The Issue Should the State of Florida, Education Practices Commission impose discipline against Respondent for alleged violations of the statutes and rules regulating Respondent's Florida Teaching Certificate No. 284544?
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Teaching Certificate No. 284544 in the subject areas of economics and drivers' education valid through June 30, 2005. In a case before the State of Florida, Education Practices Commission, Frank T. Brogan as Commissioner of Education, Petitioner, vs. James F. Davis, Respondent, Case No. 9450786-C, among the allegations was the reference to Respondent's arrest on March 6, 1994, for driving under the influence and adjudication on October 4, 1994, related to that offense. In Case No. 94-012585 MM A, County Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, in and for Duval County, Florida, Respondent pled guilty and was adjudicated guilty on October 4, 1994, to the driving under the influence offense and was fined $1270.00 as part of the disposition of the case. Pertaining to Case No. 945-0786-C, in an action before the State of Florida, Education Practices Commission, Frank Brogan, as Commissioner of Education, Petitioner, vs. James F. Davis, Respondent, Case No. 96-022-RT, final order, entered June 19, 1996, the Education Practices Commission accepted a settlement agreement between the parties. As a consequence, Respondent received a letter of reprimand. In the case disposition, Respondent agreed to be placed on probation for a period of two years commencing with the issuance of the final order, assuming Respondent's current employment as an educator in Florida at the time the final order was entered. Respondent was so employed. Among the conditions of his probation were that Respondent "violate no law and shall fully comply with all district school board regulations, school rules and state board of education Rule 6B-1.006." Through the settlement agreement, accepted in the final order, Respondent agreed that should he fail to comply with each of the conditions of probation set forth in the settlement agreement; then the Petitioner, the Commissioner of Education, would be authorized to bring an administrative complaint for sanctions up to an including the possible revocation of the teaching certificate based upon a violation of the terms of the probation. The present Administrative Complaint is premised upon this agreement authorizing a further administrative complaint for alleged violations of the conditions of probation. Contrary to the expectations of his probation, Respondent was arrested on March 22, 1998, in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, while driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages, to the extent that Respondent's normal faculties were impaired. Section 316.193, Florida Statutes. This arrest led to the filing of a criminal information in the case of State of Florida vs. James Felder Davis, the Respondent herein, in a case before the County Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, in and for Duval County, Florida, Case No. 98-19559-MM, charging a violation of Section 316.193, Florida Statutes. Although no proof was presented that the DUI case No. 98-19559-MM has been resolved, facts are known concerning Respondent's driving on March 22, 1998. On that date Officer J. T. Carey of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office observed Respondent in an automobile passed out in the drive-thru at the Taco Bell Restaurant at 9300 Atlantic Boulevard. Other cars were going around Respondent's car to avoid it. Respondent was in the driver's seat with the keys in the ignition and the car running. No other person was in the car with Respondent. The officer tried several times to wake Respondent. When the officer succeeded, he asked Respondent to step out of the vehicle. Respondent had to use the door to brace himself when getting out of the car. Respondent's appearance revealed bloodshot watery eyes. Respondent's speech was slurred. Respondent had soiled his shorts and had a strong odor of alcoholic beverage on his breath. Respondent was very disoriented. Respondent's car was removed from the lane of traffic at the drive-thru, and the officer then drove Respondent to an adjacent location to perform a field sobriety exercise. This involved an eye test, a walk and turn in which the Respondent was required to walk nine steps on a line and turn around and come back. The Respondent was required to stand on one leg a period of 30 seconds to test balance; another test performed was the finger to nose exercise. Respondent performed poorly on the exercises. Officer Carey believed that Respondent was too impaired to drive and arrested Respondent for DUI. Respondent refused to take a breathalyzer test to measure impairment. In the school year 1992-93 Respondent was hired as a driver's education teacher at First Coast High School, part of the Duval County School District. Respondent worked in that capacity through January 18, 2002. It was anticipated, though not established in the hearing record, that Respondent would retire from his position with the Duval County School Board on January 31, 2002. The Duval County School District took action against Respondent for misconduct. This action was taken on February 16, 1999, and accepted by Respondent on February 24, 1999. The nature and specifications of the misconduct related to the March 22, 1998 arrest and charge for driving under the influence. The nature and specifications were also related to the grounds for discipline in the Education Practices Commission Case No. 945-0786-C, leading to the final order that has been discussed. The Duval County School Board perceived that the arrest and charge on March 22, 1998, violated the terms of the settlement agreement as contained in the final order from the Education Practices Commission related to Case No. 945-0786-C, thus violating Section 231.262(7), Florida Statutes. The School District also found a violation of the State Board of Education Rule 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code, concerning the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession and Rule 6B- 1.001(3), Florida Administrative Code, pertaining to the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession on the subject of the need to be of good moral character, the need to avoid engaging in acts of gross immorality or acts involving moral turpitude and the conviction of misdemeanors other than minor traffic violations. The disciplinary terms imposed by the Duval County School District included a written reprimand and suspension without pay for ten working days before the 1998-99 school year entered.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Respondent in violation of Count 1; dismissing Counts 2 through 5, other than in relation to Count 1; and suspending Respondent's Florida Teaching Certificate No. 284544 for two years. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 13th day of March, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire 24357 US Highway 331, South Santa Rosa Beach, Florida 33459 James F. Davis Post Office Box 11990 Jacksonville, Florida 32239 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry W. Whitmore, Chief Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue presented in this cause is whether Respondent should be suspended from her employment for twenty days for conduct unbecoming a school board employee, misconduct in office, and gross insubordination.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a veteran teacher of approximately 34 years. She has been employed as a teacher by the School Board of Dade County, Florida, for 28 years pursuant to a continuing contract. In 1984, she was voted "Teacher of the Year" at the school where she then taught. In October, 1984, she was reassigned to teach at Coconut Grove Elementary School pursuant to a hardship transfer to facilitate her caring for her ill daughter. She continued to teach at Coconut Grove Elementary School through the time of the final hearing in this cause. She is a dedicated and competent teacher and has consistently received satisfactory ratings on her annual evaluations. She tutors children without charge in her home after school hours. She loves children and loves teaching them. She has a reputation for utilizing effective disciplinary techniques. Joe Carbia is the principal at Coconut Grove Elementary School and was the principal at the time that Respondent obtained her hardship transfer to that school. Since her transfer, Respondent and Carbia have disagreed with each other a number of times. It is apparent that they do not respect each other and have not been supportive of each other since shortly after her transfer to Coconut Grove Elementary School. Between October, 1984, and the 1988-89 school year, Respondent also had disagreements with other teachers and temporarily with one parent of a student. Each time someone complained, Carbia decided that Respondent was wrong. No competent evidence was offered by Petitioner as to what occurred on any of these occasions, and Carbia's testimony that he held conferences with Respondent and issued directives to her is not supported by documentary evidence. Rather, Respondent's acceptable evaluations each year, the lack of documentary evidence, and Petitioner's reliance on hearsay evidence indicate that none of the disagreements, whatever they were, were considered major. During December of 1988, several holiday activities were conducted involving students from Coconut Grove Elementary School. Respondent requested permission from Carbia for her class to put on a holiday play, and permission was given to her. Carbia did not attend the play that was put on by Respondent's students, and none of the other teachers at the school came to see their performance. By early February, 1989, Respondent had visited Carbia's supervisor and had requested him to write a letter of apology to her students for not attending their holiday play. Her students later wrote letters to several persons in the upper level of administration for the Dade County Public Schools, including the Superintendent, asking why no one had attended their play. In mid-February, Carbia visited Respondent's classroom, and one of the students asked him why he had not come to their play. He explained that he had another commitment that evening. Although Carbia concluded that Respondent had instigated her student's question and their letter writing, no evidence was presented to show that it was Respondent's idea and not the idea of her students. The overall evidence clearly shows that Respondent stood up for her students when she felt they had been treated unfairly. No one answered or acknowledged the letters from the children. No more letters were written after Respondent was ordered to stop them. By the end of the 1988-89 school year, Respondent had voiced her complaints about Carbia's methods and her perception of his mistreatment of her and of black teachers and students at Coconut Grove Elementary School to several other teachers and to the P.T.A. President. She had also voiced her complaints about Carbia at a union meeting, a forum believed to be confidential. On July 3, 1989, Carbia forwarded a collection of letters from people reporting to him the things that Respondent was saying about him to the Office of Professional Standards of the Dade County Public Schools along with his request that that office direct Respondent to submit to a medical fitness determination. The letters, submitted to him in June, were from the counselor at the school, one parent, the P.T.A. president, and the other sixth- grade teacher. None of those persons testified at the final hearing in this cause, and those documents remain hearsay. As a result of Carbia's request, Joyce Annunziata, supervisor in the Office of Professional Standards, conducted a conference for the record with Respondent on August 11, 1989, to address Respondent's fitness to return to classroom duties, interpersonal relations with site personnel and community members, and Respondent's future employment status with the Dade County Public Schools. In that conference, Respondent was advised that future incidents of unprofessional demeanor with staff or parents would be considered insubordination. Carbia's request that Respondent be directed to submit to a medical fitness determination was denied. During the 1989-90 school year, Respondent taught the sixth grade. In October, 1989, Carbia assigned the responsibility for the school's United Way Campaign to teacher Deborah Piha, a fifth-grade teacher. The prior year Respondent had been in charge of the United Way Campaign and believed that the United Way Campaign was a sixth-grade project. After Respondent learned that Piha would be in charge, she encountered Piha on her way to the cafeteria. Respondent complained to Piha that Carbia had taken the responsibility away from Respondent and her sixth- grade students and voiced her anger toward Carbia for doing so. Although Piha understood that Respondent was not angry at her, Piha does not like "confrontations" and did not like the fact that Respondent "invaded her space." Piha told Carbia what Respondent had said about him. Carbia requested Piha to write a report about Respondent's conduct, and she did so. Word that Piha had written a negative report regarding Respondent spread quickly. A few moments after Piha left Carbia's office, she encountered Respondent who already had heard about the letter. Piha told Respondent that she was very sorry that she had written the letter and had not meant to hurt Respondent. Piha was clearly upset and told Respondent and the teacher who was with Respondent, "It's my job." Piha asked Respondent for help with the United Way campaign, and Respondent agreed. She offered Piha her materials from the prior year and offered to assist her in any way that she could. Although Carbia asked Piha subsequently to write a second letter, Piha declined. She also later declined Respondent's offers of assistance on the United Way campaign and would not use the materials that Respondent gave her even though she had asked Respondent to assist her. Patricia Perez-Benitoa is a beginning teacher. The 1989-90 school year was her second year of teaching. As an art teacher, she was shared by Coconut Grove Elementary School and another school. She came to Respondent's class on Tuesdays. On Tuesday, November 7, 1989, she told Respondent that she was experiencing difficulty in maintaining discipline. Respondent was aware of that fact since Respondent's students had been complaining to Respondent about Perez- Benitoa. Respondent's students did not like Perez-Benitoa since she called them stupid, immature, dumb, foolish, and silly. Although she followed the school's assertive discipline program, they believed she was unfair in administering discipline and clearly favored certain students. On November 7 when Perez-Benitoa told Respondent she was having difficulty, Respondent agreed to help her. They both stood at the front of the class, and Respondent explained to the students that she was supporting Perez- Benitoa 100%. Perez- Benitoa, with Respondent's support, explained to the class that student misbehavior would be dealt with in a consistent manner. Specifically, she made an "agreement" with Respondent and with the class that if a student misbehaved, then the student would suffer the consequences. Further, all students would be treated equally when they were punished. Torrey and Joseph were students in Respondent's class. After Torrey's mother complained to Perez-Benitoa about calling her son "stupid" during art class, Perez-Benitoa told Torrey during class that he was stupid and so was his mother. During the 1989-90 school year, Torrey was sent to the office by Perez- Benitoa and suspended from school six different times, although he was not sent to the office to be suspended by any other teacher during that school year. On Tuesday, November 14, 1989, Perez-Benitoa came to Respondent's classroom to teach art, and Respondent left the classroom since that would be her planning period. When she returned to the classroom at the end of the art class, she saw that Perez-Benitoa had put Torrey's name and Joseph's name on the board. Torrey was not in the classroom, but Joseph was. Perez-Benitoa told Respondent that she had sent Torrey to the office, and Respondent asked her why she had not sent Joseph to the office since both names were on the board and both names had the same number next to them representing the level of offenses. The two teachers conferred with each other quietly in the front of the classroom. Perez-Benitoa explained that she had sent Torrey to the office for using profanity in class. Respondent asked Perez-Benitoa why she had not sent Joseph to the office since his name was also on the board. Respondent reminded Perez-Benitoa that they had made an agreement witch the class that all students would be treated equally; she also told her that sending one student to the office and not the other was unfair. Respondent also told Perez-Benitoa that she had personally had problems with Joseph using profanity in the class and told Perez-Benitoa that Joseph liked to use the "F-ing" and the "B-ing" words. The students did not hear Respondent's conversation with Perez-Benitoa and did not hear Respondent's description of the profanity used by Joseph on previous occasions. However, a few of the students in the very front of the room only heard Respondent tell Perez-Benitoa it was not fair sending Torrey to the office, the same thing the students were telling Perez- Benitoa. The impression of the students was that Respondent was speaking nicely to Perez- Benitoa. As the two teachers conferred, the students told Respondent that Torrey had not done anything wrong to justify being sent to the office to be suspended. They told her that Joseph had used the word "ass," that Perez- Benitoa mistakenly thought Torrey had used the word, and that Joseph had told Perez-Benitoa that he had used the prohibited word and not Torrey. Joseph also told Respondent that he had used the profanity and that he had told Perez- Benitoa that he did it and not Torrey. The students remained unaware of the content of the conversation between Respondent and Perez-Benitoa. When Perez-Benitoa left the classroom, she took Joseph with her. Despite learning that Torrey had not used profanity in the classroom, Perez-Benitoa wrote a Student Case Management Referral Form regarding Torrey which resulted in Torrey being suspended from school. She did not write a Student Case Management Referral form regarding Joseph. She never told the administration that she had made a mistake regarding Torrey's misbehavior or Joseph's. When Perez-Benitoa went to the office, she told Carbia that Respondent had confronted her and scolded her in front of the class. She also told Carbia that Respondent had used profanity in front of her students. Carbia told her to write a letter regarding Respondent's unprofessional behavior. Perez- Benitoa did so, even though the statements she had made to Carbia were false. At the formal hearing in this cause, Perez-Benitoa admitted that the students did not hear Respondent use profanity, but that they "could have." She admitted that the students were not within hearing range and that there was no reason for the children to think there was any conflict between her and Respondent. She also explained that she was shocked that another teacher would share with her an experience that she had had with a student since other teachers' experiences were simply of no concern to her. She also admitted she has never heard Respondent use profanity other than when Respondent told her of Joseph's propensity for profanity. Carbia did not ask Respondent whether she had scolded Perez-Benitoa or whether she had used profanity in the classroom. He simply directed Essie Pace, the intern principal, to schedule a conference for the record with Respondent. No investigation was done regarding Perez-Benitoa's allegations between November 14 and November 19, the day before the conference for the record. At the conference for the record on November 20, 1989, Pace told Respondent that Respondent had been directed in a July, 1989, conference for the record not to approach another teacher in a negative or derogatory way and not to make derogatory statements to employees or students, and that Respondent had violated those directives. At the final hearing, no evidence was offered as to any July conference for the record. Either on November 20 or on November 21, 1989, in response to their questions, Respondent told her students that Perez-Benitoa had told the principal that Respondent used profanity to get her in trouble but that Respondent had not done so. Perez-Benitoa came to Respondent's classroom on November 21 to teach art. Respondent left the classroom when she arrived. Respondent's students were angry at Perez-Benitoa for lying to the principal about their teacher. They got out of their seats, walked around the classroom, refused to listen to her and were defiant. Perez-Benitoa contacted the office to ask someone to come and get her class under control for her. Principal Carbia was out of town, and intern principal Pace was not in the office at the moment. Perez-Benitoa took no additional steps to obtain assistance to bring her classroom under control. She simply sat down and allowed the disorder and disruption to continue, while she cried. The students' open defiance of her upset Perez-Benitoa. The students even told her that they were angry with her for lying about their teacher. When Respondent returned to her classroom, Perez-Benitoa left. She went directly to the principal's office. By the time she arrived there she was in hysterics and totally out of control. Pace had to enlist the help of another teacher to sit with Perez-Benitoa to try to calm her down, and Perez-Benitoa went home because she was unable to carry out her teaching duties for the remainder of the day due to her lack of control. Pace did not ask Respondent what had happened. She accepted Perez- Benitoa's accusations that Respondent had instigated her children to misbehave. Perez-Benitoa's statements to Pace that the children were throwing paper and erasers at her were not supported by any of the students although the students did admit later to Pace, subsequently to the School Board's investigator, and at the final hearing in this cause that they refused to listen to Perez-Benitoa and were walking around the classroom refusing to remain in their seats. Further, Perez-Benitoa's statements that she heard one student say to another, "Mrs. Bethel will be proud of us" have not been supported by any of the students during Pace's investigation, the School Board investigation, or during the final hearing in this cause. Rather, the students take the position that Respondent would never approve of them misbehaving. After speaking to Perez-Benitoa on November 21 and after calling her own supervisors, Pace went to Respondent's class and removed her from her classroom. When Pace went to Respondent's classroom, the children were not misbehaving. After Pace removed Respondent from her classroom, she interviewed several of the students one at a time. The students told her that Respondent does not use profanity, that Perez-Benitoa calls them names, that they were angry with Perez- Benitoa for lying to the principal regarding Respondent, and that Respondent did not instigate their disruptive and defiant behavior. Pace never asked the students why Respondent had told them about Perez-Benitoa accusing her of using profanity in the classroom. On February 6, 1990, a conference for the record was conducted with Respondent by the Office of Professional Standards to address the investigative report concerning improper conduct, Respondent's insubordination by not complying with a site directive, her lack of professional responsibility in dealing with staff and students, and her future employment status with the Dade County Public Schools. On March 7, 1990, the School Board of Dade County, Florida, suspended Respondent from her employment for twenty work days. Respondent enjoys a great deal of support from the community, from the parents of her students, and from her students. She is outspoken, which appears to make some people feel uncomfortable.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations contained in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges and in the Amendment to the Amended Notice of Specific Charges, dismissing the charges filed against her, reversing the determination that Respondent be suspended for twenty days, and awarding to Respondent back pay for those twenty days for which she has already served the suspension. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 10th day of October, 1990. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of October, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 90-1800 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1 and 17-19 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting recitation of the testimony, conclusions of law, or argument of counsel. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 2, 9 and 10 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 3-5, 7, and 11-16 have been rejected as not being supported by competent evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 6 and 8 have been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues in this cause. Respondent's first, second, third, fifth, and eighth unnumbered paragraphs have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's fourth, sixth, and seventh unnumbered paragraphs have been rejected as not being supported by the evidence in this cause. Respondent's ninth unnumbered paragraph has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel. COPIES FURNISHED: Patricia Graham Williams, Esquire 1055 Northwest 183rd Street Miami, Florida 33169 Jaime Claudio Bovell, Esquire 75 Valencia Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Paul W. Bell, Superintendent The School Board of Dade County Board Administration Building, Suite 301 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Patrick D. Gray Executive Assistant Superintendent Office of Professional Standards Dade County Public Schools 1444 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33132 Mrs. Madelyn P. Schere Assistant School Board Attorney The School Board of Dade County, Florida Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issues to be determined in this proceeding are whether the Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint, Respondent held Florida Educator's Certificate 726297, covering the areas of biology and technology education, which was valid through June 30, 2006.2/ At all times relevant to these proceedings, Respondent was employed as a teacher at Fort Clark Middle School in the Alachua County School District. On or about December 22, 1999, Respondent was given a Citation/Notice to Appear by the Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Law Enforcement, at the Paynes Prairie Preserve, and charged with trespass in a restricted area, a misdemeanor offense. The case was docketed as State of Florida v. Daniel Gardiner, Case No. 99-14490-MMA (Eighth Judicial Circuit, in and for Alachua County, Florida). On March 28, 2000, Respondent entered into an agreement for deferred prosecution of the criminal charge (the Deferred Prosecution Agreement). The Deferred Prosecution Agreement provided in pertinent part: It appearing that you have committed offenses(s) against the State of Florida referenced above and it further appearing after an investigation of those offense(s) and your background that the best interests of justice will be served by the following procedures: On the authority of ROD SMITH as State Attorney for Alachua County, Florida, prosecution in this matter will be deferred for a period of 6 months from the date hereof, and your bond(s), if any, returned now, PROVIDED you agree to do (sic) fully abide by the following terms and conditions during said period: You shall refrain from violating any federal or state law or county municipal ordinance. If arrested, you shall immediately inform the State Attorney's Office in writing of the charge, and promptly advise in writing of the final disposition of the charge (i.e., dismissed, plea of guilty or not guilty by a judge or jury). Your execution of this instrument shall constitute a withdrawal of any demand for speedy trial previously filed by you pursuant to Florida Statute 918.015 and Fla.R.Cr.Pr. 3.191, and a stipulation that the periods of time established by said Rule for trial and any other rights conferred upon you by said Rule are waived. * * * (5) SPECIAL CONDITIONS, if any: Donate $150.00 to Newberry High School Academy of Criminal Justice Scholarship Fund, . . . . Perform 24 hours of Community Service . . . . You shall not enter any state parks. * * * If you comply with these conditions during the period of deferred prosecution, the charge(s) referred to above will be dismissed. The period of deferred prosecution may be shortened or terminated early by the State Attorney. . . . Respondent was represented by counsel in connection with the Deferred Prosecution Agreement, and signed a statement acknowledging that he understood the conditions of the Agreement and had received advice from his attorney regarding the matter. On or about July 11, 2000, the Assistant State Attorney entered a nolle proseque/no information with respect to the above-referenced charge, and the charge was dismissed based upon Respondent's completion of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement. Respondent reported his Deferred Prosecution Agreement to the assistant principal of Fort Clark Middle School. He did so because he believed it was required under what he referred to as the educator's Code of Ethics. The Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession are adopted by rule at Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006, and are in the Chapter referred to as the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida. The reporting requirement with respect to criminal proceedings provides the following: (4) Obligation to the profession of education requires that the individual: * * * (m) Shall self-report within forty-eight (48) hours to appropriate authorities (as determined by the district) any arrests/charges involving the abuse of a child or the sale and/or possession of a controlled substance. . . . In addition, shall self-report any conviction, finding of guilt, withholding of adjudication, commitment to a pretrial diversion program, or entering a plea of guilty or Nolo Contendre for any criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation with forty-eight (48) hours after the final judgment. . . . On or about January 18, 2002, Respondent submitted an application to the Florida Department of Education to add an additional subject to his certification. The application contained the following question: 28. Have you ever been convicted, found guilty, had adjudication withheld, entered a pretrial diversion program, or pled guilty or nolo contendere (no contest) to a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation (DUI is NOT a minor traffic violation)? Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial or a certificate. Respondent answered question 28 "no." The text of the rule quoted above that identifies what conduct triggers self- reporting, and the text of the question on the application submitted to the Department, are virtually identical. The application contained the following statement: I hereby certify that I subscribe to and will uphold the principles incorporated in the Constitutions of the United States of America and the State of Florida. I understand that Florida Statutes provide for revocation of an Educator's Certificate if evidence and proof are established that the certificate has been obtained by fraudulent means. I further certify that all information pertaining to this application is true, correct, and complete. Respondent signed the application, and his signature is notarized. Respondent did not consult his attorney before signing and submitting the application. His testimony that he did not believe that pretrial intervention encompassed a deferred prosecution agreement is not credible.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Respondent to be guilty of the violations alleged in Counts II-V and dismissing Count I of the Amended Administrative Complaint; imposing a reprimand, a $500.00 fine, and an administrative sanction barring Respondent from applying for a new certificate for a period of six months. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of April, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 17th day of April, 2009.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(d), (g) or (j), Florida Statutes (2009), or Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(5)(a) or (h), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator's certificate 309900, covering the area of mathematics. Respondent's certificate is valid through June 30, 2012. During the 2008-2009 school year, Respondent was a teacher at the Madison County Excel School (Excel) in the Madison County School District (the District). Excel is a non-traditional school, and students who attend Excel are either behind academically or have other problems that result in their removal from a traditional school setting. Instruction at Excel is self-paced, using a computer program. Seventy percent of a student's grade for a class would be based upon computer-generated assignments, 20 percent would be class work from a teacher and 5 percent would be based upon participation. Once a student completed the course work, the student had to take and pass an exam. Once students finished the material for one subject, they could begin work in another subject in the same grade period. However, students needed to register for each course before they could take it. There were three different computer programs used at Excel that are relevant to this case. The A+LS system was the program used for computer-based instruction. Pinnacle was the official, computer-based grade book and attendance record. MIS was used to maintain the permanent educational record for each student, including what classes a student took and what grade was assigned for each subject. At the end of each semester, teachers were required to verify each grade that a student was to receive, so that no student's work would be missed. The teacher's signed verification sheets for grades were meant to ensure that all students received credit for all courses the students completed. During the 2008-2009 school year, Respondent maintained a written grade book in which he maintained his grade and attendance records for students in his classes. The District's policy required that teachers enter grades into the Pinnacle system regularly for each student in each course. Use of Pinnacle had been required since the 2007- 2008 school year. In the fall of 2008, Respondent resisted following the policy because he felt it penalized students who were already far behind their peers. On or about February 17, 2009, Excel's principal, Elizabeth Hodge, issued a reprimand to Respondent for failing to properly post grades into Pinnacle for his students. Respondent subsequently discontinued use of his handwritten grade book and presumably began using Pinnacle for the recording of his students' grades. Q.F. and S.B. were Respondent's students at Excel during the 2008-2009 school year. S.B. was in Respondent's first, third, and sixth-period classes and Q.F. was in Respondent's second, fourth, and fifth-period classes. Both students enrolled at Madison County High School during the 2009- 2010 year. Student S.B. During the first semester of the 2008-2009 school year, S.B. was in Respondent's class, enrolled in integrated math during the third period, and earned a semester grade of 93 for that subject. During the second semester, with Respondent as her teacher, S.B. began but did not complete Economics. No evidence was presented to demonstrate that Respondent ever completed a grade verification sheet to indicate that S.B. completed Economics. At the beginning of the 2009-2010 school year, the guidance staff at Madison County High School placed S.B. into classes that Pinnacle showed were appropriate for her. One of those classes was Economics. S.B. objected, stating that she had already completed Economics while at Excel. In order to demonstrate that she had taken Economics, S.B. went to Respondent and asked that he provide to the high school confirmation that she had completed the Economics course. Respondent prepared and sent to Madison High School a letter dated November 17, 2009, in which he stated: This is to acknowledge that I was the instructor of record for [S.B.] in the school year 2007-08 [sic]. She completed the second semester of Biology and Economics. Our input system at Excel failed to grant these credits due to employee turnover and untimely submission of grades. At the time, we were in the process of changing principals and losing our data entry personnel. I can assure you that [S.B.] earned in 87 in Biology and 83 in Economics. We at Excel regret any unnecessary inconvenience that [S.B.] might have suffered. Madison High School officials were still unable to substantiate S.B.'s completion of Economics, and requested Respondent to provide documentation to verify his statements in his November 17, 2009, letter. Respondent prepared and sent to Madison County High School officials a letter dated January 11, 2010, to which he attached a copy of a page from his grade book. The page contained names of students, with grades for the fall semester of the 2008-2009 school year. The grade book page did not contain any information regarding the 2007-2008 school year, referenced in his November 17, 2009, letter. The grade book page submitted with the January 11, 2010, letter, shows a list of student names for class periods three and four. S.B.'s name is included on the list for third period. In the blank provided for listing the subject, the subjects Pre-algebra, Integrated Math 1 and 2 are written in cursive. The term "ECON" is printed in a different colored pen and is written over the word "Subject" printed on the grade book. Reviewing the grade book page, standing alone, does not give any indication which students on the list are taking which courses. However, Respondent represented to officials at Madison High School that the grades listed for S.B. were for Economics. Madison County School District officials pulled the computer records for all of the students listed on this page of the grade book. None of the students listed, including S.B., had grades posted for Economics for the fall term of 2008-2009. Student Q.F. During the first semester of the 2008-2009 school year, Q.F. was in Respondent's class, enrolled in Algebra 1A-B during the fourth period. At the beginning of the 2009-2010 school year, the guidance staff at Madison County High School placed Q.F. into classes that Pinnacle showed were appropriate for her. One of those classes was biology. Q.F. objected, stating that she had already completed Biology while at Excel. Q.F. went to see Respondent and requested that he provide a letter to the high school to show that she had taken Biology the previous year while at Excel. Respondent prepared and sent a letter dated January 13, 2010, which stated This 2nd semester class shows (4th period) as an example that [J.B.] and [U.G.] were taking consumer math, [C.J.] was taking Geometry and [Q.F.] was taking Biology. Ms. [F.] had an 85 average in Bilogy [sic]. Attached to the letter was a copy of what appears to be the same page from Respondent's grade for the first semester of the 2008-2009 year that was provided with the January 11, 2010, letter regarding S.B. The grade book page shows a list of students for fourth period that includes Q.F. Next to the circled "4th," the following class subjects are listed: ALG1-A& B/ CONSUMER MATH/BIOLOGY/GEOMETRY. However, in the copy of the same page attached to Respondent's January 11, 2010, letter, the reference to Biology is not included. As with the copy provided with the January 11, 2010, letter, it is not possible to determine by reference to the grade book page alone, which students were taking which courses. However, Respondent represented to officials at Madison High School that the grades listed for Q.F. were for Biology. Madison County School District officials pulled the computer records for all of the students listed on this page of the grade book. None of the students listed, including Q.F., had grades posted for Biology for the fall term of 2008-2009. As with S.B., Respondent never completed a grade verification sheet indicating that Q.F. had completed Biology. The Altered Grade Book Dr. Michael Akes is the Director of Human Resources for the School District. In looking at the copies of the page from Respondent's grade book, he realized that there was a discrepancy with respect to the term Biology being included on one copy of the page and not on the other. He discovered that, in the original grade book, line number 19 had been cut from a blank page in the book. Names of the classes supposedly taught during fourth period were written on the strip and it was pasted in over the original line 19 containing the course listings for fourth period. Respondent admitted to school officials that he had cut a strip from the back of the book, rewritten the list of courses and then photocopied the page so that it would appear that Biology had always been included in the list of courses being taught. Respondent claimed that the alteration was simply a "correction" of his grade book because he remembered Q.F. had taken Biology. Inasmuch as no student was taking Biology from Respondent during fourth period that semester, Respondent's alteration of his records is not a "correction." Contrary to Respondent's representations to Madison County High School officials, S.B. did not complete Economics and G.F. did not complete Biology while at Excel. Respondent denies doing anything wrong and insists that both students were working on their classes. However, there is simply no documentation to support the representation that the students completed the classes for which they were seeking credit. As a result of Respondent's actions, on February 2, 2010, the Superintendent of Schools, Lou Miller, recommended that Respondent's employment with the School District be terminated. Respondent requested a hearing and a section 120.57(1) hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge Suzanne Hood in DOAH Case No. 10-0998. In a Recommended Order filed July 16, 2010, Judge Hood recommended that Respondent's employment be terminated based on findings that Respondent committed the acts described above. On August 9, 2010, the Madison County School Board entered a Final Order adopting Judge Hood's Recommended Order and terminated Respondent's employment with the District.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(d), (g) and (j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B-1.006(5)(a) and (h). It is further recommended that the Commission 1) reprimand Respondent; 2) suspend his certificate for a period of 2 years; 3) impose a 3-year probationary period upon his return to teaching in any public or private school in Florida, upon such terms and conditions as the Commission deems appropriate; and 4) require that Respondent take and successfully complete a three-hour, college-level course on professional ethics no later than the first year of probation. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 31st day of May, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire J. David Holder P. A. 40 Grand Flora Way Santa Rosa Beach, Florida 32459 James B. Brown Post Office Box 584 Madison, Florida 32340 Lois Tepper, Acting General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to have disciplinary action taken against the Respondent on the basis of allegations of misconduct set forth in an Administrative Complaint. The Administrative Complaint charges the Respondent with having entered into a sexual relationship with a minor who was a student at a school where the Respondent was an administrator and teacher.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds Florida teaching certificate number 518573 covering the area of English. The certificate is valid through June 30, 1997. During the school years of 1978-1979, 1979-1980, and 1980-1981, the Respondent was employed as an administrator and teacher at Summit Christian School in West Palm Beach, Florida. During those same school years, J. R. G. was a female student attending Summit Christian School. Those school years were, respectively, her sophomore, junior, and senior years of high school. J. R. G. was fifteen years old during her sophomore year of high school. During J. R. G.’s sophomore year the Respondent was her History teacher and was also the Principal of the school. During the next two school years, the Respondent continued to be the Principal of the school, but he did not teach classes on a regular basis. During most of the three school years mentioned above, J. R. G. was frequently a baby-sitter for the Respondent’s children. During that period of time J. R. G. was on very friendly terms with the Respondent, with the Respondent’s wife, and with the Respondent’s children. During that period of time J. R. G. was a frequent visitor to the Respondent’s house at times other than when she was baby-sitting. During J. R. G.’s sophomore year and until about the middle of her junior year, whenever J. R. G. baby-sat for the Respondent the Respondent always drove J. R. G. from her home to his home at the beginning of each baby-sitting job and he always drove her home after each baby-sitting job. The Respondent’s wife never drove J. R. G. to or from a baby-sitting job. During the second half of J. R. G.’s junior year and during her senior year she drove herself to and from baby-sitting jobs at the Respondent’s house. Although the circumstances described in paragraph 6, above, provided an opportunity for the misconduct alleged in the Administrative Complaint, the evidence of such misconduct falls short of the clear and convincing standard which is applicable in this case.1
Recommendation For the reasons set forth above, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case dismissing all charges against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th of February, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th of February, 1997.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether Respondent's license as a real estate broker in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Division of Real Estate (Division) was the state agency in Florida responsible for licensing real estate brokers and salespersons and for the regulation of the real estate profession in this state. Respondent was licensed as a real estate broker, but his license had been suspended effective October 13, 1996 On May 17, 1994, after Respondent had requested but failed to appear at an informal hearing on his alleged misconduct, the Florida Real Estate Commission (Commission) issued a Final Order in which it ordered Respondent be reprimanded and pay a $500.00 administrative fine within thirty days of the filing of the order on pain of suspension of his broker's license until the fine was paid. In addition, the Commission placed Respondent's license on probation for one year with the requirement that, inter alia, he enroll in and satisfactorily complete a sixty hour post-licensure education course for brokers within one year of the filing of the order. Though in collateral communications to Petitioner's counsel, to an investigator, Ms. May, and to the prior Judge assigned in this matter, all of which are a part of the file in this case, Respondent claimed not to have received the Final Order in issue, Mr. James, another investigator for the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Department), in his visit to Respondent's office on June 28, 1995, found a copy of the order in Respondent's office files. The prior misconduct by Respondent bears on the instant case only in so far as it supports the action taken with respect to it by the Commission. As it appears, Respondent failed to file his monthly escrow account reconciliation on the required form though he had received and had a copy of the required form in his file. He claims, in his correspondence, and there is no evidence to refute his claim, that because of his poor memory at the advanced age of eighty years, he forgot the new form had become required and continued to use the previously approved form he had used over his prior twenty-eight years in the real estate business. It appears that when that discrepancy was found by the former investigator, Ms. Mays, Respondent was issued a citation calling for a fine of $100.00 and 30 hours of continuing education, but considering that proposed penalty too severe for a "minor" offense resulting from a lapse of memory, especially when no loss was occasioned to any client, he rejected the citation and demanded a hearing. He then did not attend the informal hearing scheduled. Thereafter, the commission entered the Final Order alleged in the instant Administrative Complaint, the terms of which were described above. The required $500.00 administrative fine has not been paid nor has the required post-licensing education been completed. Respondent still contends the fine is too severe and because of his age and inability to drive at night, he is unable to take the required course. On June 28, 1995, Mr. James, an investigator for the Department, acting on a report that Respondent was continuing to operate his brokerage even though his license had been suspended, went to the Respondent's office located at 56 Harvard Street in Englewood, Florida. At that address Mr. James found Respondent operating two businesses from the same office. One was Englewood Realty and the other was a dry ice company. During the interview held on June 28, 1995, Respondent admitted he had received the Final Order but considered it unfair. Respondent also admitted he was actively engaged in the practice of real estate and wanted to keep the brokerage open until he could sell his own property, and "just in case something else came up." While Mr. James was at the Respondent's office, Respondent was visited by a female representative of an advertising publication who spoke with him about his advertisement for the sale of some real estate. Also during the visit, as James recalls, Respondent received at least one telephone call which seemed to relate to the sale of real property. In both cases, however, it appeared to Mr. James that Respondent was referring to his own property. James did not discover any reference to sales or dealing relating to property owned by anyone other than Respondent. James also reviewed Respondent's books for the brokerage and it appeared to him that Respondent was operating at a loss. Nonetheless, at no time did Respondent fail to identify himself as a real estate broker either to the advertising representative or in response to the telephone call. In light of Respondent's refusal to comply with the earlier suspension, his apparent unwillingness to cease operations as directed until it suited his purpose, and his unfavorable financial position as to the brokerage, the Petitioner recommends only that Respondent's license as a real estate broker be revoked.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order in this case revoking Respondent's license as a real estate broker in Florida. RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of October 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Raymond J. McGinn Englewood Realty 56 Harvard Street Englewood, Florida 34223 Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street, N-308 Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Henry M. Solares Division Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
The Issue Whether Respondent's educator's certification should be sanctioned for alleged acts involving moral turpitude, in violation of Subsection 1012.795(1) (c), Florida Statutes (2003).1 Whether Respondent's educator's certification should be sanctioned for being convicted of a misdemeanor, felony, or other criminal charge, in violation of Subsection 1012.795(1)(e), Florida Statutes. Whether Respondent's educator's certification should be sanctioned for violation of the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession, in violation of Subsection 1012.795(1)(i), Florida Statutes. Whether Respondent's educator's certification should be sanctioned for a plea guilty or a decision of guilt in any court, in violation of Subsection 1012.795(2), Florida Statutes. Whether Respondent's educator's certification should be sanctioned for failure to maintain honesty in all professional dealings, in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B- 1.006(5)(a). Whether Respondent's educator's certification should be sanctioned for submitting fraudulent information on a document in connection with professional activities, in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(5)(h).
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Carolyn Stewart, holds Florida Educator Certificate 747243, covering the area of Guidance and Counseling, which was valid through June 30, 2005. Respondent was employed as a guidance counselor at Sea Breeze Elementary School, in the Manatee County School District, during the 2003/2004 school year, until she resigned sometime in the fall of 2003. On or after October 1, 2003, Respondent was arrested and charged with two counts of fraudulent use of a credit card. Respondent entered a plea of guilty to those charges, both third degree felonies, in the Circuit Court for Manatee County, Florida, Case Nos. 2003-CF-3150 and 2003-CF-4094, on May 18, 2004. Adjudication was withheld, and Respondent was sentenced to credit for time served in the county jail, court costs, and facility fee. On or about March 18, 2004, following the issuance of an Information, Respondent was arrested and charged with the felony offense of filing fraudulent insurance claims, between October 1, 1999, and September 12, 2003, with her employer, the Manatee County School Board. Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendre to the charge of filing fraudulent insurance claims for less that $20,000, a third degree felony, in the Circuit Court for Manatee County, in Case No. 2004-CF-1067, on May 24, 2005. Respondent was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to five years probation. On April 15, 2004, Respondent was charged, by Information, with the offense of Poisoning Food or Water of Michael Skoyec, which occurred between August 31, 2003, and/or September 1, 2003. Respondent pled not guilty to the charge, a first degree felony, and the matter proceeded to a jury trial before the Circuit Court for Manatee County, Case No. 2004-CF- 1787. Prior to the trial, the State Attorney amended the Information by adding a second count, charging Respondent with Attempted Second Degree Murder, a second degree felony. Following the trial which concluded on February 11, 2005, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on the first count, Poisoning Food and Water, and a verdict of guilty on the lesser count included offense of Battery (a first degree misdemeanor), as to the second Count. At the sentencing hearing on April 19, 2005, Respondent was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to 15 years in the custody of the Department of Corrections, and costs, followed by five years' probation. Respondent was committed to the custody of the Department of Corrections on April 19, 2005, and is at present serving her sentence in the Gadsden Correctional Institution. Following her conviction and sentence, Respondent appealed her convictions to the Second District Court of Appeal. The conviction was affirmed on March 3, 2006, and the Mandate issued on May 18, 2006. In each of the criminal cases in which she entered a plea of guilty or no contest, Respondent, through her attorney, stipulated that there was a factual basis for the charge, or the facts were stated on the record for the court to determine the factual basis. Following these incidents, Respondent resigned her position with the Manatee School District in the fall of 2003. There was adverse publicity in the newspaper about the charges against Respondent, including the poisoning charge. There was no dispute that as a result of these incidents Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher was seriously, if not totally, reduced. The honesty of educators is relied upon by administrators. Respondent's actions, including her fraudulent acts, prevented administrators from relying on her honesty. Fellow employees rely on an educator's honesty, and Respondent's actions similarly prevent that reliance in the future. On October 18, 2004, Respondent was charged by Information, with one felony count of falsifying records, on September 22, 2003, of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). She entered a plea of no contest, was adjudicated guilty, and placed on five years' probation for that offense on May 24, 2005. Although the avenue of direct appeal of her conviction has been exhausted, Respondent has retained legal counsel to explore the possibility of filing post-conviction relief in the courts in regard to those charges, where she has been adjudicated guilty by the court. Although Respondent acknowledged that grounds existed to revoke her teaching certificate, she testified that she was very good at what she did as a guidance counselor and desired the opportunity to seek reinstatement of her teaching certificate in the future. Respondent offered no evidence to support this assertion.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED as follows: A final order be issued finding that Respondent did violate the provisions of Subsections 1012.795(1) (c), (e) and (i), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6b- 1.006(5) (a), and (h). Count 4 of the Administrative Complaint should be dismissed. If is further RECOMMENDED: That the Education Practices Commission enter a final order permanently revoking Respondent's teaching certificate. DONE AND ORDERED this 24th day of January, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 24th day of January, 2007.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent is guilty of personal conduct that seriously reduces her effectiveness as an employee of the school board, in violation of section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, or a violation of the Principles of Professional Conduct, as prohibited by section 1012.795(1)(j), by using institutional privileges for private gain and by failing to maintain honesty in all professional dealings, in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(4)(c) and (5)(a); and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds educator certificate 1012045, which is valid through June 30, 2019. The certificate covers English and Reading. In March 2015, Respondent was employed by Miami-Dade County Public Schools as a language arts teacher at Brownsville Middle School, where she had taught since 2006. On March 2, 2015, outside the presence of other proctors, Respondent administered the 2015 Florida Standards Assessment in English Language Arts (Test), which is taken in a paper-based format. In the course of administering the Test, Respondent noticed that the subject of the writing prompt was William Shakespeare. Respondent did not read any passages set forth in the Test, but, that evening, Respondent advised her son that, when he took the same Test in Broward County the next day, he would be prompted to write about William Shakespeare, and he should do his best to finish the Test. Objectively, knowledge of the subject of the prompt would not confer upon Respondent's son an advantage over his peers. As the word, "prompt" implies, the citation to William Shakespeare was merely to induce the students to write something, not to display their knowledge of Shakespeare or his plays and poetry. On the other hand, Respondent's motive in disclosing the subject of the prompt to her son was to put him a little more at ease when he took the Test; from this perspective, Respondent's motive was to confer upon her son an advantage that would not be enjoyed by the other students who took the Test. Most parents, like Respondent, could encourage their children to do their best and finish the Test, but none could give them the small measure of assurance that comes with knowing the subject of the prompt ahead of taking the Test. Emboldened by his special knowledge, Respondent's son told his teacher, loudly enough that some of his classmates could hear, that the Test was easy and that it was about a poet named Shakespeare. The teacher ordered Respondent to be quiet and, secure in the knowledge that the students did not know who Shakespeare was, justifiably determined that this disclosure a few moments before starting the Test would not affect the validity of the results. The teacher reported the matter to her principal, and eventually the matter was referred to the Miami- Dade County School District. When asked, Respondent admitted to telling her son about the prompt. Eventually, Respondent agreed to a five- workday suspension, without a right to a hearing, as opposed to a proposed termination, subject to a right to a hearing. She has served her suspension and remains employed by the Miami-Dade County School District. Respondent is an experienced teacher, whose career has taken place within the era of high-stakes testing. This simple case pivots on an act that, in effect, verged on the inconsequential, but, in genesis, revealed a worrisome inattentiveness to the demands of one's profession in maintaining an unassailable boundary between public duty and private interest. The proper penalty must recognize the mereness of the act, but inculcate in Respondent an aversion to self-dealing.
Recommendation RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of a violation of section 1012.795(1)(g) and imposing a reprimand and a requirement that Respondent complete successfully 15 hours of teacher ethics or professionalism coursework, online or in person, by August 1, 2019, on her own time or using her personal leave. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of March, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 20th day of March, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Gretchen Kelley Brantley, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761 (eServed) Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Charles T. Whitelock, P.A. 300 Southeast 13th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
