected anyway. He testified fur- ther that nothing untoward happened that night and that he dropped the hitchhiker off at the named intersection the follow- ing morning on his way to school. Respon- dent did not know that the hitchhiker was a minor; neither his appearance, nor his conversation about holding a job in north Jersey, nor having a drink and avoiding the police, lead (sic.)Respondent to conclude that the hitchhiker was a minor. (Tr. 19-22) None of this testimony is refuted by the Board, nor were any witnesses pre- sented by the Board to give any other version about what allegedly occurred on the evening of March 8, 1972. The Board, however, grounds its action against Respondent on his subsequent arrest by the police and his later indictment by the Grand Jury of Ocean County. A change of plea to that indictment reads in pertinent part as follows: (P-1) The State moved under Rule 3:74 to amend the third count of the indictment to read `did contribute to the delinquency of a minor by permitting him to remain overnight without parental consent'. The Court so ordered. Patrick Hill sworn. (sic.) As a result of plea bargaining, the Defendant retracted his former plea of Not Guilty and entered a plea of Guilty to the amended third (3rd) count of [the Indictment). * * * In the hearing examiner's judgment, it would be wrong to speculate why Patrick Hill made the plea (P-1) rather than pursue some other defense of the original charges made against him. He testified that he made the change of plea because he did allow the youth to stay in his home overnight. Suffice it to say that he was represented by counsel and the record must now speak for itself. Respondent entered a plea of guilty (P-1) which the Commissioner must con- sider in making his determination. N.J.S.A. 2A:96-4 reads as follows: A parent, legal guardian or person having the legal custody or control of a child, who by any continued negligence or willful act, encourages, causes or con- tributes to the child's delinquency, or any other person who by any wilful act encourages, causes or contributes to a child's delinquency, is guilty of a misdemeanor. The hearing examiner found that the unrefuted testimony of respondent, and the absence of any proof of conduct unbecoming a teacher by the Board, leads to the conclusion that the only fact before the Commissioner is that respondent knowingly permitted a minor to remain in his home overnight without the consent of the minor's parents. Respondent testified without contradiction that he was told by his attorney that the conviction would be expunged and he could forget it. Accordingly, Respondent concluded, albeit erroneously, that he never would need to reveal this record. Respondent moved to Florida and was employed as a junior high school teacher at St. Joseph's School, Lakeland, Florida, from 1979 to 1986 when he was employed by the Polk County School Board to teach at Lakeland High School. While at St. Joseph's, Respondent continued his extracurricular activities similar to those in New Jersey coaching children in wrestling and track, and he was involved in national and statewide wrestling programs for children. When he started teaching at Lakeland High School, Respondent continued his coaching activities and his work with children. He has been involved with helping troubled adolescents at the Polk Correctional Institute, served on the Governor's Council on Health, Physical Education and sports, was awarded man of the year honors for the AAU Wrestling Division, took a group of young wrestlers to Germany two years ago (1988) in a cultural exchange program and coordinated a return visit of German youth wrestlers to Florida in 1989. Respondent has excellent rapport with his students and with the student's parents. The letters admitted into evidence in Exhibit 5 extolling the virtues of Respondent as a teacher, coach and individual are not the pro forma, perfunctory letters of recommendation usually presented, but clearly indicate heartfelt esteem, appreciation and admiration. Respondent has had no prior disciplinary actions brought against him while teaching in Florida schools.
Recommendation Considering the reputation of Respondent, his rapport with students and peers, the time he has devoted to developing children into responsible adults and the conclusions that the acts complained of do not constitute immorality but are minor infractions coming under the definition of misconduct in office, it is recommended that Patrick M. Hill be found guilty of misconduct in office and suspended without pay for four months. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of August, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald H. Wilson, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 391 Bartow, FL 33830 Arthur C. Fulmer, Esquire Post Office Box 2958 Lakeland, FL 33806 John A. Stewart Superintendent of Schools Post Office Box 391 Bartow, FL 33830 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Martin B. Schapp, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate the employment of Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner first employed Respondent, as a custodian, in late 1991. Respondent's first job was as a substitute custodian, which was a temporary assignment offering few benefits. Petitioner assigned Respondent to Sarasota High School. The substitute position is also known as a non-appointed position. On February 1, 1994, Petitioner changed Respondent's status from non-appointed to appointed. Respondent successfully completed the six-month probationary period. Two years later, Petitioner transferred Respondent from Sarasota High School to the Oak Park School. This transfer resulted from the settlement of a grievance proceeding concerning a matter unrelated to the issues in this case. At the end of the 1996-97 school year, Petitioner transferred Respondent to Sarasota High School. By this time, Respondent had sufficient seniority to be able to bid for a job at a school of his choosing, and Respondent desired to work at Sarasota High School. Respondent began to experience serious job-related problems during the 1997-98 school year. He did a poor job cleaning the classrooms and other assigned areas. His supervisor estimated that Respondent would complete about 60 percent of his assignment. Frequently, Respondent was a "no call, no show," meaning that he neither appeared for work when scheduled nor called in advance of his nonappearance. On at least one occasion in December 1997, Respondent left work early, without permission, so that his supervisor had to have another custodian finish Respondent's job. From the 1997-98 school year until Respondent's departure from employment with Petitioner, he was repeatedly late, absent, or early in departing. On the many occasions on which Respondent was a "no call, no show," Petitioner was required to assign Respondent's work to another custodian working the same shift. This custodian would have to complete his or her own work and Respondent's work in the same shift. This repeated situation undermined the morale of Respondent's coworkers, who resented the extra work for which they received no additional compensation and their inability to do a good job, in the available time, on their assignment and Respondent's assignment. By letter dated April 16, 1998, Petitioner suspended Respondent for one day without pay due to his insubordination. After receiving this discipline, Respondent continued to require reminders from Petitioner about Petitioner's policies for requesting leave and documenting sick leave. Respondent's repeated failure to comply with these policies constituted insubordination. In January 1999, another custodian was serving as acting head custodian during the night shift that Respondent worked. A vendor representative visited the high school to examine some equipment. When the acting head custodian asked Respondent to show the representative a piece of equipment normally used by Respondent, Respondent refused. Angry at the persistence of the acting head custodian in repeating the request, Respondent then attacked the acting head custodian, grasping the man's neck so hard as to leave marks. Respondent was again disciplined for his insubordination. By letter dated March 17, 1999, Petitioner suspended Respondent for three days without pay. On March 3, 1999, Petitioner transferred Respondent from Sarasota High School to "Regional," which refers to an area encompassing several schools. During the summer of 1999, Respondent worked at the Sarasota County Technical Institute. On July 13, 1999, the senior head custodian could not find Respondent, who had already displayed the same work habits and attendance problems that had characterized his earlier employment with Petitioner. When the head custodian finally found Respondent, the head custodian accused Respondent of shirking his work. The record does not permit a finding as to whether Respondent was really performing his work. However, about an hour after giving Respondent a new assignment of cleaning some windows, the senior head custodian checked up on Respondent. Finding him productively at work, the senior head custodian complimented Respondent by saying, "Good job." Respondent replied, "You don't know who you are messing with." Respondent left the job early, without permission. The next day, Respondent called the regional manager for the Facilities Department, who is the supervisor of the senior head custodians. He warned her that if she sent him back to Sarasota County Technical Institute, he might do something bad to the senior head custodian. The regional manager immediately reassigned Respondent so that he could work at Riverview High School. After initially proposing to terminate Respondent, by letter dated August 18, 1999, Petitioner suspended Respondent for one day with pay for insubordination. As the 1999-00 school year proceeded, Respondent continued his pattern of "no call, no show," tardy appearances, and early departures. For example, from October 11, 1999, through March 24, 2000, Respondent was "no call, no show" on 11 occasions. The other custodians increasingly resented Respondent's unreliability because they had to perform Respondent's work without additional pay. Evidently learning of the dissatisfaction of one custodian, Respondent angrily confronted her by getting in her face, shaking his finger at her, and warning her that if she did not have anything good to say, she should not say anything at all. Despite the exhortations of his supervisors and coworkers, Respondent continued to disregard Petitioner's attendance and notification policies. Finally, on March 24, 2000, Respondent showed up with 15 minutes left in the eight-hour shift that he had specifically requested the night before and explained that he had had car trouble. He did not offer an explanation for why he had failed to call his supervisors and Petitioner's district office to notify them of this claimed problem. This incident effectively ended Respondent's employment with Petitioner. By letter dated June 19, 2000, Petitioner terminated Respondent's employment, effective July 12, 2000, due to insubordination. During his employment with Petitioner, Respondent repeatedly disregarded Respondent's policies regarding notification and documentation of leave, repeatedly disregarded the reasonable requests of his supervisors that he comply with these policies, repeatedly ignored the reasonable requests of his supervisors to perform specific assignments in a competent manner, and repeatedly abused coworkers, to the point of grasping one by the throat. In context, these behaviors by Respondent constituted gross insubordination.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Sarasota County School Board enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment with the school board effective July 12, 2000. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of September, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of September, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. David Bennett, Superintendent Sarasota County School Board 1960 Landings Boulevard Sarasota, Florida 34231 Honorable Tom Gallagher, Commissioner Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Charles D. Bailey, III Bowman George 22 South Tuttle Avenue, Suite 3 Sarasota, Florida 34237 Wayne Goff 107 20th Street West Palmetto, Florida 34221
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Petitioner has sufficient grounds to support dismissal of Respondent from employment.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was a duly- constituted School Board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida (“School District”), pursuant to Article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution, and section 1012.23, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed as an elementary school teacher by the School Board and currently holds a professional services contract. He began working for the School District on or about March 2007, in the middle of the 2006-2007 school year. His first assignment was at Holmes Elementary School where he worked on a “waiver,” since he did not have an elementary education certification. The principal asked him to get his certification in elementary education, which he did. According to Respondent, he was asked to start working early because the principal did not have enough teachers. During that year, he was evaluated as meeting standards in all areas of evaluation and was rehired for the 2007-2008 school year. Prior to becoming a teacher in Miami-Dade County, Respondent served in the United States military from 1978-1985, and had worked as a registered nurse. He holds an associate’s degree from Miami-Dade College, a bachelor’s degree from Florida International University (“FIU”), two master’s degrees from FIU, an academic certificate in gerontological studies from FIU, and an academic teaching certificate from FIU. For the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent worked at Little River Elementary School (“Little River”). The principal at Little River asked Respondent to work on another “waiver,” this time for teaching English as a Second Language students (“ESOL”). After completing the necessary coursework, Respondent received an ESOL certification. Respondent remained at Little River through the 2008-2009 school year until he was involuntarily transferred to Scott Lake Elementary School (“Scott Lake”) for the 2009-2010 school year. During the latter two years at Little River, he was evaluated as meeting standards in all areas. According to Respondent, he was transferred to Scott Lake because the administration of Little River objected to the number of student discipline referrals (“SCMs”) he was writing on students. Respondent reports having written somewhere between 600 and 700 SCMs on students over the years. Respondent freely admits he wrote many SCMs at every school he worked at and highlights that fact as an excuse for why he performed poorly. During Respondent’s first three years of employment at Holmes Elementary and Little River, he was evaluated across the board on his annual evaluations as “Meets Standards.” During this period of time, the only other rating an employee could receive was “Does Not Meet Standards.” During the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent’s principal for his first year at Scott Lake was Valerie Ward. During the 2009-2010 school year, the School District made changes to the teacher performance evaluation system. Use of the Instructional Performance Evaluation and Growth System (“IPEGS”) was implemented. The IPEGS Summative Performance Evaluations (“SPEs”) were now comprised of eight Performance Standards, where a teacher could be rated “Exemplary,” “Proficient,” “Developing/Needs Improvement,” or “Unsatisfactory.” In her first year with Respondent, Ms. Ward rated him “Proficient” in all eight standards. At the end of the 2009-2010 school year, Ms. Ward placed Respondent on a 90-day performance probation pursuant to section 1012.34. During this 90-day probation process, he was observed by administration on at least five different occasions, was put on several improvement plans, and had several meetings with administrators. The 90-day probation process is very time- consuming for both the subject employee and the employee’s administration. In other words, it is not the preferred task of a busy principal, unless he or she must, and then only when it is warranted by poor performance. Respondent believes Ms. Ward placed him on performance probation to retaliate against him because he complained about the temperature in his classroom. This is the first of many excuses and justifications Respondent has offered to explain criticisms of his performance by administrators. For the 2010-2011 school year at Scott Lake, Respondent was again evaluated as proficient in all areas. On or about April 2012, Principal Lakesha Wilson- Rochelle assumed Ms. Ward’s role at Scott Lake. Principal Rochelle signed off on Respondent’s summative evaluation during the 2011-2012 school year, but did not fill it out, since it had already been completed by someone else. The score placed Respondent in the “needs improvement” category. She signed it only because she was required to do so, and the summative evaluation rating she gave him for the next school year was even worse by several points. It was also during the 2011-2012 school year that IPEGS underwent another change. Now there were seven professional practice standards on which teachers were evaluated and one standard that was based on actual student data. Use of IPEGS IPEGS was approved by the Florida Department of Education (“FDOE”) for all years relevant to this case. The IPEGS processes from the 2013-2014 school year forward consisted of the following: Each teacher that had been teaching for more than two years received one formal observation. If during that observation the teacher’s performance was sufficient, nothing more need be done, outside of a summative evaluation at the end of the year. However, informal feedback is given to teachers throughout the year after classroom walkthroughs and through other means. If a teacher was observed to be deficient in one or more standards during the formal observation, the teacher and administration would engage in something called “support dialogue” in which support in various forms is provided to the teacher, so that the deficiencies can be remediated. If the teacher still exhibits performance deficiencies after the support dialogue, they are placed on the 90-day performance probation. While on performance probation, the teacher is observed another four times after the initial observation. After the second, third and fourth observations, if the teacher has not remediated, the administration develops an improvement plan, which must be followed. The improvement plan gives the teacher assignments and assistance to aid him or her in remediating any deficiencies. Also, each teacher, regardless of whether placed on performance probation, receives an SPE, as well as a Summative Performance Evaluation Rating (“SPE Rating”) of either “Highly Effective,” “Effective,” “Developing/Needs Improvement,” or “Unsatisfactory.” In addition to the seven professional practice standards, a data component is also factored into the SPE Rating known as the VAM. The VAM As explained by Director of Research Services Dr. Aleksander Shneyderman (“Dr. S”), the VAM is a statistical model that attempts to measure a teacher’s impact on student learning growth through the use of a multi-level lineal regression. Dr. S has been working with the VAM, since its inception in 2010-2011. He has studied it and keeps abreast of Florida’s rules and regulations of how to calculate it. Dr. S and his office calculate what is called “Local VAM” for the School District. He also provides trainings to School District employees on the use of the VAM. Dr. S was tendered and accepted in this proceeding as an expert in VAM calculation. Local VAM is usually calculated in September/October by his office after the previous year’s testing data become available. Various assessments are used to create the Local VAM. It is calculated in compliance with state statutes, and the methodology is approved each year by FDOE. Also, the methods for calculating the Local VAM are bargained for and ratified by the United Teachers of Dade (“UTD”) teacher’s union. The Florida VAM is calculated by the State using a model that is approved by the Florida Commissioner of Education. The results of the Florida VAM are given to Dr. S’s office by the State. The Florida VAM is created using the Florida Standards Assessment (“FSA”). In the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 school years, Respondent’s Local VAM scores were calculated by Dr. S’s office and based upon his students’ results on the Stanford 8 Achievement Test, 10th edition. UTD approved the methodology in VAM calculation for both of these years. For the 2015-2016 school year, Respondent’s VAM score was the Florida VAM in English language arts for fifth grade. The goal of the VAM is to measure a teacher’s effectiveness on student learning growth. In order to do this as accurately as possible, students are compared to similar students for an “apples to apples” comparison. Only students with the same demographic characteristics, as well as the same prior year’s test scores are compared to one another. The demographic factors considered are English Language Learner (“ELL”) status, gifted status, disability status, relative age (which considers whether a child was retained in a previous grade), and attendance (which was added in 2014-2015). Student demographics and the prior year’s test scores must be exactly the same. Based on these demographics and past scores, an expected score is created for each student. If the student exceeds that score, the credit for that success is given to the teacher. The School Board and Dr. S concede that the VAM does not account for every possible student performance variable, because, simply put, this would be impossible, since there are a limitless number of factors that could be considered. Moreover, certain factors are forbidden to be used by the Legislature, including socioeconomic status, race, gender, and ethnicity. (See § 1012.34, Fla. Stat.). Respondent argues that because not every imaginable factor that might affect a student’s grade is captured, that the VAM is not useful. Respondent claims that factors beyond the teacher might be causing poor performance, for example: lack of parental engagement. While levels of parental engagement could impact student performance, the School Board states that it is following state statutes to the letter and doing the best it can within the applicable statutory framework. Moreover, just as factors outside of consideration might hurt student performance, other factors might enhance performance, and the teachers receive those possible benefits as well--for example, if parental engagement is good. Those benefits would flow to the teacher, despite not having earned them through his or her personal efforts. Moreover, the VAM score ranges that are used to classify teachers are bargained for with UTD. The ranges have confidence intervals developed through the application of margin of error calculations that mitigate uncertainty to protect and “safeguard” teachers from unfair classifications. In many instances these safeguards give the teachers the benefit of the doubt to make sure they do not fall into the lowest category, which is “unsatisfactory.” Noticeably absent from these bargained for “safeguards” is any mention of how much instructional time a teacher must have with a class before those students’ data can be used to calculate a teacher’s VAM score. UTD has not bargained for any special rules designating when teachers can and cannot be held accountable for their class’ data based on the time they have instructed that class. As such, the only relevant inquiry is whether those students are with that teacher during the FTE period in February. Also, the law (see § 1012.34, Fla. Stat.) makes no mention of any minimum length of instructional time necessary to hold a teacher accountable for his or her students. The 2013-2014 School Year at Scott Lake Refusal to teach basic Spanish In May 2013, near the end of the 2012-2013 school year, Principal Rochelle advised Respondent that he would be teaching a kindergarten class for the 2013-2014 school year and that he would be required to teach them one hour of introductory Spanish. In an email to Principal Rochelle, Respondent asserted that he believed he was being assigned to teach Spanish to the kindergarteners in retaliation for his extensive reporting of student SCMs. In that same email, he advised her that he did not want to teach Spanish. Prior to being advised of this assignment, the School District conducted a language proficiency assessment for Respondent with both a written and verbal component, which he passed. Principal Rochelle had personally seen Respondent speak fluent Spanish to her school secretary and the art teacher. Because Respondent spoke fluent Spanish, or, at least, “conversational” Spanish (as admitted by Respondent’s counsel in his opening), she gave him the assignment. Moreover, as a principal, she had the right to assign Respondent as she saw fit. School Board Policy 3130 - Assignments reinforces this assertion stating, in relevant part, “Instructional staff members may be reassigned to any position for which they are qualified in order to meet needs of the District and pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement.” In order to teach the one-hour basic Spanish component of the class, Respondent did not need to be certified to teach Spanish. He only needed an elementary education certification, which he had. He even attended a training class on the implementation of the Spanish program. Respondent admits he can speak Spanish, write basic Spanish, has taken Spanish classes and passed the School District’s proficiency exam. Curiously, he objected to them giving the proficiency exam to him based on the grounds he was “singled out” for having a Hispanic last name, having been overheard speaking the language, and because he is not from a Spanish-speaking country. These are not reasonable objections when the School District explained the objective reasons listed above regarding Respondent’s qualifications to provide the basic- level Spanish instruction. Respondent persisted in his belief that he is “not qualified” to teach kindergarten Spanish despite all the evidence to the contrary. Respondent simply refused to do something that he was entirely capable of doing and that was within his ambit of responsibilities. He described one of the lessons he was allegedly incapable of teaching as follows, “You put a CD in the player. The kids sing songs in Spanish. The kids cut out pictures of objects and match them to a picture with the word in Spanish.” The kindergartners in his class did not speak Spanish; they spoke English. The Spanish component of the class was very basic and involved things like vowels, colors, puppets, basic books, and vocabulary words. Contrary to Respondent’s assertions, no complex grammar or sentence structure was involved. Such things are not even part of ordinary English kindergarten instruction, as admitted by Respondent. Moreover, he was provided with materials from which to draw the instruction. Principal Rochelle does not speak Spanish herself, yet believes she could teach the Spanish component, as it is a “piece of cake.” Respondent filed a grievance regarding the Spanish assignment. In order to appease and accommodate Respondent, Principal Rochelle eventually sent a Spanish teacher to his room to teach the Spanish component. However, Respondent then complained that the grades she was entering still had his name attached to them in the computerized grading system. Finally, the principal decided to move him to a first-grade class in early November 2013. Undoubtedly, the requests of Respondent led to this assignment change. Formal IPEGS observation On March 11, 2014, Principal Rochelle performed her formal observation of Respondent pursuant to IPEGS. On that day, no performance deficiencies were noted. However, throughout the year, Principal Rochelle had conducted many informal observations and walkthroughs of his classroom and had already provided him feedback regarding his performance and her expectations. Examples of that feedback can be found in an August 27, 2013, email from Principal Rochelle to Respondent. Moreover, according to Principal Rochelle, teachers tend to be on their best behavior during these observations–-which makes sense, because they know the boss/evaluator is watching. The formal observation is also only a snapshot in time of the teacher’s performance on a particular lesson; it is not a reflection of the entire year’s performance. Respondent has argued that Principal Rochelle has retaliated against him. If that were the case, this observation would have been a perfect opportunity to retaliate against him. However, she found no deficiencies in his performance on this day. Scott Lake SPE—Professional Practice Throughout the rest of the school year, Principal Rochelle made other credible observations regarding Respondent’s performance. Despite her counseling that he meet with parents, he refused to do so. He refused to participate in activities, including field trips, school celebrations, and award ceremonies. Other teachers actually had to hand out awards for him at the ceremony. He refused to implement group instruction techniques and did not take advantage of the presence of reading and math coaches. He refused to implement progressive discipline and “red, green, yellow” behavior management techniques. He refused to implement various discipline strategies laid out in the Student Code of Conduct and school-wide discipline plan prior to writing SCMs on students. Principal Rochelle recalls that he wrote approximately 25 SCMs on one student within the first nine weeks of school and made no attempt to address the behavior issues with the student’s parents. At one point Principal Rochelle accommodated his request to have a student removed from his class. Since this was only Principal Rochelle’s first full year as principal of Scott Lake, and she was still new to the school, she tended to give the teachers the benefit of the doubt when completing their SPEs. She also had a few teachers who had to be terminated for lack of professionalism that were more of a priority for her than Respondent. As such, she rated Respondent as “effective” in six standards on his SPE and as “developing/needs improvement” for the Communication standard. In her view, “effective” is akin to a “C” grade, whereas “highly effective” is “A plus/high B” status, “developing/needs improvement” is a “D,” and “unsatisfactory” is an “F.” When asked what Respondent would have rated himself in these seven standards, he testified he would have given himself five “highly effectives” and two “effectives.” He believes Principal Rochelle rated him lower than she should have as a result of retaliation against him for him not wanting to teach Spanish. This is Respondent’s second claim of retaliation against Principal Rochelle, and third claim of retaliation overall. Principal Rochelle’s denial of such retaliation is credited based upon her testimony at hearing and the exhibits offered in support. Despite the fact that Respondent’s 2013-2014 SPE seemed adequate to a casual observer (with the only obvious blemish being the “developing/needs improvement” in the Communication standard), when compared to his peers, a different story emerges. His professional practice points total put him in the bottom .8 percentile for all teachers district-wide and in the bottom 2.6 percentile for all first-grade teachers district-wide. Without belaboring the data, Respondent’s professional practice scores are at the bottom of the barrel, regardless of how you spin them. Scott Lake VAM and overall SPE Rating Respondent’s Local VAM score for learner progress points was 12.5 points–-the lowest possible score. He was one of 11 first-grade teachers district-wide who scored the bare minimum, putting him in the lowest (0) percentile. His overall SPE Rating for the 2013-2014 school year was “Needs Improvement.” Only 29 percent of his first-grade students met or exceeded their performance expectations. Respondent’s VAM was based on the performance of his first-grade students. Respondent believes that, since he was moved to the class in early November 2013, and the SAT exam was given in April, he should not be held accountable for their performance. In order for him to have a fair shake, he claims he would have had to be there instructing the students on week one. Respondent says the amount of time he was given was not fair because, “if I’m the lowest teacher in Miami-Dade County, and here for termination, no, sir, I don’t think it was fair.” If the rule Respondent proposes were implemented as policy, any teacher could simply avoid responsibility for their student’s performance by requesting a transfer sometime after the first week of the year. It is also not uncommon for teachers to have students added or subtracted from their classes throughout the year for a multitude of reasons. This is a fact of life that teachers have to be able to cope with in the ordinary course of business for the School District. Moreover, and somewhat ironically, if another teacher had been teaching Respondent’s students for a portion of the year, based on his SPE Ratings and student achievement data, Respondent probably would have had better scores. The students would likely have been getting a more effective teacher than he. Respondent also claims Principal Rochelle gave him a lower functioning group of students, who were behind in their learning. He explained that he knew they were low-functioning because he gave them “STAR tests” to gauge their ability levels. When pressed on cross-examination, Respondent admitted that he only tested his own students and never anyone else’s. Therefore, it would be impossible for him to know whether his students were any lower-functioning or further behind than any other teachers’ students. Respondent’s doubtful claim is further undercut by Principal Rochelle’s credible testimony that she selected the members of his first-grade class at random from overcrowded classrooms. Respondent’s claims that he was robbed of instructional time by field trips and fundraising activities, matters that are required of all teachers, are unconvincing excuses for his students’ poor performance. The 2014-2015 School Year at Norwood Shortly after the start of the 2014-2015 school year, Respondent requested a hardship transfer to Norwood Elementary School (“Norwood”) because the school day at Scott Lake was going to be increased by one hour. Despite the fact that he would have been compensated approximately $4,500.00 for this time, he chose to transfer schools. Principal Kevin Williams (or Dr. Williams) had a teacher on leave so he assigned Respondent to fill that gap. Respondent started teaching a kindergarten class, but was moved to a second-grade class during the first week of school. Prior to conducting a formal IPEGS observation of Respondent, Dr. Williams had performed several walkthroughs of his classroom. Based on these walkthroughs, Dr. Williams advised Respondent that he was not properly implementing the school discipline plan. Respondent also refused to implement “grouping” of the students during instruction time. Dr. Williams also had a reading coach model lessons for Respondent and assigned him a teaching assistant. Respondent was the only teacher who received this level of assistance. Dr. Williams even went so far as to have two meetings with UTD prior to his formal evaluation of Respondent in order to help him. By October 2014, Dr. Williams had already explained his expectations to Respondent. Formal IPEGS observation On October 1, 2014, Principal Williams performed the formal IPEGS evaluation of Respondent. Principal Williams noted no deficiencies on that day. Generally speaking, Principal Williams does not view these observations as punitive. Over the years, Dr. Williams has conducted approximately 240 observations of teachers, and, generally, the employees are “on point” when being watched. Moreover, like Principal Rochelle, Dr. Williams views these observations as a snapshot of teacher performance while the SPE captures the year- long performance. In the report of the observation, Dr. Williams suggested that Respondent promote interactions with students, encourage more student participation, connect to prior student knowledge and interests, and present concepts at different levels of complexity, among other items. Norwood SPE—Professional Practice After the formal observation, Dr. Williams continued to conduct walkthroughs of Respondent’s class. He observed the same issues with refusing to use “grouping” and refusing to properly implement the discipline plan. Respondent never took advantage of the modeling techniques that were provided for him. He also was not implementing differentiated instruction. Dr. Williams himself held a professional development class on campus for the school discipline plan, which, instead of attending, Respondent attended a social studies class off campus. Instead of following the prescribed discipline plan, Respondent was trying to control the behavior of his students with treats. Similar to his time at Scott Lake, he refused to participate in field trips, staff gatherings, award assemblies, and student activity days. Respondent had lesson plans, but did not always follow them. He would spend an inordinate amount of time on vocabulary. He gave some tests, but would refuse to grade other tests. The pattern of his teaching was inconsistent, at best. On his SPE, Principal Williams rated Respondent as “effective” in five standards, “highly effective” in one, and as “developing/needs improvement” for the Learning Environment standard. Dr. Williams’ rating for Learning Environment was lower because Respondent failed to implement appropriate discipline strategies despite being told to do so. In eight years of being a principal, this was the first time he had ever given a teacher a “needs improvement” rating. He mostly gives his teachers combinations of “highly effective” and “effective,” if they do what they are supposed to do. Nevertheless, Dr. Williams testified he still went easy on Respondent because he was new to the school. In terms of his SPE professional practice points, Respondent scored in the bottom two percentile for second-grade teachers district-wide and was the worst rated second-grade teacher at Norwood. Instead of following the discipline plan, Respondent was using the emergency call button, writing SCMs, and writing to the superintendent to have ten students removed from his class. Another teacher at the school, Mr. W, had the exact same set of students as Respondent, only he taught them in the afternoon and not in the morning. He had none of the same behavior management issues Respondent had with this same group of children. Respondent claimed that Mr. W was able to manage the children better because, like the students, he was African-American. When asked how Respondent would have rated himself in these seven SPE standards, he would have given himself six “highly effectives” and one “effective.” He believes Principal Williams rated him lower than he should have as a result of retaliation against him for writing SCMs and because he complained about the size of his initial kindergarten class. This marked Respondent’s fourth claim of retaliation overall. Principal Williams credibly denied such retaliation at the hearing. Norwood VAM and overall SPE Rating Respondent’s Local VAM score for learner progress points was 8.75 points-–the lowest possible score, again. He was one of 50 first-grade teachers district-wide who scored the bare minimum putting him in the lowest (0) percentile. His overall SPE Rating for the 2014-2015 school year was “Needs Improvement.” Only six percent of his second-grade students met or exceeded their performance expectations. Respondent believes that his VAM points from Norwood should not be considered because of his students’ behavioral issues. He also stated he did not have enough textbooks to send home with students. Much like at Scott Lake, he believes he was intentionally given bad students. This is peculiar for two reasons. First, Dr. Williams first tried to assign Respondent another class, but Respondent complained that one was too big. To accept this argument, the viewer would have to believe Dr. Williams knew Respondent would reject the larger class, and the principal had another one in the wings filled with “bad” students to make Respondent look ineffective. Second, Mr. W had none of the same problems Respondent did with this same group of students in the afternoon. To accept this contention, Principal Williams’ plan only “worked” on Respondent, since he was singled out for retaliation. This line of argument is nonsensical, at best. The 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 School Years at Aventura Waterways K-8 In looking for the right fit, Respondent was sent to Aventura Waterways K-8 (“AWK8”) for the 2015-2016 school year. He remained there for the 2016-2017 school year until he was dismissed from his employment in March 2017. As at his previous school assignments, the administrators at AWK8 tried to work with Respondent and the UTD to let him know their expectations prior to the formal observations. During these two school years Respondent was observed formally by Principal Luis Bello and Assistant Principal Ileana Robles on no less than nine occasions. In both years, during his initial observations, his performance was found to be deficient; and he was immediately placed on support dialogue and, eventually, 90-day performance probation. During these two probationary periods, he was provided assistance through improvement plans and completed all his improvement plan assignments. The goal was to help him remediate his deficiencies. The only change he ever implemented was switching from block to weekly lesson plans. Both his instructional delivery and the learning environment never improved. During these observations, Principal Bello and Assistant Principal Robles both observed the same repeated deficiencies, which they described in meticulous detail at the hearing. Summarizing their testimony, the issues concerning Respondent were: Pacing. Respondent spends too much time on issues and did not complete entire lesson plans. Questioning students. Respondent only uses basic, easy to answer questions; does not ask enough questions; or is dismissive of questions. Failing to properly explain concepts to students or to activate prior knowledge. Respondent fails to prompt students in order to generate interest in the subject matter and holds no conversations about the material in class. Not using challenging enough material. Respondent’s material was so basic that parents were concerned their children were getting grades they did not deserve and not learning grade- appropriate material. Principal Bello described Respondent’s instruction as “robotic” and lacking any semblance of “passion.” AWK8—Professional Practice On his SPE, Principal Bello rated Respondent as “effective” in two standards, and “unsatisfactory” in five standards. Principal Bello’s ratings were in line with the repeated deficiencies discussed above. He awarded Respondent “unsatisfactory” ratings because Respondent never remediated his deficiencies. Principal Bello credibly stands by his SPE Ratings as honest and admits to spending a great deal of time on them. In terms of his SPE professional practice points for 2015-2016, Respondent scored in the bottom (0) percentile for fifth-grade teachers at AWK8, all teachers at AWK8, fifth-grade teachers district-wide, and all teachers district-wide. When asked what Respondent would have rated himself in these seven standards, he would have given himself seven “highly effectives.” He believes Principal Bello rated him lower than he should have been rated, but could not say why. AWK8 VAM and overall SPE Rating Respondent’s State VAM score for learner progress points was 8.5 points-–the lowest possible score, for the third year in a row. He was the only one of 98 fifth-grade teachers district-wide who scored the bare minimum, putting him in the lowest (0) percentile. His overall SPE Rating for the 2014-2015 school year was “Needs Improvement.” Only 32 percent of his fifth-grade students met or exceeded their performance expectations. Respondent believes that his VAM points from AWK8 are not legitimate for a variety of reasons, none of which relate to his own shortcomings. Respondent’s excuses and the reasons not to credit those excuses are as follows: Respondent argues that his VAM cannot be counted against him because his afternoon class of fifth graders were ELL, and they spoke a variety of languages, including French, Russian, Hebrew, Portuguese, Spanish, and Turkish. His theory was that they performed poorly because of their poor grasp of the English language. For VAM scoring purposes, this excuse should not be credited because the VAM already takes into account their ELL status by comparing them only to other ELL students with identical demographics and prior test scores; and they are not expected to perform as well as non-ELL students. However, by Respondent’s own admission his afternoon ELL class was the best class he had had in ten years of teaching. He said they had emotional balance, presence of mind, and good parental engagement. He even explained how his ESOL certification assisted him in understanding how to teach them. According to him, by the end of the year, the students were at the level where they would be having conversations. Respondent also had another ESOL-certified teacher assist him for a portion of the year, which was a standard practice. Finally, ELL students, who are brand new to the country, are not calculated into the VAM because there are no prior year scores for which they can be compared “apples to apples.” Respondent himself testified that the lowest level ELL students did not get graded. This makes sense because Respondent testified that his afternoon ELL class was 31 students-–yet only 15 ELL students were factored into the data used to calculate his VAM score for 2015-2016. In sum, the grades of the lowest English language functioning students were not even held against him. Respondent next argues that the numbers of students in both his morning and afternoon classes at AWK8 exceeded class size restrictions. Respondent “believes” his morning class had 24 or so students, but only 18 after the special education students were removed. When the student data is examined, it appears that Respondent only had 15 non-ELL students factored into his VAM score. As for the afternoon ELL class, otherwise considered by him the best class he has ever had, Respondent claims there were 31 in that class. Even assuming Respondent’s numbers are accurate (and they do not seem to be, given the VAM data), these class sizes do not run afoul of class size restrictions and are commonplace at AWK8. The School District operates on averages for class size compliance and everyone teaching fifth grade at AWK8 had similar class sizes. None of those other teachers had the same problems Respondent did. Moreover, Respondent reported the alleged class size violations to the FDOE, and they did nothing about it. Respondent further argues that his morning group of students was once again a “bad” group that did not give him a “fair shot.” According to Respondent, he had a student who would sit in a garbage can and another that would tell him “F_ _k you” every day. He had behavior concerns with four to five students in the morning class. Eventually, the student who sat in the garbage can was removed from the class. Respondent then testified that these behavior issues were exacerbated by his absence from the classroom when he was performing his improvement plan activities. He now appears to be placing his behavior concerns on the administration for doing their job by trying to assist him and by remediating his deficiencies. Behavior management is integral to being a teacher. A teacher must not be allowed to escape his or her own responsibility for performance shortcomings by blaming it on the students. At every school where Respondent has taught, he has admittedly written a large number of SCMs, had behavior issues with his students, and believes he was purposely given “bad” students. The only common thread among these schools is Respondent. Nevertheless, he refuses to acknowledge that he might possibly be even a part of the problem and believes he has done nothing wrong. Respondent also blames his poor VAM on the fact that fundraising activities, book fairs, student activity days, and dances all detracted from instructional time at AWK8. This is the same excuse he used for his poor VAM at Norwood and holds no weight, since these are activities that all teachers at all schools must cope with as part of the instructional process. Respondent’s Termination by the School Board Respondent’s case was the first of its kind brought pursuant to section 1012.33(3)(b) (“3-year provision”), since this was the first time the School District had the requisite number of years’ data available. Of the thousands of teachers working for Miami-Dade County Public Schools, Respondent was part of a singular group of seven to nine teachers who fell into the three-year provision of the statute having the necessary combination of “needs improvement” or “unsatisfactory” final overall SPE Ratings. Of that handful of teachers, Respondent was the single worst. Respondent’s performance actually declined each year despite the assistance provided for and made available to him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order terminating Respondent’s employment as a teacher. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of March, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. Suite 110 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North Clearwater, Florida 33761 (eServed) Christopher J. La Piano, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board Suite 430 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 (eServed) Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board Suite 912 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132-1308 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Pam Stewart, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
