Findings Of Fact On September 9, 1982 Petitioner filed an application with the Teacher Certification Section of the Florida Department of Education to be re-certified as a teacher in the State of Florida. He was previously certified as a teacher in Florida from September 3, 1974 until 1979 in the field of cooperative distributive education. Mr. Hill is a graduate of the University of South Florida with a bachelor's degree in distributive education and he has 20 to 25 hours of credit towards his master's degree in administration Supervision. From 1974 until 1977 he successfully taught school in the Orlando area. In December of 1979 Petitioner had an argument with his father. During the course of that argument Mr. Hill picked up a 12 gauge shotgun and hit his father in the stomach several times. Petitioner was arrested, charged with aggravated assault, and subsequently adjudicated not guilty by a reason of insanity. The court order adjudicating him not guilty found that "At the time of the alleged offense, defendant's psychological condition caused him to function under paranoid delusions and persecutory relations. He not only had such thoughts and beliefs, but they were held so firmly that he was acting upon them." After the entry of that order on March 24, 1980, Petitioner was found to meet the criteria for involuntary commitment to a state mental hospital pursuant to the provisions of the Baker Act. He was treated at G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital until June 1980 and then released to the Peace River Center for Personal Development as a resident there. In either October or November 1981 Mr. Hill ceased taking the psychotropic medication which had been prescribed for him. By March 1982 he was again readmitted as an involuntary patient at G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital and after treatment there he was released in August 1982 back to the Peace River Center. Dr. M. Saleem Jeewa has been his treating psychiatrist since June of 1980. At the present time Dr. Jeewa prescribes Mellaril, a major tranquilizer, and Pamelor, an anti-depressant medication for Petitioner. Mr. Hill now visits Dr. Jeewa on a monthly basis unless something unusual happens in the interim. Additionally Petitioner attends group therapy three times a week and lives in one of the satellite apartments at Peace River Center. The satellite apartments are an arrangement where three or four patients live together to share expenses and help each other as a peer group. The satellite apartments are not part of a residential facility but are leased out in the community by the Peace River Center. In April 1983 Petitioner began working at American Building Maintenance, a Tampa janitorial service. His other employment history subsequent to his arrest, but prior to this hearing, includes janitorial work for Goodwill Industries. This employment was terminated when, due to an automobile accident, Mr. Hill was injured and physically unable to perform his job. Prior to that employment he worked for a CETA program where he assisted in locating jobs for handicapped persons. With respect to Mr. Hill's present psychological state he has no evidence of any thought disorder. His speech is logical, coherent and relevant. He has a fair amount of insight into his own condition and his judgment is adequate. No psychosis is apparent. He continues however to display a mild form of mixed anxiety and depression. At the present time it would be difficult however, for Mr. Hill to handle a job where he is fairly independent, must be flexible with considerable responsibilities and handle a variety of tasks. In order for Mr. Hill to be a successful teacher in a classroom situation with responsibility for 15 to 20 children, he would initially need some additional assistance and support over and above that normally required by a new teacher. It is unlikely that due to Mr. Hill's present condition he would cause any harm or be dangerous to students or other people around him. While it is within the realm of possibility that Petitioner, if certified, could successfully handle the responsibilities of a distributive education teacher, that possibility is not probable in view of Petitioner's present fragile psychological state.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the State Board of Education as the head of the Department of Education, enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for certification as a teacher in the field of distributive education. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 4th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON 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 4th day of November, 1983.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner has been employed by the Fire Department of the City of Tallahassee since 1981. Mr. Grice has obtained a Bachelor of Science degree with a major in sociology and a minor in corrections, which he maintains is sufficiently related to the "human resource management" type of degree as to constitute "fire related" training, so as to authorize his entry into the Supplemental Compensation Program under the above mentioned Rules. The Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida charged with promulgating and enforcing standards with regard to the profession of firefighting. It is charged with determining the qualifications for entrance into various certification programs and areas of licensure within the profession of firefighting. It was established by Mr. Stark that the major concentration area of "sociology" is not readily identifiable and applicable as "fire related" training and is not an enumerated major concentration of study qualifying one for entry into the Supplemental Compensation Program. It is a generalized course of study not involving significant education in subjects such as personnel management so as to constitute a course of study in the acceptable field of "Human Resource Management." It is not one of the educational areas enumerated in Rule 4A-37.73, Florida Administrative Code. It was also shown that the Petitioner does not otherwise have the requisite 18 semester hours or the 27 quarter hours of college course work to his credit which are readily identifiable and applicable as "fire related." The Petitioner attempted to employ as precedent a case involving a Mr. Birney Jordan who, in a similar proceeding, was determined to be qualified for this Supplemental Compensation Program. It was established, however, that that case is unrelated to the situation at bar and has no precedential value in the consideration of the Petitioner's application. Mr. Jordan's application was considered by a different governing board, the Fire Standards Council, with different standards applicable at the time he sought certification. Further, Mr. Jordan had sufficient credits in fire-related training and in the acceptable field of military science, to qualify for that program. The Petitioner has no military science credits appearing in his college transcript and took no military science courses. He had one course in military history, which is not a relevant area of study which would assist in qualifying him for the subject program. Thus no policy by the Respondent agency resulting in variant applications of the rules at issue has been demonstrated. Finally, it has been shown that the agency has adopted and followed a consistent policy of not admitting applicants to the Supplemental Compensation Program on the strength of a sociology degree alone. In short, it has not been established by Petitioner that he has sufficient numbers of hours in college course work which are readily identifiable and applicable as "fire related" training, so as to qualify him for entry into the Supplemental Compensation Program at issue.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, the evidence of record, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the application for qualification for supplemental compensation filed by Lawrence C. Grice be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of March 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 904/488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of March 1987. APPENDIX, CASE NO. 86-2460 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: The Petitioner's post-hearing submittal cannot be deemed to constitute Proposed Findings of Fact. In reality, the Petitioner's post-hearing pleading filed January 21, 1987, consists of argument concerning admissibility of certain items of evidence offered and argument concerning Petitioner's position as to the weight and credibility ascribed to that evidence. The Petitioner has submitted no Proposed Findings of Fact as such. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Lawrence C. Grice, Jr. 5632 Maple Forrest Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Stephen C. Fredrickson, Esquire Office of Legal Services Department of Insurance 413-B Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable William Gunter State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Don Dowdell, Esquire General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether Respondent failed to correct noted performance deficiencies during his probationary period and therefore should be terminated from his employment with the Miami-Dade County School Board pursuant to Section 1012.34, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board is responsible for the operation, control, and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Miami-Dade County, Florida, including M. A. Milam K-8 Center (Milam). For approximately the past 13 years, Dr. Robert Valenzuela has been the principal of Milam. Jeffrey Hernandez was an assistant principal at Milam during the 2001-2002, 2002-2003, and 2003-2004 school years. Michelle Judge is in her second year as an assistant principal at Milam. 5. During the 2001-2002, 2002-2003, and 2003-2004 school years, Respondent was a middle school social studies teacher at Milam. During the 2003-2004 school year, he taught advanced classes comprised of gifted students. Of the four middle school social studies teachers at Milam during the 2003-2004 school year, Respondent was the only one assigned to teach such advanced classes. Teaching gifted students was a coveted assignment. At the beginning of the 2003-2004 school year, when teaching assignments were made at Milam, it appeared, based upon Respondent's teaching record, that Respondent "was competent to teach the courses" he was assigned. Teachers at Milam, like all teachers employed by the School Board, are now, and have been at all times material to the instant case, evaluated in accordance with the School Board's Professional Assessment and Comprehensive Evaluation System (PACES).2 PACES is described in the PACES Teaching and Learning Professional Growth Manual (Manual). The Manual's preface contains, among other things, the following information: . . . . The PACES is a comprehensive, learner-centered, classroom-based assessment system that is designed to provide M-DCPS teachers, administrators, and other educators with information useful for improving teaching and learning in classrooms and schools. . . . The organization of this manual includes seven major Domains, subsumed Teaching and Learning Components, and Teaching and Learning Indicators. In addition, it contains extensive explanations and examples of the indicators to clarify their meanings and can be used by teachers and other instructional personnel as they develop professional growth plans and activities. A sub-set of the required indicators is used to make annual evaluation decisions. The teaching and learning indicators in the PACES are not simple statements of particular teaching behaviors. Rather, they are statements that describe observable elements of quality teaching and learning that are assessed within the unique context of each classroom. The PACES Teaching and Learning Professional Growth Manual does not reflect a single philosophy or model of teaching and learning. It has been designed to accommodate a wide variety of teaching methods and learning tasks. The manual appreciates teachers as professionals. Thus, this manual does not tell teachers how they should teach. * * * Appropriate professional growth activities for teachers may be addressed by using PACES Teaching and Learning Indicators including those that are not required for annual evaluation. All teachers are evaluated with the M-DCPS Teaching and Learning Professional Growth Manual using only the Required Indicators. * * * Throughout this manual, some Teaching and Learning Indicators are in bold print and lined above and below the text. These are required indicators for evaluation by the principal or designated administrator. The decision rule is also in bold type and states that a post-observation meeting must occur between the teacher and the evaluator for the purpose of designating professional growth activities. . . . * * * The "seven major Domains, subsumed Teaching and Learning Components, and Teaching and Learning Indicators" are further explained in the following introductory passage in the Manual: This manual is organized by seven Domains as follows: Planning for Teaching and Learning Managing the Learning Environment Teacher/Learner Relationships Enhancing and Enabling Learning Enabling Thinking Classroom-Based Assessments of Learning Professional Responsibilities Domains I-VI are further defined by sets of teaching and learning Components and their Indicators. Indicators are the fundamental units of observation that are used to make professional judgments about the quality of teaching and learning. Domain VII includes indicators of ongoing compliance with rules, policies, and procedures that are used as part of the annual evaluation of M-DCPS teachers. Required Indicators for evaluation are designated throughout the manual in bold print. These Required Indicators represent the fundamental level of teaching practice to be demonstrated by all instructional personnel, and are aligned with the Florida Department of Education Educator Accomplished and Professional Practices. . . . There are 44 "Required Indicators." A teacher's performance is considered unsatisfactory if it fails to meet one or more of these "Required Indicators." At the beginning of each school year, Milam's administrators review the features of PACES with the teachers at the school. Such a review was conducted at the outset of the 2003- 2004 school year. At all times material to the instant case, Principal Valenzuela and Assistant Principals Hernandez and Judge were trained in PACES and authorized to observe and evaluate teachers at Milam. They each conducted at least one observation/evaluation of Respondent during the 2003-2004 school year. Assistant Principal Hernandez was the first of the three to observe and evaluate Respondent during the 2003-2004 school year. Assistant Principal Hernandez's initial observation of Respondent was conducted on November 5, 2003. As required by PACES, prior to this November 5, 2003, observation, Respondent met with Assistant Principal Hernandez to discuss the lesson plan Respondent had prepared for the class that Assistant Principal Hernandez was going to observe. Assistant Principal Hernandez "rejected" the lesson plan. Erroneously believing that Assistant Principal Hernandez had "rejected" the lesson plan because of its format, Respondent went to Principal Valenzuela and complained that, under the collective bargaining agreement, Assistant Principal Hernandez had the authority merely to suggest, but not to require, that Respondent's lesson plans follow a particular format. Principal Valenzuela acknowledged that Respondent was correct and recommended that Respondent go back to Assistant Principal Hernandez and revisit the matter with him. When Respondent did so, Assistant Principal Hernandez attempted to make clear to Respondent that his concern was with the content, not the format, of the lesson plan. Respondent's performance during the observation on November 5, 2003, was unsatisfactory. Respondent had a post-observation meeting with Assistant Principal Hernandez on November 6, 2003. That same day, Assistant Principal Hernandez prepared the following memorandum, which accurately summarized what had occurred at the meeting: On Thursday, November 6, 2003, at 2:30 p.m., a PACES Post-Observation Meeting was held with you in my office. During our meeting, I informed you that you had not met standards for II.D, II.E, IV.D, V.A, V.B., V.C, VI.B, and VI.C. Therefore, I will be conducting a follow-up observation within the next three weeks. Furthermore, I informed you that you had the opportunity to work with a Professional Growth Team to assist you with the indicators identified as not meeting standards. You declined having a Professional Growth Team assigned to you at this time. If you have any question or need further information, please do not hesitate to see me. Respondent was given the memorandum on November 10, 2003, at which time he signed it, thereby acknowledging that he received it and that he "continu[ed] to decline having a Professional Growth Team assigned to [him]." Inasmuch as this was Respondent's initial evaluation of the school year, pursuant to PACES, it was "not of record" and he was free to "to decline having a Professional Growth Team assigned to [him]." In addition to being given the "opportunity to work with a Professional Growth Team," Respondent was also advised to review the Manual, observe other teachers in the classroom,3 and go to the School Board website and view PACES video "vignettes" showing teachers modeling classroom performance meeting each of the "Required Indicators." Assistant Principal Hernandez conducted a follow-up observation of Respondent on January 30, 2004, while Respondent was teaching a social studies lesson "ha[ving] to do with discrimination" to a class of gifted sixth graders. Respondent's performance during this observation on January 30, 2004, was unsatisfactory. On February 5, 2004, Principal Valenzuela and Assistant Principal Hernandez held a conference-for-the-record with Respondent to discuss Respondent's unsatisfactory performance during the January 30, 2004, observation. Following this conference-for-the record, Principal Valenzuela sent Respondent the following memorandum,4 dated February 5, 2004, which accurately summarized what had occurred at the conference-for-the record: A conference-for-the-record was held with you in my office on Thursday, February 5, 2004, at 9:35 a.m. Present at the conference were Jeffrey J. Hernandez, Assistant Principal and this administrator. You were provided the option for union representation, but you declined. The purpose of this conference is to recount the procedures relating to the 90-Day [C]alendar Day Performance Probation. An initial observation, (not of record) was conducted on November 5, 2003, and revealed below standard indicators. These indicators were reviewed with you on November 6, 2003, in a post observation meeting. At that meeting, you were offered the assistance of a Professional Growth Team (PGT) and you declined (see attached memorandum). Further, you were advised that you would be formally observed at a later date. Subsequent to the observation which was not of record, a formal observation was conducted on January 30, 2004, which identified below standard indicators in teaching and learning in Domain(s)/Component(s) II.D.1, IV.A.3, IV.A.5, IV.B.3, IV.C.2, IV.D.1, V.A.1, V.A.4, V.B.1, V.B.2, V.C.1, VI.B.1, VI.B.3, VI.C.4. At this scheduled conference-for- the-record, your input was solicited, resulting in the attached Professional Improvement Plan (PIP). It is your professional responsibility to complete the requirements of the PIP within the note[d] timelines. You were reminded that the PGT is herein formally assigned to assist you during the 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation. The probation period commences the day after receipt of the written PIP as evidenced by your signature and the date. Subsequent to the conclusion of the 90- Calendar Day Performance Probation, a determination will be made as to whether performance deficiencies have been satisfactorily corrected within the probation period. A recommendation by the principal will be made to the Superintendent that may lead to termination of your employment contract as stipulated in FS 231.29.[5] You were apprised of your right to clarify or explain any information recorded in this conference by this summary. Respondent signed the memorandum, acknowledging that he received it, on February 9, 2004. Respondent also signed the Professional Improvement Plan attached to the memorandum (First PIP) on February 9, 2004, indicating that he had "seen and received the document" on that date. Therefore, his 90-calendar day probationary period began on February 10, 2004. Prepared by Assistant Principal Hernandez, the First PIP was accurately noted the deficiencies he had found during his January 30, 2004, observation of Respondent,6 and prescribed activities designed to help Respondent correct these deficiencies. It read as follows: Domain II Managing the Learning Environment. Effective classroom and behavior management are necessary for effective teaching and learning. Component/Indicator II.D.1 Changes in teaching and learning activities are sufficient to engage learners. Deficiency: Changes in teaching and learning activities are insufficient to engage learners. This deficiency is evidenced by: Learner engagement was not promoted through a variety of means initiated by the teacher. The learners were sitting one per table. The learners were reading a worksheet and answering low recall questions throughout the lesson. As a result, the learners became disinterested and bored. This was evidenced by the girl sitting on the second table on the left playing with her nails, the boy sitting on the first table next to the teacher's desk hitting the table with [a] pencil and two boy[s] sitting on the right of the teacher's desk staring at the teacher with the[ir] arm[s] holding their head[s] on the desk. Improvement Plan: Read for understanding the explanations and examples for indicator II.D.1; Resource: The PACES Teaching and Learning Professional Growth Manual and The Teacher Guide to PACES; Timeline: Summarize the main ideas of the component for discussion with the Professional Growth Team and submit the summary to the administrator by February 12, 2004. Domain IV Enhancing and Enabling Learning. An important dimension of the enhancement of learning is the interactive process of teaching and learning. Component/Indicator IV.A.3 Specific learning outcomes are clearly understood by learners. Deficiency: Specific learning outcomes are not clearly understood by learners. This deficiency is evidenced by: The learners were not provided with the lesson objective verbally nor written. The interactions between the teacher and the learners varied in topic as they arose. The focus of the lesson did not follow the established objective. Since the teacher did not specify what the learning outcomes were, students did not know what was expected of them. Improvement Plan: Read for understanding the explanation and examples for Indicator IV.A.3; Resource: The PACES Teaching and Learning Professional Growth Manual and the Teacher Guide to PACES; Timeline: Summarize the main ideas of the component for discussion with the Professional Growth Team and submit the summary to the administrator by February 12, 2004. Domain IV Enhancing and Enabling Learning. An important dimension of the enhancement of learning is the interactive process of teaching and learning. Component/Indicator IV.A.5 The purpose or importance of learning tasks is clear to learners. Deficiency: The purpose or importance of learning tasks is not clear to learners. This deficiency is evidence by: The learners did not have the opportunity to make any reference to the relevance of the learning activities to real life. At no time were the learners given the purpose or importance of activities the teacher asked them to do. Improvement Plan: Read for understanding the explanation and examples for Indicator IV.A.5; Resource: The PACES Teaching and Learning Professional Growth Manual and the Teacher Guide to PACES; Timeline: Summarize the main ideas of the component for discussion with the Professional Growth Team and submit the summary to the administrator by February 19, 2004. Domain IV Enhancing and Enabling Learning. An important dimension of the enhancement of learning is the interactive process of teaching and learning. Component/Indicator IV.B.1 Teaching and learning activities are appropriate for the complexity of the learning context. Deficiency: Teaching and learning activities are not appropriate for the complexity of the learning context. This deficiency is evidenced by: The learners were not provided the opportunity to achieve the complexity of learning context relevant to learning outcomes, enhancing learning, and broadening learner understandings. The learners were not involved in activities such as cooperative learning, student interactions, nor other techniques that would avoid the learner to become disinterested. The learners basically read a worksheet silently and then the teacher would ask low level recall questions. Improvement Plan: Read for understanding the explanation and examples for Indicator IV.B.1; Resource: The PACES Teaching and Learning Professional Growth Manual and the Teacher Guide to PACES; Timeline: Summarize the main ideas of the component for discussion with the Professional Growth Team and submit the summary to the administrator by February 20, 2004. Domain IV Enhancing and Enabling Learning. An important dimension of the enhancement of learning is the interactive process of teaching and learning. Component/Indicator IV.B.3 Teaching methods and learning tasks are implemented at an appropriate pace. Deficiency: Teaching methods and learning tasks are not implemented at an appropriate pace. This deficiency is evidenced by: The learners were involved in learning activities that were passive at all times throughout the lesson. The passive learning resulted in learners becoming bored. The learners were sitting down, listening to the teacher lecture on the worksheet and answering low level questions. Improvement Plan: Read for understanding the explanation and examples for Indicator IV.B.3; Resource: The PACES Teaching and Learning Professional Growth Manual and the Teacher Guide to PACES; Timeline: Summarize the main ideas of the component for discussion with the Professional Growth Team and submit the summary to the administrator by February 24, 2004. Domain IV Enhancing and Enabling Learning. An important dimension of the enhancement of learning is the interactive process of teaching and learning. Component/Indicator IV.C.2 Teaching aids and/or materials are used properly and accommodate the range of individual differences among learners. Deficiency: Teaching aids and/or materials are not used properly and do not accommodate the range of individual differences among learners. This deficiency is evidenced by: The learners were not effectively provided learning material nor aids that would accommodate their range of learner abilities and needs nor material that contributed to a better understanding of the lesson. The teaching aids only consisted of the worksheet students were reading throughout the lesson. Improvement Plan: Read for understanding the explanation and examples for Indicator IV.C.2; Resource: The PACES Teaching and Learning Professional Growth Manual and the Teacher Guide to PACES; Timeline: Summarize the main ideas of the component for discussion with the Professional Growth Team and submit the summary to the administrator by February 24, 2004. Domain IV Enhancing and Enabling Learning. An important dimension of the enhancement of learning is the interactive process of teaching and learning. Component/Indicator IV.D.1 Learners have opportunities to learn at more than one cognitive and/or performance level to integrate knowledge and understandings. Deficiency: Learners do not have opportunities to learn at more than one cognitive and/or performance level or to integrate knowledge and understandings. This deficiency is evidenced by: All learners did the same assignment with no variation to accommodate differences in learning styles. The learners were not given the opportunity to extend their activities from simple to complex levels to reflect the range of developmental and ability characteristics of learners. The learners read from a worksheet and answered lower level questions. For example, "What is discrimination?" Improvement Plan: Read for understanding the explanation and examples for Indicator IV.D.1; Resource: The PACES Teaching and Learning Professional Growth Manual and the Teacher Guide to PACES; Timeline: Summarize the main ideas of the component for discussion with the Professional Growth Team and submit the summary to the administrator by February 27, 2004. Domain V Enabling Thinking. The teacher uses methods that actively involve learners in ample opportunities to develop concepts and skills in generating, structuring, transferring, and transforming knowledge. Component/Indicator V.A.1 Learners are actively engaged and/or involved in developing associations. Deficiency: Learners are not actively engaged and/or involved in developing associations. This deficiency is evidenced by: The learners did not have the opportunity to link new associations to prior learning experiences so the objectives were meaningful to learners through transferring knowledge. The learners did not have the opportunity to retrieve prior learning knowledge and initiate learning. This was a result of the entire lesson consisting of only reading a worksheet silently and answering low level recall questions. Improvement Plan: Read for understanding the explanation and examples for Indicator V.A.1; Resource: The PACES Teaching and Learning Professional Growth Manual and the Teacher Guide to PACES; Timeline: Summarize the main ideas of the component for discussion with the Professional Growth Team and submit the summary to the administrator by March 2, 2004. Domain V Enabling Thinking. The teacher uses methods that actively involve learners in ample opportunities to develop concepts and skills in generating, structuring, transferring, and transforming knowledge. Component/Indicator V.A.4 Learners are actively engaged and/or involved and encouraged to generate and think about examples from their own experiences. Deficiency: Learners are not actively engaged and/or not involved and not encouraged to generate and think about examples from their own experiences. This deficiency is evidenced by: The learners did not actively share examples in the large group discussion to sufficiently enable their development of thinking abilities nor were learners asked to generate examples from their experiences in writing. Improvement Plan: Read for understanding the explanation and examples for Indicator V.A.4; Resource: The PACES Teaching and Learning Professional Growth Manual and the Teacher Guide to PACES; Timeline: Summarize the main ideas of the component for discussion with the Professional Growth Team and submit the summary to the administrator by March 2, 2004. Domain V Enabling Thinking. The teacher uses methods that actively involve learners in ample opportunities to develop concepts and skills in generating, structuring, transferring, and transforming knowledge. Component/Indicator V.B.1 A variety of questions that enable thinking are asked and/or solicited. Deficiency: A variety of questions that enable thinking are not asked and/or solicited. This deficiency is evidenced by: The learners were not asked questions that stimulated higher order thinking abilities nor [was there] variety in questioning [that was] conducted as tasks were performed. The teacher utilized questions in a recall format as the students read worksheets. Improvement Plan: Read for understanding the explanation and examples for Indicator V.B.1; Resource: The PACES Teaching and Learning Professional Growth Manual and the Teacher Guide to PACES; Timeline: Summarize the main ideas of the component for discussion with the Professional Growth Team and submit the summary to the administrator by March 4, 2004. Domain V Enabling Thinking. The teacher uses methods that actively involve learners in ample opportunities to develop concepts and skills in generating, structuring, transferring, and transforming knowledge. Component/Indicator V.B.2 Wait time is used as appropriate to enhance development of thinking skills. Deficiency: Wait time is not used as appropriate to enhance development of thinking skills. This deficiency is evidenced by: The learners were directed questions to answer verbally prior to asking the question. Therefore, learners were not allowed to ponder answers to questions, and to then respond. The teacher directed questions to individual learners from the beginning. Improvement Plan: Read for understanding the explanation and examples for Indicator V.B.2; Resource: The PACES Teaching and Learning Professional Growth Manual and the Teacher Guide to PACES; Timeline: Summarize the main ideas of the component for discussion with the Professional Growth Team and submit the summary to the administrator by March 1, 2004. Domain V Enabling Thinking. The teacher uses methods that actively involve learners in ample opportunities to develop concepts and skills in generating, structuring, transferring, and transforming knowledge. Component/Indicator V.C.1 Learners are actively engaged and/or involved in critical analysis and/or problem solving. Deficiency: Learners are not actively engaged and/or involved in critical analysis and/or problem solving. This deficiency is evidenced by: The learners were not involved in problems that needed solutions, enhanced reflective thinking nor linked causes to effects. The entire lesson involved learners reading a worksheet silently and learners responding to recall questions. Improvement Plan: Read for understanding the explanation and examples for Indicator V.C.1; Resource: The PACES Teaching and Learning Professional Growth Manual and the Teacher Guide to PACES; Timeline: Summarize the main ideas of the component for discussion with the Professional Growth Team and submit the summary to the administrator by March 5, 2004. Domain VI Classroom-Based Assessment of Learning. Actively monitoring learner involvement in learning tasks throughout the lesson is an important element of effective teaching and learning. Component/Indicator VI.B.1 A range of learner responses is solicited as appropriate to assess various cognitive and/or performance tasks. Deficiency: A range of learner responses is not solicited as appropriate to assess various cognitive and/or performance tasks. This deficiency is evidenced by: The learners were not assessed informally throughout the lesson for the teacher to acquire information about the learner's progress toward understanding objectives. Improvement Plan: Read for understanding the explanation and examples for Indicator VI.B.1; Resource: The PACES Teaching and Learning Professional Growth Manual and the Teacher Guide to PACES; Timeline: Summarize the main ideas of the component for discussion with the Professional Growth Team and submit the summary to the administrator by March 5, 2004. Domain VI Classroom-Based Assessment of Learning. Actively monitoring learner involvement in learning tasks throughout the lesson is an important element of effective teaching and learning. Component/Indicator VI.B.3 Adjustments in teaching and learning activities are made as needed **OR** no adjustments are necessary. Deficiency. Adjustments in teaching and learning activities are not made as needed. This deficiency is evidenced by: The learners were not provided a variety of learning tasks to avoid learner disinterest. The teacher did not change the difficulty level of content throughout the lesson. The entire lesson consisted of learners reading a worksheet and answering low level recall questions. Improvement Plan: Read for understanding the explanation and examples for Indicator VI.B.3; Resource: The PACES Teaching and Learning Professional Growth Manual and the Teacher Guide to PACES; Timeline: Summarize the main ideas of the component for discussion with the Professional Growth Team and submit the summary to the administrator by March 5, 2004. Domain VI Classroom-Based Assessment of Learning. Actively monitoring learner involvement in learning tasks throughout the lesson is an important element of effective teaching and learning. Component/Indicator VI.C.4 Learners receive specific feedback when learning tasks and/or learning outcomes are completed. Deficiency: Learners do not receive specific feedback when learning tasks and/or learning outcomes are completed. This deficiency is evidenced by: The learners were not provided specific feedback that would allow them to monitor their own completion of tasks and accomplishments of learning outcomes. When the learners would answer questions correctly or incorrectly, the teacher only responded with "OK, no, alright." Improvement Plan: Read for understanding the explanation and examples for Indicator VI.C.4; Resource: The PACES Teaching and Learning Professional Growth Manual and the Teacher Guide to PACES; Timeline: Summarize the main ideas of the component for discussion with the Professional Growth Team and submit the summary to the administrator by March 4, 2004. Under PACES, a teacher placed on probation must work with a professional growth team consisting of two members, one chosen by the teacher and the other selected by the principal. Daniel Atlas, the chairman of Milam's social studies department, and Lori Weiss were the two members of Respondent's professional growth team. Principal Valenzuela selected Mr. Atlas. Respondent chose Ms. Weiss. Both Mr. Atlas and Ms. Weiss had been trained in PACES and had been on professional growth teams before. During Respondent's 90-calendar day probationary period, Mr. Atlas and Ms. Weiss attempted to help Respondent correct his performance deficiencies.7 Respondent timely completed all of the activities prescribed in the First PIP. Respondent was next formally observed on March 11, 2004, while he was teaching a civics lesson to a class of gifted seventh graders. Assistant Principal Judge conducted this March 11, 2004, observation. Respondent's performance during the observation was unsatisfactory. Principal Valenzuela and Assistant Principal Judge met with Respondent on March 19, 2004, to discuss Respondent's unsatisfactory performance during the March 11, 2004, observation and to review the Professional Improvement Plan Assistant Principal Judge had prepared for Respondent following the observation (Second PIP). At this March 19, 2004, meeting, Respondent signed the Second PIP, indicating that he had "seen and received the document" on that date. The Second PIP accurately noted the deficiencies Assistant Principal Judge had found during her March 11, 2004, observation of Respondent8 and prescribed activities designed to help Respondent correct these deficiencies. It read as follows: Domain II Managing the Learning Environment. Effective classroom and behavior management are necessary for effective teaching and learning. Component/Indicator II.A.3 There are no inefficient delays in organizational or teaching and learning activities. Deficiency: There are inefficient delays in organizational or teaching and learning activities. This deficiency is evidenced by: The objective of the lesson was to discuss nominations, candidates, and campaign tools during an election. Learners were digressed from the objective when the teacher read an article about the war and did not make any connection to the purpose of the election. Upon the teacher finishing the reading, the learners began asking questions since confusion arose. The teacher stated, "Well, let's leave this discussion about the article for now because it is off topic." The learning was also interrupted when a learner arrived late to class and the teacher wasted learning time to publicly reprimand and inquire about the student's whereabouts. This resulted in the other learners becoming off-task by involving themselves in a [] conversation. Improvement Plan: Gain a better understanding through direct classroom observation of beginning learning in a timely manner without inefficient delays in organizational or teaching and learning activities; Resource: Observation of a colleague. The viewing of PACES vignettes for required indicator II.A.3; Timeline: Discuss and identify with the administrator techniques and strategies to avoid inefficient delays in organizational or teaching and learning activities. Apply the newly learned strategies. Maintain a log of what works, what does not and why. Present the log to the administrator by March 26, 2004. Domain II Managing the Learning Environment. Effective classroom and behavior management are necessary for effective teaching and learning. Component/Indicator II.E.1 Expectations about acceptable behavior are clear to learners and are consistently maintained throughout the lesson. Deficiency: Expectations about acceptable behavior are not clear to learners and are not consistently maintained throughout the lesson. This deficiency is evidenced by: The behavioral expectations of students are not clearly understood by the learners. When the teacher began to publicly inquire about the whereabouts of the tardy learner, the learner began to answer him back in a rude and discourteous fashion. The teacher did not monitor effectively to prevent or diffuse the situation in which the unacceptable behavior occurred. Furthermore, it was evident that a tardy policy is not in place nor clear to the learners.[9] Improvement Plan: Gain a better understanding through direct classroom observation of expectations about acceptable behavior that are clear to learners and are consistently maintained throughout the lesson; Resource: Observation of a colleague and/or the viewing of PACES vignettes for required indicator II.E.1; Timeline: Discuss and identify with the administrator techniques and strategies to be used to convey and consistently maintain expectations about acceptable behavior. Apply the newly learned strategies. Maintain a log of what works, what does not and why. Present the log to the administrator by April 5, 2004. Domain II Managing the Learning Environment. Effective classroom and behavior management are necessary for effective teaching and learning. Component/Indicator II.E.5 Unacceptable behavior is managed quickly and in a reasonable manner **OR** there is no unacceptable behavior. Deficiency: Unacceptable behavior is not managed quickly and in a reasonable manner. This deficiency is evidenced by: Managing unacceptable behavior of learners in a reasonable manner was not evident. The learner who was tardy was disrespectful and argumentative with the teacher, and no discipline plan was followed (no consequences from this incident). Improvement Plan: Gain a better understanding through direct observation of managing unacceptable behavior quickly and in a reasonable manner; Resource: Observation of a colleague and/or the viewing of PACES vignettes for required indicator II.E.5; Timeline: Discuss and identify with the administrator techniques and strategies to be used [for the] effective[] [] management of unacceptable behavior. Apply the newly learned strategies. Maintain a log of what works, what does not and why. Present the log to the administrator by April 9, 2004. Domain IV Enhancing and Enabling Learning. An important dimension of the enhancement of learning is the interactive process of teaching and learning. Component/Indicator IV.D.3 Content knowledge is accurate and is clear to learners. Deficiency: Content knowledge is not accurate and is not clear to learners. This deficiency is evidenced by: The learners asked questions related to the objective, and the teacher was not able to provide them with an answer. For example, a student asked, "From where do you get the delegates?" and the teacher made statements, including "I do not know the answer" and "I do not like politics." The teacher made no reference to the fact that research would be done to learn the answers to the learners' questions. Improvement Plan: Gain a better understanding through direct observation of a learning climate where content knowledge is accurate and is clear to learners; Resource: Observation of a colleague. The viewing of PACES vignettes for required indicator IV.D.3; Timeline: Discuss and identify with the administrator techniques and strategies to be used to demonstrate content knowledge that is accurate and is clear to learners. Apply the newly learned strategies. Maintain a log of what works, what does not and why. Present the log to the administrator by April 14, 2004. Domain IV Enhancing and Enabling Learning. An important dimension of the enhancement of learning is the interactive process of teaching and learning. Component/Indicator IV.B.1 Teaching and learning activities are appropriate for the complexity of the learning context. Deficiency: Teaching and learning activities are not appropriate for the complexity of the learning context. This deficiency is evidenced by: Learners were not involved in learning activities nor exposed to a discussion session appropriate for the complexity of the learning context nor the level of academic standards of a gifted class. The learners were only exposed to a general teacher-directed lecture and then asked to define vocabulary words already used throughout the lesson. Improvement Plan: Gain a better understanding through direct observation of a learning climate where teaching and learning activities are appropriate for the complexity of the learning context; Resource: Observation of a colleague. The viewing of PACES vignettes for required indicator IV.B.1; Timeline: Discuss and identify with the administrator techniques and strategies to be used to ensure that teaching and learning activities are appropriate for the complexity of the learning context. Apply the newly learned strategies. Maintain a log of what works, what does not and why. Present the log to the administrator by April 15, 2004. Domain IV Enhancing and Enabling Learning. An important dimension of the enhancement of learning is the interactive process of teaching and learning. Component/Indicator IV.B.2 Teaching methods and learning tasks are implemented in a logical sequence. Deficiency: Teaching methods and learning tasks are not implemented in a logical sequence. This deficiency is evidenced by: Learning activities were not implemented in a logical sequence. The learners were asked to define the lesson's vocabulary words at the end of the lesson, even though they had already used the words throughout the lecture. Improvement Plan: Gain a better understanding through direct observation of a learning climate where teaching methods and learning tasks are implemented in a logical sequence; Resource: Observation of a colleague. The viewing of PACES vignettes for required indicator IV.B.2; Timeline: Discuss and identify with the administrator techniques and strategies to be used to ensure that teaching methods and learning tasks are implemented in a logical sequence. Apply the newly learned strategies. Maintain a log of what works, what does not and why. Present the log to the administrator by April 15, 2004. Domain V Enabling Thinking. The teacher uses methods that actively involve learners in ample opportunities to develop concepts and skills in generating, structuring, transferring, and transforming knowledge. Component/Indicator V.C.1 Learners are actively engaged and/or involved in critical analysis and/or problem solving. Deficiency: Learners are not actively engaged and/or involved in critical analysis and/or problem solving. This deficiency is evidenced by: Learning activities did not engage learners in problem solving discussions. The lesson consisted of teacher-directed instruction and defining vocabulary words. The teacher did not provide learners with situations that require problem solving. Improvement Plan: Gain a better understanding through direct observation of a learning climate where learners are actively engaged and/or involved in critical analysis and/or problem solving; Resource: Observation of a colleague. The viewing of PACES vignettes for required indicator V.C.1; Timeline: Discuss and identify with the administrator techniques and strategies to be used to ensure that [l]earners are actively engaged and/or involved in critical analysis and/or problem solving. Apply the newly learned strategies. Maintain a log of what works, what does not and why. Present the log to the administrator by April 19, 2004. Domain IV Enhancing and Enabling Learning. An important dimension of the enhancement of learning is the interactive process of teaching and learning. Component/Indicator IV.C.2 Teaching aids and/or materials are used properly and accommodate the range of individual differences among learners. Deficiency: Teaching aids and/or materials are not used properly and do not accommodate the range of individual differences among learners. This deficiency is evidenced by: The learners were not provided appropriate teaching aids nor materials to accommodate the range of individual differences among a gifted class. The teaching aids only consisted of the students using a textbook to define vocabulary words at the end of the lesson. Improvement Plan: Gain a better understanding through direct observation of a learning climate where teaching aids and/or materials are used properly and accommodate the range of individual differences among learners; Resource: Observation of a colleague. The viewing of PACES vignettes for required indicator IV.C.2; Timeline: Discuss and identify with the administrator techniques and strategies to be used to ensure that teaching aids and/or materials are used properly and accommodate the range of individual differences among learners. Apply the newly learned strategies. Maintain a log of what works, what does not and why. Present the log to the administrator by April 20, 2004. Domain IV Enhancing and Enabling Learning. An important dimension of the enhancement of learning is the interactive process of teaching and learning. Component/Indicator IV.D.6 Potential areas or points of difficulty in content and in learning tasks are emphasized as needed. Deficiency: Potential areas or points of difficulty in content and in learning tasks are not emphasized as needed. This is evidenced by: The learners asked questions that exhibited areas of difficulty and confusion throughout the lesson. The teacher did not clarify the points of difficulty appropriately. For example, a student asked, "From where do you get the delegates?" The teacher responded with statements including "I do not know the answer" and "I do not like politics." The teacher made no reference to the fact that research would be done to learn the answers to the learners' questions. Improvement Plan: Gain a better understanding through direct observation of a learning climate where potential areas or points of difficulty in content and in learning tasks are emphasized as needed; Resource: Observation of a colleague. The viewing of PACES vignettes for required indicator IV.D.6; Timeline: Discuss and identify with the administrator techniques and strategies to be used to emphasize potential areas or points of difficulty in content and in learning tasks. Apply the newly learned strategies. Maintain a log of what works, what does not and why. Present the log to the administrator by April 20, 2004. Domain V Enabling Thinking. The teacher uses methods that actively involve learners in ample opportunities to develop concepts and skills in generating, structuring, transferring, and transforming knowledge. Component/Indicator V.A.4 Learners are actively engaged and/or involved and encouraged to generate and think about examples from their own experiences. Deficiency: Learners are not actively engaged and/or not involved and not encouraged to generate and think about examples from their own experiences. This deficiency is evidenced by: The learners were not provided the opportunity to generate examples and share personal experiences related to the objective of elections. The lesson basically consisted of a lecture and defining words. Improvement Plan: Gain a better understanding through direct observation of a learning climate where learners are actively engaged and/or involved and encouraged to generate and think about examples from their own experiences; Resource: Observation of a colleague. The viewing of PACES vignettes for required indicator V.A.4; Timeline: Discuss and identify with the administrator techniques and strategies to be used in order that learners are actively engaged and/or involved and encouraged to generate and think about examples from their own experiences. Apply the newly learned strategies. Maintain a log of what works, what does not and why. Present the log to the administrator by April 21, 2004. Respondent timely submitted all of the logs he was required to keep in accordance with the Second PIP. Principal Valenzuela conducted the next formal observation of Respondent. The observation took place on April 24, 2004, when Respondent had an advanced sixth-grade geography class in his classroom. Respondent's performance during this April 24, 2004, observation was unsatisfactory. Principal Valenzuela met with Respondent on April 29, 2004, to discuss Respondent's unsatisfactory performance during the April 24, 2004, observation and to review the Professional Improvement Plan Principal Valenzuela had prepared for him following the observation (Third PIP). At this April 29, 2004, meeting, Respondent signed the Third PIP, indicating that he had "seen and received the document" on that date. The Third PIP accurately noted the deficiencies Principal Valenzuela had found during his April 24, 2004, observation of Respondent and prescribed activities designed to help Respondent correct these deficiencies. It read as follows: Domain II Managing the Learning Environment. Effective classroom and behavior management are necessary for effective teaching and learning. Component/Indicator II.A.3 There are no inefficient delays in organizational or teaching and learning activities. Deficiency: There are inefficient delays in organizational or teaching and learning activities. This deficiency is evidenced by: The learning activities reflected inefficient delays. The students were given a quiz. Initially, they were told that they had ten minutes. Five minutes into the test the teacher interrupted to add two additional questions. These questions were dictated. The teacher did not appear[] prepared for the dictation. The learners appeared confused. Improvement Plan: Engage in self-assessment activities; Resource: Utilization of the PACES web site link "Accomplished Practices/Required Indicators" to guide self-assessment; Timeline: Present a written reflective summary of the self- assessment activities to the administrator by May 18, 2004. Domain IV Enhancing and Enabling Learning. An important dimension of the enhancement of learning is the interactive process of teaching and learning. Component/Indicator IV.A.6 Directions necessary to implement learning tasks are clear and complete. Deficiency: Directions necessary to implement learning tasks are not clear and complete. This deficiency is evidenced by: Learners appeared confused after the teacher gave several directions. The teacher was not clear regarding a quiz. First, the quiz was scheduled to last ten minutes. Then the learners were asked to write short paragraphs, then a simple sentence. The teacher also added two questions at the end of the lesson that he acknowledged as covering material not previously taught. [T]he teacher interrupted the learners during the quiz. The quiz lasted 25 minutes. Improvement Plan: Engage in self-assessment activities; Resource: Utilization of the PACES web site link "Accomplished Practices/Required Indicators" to guide self-assessment; Timeline: Present a written reflective summary of the self- assessment activities to the administrator by May 18, 2004. Domain IV Enhancing and Enabling Learning. An important dimension of the enhancement of learning is the interactive process of teaching and learning. Component/Indicator IV.B.1 Teaching and learning activities are appropriate for the complexity of the learning context. Deficiency: Teaching and learning activities are not appropriate for the complexity of the learning context. This deficiency is evidenced by: The learners were not involved in complex learning activities. The activities involved whole group instruction and teacher directed lecturing and short answers.[10] The teacher used the textbook and a wall map during the lesson. The teacher questioned some of the learners one at a time. Low cognitive question such as WHAT type questions prevailed during the lesson i.e. What is the capital of Mongolia? Improvement Plan: Engage in self-assessment activities; Resource: Utilization of the PACES web site link "Accomplished Practices/Required Indicators" to guide self-assessment; Timeline: Present a written reflective summary of the self- assessment activities to the administrator by May 18, 2004. Domain IV Enhancing and Enabling Learning. An important dimension of the enhancement of learning is the interactive process of teaching and learning. Component/Indicator IV.B.2 Teaching methods and learning tasks are implemented in a logical sequence. Deficiency: Teaching methods and learning tasks are not implemented in a logical sequence. This deficiency is evidenced by: Learning activities were not implemented in a logical sequence. The learners were asked questions about material not covered in class. The teacher discussed countries around China, which was the focus of the lesson, but did not discuss in depth the relationships of those countries. The learners were given directions about the quiz, but the teacher changed said directions several times. Improvement Plan: Engage in self-assessment activities; Resource: Utilization of the PACES web site link "Accomplished Practices/Required Indicators" to guide self-assessment; Timeline: Present a written reflective summary of the self- assessment activities to the administrator by May 18, 2004. Domain IV Enhancing and Enabling Learning. An important dimension of the enhancement of learning is the interactive process of teaching and learning. Component/Indicator IV.C.2 Teaching aids and/or materials are used properly and accommodate the range of individual differences among learners. Deficiency: Teaching aids and/or materials are not used properly and do not accommodate the range of individual differences among learners. This deficiency is evidenced by: The teacher did not use teaching aids properly. The teacher used a wall map, but only in passing. The teacher mainly lectured. There were lap maps and other visual aids in the room but were not used. The materials did not meet the needs of the advanced learners that made up that class. Improvement Plan: Engage in self-assessment activities; Resource: Utilization of the PACES web site link "Accomplished Practices/Required Indicators" to guide self-assessment; Timeline: Present a written reflective summary of the self- assessment activities to the administrator by May 18, 2004. Domain IV Enhancing and Enabling Learning. An important dimension of the enhancement of learning is the interactive process of teaching and learning. Component/Indicator IV.D.1 Learners have opportunities to learn at more than one cognitive and/or performance level or to integrate knowledge and understandings. Deficiency: Learners do not have opportunities to learn at more than one cognitive and/or performance level or to integrate knowledge and understandings. This deficiency is evidenced by: The learners were exposed to many low level cognitive questions, such as What was the name of the island that is called Taiwan today? The teacher did not allow time to integrate knowledge as the whole class was teacher directed lecture. Improvement Plan: Engage in self-assessment activities; Resource: Utilization of the PACES web site link "Accomplished Practices/Required Indicators" to guide self-assessment; Timeline: Present a written reflective summary of the self- assessment activities to the administrator by May 18, 2004. Domain IV Enhancing and Enabling Learning. An important dimension of the enhancement of learning is the interactive process of teaching and learning. Component/Indicator IV.D.6 Potential areas or points of difficulty in content and in learning tasks are emphasized as needed. Deficiency: Potential areas or points of difficulty in content and in learning tasks are not emphasized as needed. This deficiency is evidenced by: The teacher did not identify potential points of difficulty during the lesson. The learners appeared confused as the lesson progressed. The teacher did not elaborate on the learners['] concerns. Teacher directed lecture did not allow for points of interest to develop. Improvement Plan: Engage in self-assessment activities; Resource: Utilization of the PACES web site link "Accomplished Practices/Required Indicators" to guide self-assessment; Timeline: Present a written reflective summary of the self- assessment activities to the administrator by May 18, 2004. Domain V Enabling Thinking. The teacher uses methods that actively involve learners in ample opportunities to develop concepts and skills in generating, structuring, transferring, and transforming knowledge. Component/Indicator V.A.4 Learners are actively engaged and/or involved and encouraged to generate and think about examples from their own experiences. Deficiency: Learners are not actively engaged and/or not involved and not encouraged to generate and think about examples from their own experiences. This deficiency is evidenced by: The learners were not provided the opportunity to generate and share personal experiences related to the objective of the lesson. The teacher provided misleading information when he compared the Cuban guajiro to the [M]ongol[s] as similar. The cultures have no similarities.[11] The Cuban hut was made up of straw and adobe walls while the [M]ongol[s'] hut is made up [of] animal skins and wooden poles. Improvement Plan: Engage in self-assessment activities; Resource: Utilization of the PACES web site link "Accomplished Practices/Required Indicators" to guide self-assessment; Timeline: Present a written reflective summary of the self- assessment activities to the administrator by May 18, 2004. Domain V Enabling Thinking. The teacher uses methods that actively involve learners in ample opportunities to develop concepts and skills in generating, structuring, transferring, and transforming knowledge. Component/Indicator V.C.1 Learners are actively engaged and/or involved in critical analysis and/or problem solving. Deficiency: Learners are not actively engaged and/or involved in critical analysis and/or problem solving. This deficiency is evidenced by: The learners were not actively engaged or involved in critical analysis. The lesson was teacher directed lecture to whole class group. The whole time was the same. The learners were never in small groups and the questions used were predominantly low cognitive level, i.e. What is the capital of Mongolia? Improvement Plan: Engage in self-assessment activities; Resource: Utilization of the PACES web site link "Accomplished Practices/Required Indicators" to guide self-assessment; Timeline: Present a written reflective summary of the self- assessment activities to the administrator by May 18, 2004. On May 18, 2004, in response to the directives contained in the Third PIP, Respondent submitted the following written statement to Principal Valenzuela: The following is a written reflective summary of self-assessment for Paces Component/Indicators II.[A].3, IV.A.6, IV.B.1, IV.B.2, IV.C.2, IV.D.1, IV.D.6, V.A.4, and V.C.1. Based on the many (more than 10) observations of other teachers I have had to conduct, I firmly believe that I am a good teacher of the subjects I am authorized to teach. Further, this self-assessment is reinforced by conversations with my peers, those who have had the opportunity to observe me in the classroom. Finally, I find it peculiar, to say the least, that for the first two years at this school I received spotless evaluations with regard to teaching, then right after a minor disagreement with Mr. Hernandez concerning the lesson plan format I was using and after I had applied for and received approval for a transfer, I suddenly became a worthless instructor.[12] Taking the position that this submission was not in compliance with the directives contained in the Third PIP, Principal Valenzuela sent Respondent the following memorandum, dated May 19, 2004: This memorandum is a formal notification that your reflections are incomplete. Each indicator needed to be addressed individually as per the Professional Development Plan. Please submit the completed assignment no later than Friday May 21st to avoid any further disciplinary action. Please also note that your final observation will take place either May 20th or May 21st. Please submit to me lesson plans, grade book, parent log and a sample work folder by Thursday May 20th. Your attention to this serious matter is important. On May 21, 2004, Respondent supplied Principal Valenzuela with a separate "self-assessment" summary for each deficiency noted in the Third PIP, but the body of each summary was identical to the body of the single summary that Respondent had initially submitted to Principal Valenzuela on May 18, 2004. Later that same day (May 21, 2004), Principal Valenzuela responded to these submissions by sending the following memorandum to Respondent: This memorandum is a second formal notification that the reflections submitted this morning, May 21st at 11:30 a.m. are still incomplete. It is obvious that you ignored the directives given in my memorandum dated May 19th, 2004. Please note that I reported the matter to the Office of Professional Standards as I mentioned in your classroom. I will be in your classroom Monday, May 24th to conduct the final observation. Your attention to this serious matter is important. As promised, Principal Valenzuela came to Respondent's classroom on May 24, 2004, (which was within 14 days of the close of Respondent's 90-calendar day probationary period) to conduct a formal observation of Respondent. Respondent was teaching an advanced seventh grade civics class, going over material for the final examination in the class. He "sped through the lesson" in a very disorganized and superficial manner without making any effort to obtain "feedback from the student[s]." Principal Valenzuela accurately determined that Respondent's performance was deficient with respect to the following "Required Indicators": II.D.1, IV.B.2, IV.B.3, IV.C.2, IV.D.1, V.A.1, V.A.4, V.B.1, V.B.2, V.C.1, VI.B.1, and VI.C.4. Principal Valenzuela had a post-observation meeting with Respondent, at which Respondent reviewed and signed the observation form on which Principal Valenzuela had noted Respondent's performance deficiencies during the May 24, 2004, observation. Based on Respondent's failure to have "satisfactorily corrected . . . noted performance deficiencies within the provided timeframe," despite having been "provided assistance," Principal Valenzuela recommended that Respondent's "contract be terminated." Respondent was provided written notification of this recommendation on May 25, 2004, and again on June 1, 2004. The Superintendent accepted Principal Valenzuela's termination recommendation. By letter dated June 21, 2004, the Superintendent informed Respondent that he was recommending that the School Board terminate Respondent's contract. Respondent responded by sending the Superintendent a letter, dated June 30, 2004, "request[ing] a hearing regarding [the Superintendent's] recommendation." The matter was referred to DOAH on July 6, 2004. On July 14, 2004, the School Board purported to take action to terminate Respondent's employment with the School Board.13
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment in accordance with Section 1012.34, Florida Statutes, for failure to satisfactorily correct noted performance deficiencies. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of October, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 29th day of October, 2004.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Respondent John H. Hopkins, Jr., has been employed with the Pinellas County school system since 1961. He has taught in elementary, junior high, middle and high schools. In addition to sick leave, a teacher employed with the Pinellas County school system is entitled to the following days of leave without loss of pay: two days per year for emergency or extenuating circumstances and two days per year for personal leave. These days are charged to the sick leave allowance of the teacher. In the 1976-77 school year, respondent was a science teacher at Disston Middle School. When a teacher has unused days which can be charged to sick leave, it is the established practice at Disston for the teacher to notify the assistant principal in advance when he intends to be absent and to complete the paperwork when he returns to duty. If a teacher does not have days accrued which can be charged to sick leave, he must take leave without pay. Leaves of absence without pay must be approved in advance by the county personnel office. At approximately 8:30 p.m. on January 17, 1977, a Monday, respondent telephoned Robert Twitty, the assistant principal at Disston and told him he would not be at school for the rest of the week. Mr. Twitty asked for the reason, and respondent informed him that he was going to Washington, D.C. for President Carter's inauguration. Twitty told respondent to call Mr. Tom Zachary, Disston's principal, and notify him of respondent's plans. Respondent did attempt to call Mr. Zachary at his home, but Zachary was out. When Zachary got home, he returned respondent's call, but was unable to reach him. On January 17, 1977, respondent, had one and one-half days remaining which could be charged to sick leave. Respondent did not return to school that week. On January 21, 1977, a Friday, the Pinellas County schools were closed due to cold weather. This decision to close the schools was not made by the Superintendent until approximately 9:30 p.m. on January 20, 1977. On Sunday evening, January 23, 1977, respondent again called Mr. Twitty at home and advised him that he would not be returning to duty at Disston on Monday because he was going to the county office to resolve some problems. Respondent telephoned Mr. John Hudson, the assistant superintendent for personnel, on Monday, January 24, 1977, but Hudson was not in. On Tuesday, January 25th, respondent had a doctor's appointment which took about two hours. He did not report to work on this day or for the rest of the school week. On Wednesday, January 26th, respondent spoke with Hudson on the telephone. While Hudson could not recall the substance of this conversation, It was respondent's recollection that Hudson told respondent to report back to Disston on Monday, January 31st. Dr. Douglas McBriarty, petitioner's director of instructional personnel, telephoned respondent on January 27, 1977, and told respondent that he had spoken to Superintendent Sakkis and, by his direction, respondent was to report to work the following morning. Respondent did not report to Disston on January 28th. At the hearing, respondent had no recollection of having talked to Dr. McBriarty on January 27, 1977. On the morning of January 31, 1977, respondent reported to work at Disston. He was called into Principal Zachary's office and was told that Dr. McBriarty would be coming out to the school later to discuss respondent's absence from school. Respondent then went up to his classroom. Assistant principal Twitty came into respondent's classroom and told him that Zachary wanted to see his lesson plans. Feeling that he was being harassed by Zachary, respondent told Twitty that he was leaving school and going to Clearwater to the county offices. As respondent was walking out to his car, Mr. Zachary came out to the parking lot and told respondent not to leave because Dr. McBriarty was coming. Respondent left the school and did not return. By letter dated February 2, 1977, to respondent from Superintendent Sakkis, respondent was notified that he was suspended from his duties at Disston without pay beginning Monday, January 24, 1977, and that it would be recommended to the School Board that he be dismissed. This action was based upon charges that respondent had been guilty of being absent without leave, misconduct in office, gross insubordination and willful neglect of duty. These charges were supplemented and amended by pleadings dated May 25, 1977, and June 27, 1977. Respondent had previously been suspended by the School Board without pay from March 4 through March 19, 1976. This action was based upon misconduct in office in that respondent had been absent without proper authority. (Exhibit No. 2) Prior to being transferred to Disston Middle School in January of 1975,. respondent taught biology and general science courses for five years at Dixie Hollins High School. Kenneth Watson, then principal of Dixie Hollins, had numerous problems with and complaints about respondent. These involved the grading and disciplining of students in his classes, the quality of his teaching, refusal to admit to his class a student who had been given an admission slip by the dean, the school's receipt of telephone calls and messages for respondent unrelated to his teaching assignments and respondent's relationship with his students. Although respondent was the first black teacher at Dixie Hollins, Principal Watson did not conceive respondent's problems to be of a racial nature. He felt that respondent's difficulty was the manner in which he handled students and presented materials to them. Dr. McBriarty observed respondent's classes at Dixie Hollins on three or four occasions and found that respondent was not able to communicate with students and that there was not a satisfactory teaching relationship between respondent and his students. Feeling that respondent was no longer effective at Dixie Hollins and in order to allow him an opportunity to improve his performance, it was determined by respondent's superiors that he should be transferred to Disston Middle School in January of 1975. This was to be a temporary transfer until a position was available in another high school. Prior to his transfer to Disston, respondent ordered from Westinghouse Learning Corporation a biology course instructor's kit for a 30-day on-approval examination. The invoice was addressed to respondent at Dixie Hollins High School, and the total amount due if the materials were not returned within 30 days was $177.25. The merchandise was ordered by respondent without a prior purchase order and was not returned within the 30-day period. When the bill from Westinghouse came to the attention of the school, which was after respondent had been transferred to Disston, inquiries were made. No one seemed to know where the kit was. The materials were finally returned to Westinghouse some months later and the charge was cancelled from the School Board's account. There was no evidence that respondent ever personally requested the school or the county to pay for this material. Although respondent was dissatisfied with being assigned to teach in a middle school in lieu of a high school, his first semester's performance at Disston Middle School was without serious criticism and his principal's appraisal ranged from good to excellent. His problems began when he was reassigned to Disston for the 1975/76 school year, and intensified during the 1976/77 school year. On the "instructional appraisal and improvement form for 1975/76, Principal Tom Zachary rated respondent as unsatisfactory in the areas of classroom management, preparation and organization, and attitude and growth. Zachary urged respondent to take part in middle school certification. Respondent was again assigned to Disston for the 1976/77 school year, although he had requested a transfer to a high school. Due to the poor evaluation for the previous year, in August of 1976, Principal Zachary prepared and discussed with respondent a list of objectives and directives to help improve respondent's instructional abilities and his evaluation for 1976/77. (Exhibits 12 and 13) During the first semester of the 1976/77 school year, several of respondent's superiors visited his classroom. Principal Zachary observed respondent's classes on several consecutive days in November of 1976. During his first days' observation, the students were assigned to copy materials from the blackboard. When he visited the class the following day, no reference was made by respondent to the blackboard material. Zachary found the students to be inattentive to respondent with respondent providing no signs of direction, no continuity and no teaching techniques. In Zachary's opinion, no learning was taking place and respondent's classes were completely disorganized. Area assistant superintendent Lee Benjamin observed three of respondent's classes on December 14, 1976. While he found the second period class, a class of higher ability, to be satisfactory, the first and third period classes were observed to be chaotic with no real learning or discipline occurring. Mr. Benjamin felt that the students did not understand what the assignment was due to the unclear nature of respondent's instructions. It was Benjamin's opinion that respondent had great difficulty with teaching and discipline and therefore was not effective. In early January of 1977, science supervisor William Beggs visited three of respondent's classes. While he found the second period class to have some degree of order and direction, the first and third period classes were observed to be highly disorganized. The students did not appear to understand what they were supposed to accomplish and respondent was not adhering to his lesson plans. Upon a review of respondent's lesson plans, Beggs did not feel that respondent was covering the subject matters expected of a seventh grade life science course. In late November of 1976, respondent was involved with the TORC (teacher renewal) program. Dr. Shelby Ridel, a resource teacher for petitioner, observed respondent's classes to be utterly chaotic, with no pattern or continuity in the tasks to be performed. The students were confused by the assignments given them, and respondent would not answer their questions. He often sent students out to the hall for disciplinary reasons. While respondent appeared cooperative with and receptive to the changes suggested by Dr. Ridel, she saw no real improvement in his classes over the several weeks she worked with respondent. She felt that respondent's greatest problem was classroom management. Assistant Principal Twitty, who was responsible for the discipline of Disston students, experienced more than usual discipline problems with respondent's classes. Respondent was told on numerous occasions not to put students out in the hall for disciplinary reasons. Nevertheless, he continued to do so. Such action not only violated school policy; it also was disruptive to teachers in nearby classrooms. Along with several other teachers, respondent was assigned to an interdisciplinary team to work with students and their parents. As a part of his responsibilities, he was to prepare the science section of a newsletter. He often failed to attend the team meetings and, on at least one occasion, he failed to prepare his section of the newsletter. Prior to his departure from Disston in January of 1977, respondent had checked out a tape recorder and several books from the school library. He had also borrowed from Dr. Ridel a seventh grade science curriculum guide. The tape recorder was returned by respondent in April of 1977, and the other items were not returned until June or July, 1977. Respondent's explanation for this delay was that no one had requested the return of these materials and that he did not want to go back to Disston after his suspension. Respondent admitted that his classes gave the appearance of being chaotic and disorganized. It was his explanation that he utilized an individual, systems approach to teach his students and that his superiors did not understand or approve of this teaching technique. He further explained the adverse reaction by his superiors to his classroom techniques by emphasizing the lack of teaching materials and equipment made available to him at Disston, his inexperience in teaching sixth and seventh grade students and his desire to return to high school teaching.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is recommended that respondent's teaching contract be cancelled and that he be dismissed as an employee of the Pinellas County school system. Respectfully submitted and entered this 26th day of October, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: B. Edwin Johnson, Esquire Post Office Box 4688 Clearwater, Florida 33518 George M. Osborne, Esquire Rutland Central Bank Building 55 Fifth Street South St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Ronald G. Meyer, Esquire Suite 990, Lincoln Center 5401 West Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33609
The Issue Whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent’s employment as a teacher, for alleged violations of various School Board rules and policies, as outlined in the Superintendent’s letter to Respondent, dated June 15, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the School Board of Sarasota County, the entity responsible for operating, monitoring, staffing, and maintaining the public schools within Sarasota County, in accordance with Part II, Chapter 1001, Florida Statutes (2009). The School is a middle school operated by Petitioner. Petitioner employed Respondent, Brian Berry, as a teacher at the School for several years. Respondent taught students with ESE designation. Respondent is an “instructional employee” under the Instructional Bargaining Unit Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Sarasota Classified/Teachers Association (“Union”), and Petitioner (July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2009, for the 2008-2009 year)(the “Collective Bargaining Agreement”). Article XXV of the Collective Bargaining Agreement governs disciplinary actions against teachers, including Respondent. The Collective Bargaining Agreement requires there to be just cause for any discipline. Normally, the following progressive discipline steps are administered: (1) verbal reprimand; (2) written reprimand; (3) suspension and, (4) termination. Following progressive discipline is not required “in cases that constitute a real immediate danger to the district or other flagrant violations.” During the 2008-2009 school year, Respondent’s classroom was one of four classrooms arranged in a quadrant fashion around a center internal office that connects the four classrooms to each other. Respondent’s room was in the southwest quadrant. Holmes had the room in the northwest quadrant. Brooks had the room in the southeast quadrant. Like Respondent, Holmes and Brooks taught ESE students. Brooks and Respondent shared a paraprofessional, Collins. Bazenas became the School’s principal in April 2006, and has been its principal since that time. Before resorting to the progressive discipline system, School administration routinely counsel employees on an informal basis when there is a concern. Generally, the counseling occurs as a conversation between the administrator and instructor. This informal counseling is non-punitive. Administrators also use Memorandums of Instruction to clarify expectations. A Memorandum of Instruction is also non-punitive in nature; however, failing to abide by the expectation contained in a Memorandum of Instruction could warrant discipline. Respondent’s prior disciplinary history includes: Verbal Reprimand, dated December 17, 2007, for failing to monitor students. Verbal Reprimand, dated January 19, 2009, for failing to submit student attendance on 39 occasions during the 2008- 2009 school year through January 6, 2009. Written Reprimand, dated January 20, 2009, for failing to follow three separate Memorandums of Instruction concerning posting student attendance and for failing to report student attendance on January 7, 2009. Individual Education Plans During the 2008-2009 school year, Respondent was the case manager responsible for drafting Individual Education Plans (“IEPs”) for several of his students. Under federal law, IEPs must be updated at least once each year. Failing to update an IEP by the time the prior IEP becomes out of date means such IEP is out of compliance. This jeopardizes ESE funding, which comes from state and federal sources. During the 2008-2009 school year, there was an ESE liaison (Cindy Lowery) at the School who routinely and timely reminded case managers, including Respondent, of their IEP responsibilities, important deadlines, and steps necessary to be taken by the case manager. At the beginning of the school year, Lowery explained the procedures to case managers, including Respondent. Respondent received numerous reminders prior to the expiration of each IEP for which he was responsible. The expectations relating to IEP completion were clear and known to case managers, including Respondent, at all relevant times. At all times during the 2008-2009 school year prior to his being placed on administrative leave on March 17, 2009, Respondent had the ability to complete in a timely manner each IEP for which he was responsible. He also had access to all materials and assistance necessary to timely complete each of the IEPs. During school year 2008-2009, Respondent was the case manager and responsible for the IEPs of students A.M. (due 11/27/08; completed 12/1/08); J.G. (due 1/17/09; completed 2/25/09); U.S. (due 1/17/09; completed 2/25/09); J.C. (due 2/20/09; completed 2/25/09); N.C. (due 3/3/09; not completed prior to date Respondent was placed on administrative leave on March 17, 2009); B.B. (due 3/11/09; not completed prior to date Respondent was placed on administrative leave on March 17, 2009). Reporting Attendance Teachers are required to take classroom attendance each period and timely post that attendance into the School’s computer program that tracks attendance. This expectation is contained in the School’s staff handbook, which is developed and reviewed annually by a shared-decision making team, composed of administrators, teachers, and community members. Reporting attendance each period is a safety and security matter. Reporting attendance also assists with accountability for funding purposes. During the 2008-2009 school year prior to being placed on administrative leave on March 17, 2009, Respondent failed to report attendance in at least one period on: August 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 29; September 3, 4, 9 - 12, 15, 16, 22, 26, 30; October 1, 3, 7 - 9, 15, 16, 22, 23, 28, 29; November 6, 7, 12, 18, 20, 21, 25; December 4, 5, 10; January 6, 7; February 19, 24; and March 3, 4, 10, 13, and 16. In all but six of those dates, Respondent failed to report attendance for multiple periods. On October 20, 2008, November 24, 2008, and January 7, 2009, administrators at the School provided Respondent with Memorandums of Instruction reminding Respondent of the need to submit attendance electronically each period. FCAT Proctoring On March 10 and 11, 2009, the FCAT was administered at the School. Respondent was assigned to proctor students who were permitted testing accommodations. Some permitted accommodations included extended testing time and having proctors read questions. Testing of these students occurred in the School’s media center. Another ESE teacher, Aisha Holmes, was also assigned to proctor similar students. Proctors were instructed that they needed to sign-in and sign-out upon entering and leaving the media center; that they could not engage in personal reading; and that they needed to actively supervise the students at all times. A preponderance of evidence supports the finding that Respondent engaged in the following activities contrary to his duties as proctor: Over the two-day proctoring session, Respondent failed to sign-in and sign-out every time that he took a break. Respondent engaged in personal reading and other non-proctoring activities when he was required to be actively proctoring the FCAT. Respondent stood over student S.L.’s shoulder for a time period exceeding two minutes. While Respondent contends that he was trying to determine if S.L. had finished, S.L. had not finished. Respondent’s actions were intimidating to S.L. On the second testing day, Respondent fell asleep on a couch in the media center for a period of time when he should have been actively proctoring. Respondent snored, causing a disturbance to the students engaged in testing activities. While the length of time Respondent slept was in dispute, the evidence demonstrates that it was considerably longer than a brief moment as advanced by Respondent. On the second day of testing, a student spilled juice on that student’s reference sheet. Respondent placed the reference sheet in the microwave but did not monitor the drying process. The microwave scorched the reference sheet, resulting in a burnt smell invading the testing area and causing another disturbance to the students engaged in testing activities. Use of Video with No Learning Objective in Place In February 2009, Respondent showed the movie “Happy Feet” to his class. He concedes that he had no learning objective in mind in showing this video. Although Respondent explained that in his opinion, no learning could be accomplished that day due to the death of a co-teacher’s fiancé, Respondent conceded that he requested no assistance in addressing this situation despite such assistance being available to him. Lesson Plans Teachers are required to prepare lesson plans at least one week in advance. Teachers are also required to have the lesson plan on their desk and available for review. The lesson plan expectations are contained in the School’s staff handbook. The lesson plans are the guiding document for instruction, which requires teachers to give forethought as to the content of their lessons. It is used by teachers to focus their lessons, by administrators to ensure content aligns with teaching objectives, and by substitutes in the absence of the teacher. It is undisputed that the School’s administration repeatedly counseled Respondent to create and have lesson plans available. Respondent failed to have lesson plans completed and available for the week of October 6, November 17, and December 15, 2008, and January 5, January 20 and February 2, 2009. February 3, 2009 Weingarten Hearing On February 3, 2009, Bazenas and Respondent met in a formal, noticed meeting to discuss Respondent’s failure to complete IEPs for Students J.G. and U.S. That meeting also addressed Respondent’s continued failure to comply with school policy on maintaining lesson plans. It is undisputed that Respondent failed to timely complete the IEPs for students J.G. and U.S., and that he failed to comply with the lesson plan requirement. March 16, 2009 Weingarten Hearing On the afternoon of Monday, March 16, 2009, Bazenas and Respondent and others met in a formal, noticed meeting to discuss: (1) Respondent’s failure to complete IEPs for students N.C. and B.B. prior to their IEPs becoming out of compliance; (2) the FCAT proctoring matters; (3) use of the video “Happy Feet” with no learning objective; (4) continued failure to comply with the lesson plan expectation; (5) tardiness on March 9, and March 10, 2009; and (6) use of the girls’ restroom.1 It is undisputed that Respondent failed to complete the IEPs for students N.C. and B.B. in a timely manner, and that he used the video “Happy Feet” with no learning objective in place. During the meeting, Bazenas presented Respondent with the summary of Holmes’ observations of Respondent’s conduct while proctoring the FCAT. Respondent conceded that he was inattentive at times during FCAT proctoring and did fall asleep for some period of time during the FCAT, although he disputes it was for 45 minutes. March 17, 2009, Confrontation On the morning of Tuesday, March 17, 2009, Respondent entered Holmes’ classroom to “discuss” Holmes’ summary of her observations of Respondent during the FCAT. A student, whom Holmes was tutoring, was present in Holmes’ room at the time. Holmes was uncomfortable with Respondent’s insistence on discussing the FCAT matter at that time in front of the student. Holmes advised Respondent that she would talk to him later. Respondent, however, persisted in continuing his challenge to Holmes’ FCAT proctoring observations in front of the student. At that point, Bazenas entered Holmes’s room. Bazenas observed that the situation was “tense” and that Holmes was backed into a corner of the room. Bazenas also observed that the student that was present looked very uncomfortable. At that point, Bazenas, in a reasonable voice, requested that Respondent return to his own classroom to supervise his students. Respondent immediately became upset and began yelling at Bazenas, telling Bazenas not to interrupt him. Respondent approached him and pointed his finger in Bazenas’ face. At that time, Collins was in Brooks’ room. Collins heard shouting coming from the direction of Holmes’ room. Collins proceeded into the center office of the quad. She observed Respondent shouting at Bazenas that he was a “liar” and that Respondent would see Bazenas “in court.” Collins did not hear Bazenas raise his voice. Collins was fearful of Respondent; she had never seen Respondent act in that way. She also testified that Bazenas looked fearful of Respondent. Respondent then proceeded into his classroom and Bazenas followed Respondent into the classroom. He put himself between Respondent and his students, permitting Collins to remove the students from Respondent’s classroom, taking them into Brooks’ classroom. Respondent continued with his emotional outburst during this time. When Bazenas requested that Respondent leave campus immediately, Respondent threatened Bazenas. Bazenas subjectively believed that Respondent’s agitated behavior and his statement to be a threat of violence. Respondent also directed inappropriate comments to his students about Bazenas during his outburst. As Collins brought Respondent’s students into Brooks’ classroom, Collins was shaking and looked very fearful. After all of Respondent’s students were in Brooks’ classroom, Brooks locked the doors. Locking the doors is an unusual occurrence; however, Respondent did leave campus voluntarily. Respondent was immediately placed on administrative leave. Shortly thereafter, a police officer went to Respondent’s house to advise Respondent to stay away from campus. Respondent complied with the request. Respondent’s outburst on March 17, 2009, constituted a real and immediate threat to the School administration, teachers and students and was a flagrant violation of school policies and the State Principles of Professional Conduct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Sarasota County School Board enter a final order terminating the employment of Respondent from the date Respondent was placed on unpaid leave of absence. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January, 2010, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of January, 2010.
Findings Of Fact James D. Alford, III, was initially employed by the Board of Education in the Public Schools of Duval County, Florida during January of 1973. Respondent holds teacher's certificate no. 333009, graduate, rank 3 and is a graduate of Tuskegee Institute where he received a B.S. Degree in Industrial Arts. For approximately two and one-half years subsequent to January, 1973, he was assigned to southside Junior High School as an Industrial Arts Special Education Teacher in a pilot program. It appears that there is no difference in the qualification required for teachers of industrial arts in special education programs as opposed to other industrial arts teachers that are certified in industrial arts. In addition to his employment with the Duval County School Board, Respondent served in a student teacher training program for nine weeks in Montgomery, Alabama. Respondent, during his assigned duties for the Duval County School Board, taught a special education industrial arts class consisting of seventh, eighth and ninth grade students. He trained students how to safely use tools and to perform projects requiring the use of industrial arts tools. He assigned students projects based on their manipulative skills. He noted that "special ed" students had to be trained to use even the simplest tools such as hand saws. Respondent testified that discipline was a major problem in teaching "special ed" students and that for the first and/or minor offense, he attempted to discipline students by verbal commands and that when that failed he sent students to the Dean's Office. He denied ever using physical force to punish students for unruly conduct. His testimony is that his only physical contact with students was to restrain them from physical acts and it suffices to say that he denied all of the allegations filed by the Council in its petition to revoke his teaching certificate. Respondent was aware of the Board's policy respecting discipline and testified that he never administered corporal punishment to students. Following altercations with two students during late 1974, Respondent was offered transfers on at least two occasions which he declined because he "had recently received approximately $5,000.00 of new shop equipment" and further that he wanted to remain at Southside for a sufficient period in order to administer in a smooth and efficient manner the special ed industrial arts program at Southside. The first significant incident involving the Respondent occurred during December of 1974 during an altercation with one of his students i.e., Gary Roary. According to Respondent, Roary initially hit him whereupon he retaliated by striking him back. Roary then left the room, picked up a two by four and returned to the classroom where Roary attempted to hit Respondent. Respondent, in an effort to snatch the two by four from Roary, shoved him causing him to fall on a saw. Roary sustained an injury which required three sutures at the emergency room at a local hospital. Respondent states that he did not know that Roary had injured himself until he was later called to the office where he was told to meet with Mr. Buford Galloway. The Principal, J. R. McDaniel, investigated the incident involving Gary Roary and concluded that Respondent was "rather rough with Gary". See Petitioner's Exhibit #1. Respondent testified that the incident occurred during a demonstration of a "boomerang" that he had constructed to motivate students to make one. He first threw the boomerang and then a student threw it. When the student threw the boomerang, it struck a teacher's car which resulted in a scratch. One of the students relayed this information to the teacher involved, Ms. Williams, whose car was parked near the shop area. A brief uproar resulted when the boomerang struck Ms. William's car and Respondent grabbed Willie Critton, another student by the front of his shirt. Roary yelled for Critton to hit Respondent and evidence revealed that Respondent retorted by saying "hit me, hit me," when Roary said "hit him". Respondent released Critton and grabbed Roary and this brought about the above incident in which Roary sustained the cut. Respondent admits to pushing Roary and striking him on the right shoulder stating that this was done in self- defense. He acknowledged that it was probably a mistake for him to hit Roary. Following this incident, Respondent was transferred to another school for the remainder of the school term. Marilyn Bagby, a program coordinator for mentally retarded for the Duval County School Board testified that she has known Respondent since 1972, and that during a visit to one of his classes, she saw a student roaming the hallway in front of his class. She testified generally that she was able to determine that students had been left out in the hall for periods up to approximately three weeks. However Mrs. Bagby was not specific in her testimony respecting these incidents and for these reasons, little weight can be attached to her testimony. Lowell T. Hudson, Industrial Arts Superintendent for the Duval County School Board, testified that the Respondent's class was properly equipped and that during his visits to Respondent's class, he noticed discipline problems. Mr. Hudson was involved in one conference concerning the disciplinary procedures utilized by Respondent and during a subsequent incident, Respondent was transferred. Joseph R. McDaniels, the Prinicpal at Southside High for approximately four years and an employee for approximately 19 years testified respecting approximately five conferences concerning Respondent and his disciplinary techniques. On three of these conferences, he wrote memos respecting the details of such conferences. He explained the City wide disciplinary policy to Respondent and cautioned him against using corporal punishment to discipline students. He recalled that two conferences occurred during May of 1974 and a third conference occurred during December of 1974. Ms. Eleanor Williams, the instructor whose car was struck by the boomerang which was thrown by one of Respondent's students, testified that Respondent assisted her on one occasion in a dispute with a student who was fighting another student. Respondent requested that Ms. Williams go to his office to obtain his stick which she refused and thereafter he asked the students to go get his stick. She testified that one student who was involved in the altercation had a paring knife. Respondent, in an effort to break up the students, swung at one student and missed striking a refrigerator and a bread box resulting in a dent in the refrigerator of approximately eight inches. Respondent, according to Ms. Williams, never requested that the students stop fighting. Instead Respondent kicked one of the students, Tim Walden, and Don Jones, the other student who was involved was struck in his face. At that time, several instructors were summoned who restrained Respondent from further hitting the students. 1/ Willie J. Critton, a 16 year old eleventh grade student attended shop classes with Respondent during his eighth grade school year. He testified that on numerous occasions, Respondent bent his fingers back and twisted his fingers. He further testified that it was common practice for Respondent to expel students from his class room and force them to stand outside in the hallway. Gary Roary was called and testified substantially as other witnesses who gave testimony on the boomerang incident during December of 1974. Specifically, he testified that Respondent hit Willie Critton and thereafter grabbed him. During the above incident, he was shook by Respondent and struck in the mouth. When he broke away from Respondent, he left the classroom, obtained a stick and entered the room. Upon his return, he swung at Respondent and fell when Respondent shoved him and his head struck a saw. This resulted in the cut referred to above which required three stitches. Betty Allison, a qualified expert in mental retardation, testified that while discipline is a problem in teaching EMR students (Educable Mentally Retarded), she objected to the disciplinary procedures utilized by Respondent calling them inappropriate in EMR situations. She testified that to be effective, EMR instructors must devise well organized lesson plans and that classroom instruction must be motivating in order to secure and retain the students' attention. Other witnesses testified that EMR students cause more discipline problems than others and generally testified that Respondent was effective as most instructors in teaching EMR students. Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, 1975, empowers the Department of Education to suspend or revoke a valid Florida Teaching Certificate held by an individual who is committing or has committed certain acts or omissions which justify revocation or suspension on grounds enumerated in the statute. One of the grounds as provided in the statute exist when the teacher, upon investigation, has been found guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces his effectiveness as an employee of the School Board. Here the Petitioner seeks revocation of the Respondent's teacher's certificate based on the fact that he has allegedly engaged in numerous offensive activities, which has seriously impaired and reduced his effectiveness as an employee. After careful consideration of all the evidence adduced herein, the testimony of witnesses and the arguments of counsel, I conclude that the disciplinary measures used by the Respondent departed from the county's established procedure for disciplining students and despite repeated warnings that he refrain from corporally punishing students, he continued to do so. His conduct in the Gary Roary and Willie J. Critton incident on December 3, 1974, is exemplary of his disciplinary methods. Based thereon and the entire record herein, I find that Respondent's usefulness as a teacher-employee has been reduced within the meaning of Section 231.28, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing finding of facts and conclusions, I hereby RECOMMEND: 1. That the Respondent's teaching certificate be suspended for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of May, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner was discriminated against on the basis of his race when the Respondent terminated his employment.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Joseph Farris, is a black male who resides in Pensacola, Florida, and was an employee of the AES corporation at times pertinent hereto. AES produces thermoplastic elastomers and vulcanized rubber products, with operations in Pensacola, Florida, and with its headquarters in Akron, Ohio. On or about August 8, 1994, the Petitioner completed an application for employment having heard that the company was hiring. The Petitioner inflated his educational experience and work credentials on his application by including inaccurate information. The Petitioner was subsequently called for an interview and was interviewed by a committee of persons who were apparently all white. Mr. Farris testified, however, that the interview went very well and that no racial bias was involved. Shortly thereafter, the Petitioner was hired as a process technician as part of a class of 16 new employees. He commenced employment on November 14, 1994. Four of the new employees out of 16 were black. AES has an extensive training program for Process Technicians that is four to six months in duration. The training involves classroom instruction, field observation, and "hands-on" instruction. Upon completion of the training program, one is placed on a work-shift with other more trained technicians as part of a team approach. During the training period in which Mr. Farris and his class were involved, the classroom instructor was Bryon Shay. Mr. Shay was a process engineer in Pensacola from June 1992 to January 1995. In January 1995, he became the plant's Quality Assurance Manager. During the classroom training Mr. Shay observed that Mr. Farris was falling behind the rest of the class. He arranged special sessions with him to advance him up to the point where he was comparable with the rest of the class in training and ability. Mr. Shay met with him individually to help him "catch up." Charles Brown, the plant's Manufacturing Superintendent, also met with Mr. Farris during the training period concerning his falling behind the others in his training class and to find ways to help him advance satisfactorily. Mr. Farris testified that while he felt he was not falling behind, he accepted this idea and asked Mr. Brown what he needed to do to improve. In order to help Mr. Farris during the training period, the plant manager at that time, Mr. Caisson, recommended to Mr. Brown that Fred Lewis, an experienced process technician, work with Mr. Farris as well. Mr. Lewis worked with Mr. Farris for approximately one week on the Provox program, the company's computer program that helps run the various production lines and is located in the control room. Because of a disability, Mr. Lewis could not work in other areas of the plant with Mr. Farris. He reported to Mr. Brown that, based upon his observations, while Mr. Farris was unsure of certain things, he seemed to be grasping Provox-based information. Mr. Shay kept the class from graduating for a week so that Mr. Farris could catch up with them without informing the class or Mr. Farris that he was doing that for him. As each phase of the training is completed, a trainee receives a Certificate of Completion reflecting the segments completed. AES also provides its employees with a variety of human resource, group dynamics, and diversity training programs. The purpose of the programs is to foster communication among peers, as well as between employees and supervisors. If communication difficulties arise, an employee can request a confidential, Human Resource-facilitated meeting to resolve problems and map out strategies for communication enhancement. Diversity training workshops are also provided to enhance mutual respect and educate workers concerning racial and cultural differences within the workplace. These programs are often conducted by independent training professionals in the area. Employees are encouraged to contact Human Resource personnel in Florida and/or Ohio to express any concerns they may have. The company has a policy of "zero tolerance" for discriminatory conduct. Witnesses for both the Petitioner and the Respondent established that when such matters are brought to management's attention, they are dealt with swiftly and employees are disciplined for wrong-doing. Sometime in late March or early April 1995, Mr. Farris was assigned to "B shift." In May 1995, he was transferred to "A shift." Mr. Farris had felt that he was not getting the support he needed on "B shift." In this regard, during the April-May time period, another technician, Mr. Kouns, came to Mr. Brown to see if he could switch to "B shift" since it would allow him and his wife to spend more time together, given her own shift schedule as a nurse. Mr. Kouns also approached Mr. Farris to see if he was agreeable to making that change. While the company typically does not transfer technicians between shifts, Mr. Brown decided that the switch would benefit both employees. He believed too that the employees on "A shift" were very good people who would support Mr. Farris and help him grow in the job. Mr. Farris acknowledged that he had good rapport with the members of "A shift." "A shift" members included Willie Murphy, an experienced process technician, with whom Mr. Farris interacted and received guidance. Mr. Murphy is black. Shannon Payne, Patricia Neal and Neil Sammon, are also members of "A shift" and confirmed the pleasant relationship between all members of the shift. In 1995 through 1997, process technicians were typically under the direction of two supervisors, Henry Klug, the Packaging and Compounding Superintendent who oversaw the compounding area, and Charles Brown, the Manufacturing Superintendent who oversaw the "DVA" area. Mr. Klug and Mr. Brown typically divided up the process technicians for the purposes of providing performance evaluations. In early April 1996, Mr. Farris received his performance form for 1995 and received a "below expected" evaluation. Mr. Klug prepared that evaluation. Mr. Klug testified that on multiple occasions in 1995, he had observed Mr. Farris in both the compounding area and the DVA area and had spoken with him. He concluded that Mr. Farris was struggling with understanding how the process worked and was tentative in his decision-making. Mr. Klug further testified that he spoke with both Mr. Brown and the new plant manager, Mr. Bosse, about his concerns. Mr. Brown had also observed Mr. Farris struggling and concurred with Mr. Klug's assessment when they sat down to review Mr. Klug's findings of "below expected" performance. These findings were based on personal observation, as well as from information received from various employees. In this connection, because the evaluation was "below expected," Mr. Klug and Mr. Brown were required to meet with Mr. Bosse and the Human Resource Manager, Kimberly Wheeler, as a matter of company policy, to explain why a "below expected" rating had been given. On April 12, 1996, Mr. Klug sat with Mr. Farris to discuss the performance evaluation. Mr. Farris neither objected to the evaluation nor did he ever complain that it was racially motivated. During 1996, Mr. Farris continued to struggle in the areas of knowledge of the process, troubleshooting and decision- making. Mr. Klug testified that the behaviors that he had observed in 1995, were still present throughout 1996 and that he and Mr. Brown discussed ways to help Mr. Farris improve. Mr. Brown established that by the Fall of 1996, he had grown increasingly concerned that Mr. Farris was not only falling far behind his peers, but also that he did not understand the process. Accordingly, in November of that year he met with him and gave him a written assignment in order to assess whether he knew the process. This assignment included answering questions and drawing the process and the equipment involved on paper. The information on the assessment was drawn from the materials the Petitioner had received in training. Mr. Farris was not able to draw the equipment or correctly answer many of the questions, including questions pertaining to safety, for which he had received a reprimand approximately one week before. Mr. Brown established that Mr. Farris' lack of understanding of the process and the equipment had serious safety consequences, as well as consequences for productivity, decision-making and so forth. Upon reviewing the assessment with Mr. Farris he asked him to take the training manuals home to review, walk throughout the plant to observe and repeat the written assignment at home in order to master the concepts and the information he had received from observations. Mr. Farris also acknowledged that Mr. Brown took him to the engineering department to look at diagrams and advised him that if he could draw the equipment and picture it in his mind it would help him to troubleshoot better. In late November 1996, Mr. Farris complained to Ms. Wheeler that he felt he was having difficulty with Mr. Brown and requested her to set-up a "join-up" session with his supervisor to "iron things out." "Join-ups" are confidentially facilitated sessions designed to resolve communication difficulties between employees that might arise. Ms. Wheeler agreed to the request and scheduled a meeting for late January 1997. The facilitators included Robert Parker, AES's Manager of Human Resources and Global Training Coordinator. Mr. Parker had been Ms. Wheeler's mentor in Human Resources and spoke with her regularly about employee relation issues. Mr. Farris never raised the issue of racism or discriminatory conduct in his November meeting with Ms. Wheeler nor did he raise it in the January session with Mr. Parker. Mr. Parker and Ms. Wheeler, who are black, testified that had it been raised, the issue would have been addressed immediately. On March 18, 1997, Mr. Farris received his performance evaluation for 1996. He again received a "below expected" level evaluation. In paragraph six thereon it was noted that he "continues to fall further behind his peers. Joe's performance for the year was again less than expected." The evaluation also expressed concern about Mr. Farris' growing absenteeism. Mr. Brown had met personally with Mr. Farris in July and November 1996 to discuss the issue of his absenteeism. Before meeting with Mr. Farris, Mr. Brown, along with Mr. Klug, met with Mr. Bosse and Ms. Wheeler to discuss the evaluation. Mr. Bosse questioned them again, as supervisory personnel, concerning the basis for the findings and determined that the evaluation was appropriate. On March 26, 1997, Mr. Farris e-mailed Ms. Wheeler that he disagreed with the evaluation and met with Ms. Wheeler to discuss his concerns. He did not tell her that he believed that the negative performance review was racially motivated. Ms. Wheeler also met with Mr. Bosse to discuss the issue, as well as with Mr. Brown. It was determined that Mr. Brown, Ms. Wheeler and Mr. Farris should meet to develop a performance improvement plan. Mr. Brown was informed of and kept apprised of the plan. Mr. Klug was also aware of some of the drawings Mr. Brown had Mr. Farris work on and confirmed their importance as a means to create a visual map in a process technician's mind as to how the process worked. On April 3, 1997, Ms. Wheeler, Mr. Brown and Mr. Farris met at length to review performance and communication issues and to develop an improvement plan. Between April 3, and April 23, 1997, Mr. Farris and Mr. Brown worked on an improvement plan. In finalizing the plan, Mr. Brown extended the original deadline dates for completion of each component that Mr. Farris had set for himself. Mr. Brown testified that he wanted to give Mr. Farris ample time to master the material. Mr. Farris claimed that he felt Mr. Brown gave him a longer completion time to make him look bad. He introduced no evidence to substantiate that opinion, however. Ms. Wheeler testified that Mr. Farris told her that he was comfortable with the plan and could demonstrate what was being asked of him. In late May 1997, Mr. Farris submitted new drawings to Mr. Brown for review. Mr. Brown testified that he saw marked improvement and complimented Mr. Farris accordingly. Mr. Farris admitted that Mr. Brown had praised him on that occasion and acknowledged that in his deposition he had admitted that Mr. Brown had previously encouraged him to improve. On or about July 9, 1997, an independent Quality Assurance Agency conducted a "pre-audit" of Pensacola operations. This agency (BSI) was represented by Mildred LaCorte, and the Quality Assurance Manager for AES was Mr. Shay. The purpose of the pre-audit was to allow Ms. LaCorte to inspect the premises at random and question employees at random as well. During her "walk-through," Ms. LaCorte randomly stopped in the DVA control room where Mr. Farris was working and asked him questions about the process. She found that he did not understand the process or proper procedure. Mr. Shay, Mr. Brown, Mr. Klug and Mr. Bosse were present during the walk-through and testified that Mr. Farris had difficulty answering Ms. LaCorte's questions. Moreover, they observed him behaving nervously and excusing himself during the questioning and walking out. Mr. Farris testified that there had been a line problem that he had to correct. He provided no confirming evidence or testimony to support that rationale. He also testified that he did fine in response to the questions and that his peers congratulated him on how well he did. Mr. Brown was quite concerned by Mr. Farris' inability to respond to Ms. LaCorte's questions adequately and especially in light of his apparent improvement during May. As a consequence, he went first to Ms. Wheeler and then met with Mr. Farris in late July and asked him to draw the process once again. Mr. Farris could not do so and admitted that he did not do well. However, he claimed that his failure to perform adequately was because he felt that he should not have to do the drawings and that his supervisor was harassing him by asking him to do so. He provided no confirming evidence or testimony that Mr. Brown was harassing him in any way, however. Mr. Farris complained to Ms. Wheeler about having to do the drawings again. Ms. Wheeler testified that she told Mr. Farris that what he was being asked to do was part of the performance improvement plan, which items he had told her he could readily demonstrate and she told him that his supervisor had a right to set work standards and performance expectations. Even then Mr. Farris never complained that this purported harassment was racially motivated. Ms. Wheeler nevertheless apprised Mr. Bosse and Mr. Brown about the complaint. It was determined that an objective assessment of Mr. Farris' knowledge of his job should be undertaken by someone other than Mr. Brown. In early September 1997, Tim Caton, the Engineering Superintendent at the plant, who had a good rapport with Mr. Farris, met with him for three to four hours. He testified that he was surprised at Mr. Farris' lack of knowledge in several key areas and the level of difficulty he was having. After the meeting he reported his findings to Mr. Brown who wrote down the findings, which Mr. Caton confirmed at the hearing as true and accurate. Mr. Payne, Ms. Neal and Mr. Sammon all testified that Mr. Farris had been struggling for over two years, did not understand the process, had difficulty with troubleshooting and retaining information. Ms. Neal established that on one occasion when she was out working near the feed stock silos, she saw Mr. Farris out there with his clipboard and drawing looking around. She asked him what he was looking for and he responded that he was looking for the line two test bins. Ms. Neal testified that she told him that they were not in that area but were located on the other side of the building. She noted that what interested her was that after years on the job, he was looking in the line one compounding area for line two equipment. Subsequent to Mr. Caton's assessment, it was clear that Mr. Farris was having serious difficulties and was not at the competency level expected of a person with over two and one- half years of process technician experience. Sometime in late October 1997, Mr. Farris met again with Ms. Wheeler after he had been warned again by Mr. Brown about absenteeism. Mr. Farris complained that he was being discriminated against on the basis of race. This was the first time the race issue had been raised. Ms. Wheeler was surprised by the allegation because it had never been raised before. She spoke at length about the matter with Mr. Parker, as well as with Mr. Bosse. After being notified, Mr. Parker questioned Ms. Wheeler at length about the issue and also spoke with Mr. Brown. It was determined that Mr. Farris' allegation was not founded and the real issue with Mr. Farris was work performance. At some point, apparently in mid-October, Mr. Brown recommended that Mr. Farris be terminated. Termination recommendations are typically reviewed by the Human Resources Division and the plant manager in Pensacola (Ms. Wheeler and Mr. Bosse) and are then forwarded to the Human Resources legal counsel and senior executive personnel in Ohio (Mr. Parker, Mr. Liskiewicz, Mr. Kaluza and Mr. Voellmacke) for review. On November 11, 1997, after completion of the review of the termination recommendation, Mr. Farris was discharged. He filed separate racial discrimination complaints with the Escambia Human Relations Commission and the Florida Commission on Human Relations. Both Commissions investigated the matter and found no cause or that the allegations were unfounded. Several white employees in Pensacola had also been terminated, disciplined, and/or given "below expected" reviews by AES, including Kenneth Thompson, Tony Davis, Steven Carr, Jennifer Nowling and Mike Mosley. Mr. Carr, for example, was given an improvement plan by Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown evaluated the 1995 performance of Rodgi Campbell, an black process technician, and gave him an "above expected" rating. Mr. Klug was the evaluator for Mr. Campbell for 1996, and gave him an "above expected" rating as well. Mr. Brown was also the evaluator for Walter Williams, a black process technician, for 1995 and gave Mr. Williams an "above expected" rating.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the subject Petition in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of April, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of April, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jonathan D. Fishbane, Esquire Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, P.A. 4001 Tamiami Trail North Suite 300 Naples, Florida 34103 Ronnie L. Williams, Esquire 814 Saint Francis Street Mobile, Alabama 36602
The Issue The central issue in case no. 92-3138 is whether or not Respondent should be dismissed from his continuing contract as a teacher employed by the Orange County school district. The central issue in case no. 92-6637 is whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the administrative complaint; and, if so, what disciplinary action should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds Florida teaching certificate no. 427416, covering the areas of driver's education and physical education. Such certificate is valid through June 30, 1997. At all times material to this case, Respondent has been employed as a teacher for the Orange County School District. He has been so employed since approximately 1978. In the fall of 1987, Respondent was assigned to Carver where he taught physical education. He remained at Carver until he was relieved of duty on March 26, 1992. Prior to being assigned to Carver, Respondent was employed at Chickasaw Elementary School where he received satisfactory evaluations and did not have any problems with student discipline. After accepting the job at Carver, Respondent became one of four physical education teachers employed there. Respondent faced discipline problems at Carver he had not experienced during his elementary school tenure. Examples of the problems Respondent faced were: students showing disrespect; students teasing (such as name calling); or students being aggressive and argumentative. On March 7, 1989, Respondent received a written reprimand from the Assistant Principal at Carver, Fred Townsend, for inappropriately disciplining a student. The incident cited in the reprimand was directly related to Respondent's class management and the discipline of students. Mr. Townsend's letter instructed the Respondent to adequately supervise students and to use appropriate disciplinary techniques. Mr. Townsend verbally counselled the Respondent concerning appropriate disciplinary techniques. On April 7, 1989, Respondent was involved in an incident with one of the Carver students which resulted in Mr. Townsend issuing Respondent a written directive to refrain from shoving students, and to follow procedures outlined in the Carver Faculty Handbook and the "assertive discipline strategies" when disciplining students. The procedures for disciplining students as outlined in the Carver Faculty Handbook did not permit a teacher to push, shove, or physically discipline a student. Teachers are permitted to use force to intervene to protect students who may be fighting or to protect themselves if attacked. On October 24, 1989, Respondent was directed, in writing and verbally, by a senior manager of employee relations, John Hawco, not to take physical or disciplinary action against students but to follow school and Board rules pertaining to student discipline and control. The directive followed an incident where Respondent allegedly shoved or pushed a student. On or about March 1, 1990, Board staff gave Respondent a letter outlining sources of assistance available through the school system regarding appropriate means to control and discipline students. On March 2, 1990, Respondent received an oral and written directive together with a written letter of reprimand from Mr. Hawco. This written directive was issued after Respondent allegedly used physical force against two students. Such conduct would have been contrary to Mr. Hawco's earlier directive. The March 2, 1990, directive again advised Respondent not to use force or take physical disciplinary action against students. Mr. Hawco's letter urged Respondent to seek assistance and warned Respondent that if he failed to follow the directive, he could be recommended for dismissal. Respondent was also verbally advised at the time he received the March 2, 1990, directive that should similar incidents occur in the future a recommendation could be made for his dismissal. Despite the prior warnings and counselings, during the 1990-1991 school year, John Hawco was called to Carver to investigate several allegations against the Respondent. Such allegations involved inappropriate student discipline. One of the incidents involved a minor male student who allegedly hit the Respondent. In the Respondent's referral to the office, the Respondent stated that the student "hit me in the nose with his fist, so I hit him back". Although the incident caused Mr. Hawco to have concerns about the Respondent, after investigation, the Board took no formal action against the Respondent for this alleged incident. On or about March 13, 1992, the Respondent received a written directive from the Senior Manager of Employee Relations, Alice Tisdell. This directive advised Respondent not to take physical or disciplinary action against students, to exercise appropriate classroom management skills and to follow proper procedures for disciplining students. Ms. Tisdell issued this directive after she was called to investigate allegations that the Respondent continued to physically intervene with students contrary to prior directives to discontinue this type of discipline. On or about March 10, 1992, Ms. Tisdell advised Respondent, verbally and in writing, that should he continue to fail to comply with the directives, appropriate disciplinary action could be taken. Respondent was advised that such disciplinary action could include his dismissal. During the period from 1989 until he was recommended for dismissal in 1992, Respondent was verbally directed by the Carver principal, assistant principals, and Board management, to use appropriate classroom management techniques and to refrain from pushing, shoving, or using force when dealing with students. Despite the oral and written directives, on March 20, 1992, Respondent shoved a student, Johnny Wyatt, into a locker causing minor physical injury to that student. Such act occurred in connection with the discipline of the student, was contrary to the prior directives issued to Respondent, and resulted because Respondent had failed to maintain control of his assigned area. Wyatt is a minor male student at Carver who, at the time of hearing, was in the seventh grade. During the 1991/1992 school year, he was enrolled in Ms. Carry's sixth grade physical education class. The male students in Ms. Carry's class dressed out in the boy's locker room supervised by the Respondent and another male physical education teacher, Dennis Goldsmith. On March 20, 1992, Mr. Goldsmith was absent and Raymond Martin, a permanent substitute employed at Carver, was assigned to cover the locker room with Respondent. When sixth period began, students assembled at their assigned bench seats in order to dress out. Some students began to misbehave by shouting, running around, and engaging in horseplay. On two occasions, the light switches were turned off and on for several seconds. Wyatt came to the sixth period class and sat down after dressing out. With Mr. Martin's permission, he went to the restroom and returned to his seat. The Respondent accused Wyatt of talking. When the student protested that he had not misbehaved, the Respondent grabbed Wyatt by the arm and began to lead him to the locker room office. Wyatt continued to verbally protest while Respondent held his arm. When they reached a row of lockers, the Respondent pushed Wyatt causing his back to strike the lockers. This incident was witnessed from several different vantage points by other students who were in the locker room that day. When the Respondent pushed the student, Wyatt's back struck a metal clasp on the locker and an injury resulted. Contact with the metal clasp caused a one to two inch scrape located just slightly to the right of the student's spine. Approximately eleven months after the incident, a faint scar is still visible. Immediately following the incident, the Respondent ushered Wyatt to the locker room office and Assistant Principal, Richard Vail, was summoned to deal with the students. Mr. Vail arrived five to ten minutes after the beginning of sixth period. Mr. Vail spoke to the students about their misconduct, and sent them on to their respective class groups. Wyatt approached Mr. Vail, showed him the injury to his back, and told him that the Respondent had pushed him into a locker. Mr. Vail asked the student if he wanted to go to the clinic. When Wyatt declined, Mr. Vail sent him on to join his class. When Wyatt arrived at Ms. Carry's class she observed the injury and sent him to the office. Wyatt was subsequently sent to the clinic by Principal Ernest Bradley. When Wyatt went home after school, his parents learned of the incident. The student's father brought him back to school that same day and spoke to Mr. Bradley and the Respondent. Wyatt's parents were upset about the injury. The Respondent denies the incident entirely. He claims that he did not push or shove Wyatt in any way on March 20, 1992, and that he did not learn of the alleged incident until the end of the school day. The credible proof in this case is to the contrary. The Respondent had difficulties controlling the students in his physical education class. Students in his class frequently acted disrespectfully and failed to follow his instructions. Such students challenged Respondent's authority and were disruptive. Because of class rotation, the other physical education teachers had the same students at different times of the year. The other physical education teachers did not experience the difficulties with the frequency or the severity that the Respondent experienced. As a general rule, the students behaved themselves for Mr. Goldsmith, Ms. Pendergrast, and Ms. Carry. Of the four, only Respondent allowed the students to get out of control. Mr. Townsend formally evaluated Respondent during the 1987-88 school year. Mr. Townsend specifically recommended that the Respondent seek help in the areas of student relations and discipline, and that he enroll in workshops for help with management of student conduct. Mr. Townsend formally evaluated the Respondent during the 1988-1989 school year. Mr. Townsend's evaluation rated the Respondent "Satisfactory with Recommendation" in the area of Classroom Management and Discipline. Respondent was again advised to enroll in training programs for management and discipline. Mr. Vail observed and evaluated the Respondent during the 1989-1990 school year. Mr. Vail observed the Respondent having difficulties in maintaining control of his class and supervising activities. Mr. Vail suggested methods of improving the structure of the class. He also suggested a different roll-taking method. Mr. Vail's 1989-90 evaluation rated the Respondent as "Needing Improvement" in the area of classroom management and discipline. The Respondent received a "Satisfactory with Recommendation" in the areas of subject matter knowledge, planning and student relations. Mr. Vail also gave the Respondent verbal directives to exercise appropriate classroom management. Mr. Vail evaluated the Respondent for the 1991-1992 school year. He observed the Respondent on March 9, 1992, and found several deficiencies with the Respondent's performance. Mr. Vail rated the Respondent as "Needs Improvement" in the areas of classroom management and discipline, planning and delivering instruction, student relations, and professional responsibilities and ethics. Mr. Vail categorized the Respondent as "Satisfactory with Recommendation" in the areas of subject matter knowledge, evaluation of instructional needs, and methods and techniques. Throughout his tenure at Carver, the Respondent has been counseled concerning appropriate discipline techniques and given several opportunities to improve. The Respondent's ability to effectively manage the students did not improve. In short, he was unable to keep good order in his classroom. Respondent has received two reprimands and several directives regarding proper discipline of students. Respondent is required to abide by the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession of Florida. Further, teachers are expected to adhere to reasonable directives issued to them by their supervisors. The Respondent received numerous verbal and written directives concerning the appropriate discipline and management of student conduct. These directives were reasonable and were within the scope of the school's authority. Despite the directives, the opportunities to improve, and the offers of assistance, the Respondent did not improve in the areas of classroom management and student discipline. The Respondent was warned of the impropriety of physical contact with students, yet subsequently pushed and injured a student. The incident involving Wyatt was in violation of the prior directives, and constituted insubordination and misconduct. The Respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the Board has been substantially reduced. Despite several attempts to provide Respondent with assistance, he continued to use inappropriate discipline with students. Understandably, school personnel have lost confidence in Respondent's ability to manage a class, to the point where Respondent cannot return to the classroom. Although the Respondent did not intentionally injure Wyatt, his indifference to the situation placed the student in danger. Respondent failed to protect the student from an avoidable injury. Respondent's use of force was unwarranted as the student did not present a harm to others or to the Respondent. Assuming Wyatt was one of the misbehaving students (which the evidence in this case does not support), force would not have been necessary to discipline a talkative student.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: As to case no. 92-3138, that the School Board of Orange County, Florida enter a final order dismissing the Respondent from his employment with the district. As to case no. 92-6637, that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order placing the Respondent on probation for a period of not less than three years, requiring Respondent to successfully complete some remedial course of instruction related to class management and discipline of students, and to receive a letter of reprimand for the conduct established by this record. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 27th day of August, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Joyous D. Parrish 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 27th day of August, 1993. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-3138 and 92-6637 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner, Orange County School Board: The following paragraphs are accepted: 1 through 7, 9, 13, 15, 16, 18 through 33, 36 through 43, 45, 46, and 48. Paragraph 8 is accepted with the deletion of the last sentence which is not supported by direct evidence of the incident described; no finding is made as to the underlying facts related to prior directives which have not been supported by competent evidence or an admission by the Respondent. With regard to paragraph 10, it is accepted that Respondent received the directive noted otherwise rejected and not supported by direct evidence of the incident described; no finding is made as to the underlying facts related to prior directives which have not been supported by competent evidence or an admission by the Respondent. With regard to paragraph 11, it is accepted Respondent was adequately apprised of the consequences should his conduct continue; it is not accepted that such warning was in the form of a formal reprimand. Paragraph 12 is rejected as irrelevant. With the deletion of the last sentence which is rejected as irrelevant, paragraph 14 is accepted. Paragraph 17 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 34 is rejected as argument or comment. Paragraph 35 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 44 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 47 is rejected as vague or argument. Paragraphs 49 through 52 are rejected as argument or irrelevant. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner, Betty Castor: The following paragraphs are accepted: 1, 3 through 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23 through 32, 34 through 38, 41 through 45, and 47. Paragraph 2 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 11 is not supported by direct evidence of the incident described; no finding is made as to the underlying facts related to prior directives which have not been supported by competent evidence or an admission by the Respondent. Paragraph 13 is rejected as irrelevant. With the deletion of the last sentence of the paragraph which is rejected as irrelevant, paragraph 19 is accepted. With the deletion of the word "severely" which is rejected as vague or argumentative or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence, paragraph 22 is accepted. Paragraph 33 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 39 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 40 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 46 is rejected as argument or vague. Paragraphs 48 through 51 are rejected as argument or irrelevant. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: The following paragraphs are accepted: 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 17, 21 and 22. Paragraph 3 is rejected as irrelevant. Respondent voluntarily accepted the position at Carver and was expected to fulfill his teaching responsibilities at that school. Paragraph 7 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence especially as to allegations that he "rarely reacted physically". The last sentence is accepted as accurate. Paragraph 8 is rejected as irrelevant; the discipline options available to Respondent did not include using force. Paragraph 9 is rejected as irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 10, it is accepted that Respondent was offered courses to improve and that he may have attended same, he just didn't comply with the directives or improve his skills either through indifference or otherwise. With regard to paragraph 11, it is accepted Respondent received a reprimand on the date in question for inappropriate discipline techniques; otherwise, rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the credible evidence. With regard to paragraph 12, it is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. With the deletion of the last sentence which is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence, paragraph 13 is accepted. Paragraph 14 is rejected as repetitive, argumentative, or irrelevant. Paragraph 15 is rejected as argument or irrelevant. Paragraph 16 is rejected as argument or irrelevant. Paragraph 18 to the extent that it suggests Respondent's action was in self-defense is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence and otherwise rejected as comment, argument, or irrelevant. Paragraph 19 is rejected as unnecessary comment. Paragraph 20 is rejected contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 23 is rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence, argumentative, or irrelevant. Paragraph 24 is rejected as irrelevant. Mr. Wyatt's account of the incident at the hearing has been deemed credible and wholly accurate as to the incident that transpired in the locker room that date. Respondent's account, on the other hand, was not. Paragraph 25 is rejected argumentative and contrary to the weight of credible evidence. The first sentence of paragraph 26 is accepted; the remainder rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 27 is rejected as speculative, irrelevant, or argumentative. With regard to paragraph 28, it is accepted that Respondent did not use inappropriate language; otherwise rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. With the clarification that Wyatt did scrape his back on the locker and the rejection of the "allegedly" comment which is contrary to the weight of the credible evidence, paragraph 29 is accepted. Paragraph 30 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 31 is rejected as argumentative and irrelevant. The first sentence of paragraph 32 is accepted; the remainder is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 33 is accepted to the extent is identifies Wyatt as the student injured by Respondent on March 20, 1992; otherwise rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 34 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 35 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 36 is rejected as irrelevant or argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Tobe Lev, Esq. EGAN, LEV & SIWICA, P.A. Post Office Box 2231 Orlando, Florida 32802-2231 Roseanna J. Lee, Esq. Frank C. Kruppenbacher, Esq. HONIGMAN MILLER SCHWARTZ AND COHN 390 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 1300 Orlando, Florida 32801 Margaret E. O'Sullivan, Esq. Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Karen Barr Wilde, Exec. Dir. 301 Florida Education Center 325 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Donald Shaw, Superintendent Orange County Shool Board Post Office Box 271 Orlando, Florida 32802-0271
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the School Board enter an order dismissing all charges brought against respondent by the Superintendent of Schools of St. Lucie County. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of April, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 12th day of April, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Ben L. Bryan, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 3230 Ft. Pierce, Florida 33448 Steven A. Been, Esquire FEA/United 208 West Pensacola Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Norman Behling, Superintendent School Board of St. Lucie County 2909 Delaware Avenue Ft. Pierce, Florida 33450
