The Issue Whether just cause exists to suspend Respondent, a teacher, for ten days without pay for putting hand sanitizer in a student’s mouth.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Board is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the District. Pursuant to Article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution, and section 1001.32, Florida Statutes, the District has the authority to discipline employees pursuant to section 1012.22(1)(f), Florida Statutes. Respondent began her employment with the District in 2007. In October 2019, she was teaching at PPMS as a science teacher. Prior to the incident involved in this case, Respondent received no discipline from the Board. Respondent is an experienced teacher who has been trained on the proper method of interacting with students, exercising best professional judgment, and following policies, rules, and directives. Respondent received training concerning ethics relative to her position with the District as a teacher. Respondent has been through the orientation process for new employees of the District three times. The Incident Giving Rise to Discipline On October 14, 2019, Respondent was teaching a science class of approximately 30 sixth and seventh grade students. In this class was sixth grade student X.S., who was being verbally disruptive. Although X.S. was not cussing, Respondent told him that he needed to have his “mouth washed out with soap.” Respondent reached behind herself to grab a bottle on her desk which was either hand soap or hand sanitizer. X.S. and Respondent walked towards each other. X.S. challenged Respondent to “Do it!” Respondent raised the bottle to X.S.’s mouth and pumped in a substance from the bottle. X.S. bent over and spit on the floor. Respondent asked X.S. what he was doing, and he stated that he got hand sanitizer in his mouth. As X.S. stood up, X.S. was observed wiping his mouth and Respondent told him not to spit on the floor. X.S. left the classroom to go to the bathroom and rinse his mouth. His fellow students immediately began talking about the incident while Respondent returned to her desk. The Investigation X.S. did not immediately report the incident because he did not want to anger his foster mother. However, on the day after the incident, October 15, 2019, three students approached PPMS Principal Aronson and Officer Michaels and reported that Respondent had squirted hand sanitizer into X.S.’s mouth. Officer Michaels spoke to the students and X.S. individually and asked them to provide written statements regarding what they observed.1 Principal Aronson and Officer Michaels questioned Respondent regarding the incident. When approached by Officer Michaels, Respondent asked, “What is this about?” He responded that, “this is about squirting hand sanitizer into a student’s mouth.” Respondent said, “It wasn’t hand sanitizer. It was soap.” Respondent did not deny squirting something into X.S.’s mouth to either Principal Aronson or Officer Michaels. Principal Aronson asked Respondent to leave campus. He accompanied her to her classroom and observed a bottle of hand sanitizer on her desk. Principal Aronson also contacted Human Resources to report the incident and spoke to Human Resources Manager Jose Fred who handled overseeing the investigation from that point forward. 1 These written statements, Exhibits 11 through 16, were admitted over Respondent’s objection that they contain impermissible hearsay and are unduly prejudicial because these students refused to attend their scheduled depositions or appear for final hearing. However, their general descriptions of the incident were corroborated by the deposition of student J.C., as well as in part by Respondent. As discussed in Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-106.213(3), hearsay evidence may be used to supplement or explain other evidence, but shall not be sufficient in itself to support a finding unless the evidence falls within an exception to the hearsay rule as found in sections 90.801-.805, Florida Statutes. On October 15, 2019, Respondent was issued the one-day stay at home letter from Mr. Aronson titled “Assignment to Your Residence with Pay for October 15, 2019.” On October 15, 2019, Respondent was also issued a letter advising her that she was assigned to her residence for October 16 and October 17, 2019. Mr. Fred, under the supervision of Vicki Evans-Paré, Director of Employee and Labor Relations, compiled written statement of six students, took a written statement of Respondent on October 17, 2019, and drafted an Investigative Report dated October 18, 2019, which substantiated violations of applicable rules and Board policies. In her statement to Mr. Perez, Respondent claims it was X.S. who put his hand on hers and pulled the bottle to his own mouth and that she did not squirt anything. However, the remainder of her statement is consistent with the students’ reports of the incident.2 Post-Investigation Due Process On October 30, 2019, Respondent was provided with a Notice of Pre- Determination Meeting, which provided her with the allegations of misconduct. Respondent was provided with a copy of the entire investigative file and time to review it with the representative of her choice. Respondent attended a Pre-Determination Meeting on November 9, 2019, to give her the opportunity to provide any additional information, dispute, and explain or elaborate on any information contained in the Investigative Report. The Employee and Labor Relations (“ELR”) Department enlists the Employee Investigatory Committee (“EIC”) which reviews all of ELR’s case 2 At final hearing, Respondent testified that the bottle was never near the student’s mouth. This is wholly inconsistent with her prior written statement to Mr. Perez, her deposition testimony, and the statements of the students. This conflict negatively impacted Respondent’s credibility. files, inclusive of all documents maintained by ELR, of anything that might lead to suspension or termination, to make a suggestion to the Superintendent, if the allegations are substantiated. Once the EIC decides that the allegations are substantiated and recommends discipline, Ms. Evans-Paré takes the entire employee investigative file, inclusive of the EIC’s recommendations, to the Superintendent who then makes the ultimate recommendation for employee discipline. On November 22, 2019, Respondent was provided with supplemental information to the investigative file and provided an opportunity to respond to the documents by December 6, 2019. On December 9, 2019, Respondent requested that her response be placed in her file. She wrote “in response to the copies of the information from the District that is being used as evidence against me …” after reviewing the case file, complained that only six of 22 students were interviewed or provided statements and it was not an ethical, random sample of the class. Respondent also alleged that the documents had been altered; however, she did not provide any evidence of such during the final hearing or within the response. On December 6, 2019, Respondent again provided a response to the student witness statements to ELR wherein she stated “I have 22 students in my class, only 6 students filled out statements? You have 3 black children submitted in reporting, of which one is not accurate. Yet, they are the minority in this class, of which, 2 out of the 6 statements were from Hispanic students. It is surprising that not a single white student in my class noticed the incident.” On January 24, 2020, Respondent was notified that the Superintendent would recommend her a ten-day suspension without pay to the Board at its February 19, 2020, meeting. On February 19, 2020, the School Board adopted the Superintendent’s recommendations to suspend Respondent without pay for ten days. Respondent’s Post-Suspension Status Respondent’s suspension by the Board was picked up by the Associated Press and reported across social media and traditional media platforms locally and nationwide. Ms. Evans-Paré testified that typically, when a teacher is alleged to have done something inappropriate with students, the District cannot have the teacher in a classroom around students, so the teacher is reassigned to another location. Respondent was reassigned to adult and community education, so she was in a no-student contact position. Respondent was then moved into Human Resources Funding 9920 status due to the press and comments from the parents received by Principal Aronson and her inability to be returned to PPMS. This allowed Principal Aronson to hire another teacher to take her place. Respondent has not been back in the classroom as a teacher for the District since October 15, 2019.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board uphold the ten-day suspension without pay and return Respondent to the classroom. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 2021. V. Danielle Williams, Esquire Palm Beach County School Board Office of the General Counsel 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-331 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Nicholas Anthony Caggia, Esquire Johnson and Caggia Law Group 867 West Bloomingdale Avenue, Suite 6325 Brandon, Florida 33508 Richard Corcoran Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jean Marie Middleton, Esquire Palm Beach County School Board Office of the General Counsel 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-331 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Donald E. Fennoy, II, Ed.D. Superintendent Palm Beach County School Board 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-316 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869
The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of immorality and unprofessional conduct as is more specifically alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated February 25, 1991.
Recommendation Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered permanently revoking the Florida teaching certificate of Robert M. Dodd, Jr. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of October, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 14th day of October, 1991. Copies furnished: Robert J. Boyd, Esquire 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 0400 Robert M. Dodd 38124 Townview Avenue #106 Zephyrhills, Florida 33540 Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practices Services 325 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 0400 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 0400
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: In 1970, respondent left Iran and came to America to attend school, starting out at a junior college in Jacksonville, Florida. In 1972 or 1973, respondent enrolled at the University of South Florida, first in the chemical engineering program and then changing to computer technology. In the fall quarter of the 1974-75 academic school year, respondent and another student were observed by Professor Miller and three examination proctors, one of whom was Dr. Melvin Anderson, engaging in inappropriate academic behavior during an examination in a course entitled EG13 337. This behavior involved the placing of scrap paper on a chair between the two students with both students utilizing and exchanging the papers. Miller reported the incident to the Dean of the College of Engineering. Dean Kopp spoke with both students about the incident. It was his best recollection that both students admitted cheating on this exam. He was certain that respondent Sadr did not deny the incident. Upon instruction from Dean Kopp, both students failed EGB 337 and were placed on probation for the remainder of their program in the College of Engineering. The students were advised that "Should any further recurrence occur, a more stringent penalty will occur." (Exhibit 8) At the hearing, respondent admitted that he placed scrap paper on the desk between himself and the other student, but denied that any exchange of information passed between the students. Respondent took no ,steps to appeal the Dean's findings or penalty. On the last day of the second quarter of the 1975-76 school year, professor Lee Weaver observed respondent engage in academic dishonesty during the final exam in EGS 462, a statistics course with respondent had great difficulty. Upon confrontation by Weaver, respondent immediately admitted that he had cheated on the examination. Weaver reported the incident to Dean Kopp and, by letter dated March 22, 1976, Dean Kopp advised respondent that: "Inasmuch as this is your second violation, I am requesting the Registrar to cancel your registration for Quarter III. You will be under suspension for one quarter in accordance with the rules of this College. Should a third violation occur, suspension will be permanent. In addition all previous deviations from your academic program are cancelled and when you return it will be necessary for you to seek program confirmation from Professor Payne." (Exhibit 15) During the quarter preceding the Weaver cheating incident, respondent was enrolled in an evening course entitled ESC 303-901, a basic computer programming course also known as Cobol I. This course was taught by adjunct lecturer Marvin E. Sortor in a large teaching auditorium. Respondent attended these classes with his wife, Golnaz Bagheri, who was not officially enrolled in the class but who had permission from Sorter to sit in on the course. During the course, Sorter administered two quizzes, a midterm exam and a final exam. Glyn D. Bass was enrolled in Cobol I and sat either directly behind or slightly to the left of respondent Sadr during the exams. During the first two tests, Bass observed incidents of a conversational nature between Sadr, his wife and a third male Iranian student. These conversations occurred just prior to handing in the exams. Bass did not report these incidents to the teacher. During the third exam, the midterm, Bass observed respondent write something on a small piece of paper and pass it to the person on his left. That person read it and passed it back to respondent. Then respondent passed it to his right to his wife. The three then engaged in a discussion. Bass also saw the three exchange examinations and converse, with respondent at one time holding all three exams. When Bass turned in his examination paper, he reported the incident to Professor Sortor, pointing out the three students involved. During the fourth test, Pass observed the same three individuals engage in conversation during the exam. Mark W. Kimbel was enrolled in professor Sorter's Cobol I class during Quarter I of 1975. During the midterm exam, he was seated three or four tows behind and just to the left of respondent Sadr. Kimbel observed respondent talking to another student during the exam. He did not report this incident to Sorter, but did discuss it with several other students after the exam during the break. Paul Engel sat directly in front of respondent and his wife during two exams given in Sorter's Cobol I during Quarter I, 1975. Engel was disturbed by conversations in a foreign language during two of the exams. During the midterm exam, respondent's wife tapped Engel on the shoulder and said the word "nine." Engel interpreted this as her asking for the answer to question number nine on the exam. Engel became angry about the disturbance the conversation behind him was causing, stopped taking the exam and wrote a note to professor Sorter on the back of his exam. Upon returning from the break after the midterm exam, professor Sorter made an announcement to the class that an incident of cheating had been reported to him and that he would not tolerate cheating in his class. Sorter felt that since he did not personally observe the incident in question, his general announcement to the entire class was sufficient to dispose of the issue. Had he personally seen cheating occur during the exam, he would have discussed it with the student and reported it to the Dean. After the midterm exam, Sorter paid more attention to respondent and his wife. He did not observe any conversing by respondent during the final examination. Sorter did not teach at USF subsequent to June 17, 1976, and did not hear anything more about this midterm incident until approximately six to nine months prior to the administrative hearing. Dr. Charles C.. Payne, Director of Engineering Technology at USF, was in charge of respondent's academic program. Payne first became aware of the Cobol I incident in July of 1976 when several students, including Mark Kimbel, were discussing respondent and incidents of academic dishonesty after one of Payne's classes held in St. Petersburg. Payne was informed that an Iranian student, subsequently identified as respondent, was "out to get" Payne. After this, the students began discussing with Payne incidents of academic dishonesty and complaining that they felt such conduct affected their grades. Two or three students informed Payne that they observed academic dishonesty in the form of talking and exchanging papers among three Iranian students during the Cobol I exams. Payne told the students that before he could take action on the matter, the students would have to put their comments in writing. Kimbel told Payne that Bass and Engel had witnessed the Cobol I incident. Payne thereafter contacted Bass and Engel and requested them to put their observations in writing. Between July 23, 1976, and September 13, 1976, Dr. Payne received three letters from Bass, Kimbel and Engle (Exhibits 1-3). These letters were shown by Payne to Dean Kopp. On September 28, 1976, Dean Kopp met with Paul Engle to confirm that the incident referred to in his letter was the Cobol I taught in Quarter I of 1975 with Professor Sortor and that the alleged offender was respondent Sadr. (Exhibit A) Upon such confirmation, Dean Kopp began the process of setting up a faculty/student panel to hear the case against respondent. (Exhibit 14). Dr. Payne attempted to contact Sorter concerning the Cobol I incident. As noted in paragraph 8 above, Mr. Sortor's employment at USF terminated in mid-June, 1976. Sortor had made many short out-of-town trips during that summer and was in California for about two weeks in late September and early October. At some point, and it is not clear when, both Payne and Dr. Wimmert spoke to Sorter concerning the incident. In a letter dated March 3, 1977, Mr. Sortor related his recollection of the events which occurred in his class (Exhibit 10). Dean Kopp inquired of Dan Walbolt, an attorney and respondent's assistant vice president of student affairs, as to the proper procedures to be followed in a case involving academic dishonesty. Apparently, Mr. Walbolt initially referred the inquiry to Leslie R. Stein, respondent's associate general counsel. Ms. Stein prepared a memorandum on October 13, 1976, to Dean Kopp advising him to be governed by the procedures contained in University Rules 6L-3.02 and 6L-6.02(2), and she listed eight specific steps to be followed, the first four of which pertained to the duties of the instructor of the course in which the incident occurred. (Exhibit H) At the time his. Stein prepared this memorandum, she was not aware of the specific facts surrounding the respondent's case and the memo she prepared contained excerpts from another case involving academic dishonesty within the College of Education. Had she been aware that the instructor had left the University and that the matter had been brought to the University's attention by students, she would not have written the same advice to Dean Kopp. Since the course instructor was no longer at the University, Mr. Wallboard advised Dean Kopp to use the University rules at the point where they fit the circumstances of this case. On October 18, 1976, Dean Kopp appointed R. J. Wimmert (the department chairman) and Dr. Payne (respondent's program chairman) to look into the matter and determine whether further proceedings were warranted. (Exhibit 12) At this time, professor Wimmert was aware of the respondent's prior two incidents of academic dishonesty in classes with Professors Miller and Weaver. Wimmert and Payne met with respondent Sadr on October 22, 1976, and discussed with him the allegations of cheating made by the three students. Respondent denied any wrongdoings. By memorandum dated October 27, 1976, Payne and Wimmert made the following recommendation to Dean Kopp: "Both of us feel that if cheating has taken place, some appropriate action should be taken. It is our opinion, that there are sufficient grounds for investigating this matter and recommend you convene a student/ faculty committee to review the allegations and denials which have been made in this case and then recommend an appropriate course of action." By letter dated October 27, 1976, Dean Kopp informed respondent that his program and department chairmen had recommended that a student/faculty hearing be held relative to respondent's academic dishonesty in professor Sortor's Cobol I course. Respondent was advised that Dr. Melvin Anderson would chair the hearing panel and that Dr. Crane would be the other faculty member. The student members were to be Robert Ruppenthal and Sandy Terepka. (Exhibit G) At this time, Dean Kopp was not aware of the fact that Dr. Anderson had been one of the proctors who had witnessed respondent's actions in Professor Miller's class in the Fall of 1974. On the same date, October 27, 1976, Dean Kopp wrote a memo to the hearing panel advising them that the file was being submitted to Dr. Anderson for his arrangement of the first meeting of the panel (Exhibit F). Respondent had several discussions with Mr. Walbolt regarding the procedures to be followed in this matter. On November 9, 1976, respondent executed a document formally requesting Dean Kopp to appoint a student/faculty committee for advice prior to rendering a decision, pursuant to University Rule 6L-3.02(4), and waiving his rights to a formal hearing under the provisions of Chapter 120 of the Florida Statutes. (Exhibit J) By letter dated November 11, 1976, Dr. Mel Anderson, as the hearing committee chairman, sent a memorandum to the committee members, Payne, Walbolt, Wimmert, respondent and students Engle, Kimbel and Bass informing them that the hearing to consider the alleged cheating incident would be held on November 18, 1976, at 2:00 p.m. (Exhibit D) Seeing Dr. Payne's name on this memo, and fearing that Dr. Payne would be a member of the panel, respondent withdrew his request for a hearing committee and requested the University to appoint a hearing Officer to hear the charges against him. This occurred on November 17, 1976. (Exhibit 13) Prior to this, respondent had discussed the appointment of a hearing officer with Mr. Walbolt. (Exhibit L) Thereafter, the University filed its complaint against respondent and the same was received by the Division of Administrative Hearings on February 8, 1977. The undersigned Hearing Officer was duly appointed to conduct the hearing. At some time after students Kimbel and Engel wrote their letters concerning the Cobol I incident, respondent contacted these students at their home. Respondent asked both students to try to help him, and offered to pay Kimbel money to come to the hearing and retract his statement. Respondent told Kimbel that he would rather pay him than pay an attorney to defend him. At the hearing, respondent attempted to adduce evidence of prejudice against respondent and/or Iranian students on the part of the students who wrote letters reporting the Cobol I incident and on the part of the faculty members of the College of Engineering. While the students expressed their disdain with incidents involving cheating, the record is void of any evidence which would indicate prejudice on the part of the complaining students against respondent or Iranians in general. Many of the faculty members possessed knowledge of `a highly inordinate percentage of incidents of academic dishonesty on the part of Iranian students. However, it has not been demonstrated that this knowledge or the knowledge of certain individual faculty members concerning respondent's prior charges of academic dishonesty played any significant or prejudicial role in their consideration of the facts concerning the Cobol I incident. The only evidence of possible prejudice illustrated was on the part of Professor Payne. Payne admitted that because of threats reported to him by other students, he considered, bodily harm and/or destruction of his property from respondent to be a possibility. Payne testified that his cautious attitude toward respondent did not affect his dealings with respondent regarding academic work. Three other students enrolled in Sortor's Cobol I ()ass during Quarter I of 1975 testified at the hearing to the effect that they did not witness respondent engage in any form of academic dishonesty during the quizzes or exams. These students were not seated as close to respondent as were the complaining students Bass or Engle, nor could they unequivocally state that respondent did not take part in conversations or the exchanging of papers during the tests. Respondent presented the testimony of four witnesses regarding respondent's character. Three were faculty members who had known respondent for five months, eight months and three years, respectively. All three expressed their opinion that cheating would be out of character for respondent. However, none of the three were aware that respondent had been disciplined by the University on two previous occasions. This fact, they admitted, might alter their opinion of respondent's character. The University Rules which are applicable to the Cobol I incident are contained in the Florida Administrative Code as Rules 6C 4-3.02 and 6C 4-6.02.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that the University find respondent guilty of engaging in academic dishonesty in Cobol I during Quarter I of 1975 and that for such conduct respondent be suspended from the University for one calendar year. Respectfully submitted and entered this 2nd day of September, 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: Steven Wenzel General Counsel University of South Florida Tampa, Florida 33620 R. Wayne Miller, Esquire Post Office Box 3324 Tampa, Florida 33601 Guy E. Labalme, Esquire 725 East Kennedy, # 409 Tampa, Florida 33602
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Subsections 1012.795(1)(c), 1012.795(1)(f)1, 1012.795(1)(i), and 1012.795(1)(k), Florida Statutes (2002-2005),2 and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a), 6B-1.006(3)(e), 6B-1.006(3)(g), and 6B-1.006(3)(i), and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Ms. West holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 666407, which covers the area of physical education and is valid through June 30, 2012. She began her teaching career in 1990. At all times pertinent to this case, Ms. West was employed as a physical education teacher at Azalea Middle School in the Pinellas County School District. By Final Order dated February 20, 2004, the Education Practices Commission found Ms. West guilty of violating Subsection 1012.795(1)(i), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a) and 6B-1.006(3)(e), by, among other things, making derogatory remarks to students and disclosing students’ grades without their permission. The Education Practices Commission suspended Ms. West’s educator certificate for the summer session for 2004 and placed her on probation for two years, effective February 20, 2004. The violations for which Ms. West was disciplined occurred while Ms. West was a teacher at Gibbs High School. In an effort to give Ms. West a fresh start, she was administratively transferred from Gibbs High School to Azalea Middle School beginning August 2001. Ms. West was assigned to teach seventh-grade physical education. Connie Kolosey was the seventh-grade assistant principal at Azalea Middle School who was responsible for supervising everything having to do with the seventh grade, including the seventh-grade teachers. The principal at Azalea Middle School received an anonymous letter early in the 2001- 2002 school year complaining that Ms. West was using offensive language and making derogatory remarks to students. About the same time as the arrival of the anonymous letter, Ms. Kolosey became aware that Ms. West was using her cell phone in class to call parents to talk about students’ behavior. Ms. Kolosey met with Ms. West on September 7, 2001, to discuss these issues. Ms. West felt that the anonymous letter came from individuals who were involved in Ms. West’s problems at Gibbs High School. The use of the cell phone was discussed during the conference. Ms. West stated that when she was at Bay Pointe Middle School she had used the cell phone to call parents during class and found it to be an effective way to curb student misbehavior. Ms. West indicated that she would leave the gymnasium and make the cell phone calls in the hallway. Ms. Kolosey explained to Ms. West that the use of cell phones to call parents during class was not appropriate. Students could be embarrassed by having Ms. West discuss their discipline issues in front of the class or in the hallways. Additionally, it was not a safe practice to leave the students in the gymnasium while she went into the hall to make telephone calls. On February 8, 2002, Ms. Kolosey had another conference with Ms. West to discuss accusations which had been made by several students that Ms. West had been making derogatory remarks to them about their physical appearance. Ms. West denied making the comments. During the spring of 2002, the parents of one of Ms. West’s students demanded that their child be removed from Ms. West’s class for comments which Ms. West allegedly made to their child, S.B. Ms. Kolosey investigated the matter and could find no one to corroborate the allegations made by S.B. and her parents. Thus, Ms. Kolosey refused to remove the student from Ms. West’s class. The parents of S.B. continued to request that their child be removed from Ms. West’s class because S.B. had skipped Ms. West’s class, and they felt it was a result of the child having been traumatized by Ms. West’s actions. Ms. Kolosey discussed the issues concerning S.B. She specifically told Ms. West not to bring the issues up to S.B. in a negative way but to attempt to mend her relationship with S.B. On March 12, 2002, Ms. Kolosey received a telephone call from S.B.’s mother again demanding that S.B. be removed from Ms. West’s class. Ms. West had told S.B. in front of S.B.’s classmates that S.B. could not run to Ms. Kolosey about things that were said in private because she was saying it in front of the whole class. Ms. West admitted to Ms. Kolosey that she had made the remarks to S.B. Ms. Kolosey agreed to remove S.B. from Ms. West’s class. On May 16, 2002, Ms. Kolosey; Ms. West; Ms. Andrews, the principal at Azalea Middle School; and Mr. McNeil, a union representative, had a conference to discuss more allegations that Ms. West had made belittling remarks to some of her students. It was suggested to Ms. West that if she needed to discuss a student’s performance or behavior that she take the student aside rather than do it in front of other students. Ms. West was warned that her attitude needed to change and that she could not always say the first thing that came to her mind. During the last semester of the 2001-2002 school year, Ms. West’s daughter was seriously ill, and Ms. West missed a great deal of work because of her parenting responsibilities. The first semester of the 2002-2003 school year, Ms. West was absent most of the time because of her daughter’s illness. Ms. West returned to teach at Azalea Middle School in January 2003. After Ms. West’s return, complaints began to be made to the administration about inappropriate comments that Ms. West was alleged to have made during class. Ms. West denied making the comments. Again, Ms. West was cautioned to think about what she says to the students before she says it. Ms. West was under a great deal of stress during the early part of the second semester of the 2002-2003 school year because of her daughter’s illness. Her daughter passed away in March 2003. In March 2003, Ms. West received a written reprimand from the principal at Azalea Middle School for “failing to interact appropriately with students and making inappropriate remarks to students, and for insubordination in failing to follow a previous directive to refrain from such remarks.” Again, Ms. West was directed to refrain from making inappropriate remarks to students. Ms. Kolosey evaluated Ms. West for the 2002-2003 school year. Ms. West was rated ineffective for her instructional and non-instructional performance. It was noted that Ms. West’s judgment was a serious concern and that the numerous complaints which had been received regarding Ms. West’s negative interactions with students overshadowed an otherwise knowledgeable and organized classroom presentation. Ms. West appealed the evaluation, but the evaluation was upheld. Ms. West felt that Ms. Kolosey was being unfair to her and that she was taking the word of students over Ms. West’s denials. Ms. West felt that because Ms. Kolosey believed the allegations of some of the students, the students somehow felt they were empowered and made even more accusations. In order to give Ms. West another fresh start, Ms. West was transferred to sixth-grade classes for the 2003- 2004 school year. Dan Stevens was assigned as her supervisor, and Ms. Kolosey had no further dealings with complaints regarding Ms. West. Because of the evaluation which Ms. West received at the end of the 2002-2003 school year, she was given a performance improvement plan on August 12, 2003. Among other things, the plan called for Ms. West to “[a]void use of inappropriate comments to students that they may find humiliating or demeaning in nature.” Ms. West was told to “[u]se wait time before responding to students[’] inappropriate behavior” and to “[r]emember to always praise student publicly and to correct them privately.” On August 25, 2003, Mr. Stevens received an email from the Azalea Middle School sixth-grade guidance counselor, advising him that there had been a complaint by a student that Ms. West had disclosed his grade in class without his permission and that the parent of another student, E.M., had called to complain that her daughter’s grade had been revealed to the other students. E.M.’s mother also wrote a letter to Mr. Stevens regarding her allegations that Ms. West was disclosing her daughter’s grades to the class. Because E.M.’s mother felt that Ms. West was acting inappropriately, she refused to allow E.M. to attend Ms. West’s class. On October 7, 2003, a conference was held with Ms. West to discuss the allegations made by E.M.’s mother. Ms. West denied disclosing E.M.’s grade. E.M. was transferred from Ms. West’s class to another class. In late August 2005, J.T., a sixth-grader at Azalea Middle School, was transferred to Ms. West’s health class. On September 2, 2005, J.T. called his stepmother during class and handed the telephone to Ms. West so that she could talk to his stepmother. Ms. West discussed with the stepmother that J.T. had failed a test and that he had not returned the test to her with a signature of one of his parents. This conversation was held during class time and in a manner that the other students could hear Ms. West. Ms. West called L.D. about her son, T.D., during class hours to complain that T.D. was making a failing grade. L.D. could hear students in the background. Ms. West made remarks to students which were disparaging and embarrassing. One remark made by Ms. West to T.J. was, “You must have studied in the dark.” Ms. West had been talking to T.J. about his low grade on a test. T.J. said that he had studied for the test, and Ms. West responded that he must have studied in the dark. Ms. West has also made this comment to other students who had made low grades on tests. Ms. West also told T.J. in front of other classmates to “Take your grow-up pill.” T.J. is small in stature and sensitive about his size. Ms. West denied that she was making a reference to his small size and contends that she was just trying to tell him that he was acting immaturely. Although Ms. West did not intend to make fun of T.J.’s small size, she should have known that such comments could embarrass him. Ms. West made the comment, “Dumb boys make dumb babies” during her health class in the fall of 2005. She contends that she was trying to make the students aware that they should think about the consequences of the decisions that they make in life. Although Ms. West was trying to convey an appropriate message, she chose an inappropriate means to do so. At the final hearing, Ms. West stated that she had made the remark to two girls, who were discussing a particular student. In essence, she referred to the young man as being dumb, which was not appropriate. Based on the numerous complaints that the administration received about Ms. West’s behavior, the Pinellas County School Board made investigations and terminated Ms. West’s employment with the Pinellas County School Board. Both administrators and parents found that Ms. West was an ineffective teacher. Based on the numerous complaints from parents and the necessity to transfer students from Ms. West’s classes to other classes, Ms. West was an ineffective teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Ms. West guilty of violating Subsections 1012.795(1)(f), 1012.795(1)(i), and 1012.795(1)(k), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a), 6B-1.006(3)(e), 6B-1.006(3)(g), and 6B-1.006(3)(i) and suspending Ms. West’s educator’s certificate for three years, followed by a two-year probationary period under terms and conditions set by the Education Practices Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 22nd day of October, 2009.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent used inappropriate discipline techniques when he pushed an unruly student against a wall and back into his seat, in violation of Section 231.28(1)(i), Florida Statutes, and Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e), Florida Administrative Code. If so, an additional issue is what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educators Certificate No. 725455. He is an assistant principal at Riverview High School. He has been a teacher for 18 years. He is in his seventh year in the Sarasota County School District. Prior to his employment with Sarasota County, Respondent was a physical education teacher and then an assistant principal in Illinois. He has never previously been the subject of disciplinary action. The principal at Riverview High School testified that Respondent enjoys good rapport with the students. Respondent is required to deal with disciplinary issues, and the principal testified that he has always done so professionally. The principal testified that Respondent maintains his composure when disciplining students. The Administrative Law Judge credits the testimony of the principal. On February 20, 1998, Respondent was summoned to a classroom being taught by Francis J. Baad, a teacher since 1948. A substitute teacher, Ms. Baad was teaching a freshman English class that had become disruptive, so she asked someone to summon an administrator to her room. Ms. Baad was showing a film of Romeo and Juliet. Part of the class was trying to watch the film, but part of the class was misbehaving. Several students were talking loudly, and one student was playing with a red laser pointer. The misbehaving students ignored repeated entreaties from Ms. Baad to settle down. When she threatened to summon an administrator, some of the students told her that she could not do so. When Respondent entered the classroom, the students quieted down. Respondent asked Ms. Baad to tell him the names of the students who had been misbehaving. Identification was slowed by Ms. Baad's unfamiliarity with the names of the students and the fact that several students had sat in seats assigned to other students and had given wrong names. As Respondent was writing down the names of the students who had disrupted the class, C. H. objected to the listing of another student, G. B., whom C. H. claimed had done nothing wrong, even though Ms. Baad had named him as one of the students who had misbehaved. Respondent replied to C. H. that it was none of his business. C. H. rose from his seat, and Respondent told him to sit down. Instead, C. H. said that he did not have to listen and began to walk up the aisle to leave the classroom. Respondent stepped toward C. H. and told him to return to his seat and be quiet. C. H. replied that Respondent could not tell him what to do. Saying, "Yes, I will tell you what to do," Respondent approached C. H. and backed him to his desk. Respondent then grabbed C. H.'s arms or shoulders and forced him down to his seat. At one point, Respondent threatened to call the school resource officer and have C. H. arrested. However, Respondent never did so, nor did he or anyone else discipline C. H. for this incident. Instead, Respondent remained in the classroom until the bell rang. Respondent did not disrupt the classroom; he restored order to the classroom so that learning could take place. Respondent did not endanger C. H.'s physical health or safety. Respondent did not disparage C. H. Respondent did not unnecessarily embarrass C. H.; C. H. embarrassed himself. Respondent gave C. H. every opportunity to behave himself. Rather than do so, C. H. unreasonably defied Respondent's authority.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 224-E Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry W. Whitmore, Program Director Professional Practices Services Department of Education 224-E Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Bruce P. Taylor, Attorney Post Office Box 131 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731-0131 Robert E. Turffs Brann & Turffs, P.A. 2055 Wood Street, Suite 206 Sarasota, Florida 34237
The Issue The issue for consideration in this matter is whether Respondent should be dismissed from employment with the Polk County School Board because of the matters alleged in the letter of intent prepared by the Superintendent of Schools.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Polk County School Board, (Board), was the county agency responsible for providing public primary, secondary and adult education in Polk County, Florida, and operated Haines City High School, (HCHS), in Haines City. Respondent had been employed at HCHS for eight years, and in the last two years prior to the incidents herein taught in the school's Diversified Cooperative Training Program, (DCT) under a continuing contract of employment. DCT students are allowed to leave campus before the end of the school day to work at jobs in the local area. However, Respondent allowed some students to leave school during the morning hours for the purpose of getting breakfast and, coincidentally, to bring items back to school for her to eat. There is also allegation that Respondent would solicit students to run personal errands for her during school hours but would not give them a pass to allow them to lawfully leave the campus. Allegedly, she advised them that they were on their own and she would deny responsibility or knowledge if they were caught. Taken together, the evidence establishes that Respondent did allow students to leave class on personal business and did not give them passes to be off campus. It also appears that she solicited them to pick up items for her while they were away, but not that she solicited students to leave class to run errands off campus for her. Even so, her actions are in violation of the Board policy regarding student absence from campus, a policy about which Respondent had been briefed. In addition, some time during the Autumn of 1994, Respondent overheard a student on the school's football team, Bradford Parton, discussing with his girlfriend the fact he was having cramps. Respondent advised him he should take potassium and on at least one occasion, during a class session, gave Parton a pill which, she said, would give him energy and take away his cramps. She believed the pill was the functional equivalent of one banana. Respondent was aware that it was a violation of Board policy for anyone other than the school nurse to administer any form of pill or medication to a student. When the Principal learned that Respondent had given Parton the pill, he directed an investigation into the matter. On November 17, 1994, after he had heard that Respondent was making comments in class to the effect that the students were getting her in trouble with the administration, the Principal gave her verbal instructions not to discuss these matters with the students and to limit her conversations with them to matters related to class work. His comment to her included, "Just teach the class. Just don't bring yourself down to their level." The following day, on November 18, 1994, after receiving word that Respondent had again spoken to Parton after he had warned her not to do so, the Principal reduced his prior comments to writing and again instructed her not to discuss the matter with any students, warning her that he considered her doing so a matter of insubordination which, if repeated, would result in severe disciplinary action. There is some indication Respondent, in early December, 1994, advised several students after the warning she was going to have them removed from her class She subsequently advised the school's guidance counselor that several of the students involved should be removed from her class because they appeared to be "unhappy" in it. The students denied being unhappy in class and urgently resisted being removed because they needed the credit to graduate. Respondent's comments to the students constituted insubordination, and her action in urging removal of the students was considered by the administration to be an attempt at retaliation against them because of their allegations made against her. There is also indication that while the investigation into the allegations against her was under way, Respondent spoke with Ms. Denmark, another teacher, who was in the room when Respondent gave the pill to Mr. Parton, in an effort to get her to change her statement. School Board officials consider Respondent's blatant violation of school rules and policies by allowing students to leave campus without a pass and by improperly administering a pill to a student combine to severely impair her effectiveness as a teacher. Under the circumstances established here, this appears to be the case. Prior to the initiation of this action, Respondent had received a verbal warning regarding drinking in front of students at a conference and regarding making untoward comments about Blacks. Her personnel record, commencing with the teacher evaluation of her performance in the 1988-1989 school year, reflects positive comments and no substantial criticism. However, in July, 1994, the Superintendent advised Respondent of his intention to suspend her without pay for five days for making improper comments of a sexual nature toward students and for allowing students to grade papers, to average grades and to have access to her grade book. Respondent requested hearing on this proposed action. That hearing was held consolidated with the instant hearing and no final action has been taken by the Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Mary L. Canova's, suspension without pay pending hearing be sustained and that she be dismissed from employment as a teacher with the Polk County School Board because of misconduct in office and gross insubordination as described herein. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of November, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 3rd day of November, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 95-2599 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. - 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted in so far as Respondent allowed students to leave campus and periodically suggested those who did run errands for her. - 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein with the understanding that the term, "no further details regarding the allegations were provided" refers to the charging letter, and that Respondent was provided with specific allegations of misconduct prior to hearing. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. First sentence accepted and incorporated herein. Second sentence rejected. See Partain's December 2, 1994 letter to Chapman. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald H. Wilson, Jr., Esquire Lane, Tron, Clarke, Bertrand, Vreeland & Jacobsen, P.A. Post Office Box 1578 150 East Davidson Street Bartow, Florida 33831 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman and Sakellarides, P.A. 24650 U. S. Highway 19 North Suite 308 Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 John A. Stewart Superintendent Polk County Schools Post Office Box 391 1915 South Floral Avenue Bartow, Florida 33830
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing the Petition For Dismissal, reinstating Respondent to his position of employment on professional service contract and directing payment to him of back pay and attendant benefits withheld from the date of his suspension to the date of his effective reinstatement. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of September, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of September, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Abbey G. Hairston, Esquire Attorney for Petitioner School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida 3323 Belvedere Road Building 503, Room 232 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 John J. Chamblee, Jr., Esquire Chamblee, Miles and Grizzard 202 Cardy Street Tampa, Florida 33606 Sydney H. McKenzie, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Hon. Betty Castor Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Thomas J. Mills Superintendent The School Board of Palm Beach County Florida 3323 Belvedere Road Post Office Box 24690 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4690
Findings Of Fact Based upon Respondent's plea of nolo contendere to the Administrative Complaint, the following facts are deemed admitted: While employed as a teacher at Northeast Senior High School, the Respondent, ELLEN APPENFELDER, allowed two (2) male students to stay overnight with her in her apartment on one or more occasions during June and early July of 1978. The Respondent, ELLEN APPENFELDER, permitted students to consume alcoholic beverages at her apartment and in her presence on one or more occasions during the last spring (sic) and/or early summer of 1978. The Respondent, ELLEN APPENFELDER, was counseled on two (2) or more occasions by the Principal and Athletic Director of Northeast Senior High School about her relationship with a male student in the school, and that the relationship was causing problems in the school and in the community, and that it should be terminated. These conferences occurred during the 1977-78 school year. The Respondent submitted testimony and evidence in mitigation which show that she was considered by her colleagues to be a good disciplinarian. She was not considered by other teachers to be soft on student misbehavior. Respondent did have a history of personal involvement with students and their activities. She was a faculty advisor to the cheerleading squad at Northeast Senior High School. She and her husband sponsored social events for the high school's cheerleading and basketball teams, to include dinners at her parents' house. As a result of these activities, she and her husband became aware of the personal and academic problems of a male student, who was an outstanding athlete on the basketball team. Both the Respondent and her husband attempted to assist this student with his problems. The Respondent's father and husband employed this student for a period of time to assist him. This student spent the weekend with the Respondent and her husband on more than one occasion. The relationship and interest with this student was not unique. The Respondent had also extended herself to assist a member of the cheerleading team, who was having personal difficulties as a result of her parents' divorce. In another instance, the Respondent took a former student to Miami in order that she could enroll in one of the area's airline stewardess programs. This depth of interest continued her family's interest and involvement in the school system and students for which her father had received several civic awards. In January of 1978, the Respondent and her husband experienced marital problems, which resulted in their abrupt separation. This separation continued until after July 4, 1978. During their separation, the Respondent continued her interest and involvement with the student whom she and her husband had befriended. This student and a companion were permitted to spend the night at the Respondent's residence. This student also visited the Respondent's husband in an adjoining community during the period of their separation. The Respondent does not drink. She admitted in her testimony that alcoholic beverages were consumed in her presence, but stated that to her knowledge no one who was not of legal age ever consumed alcoholic beverages in her presence. Further, the Respondent had no personal knowledge of the status as a student of one of the two (2) individuals involved. The material allegations of Paragraph 3 of the Administrative Complaint do not constitute a violation of any of the statutes or rules cited in the Administrative Complaint. The Respondent's testimony shows that the "counseling" which she received was an informal suggestion that she lessen her involvement with a particular student because of student jealousies. There is no evidence that the Respondent failed to follow the lawful orders and directions of any of her superiors within the school system. The Respondent is now aware that her activities gave the appearance of impropriety, subjecting her to potential criticism and notoriety and thereby diminishing her effectiveness as an instructor. She is further aware that her tendency to become a counselor to students as opposed to a teacher resulted in the situation which formed the basis for the allegations in the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based upon the Stipulation, the facts submitted in mitigation, and consideration of the proposed findings of fact, the Hearing Officer recommends that the certificate of the Respondent be suspended for a period of one (1) year. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of September, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire 110 North Magnolia Drive Suite 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ben Kay, Esquire 30 Sixth Street North Suite 307 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF FLORIDA IN RE: ELLEN APPENFELDER DOAH CASE NO. 79-809 /
