The Issue The issues in this case revolve around the question whether Respondent's employment as a teacher in the Broward County Public School System should be terminated either for failure to correct identified performance deficiencies within the 90-day probation period prescribed by Section 231.29(3)(d), Florida Statutes, or for just cause as provided in Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The evidence presented at final hearing established the facts that follow. Clemons is an elementary school teacher. She entered the profession in 1972 after graduating from Florida A&M University. In addition to her bachelor's degree, Clemons holds a Teacher's Certificate from the Florida Department of Education. From 1972 until 1988, Clemons taught both in Florida public schools and (for seven of those years) in Department of Defense schools overseas. After a hiatus from teaching, 2/ Clemons returned to the classroom in October 1990 as a substitute teacher in the Broward County Public School System. She performed well enough in that capacity to be offered a full- time teaching position at North Side Elementary School ("North Side"), beginning in January of 1994. The following school year, Clemons transferred to Lauderdale Manors, joining the instructional staff in August of 1994 as a second grade teacher. There, she soon attracted the attention of Doris Bennett ("Bennett"), the school's new principal. Bennett, a classroom teacher for approximately 13 years before spending six years as an assistant principal at several Broward County elementary schools, had assumed the position of Lauderdale Manors' principal on July 1, 1994. By the end of September 1994, she was growing concerned about Clemons' apparent inability to control and manage her classroom. By law, each public school teacher in the state must be assessed at least once a year to determine how his or her performance measures against criteria that are required to be communicated in advance to all personnel. 3/ To perform this assessment, performance evaluators in the Broward County Public School District use a tool called the Instructional Personnel Assessment System ("IPAS"). The IPAS requires that a teacher be rated in ten "performance areas": "instructional planning," "lesson management," "lesson presentation," "student performance evaluation," "communication," "classroom management," "behavior management," "records management," "subject matter knowledge," and "professional competencies." A teacher's categorical ratings of "S - Satisfactory," "N - Needs Improvement," or "U - Unsatisfactory" are based on the assessor's determination of the teacher's compliance with various "performance indicators" prescribed for each performance area. In addition to, and based upon, the several categorical ratings, the teacher is assigned a single "overall performance rating." Bennett testified that one categorical rating of "U" would result in an overall "unsatisfactory" performance rating. In April 1995, toward the end of the 1994-95 school year (Clemons' first at Lauderdale Manors), Bennett completed Clemons' annual evaluation. Using the IPAS, Bennett rated Clemons "unsatisfactory" in two performance areas, namely, classroom management and behavior management. These negative marks resulted in Clemons receiving an overall performance rating of "U." Bennett recommended that Clemons be dismissed. Clemons' employment might have been terminated in 1995 but for the fact that on March 10, 1995, Bennett had signed a Final Assessment form attesting that, in her "professional opinion," Clemons had "successfully completed the Professional Orientation Program" for first-year teachers. Because Bennett's recommendation of dismissal followed so closely after a favorable assessment of Clemons' performance, it was not approved. Bennett assigned Clemons to a fifth grade class for the 1995-96 school year, reasoning that she might succeed with older children. Although Bennett and former Assistant Principal Roach both testified at hearing that Clemons' problems persisted, 4/ a contemporaneous record suggests that the teacher performed better in her second year at Lauderdale Manors than she had during her first. On May 31, 1996, Bennett signed an IPAS instrument showing that Clemons had received a "satisfactory" rating in all categories, earning an overall performance rating of "satisfactory." Bennett qualified this positive evaluation, however, with a recommendation that Clemons be offered another annual contract, rather than the more favorable professional service contract for which she was then eligible. The reason, Bennett wrote on the IPAS form, was that Clemons still needed "to work on improving classroom and behavior management skills." Bennett's recommendation was not approved. Instead, Clemons was promoted to professional service contract status for the 1996-97 school year. That year, Bennett put Clemons in charge of a fifth grade "drop-out prevention" class. The drop- out prevention class had about half as many students as a regular class (14-18 as opposed to 32-35) and afforded the teacher greater flexibility with the curriculum. For these reasons, Bennett believed that the drop-out prevention class might be more suitable for Clemons. William Roach, who was the Assistant Principal at the time, explained that “this was done as an effort or a plan, if you will, to really give Ms. Clemons an opportunity to maybe come out of the classroom for awhile, get a perspective, maybe, you know, have a chance to be successful.” (T. 187.) On the other hand, Bennett acknowledged that the children in this special class were "academically challenged," "less motivated," and hence more difficult to teach than other students. 5/ The IPAS form containing Clemons' assessment for the 1996-97 school year, which Bennett signed on May 30, 1997, and Clemons refused to sign, reflects a deterioration in Clemons' performance. She received a "needs improvement" rating in the categories of lesson management and student performance evaluation. Clemons was rated "unsatisfactory" in the areas of classroom management and behavior management. Her overall performance rating was a "U." Clemons filed a grievance with the Broward Teachers' Union to protest this negative evaluation. Interceding on Clemons' behalf, a union representative requested that Bennett produce documentation supporting her unfavorable assessment of Clemons' skills. Bennett could not do so. Consequently, at the union's suggestion, Bennett changed Clemons' overall performance rating to "satisfactory" for the 1996-97 school year. Clemons continued to teach in the fifth grade drop-out prevention class during the 1997-98 school year. And she continued to have problems. For example, after personally observing Clemons in her classroom on February 23, 1998, Bennett wrote: “Have noticed some, slight improvement this year, but still not enough to warrant upgrading overall evaluation to satisfactory.” Roach, the Assistant Principal at Lauderdale Lakes from 1993 through the end of the 1997-98 school year, was less generous: Q [by Mr. Pettis]. During that four academic school year period [1994 through 1998], give me an overall assessment as to how Ms. Clemons’ behavioral management that was reflected in her classroom progressed? A [by Roach]. I felt that it did not progress. In fact, if anything, it digressed or regressed. As I said, the frequency of going down to the room for problems became more. (T. 186.) And then a new layer that was added as the [sic] was the fact that parents were complaining about the classroom and asking to have their children taken out of the room. There seemed to be just a total lack of respect, students for teacher, but I also observed sometimes that Ms. Clemons’ respect for the students was also lacking and I felt that sometimes there was an unhealthy situation and there were occasions in support of her that we did move children out. Nevertheless, the IPAS form that Bennett signed on May 29, 1998, reported that Clemons was performing satisfactorily in all areas; her overall performance rating for the 1997-98 school year was “satisfactory.” Thus, contrary to Roach’s recollection, the contemporaneous IPAS evaluation shows that Clemons’ performance did improve in her fourth year at Lauderdale Manors. The following year, 1998-99, Clemons was assigned to a regular fifth grade class. She did not do well. Here is how Keith Miller, who started as Assistant Principal that year, described his initial observations of Clemons: Q [by Mr. Pettis]. With regard to your first year as AP at Lauderdale Manors, '98 to '99, during the course of that year, did it come to your attention any performance concerns or deficiencies with regard to Ms. Clemons' classroom? A [by Miller]. Yes. Q. And what were those areas of deficiency that you were aware of in '98/'99? A. [T]he reason . . . Ms. Clemons was brought to my attention . . . was parental complaints. As I stated in my deposition, I wanted to seek out and find out for myself if these parental complaints were warranted as a concern for our classroom management. Q. So, how would you seek that out? A. By going into the classroom and observing. * * * Q. What types of things were you looking for . . . in '98/'99 during your observations? A. Initially, as I've stated earlier, my concern was to see if the parental complaints were warranted as it pertains to classroom management and the concern with parents saying the children were coming home and saying one thing. And, you know, as a teacher and an educator and also as a parent we know that the children sometimes will extend the truth to get what they want. But I wanted to find out if that was the case. Well, after doing my observations in the classroom, also on a formal observation, which you all have, often times I would walk up to a classroom that was chaotic with the noise. There are different types of noise. There is an active learning noise, let's make no mistake there, and there is a noise where there is disruption. And often times, one particular observation I went in, there were students out of their seats, there were paper airplanes thrown, Ms. Clemons yelling. And one of the things was, "You need to sit down," without a consequence being rolled out or dished out or implemented at that time. And it was very evident early on that the parental complaints and the student responses were, in effect, true with regards to classroom management. (T. 194-97.) Bennett also observed Clemons at the beginning of the 1998-99 school year. The principal noticed problems with behavior management, and also deficiencies relating to the delivery of instruction, such as incomplete lesson plans, blank student writing journals, falling behind in teaching the prescribed math curriculum, and failure to put subject "openers" (e.g. math and reading assignments) on the chalk board in the morning so that students could begin working immediately upon arrival. After an IPAS evaluation for the period from August 25 to October 1, 1998, Clemons was rated "unsatisfactory" in the areas of instructional planning and behavior management. As a result, effective October 2, 1998, Bennett placed Clemons "on documentation," meaning that she would have 90 days in which to correct the identified performance deficiencies, pursuant to Section 231.29(3)(d)2.a., Florida Statutes. In Bennett's opinion, Clemons did not correct the identified deficiencies within the 90-day probation period. Therefore, she recommended that Clemons' contract be terminated. The superintendent, however, did not timely act on Bennett's recommendation. 6/ Consequently, Clemons could not be dismissed. Returning to Lauderdale Manors for the 1999-00 school year, Clemons was assigned to teach a regular third grade class. By design, she was placed in a classroom located close to the administrative office, for support and assistance. Assistant Principal Miller visited her class on September 17, 1999. As he remembered: When . . . I walked into the room, one of the first things I noticed she was doing was reading, but it took her 10 minutes just to get her started when I walked in. That's noted here [on a Classroom Observation/Feedback Form prepared by Miller and signed by him and Clemons on September 17, 1999]. The lesson was broken up with student interruptions and lack of preparation. * * * One of the other things prior to walking in the classroom, I would stand outside the classroom and I heard children screaming, yelling. And I used the word, I felt chaos when I walked in. And you have to understand, when I walk into the classrooms immediately the tone is going to go down because of my presence in the classroom. So when I walked in, it did calm down. There were five students after I sat down when I circulated the room sleeping while she was attempting to teach reading. And my question to her was, How are you keeping track of misbehavior? Because she was telling people to do things, but not monitor[ing] it properly. (T. 202-04.) Bennett continued to observe and evaluate Clemons as well. On September 27, 1999, Bennett met with Clemons to discuss several classroom observations, including one that had been made on that day. Bennett remained concerned about Clemons' deficiencies in the areas of instructional planning and behavior management. Bennett approved Clemons' request to observe two other third grade teachers, to learn from them. Bennett also decided to place a paraprofessional (teacher's aide) in Clemons' classroom for assistance. Bennett observed Clemons' class on October 20, 1999, and saw no improvement. Previously identified deficiencies in the areas of student discipline and presentation of subject matter persisted. Indeed, by this time, Clemons' class had dwindled to 11 students — and even these few were misbehaving. On October 22, 1999, Bennett placed Clemons on 90-day performance probation, effective immediately and ending February 11, 2000. Bennett notified Clemons of her decision, as well as the statutory procedures applicable to a performance probation, by memorandum dated October 22, 2000. Clemons acknowledged her receipt of this memorandum by signing it on October 22, 2000. As explained in a separate memorandum dated October 22, 2000, Bennett placed Clemons on probation due to her ongoing and documented concern about Clemons' performance in the areas of behavior management and instructional planning. Clemons acknowledged her receipt of this memorandum by signing it on October 22, 2000. Additionally, by yet another memorandum dated October 22, 2000, Bennett scheduled a conference with Clemons for October 27, 2000, to discuss the preparation of a Performance Development Plan. Clemons acknowledged her receipt of this memorandum by signing it on October 22, 2000. When a Broward County public school teacher's performance is determined to be unsatisfactory, a Performance Development Plan ("PDP") is prepared for, and with input from, the affected teacher. The purpose of the PDP is to assist the teacher in correcting identified performance deficiencies within the 90-day probation period. On October 27, 2000, two PDPs were executed by Bennett and Clemons. One addressed Clemons' identified deficiencies in the area of behavior management. The other dealt with her deficiencies relating to instructional planning. The PDP concerning behavior management included a the following description of Clemons' perceived shortcomings: The teacher fails to: maintain consistency in the application of policy and practice by: establishing routines and procedures for the use of materials and the physical movement of students. formulating appropriate standards for student behavior identifying inappropriate behavior and employing appropriate techniques for correction. Under the heading, "Strategies for Improvement, Correction, and Assistance," this PDP enumerated the following interventions: To date (10/27/99), by parental requests, a total of five (5) students have been removed from teacher's classroom to assist in alleviating severe disciplinary concerns. Teacher will be provided with an aide to assist with classroom behavior management. (This strategy will be in place during the week of November 1, 1999.) Alliance Coach will observe teacher and provide suggestions and feedback on effective classroom behavior management techniques. Curriculum Facilitator will observe teacher and provide specific suggestions and feedback on routines and procedures teacher can implement on effective transitioning techniques. Teacher will be afforded the opportunity to observe exemplary classroom teachers to identify and implement best practices for behavior management strategies. Grade 3 Team Leader will assist teacher in developing and implementing a classroom discipline plan. Team Leader will demonstrate, model, plan, and provide feedback. Outside Consultant will observe teacher and provide specific support and assistance in effective behavior management strategies. Teacher will attend a behavior management workshop, review observations with administrator, and implement appropriate strategy(ies) in own classroom. The PDP document advised Clemons that if she failed to correct all areas identified as deficient by February 11, 2000, she would receive an "Unsatisfactory IPAS evaluation," and a "recommendation for termination of contract" would be made. The PDP for correcting Clemons' problems in the area of instructional planning described her identified deficiencies as follows: The teacher fails to: select, adapt or develop, and sequence instructional materials and activities for the designated set of instructional objectives and student needs. create interest through the use of materials and techniques appropriate to the varying abilities and background of students. use individual student interests and abilities when planning and implementing instruction. The prescribed interventions for these deficiencies were: Alliance Coach will assist in providing appropriate materials, orienting techniques, demonstrating and modeling instructional strategies, transitioning techniques, and improving the overall learning environment of the classroom. Alliance Coach will meet weekly with teacher to provide specific support and assistance with feedback. Grade 3 Team Leader will review strategies and provide intensive support and assistance in areas of aligning objectives with lesson plans which focus on content, materials, lesson presentation, and student activities. Curriculum Facilitator will model and demonstrate a reading lesson, provide feedback, observe teacher presenting a lesson, and provide feedback of reading lesson to teacher. This process will be repeated on a weekly basis through November 18, 1999. Teacher will be afforded the opportunity to observe exemplary classroom teachers to identify and implement best practices for instructional planning and lesson management. Outside Consultant will observe teacher and provide specific support and assistance in effective instructional planning. Like the other PDP, this one notified Clemons that failure to correct all identified deficiencies by February 11, 2000, would result in a recommendation that her contract be terminated. As Miller testified, "this [the coordinated intervention strategy set forth in the PDPs] wasn't an afterthought where we just patchwork everything together. We worked together as a team in order to help [Clemons] meet with success." (T. 209.) Jounice Lewis is a Coach with the Alliance of Quality Schools (the "Alliance") in Broward County. The Alliance is a local program that provides assistance, in the person of coaches such as Lewis, to teachers in low performing schools. 7/ Alliance coaches help teachers with curriculum instruction. They are not invited into a school except upon the vote of 80 percent of the faculty. Taking part in the implementation of the PDPs that Clemons had approved, Lewis observed, counseled, and assisted Clemons while she was on 90-day performance probation during the 1999-00 school year. Lewis remembered a teacher who was having difficulties: "Often [Clemons'] class was disruptive, and I think that this may have been because there was not a routine." (T. 162.) The reading center was "not inviting." (T. 165.) The physical environment was not "conducive to learning;" one time, Clemons' students "were all around the classroom rather than in one area." (T. 166.) "Ms. Clemons' classroom was not organized, it was in disarray." (T. 167.) In Lewis's opinion, the behavior of Clemons' students did not seem to improve during the 90-day probation period. Further, Lewis observed at hearing that although Clemons had been receptive to Lewis's suggestions, she nevertheless had failed to improve her performance in the area of classroom control or management. Lewis was sure that Clemons had the "content knowledge" but felt that Clemons was unable to teach what she knew because her classroom was not under control. Bennett continued to observe and evaluate Clemons during the probation period. Using the IPAS instrument, Bennett rated Clemons "unsatisfactory" in the categories of instructional planning 8/ and behavior management 9/ for the period from October 22, 1999 through November 10, 1999. On this same IPAS, Bennett also assigned Clemons a rating of "needs improvement" in the area of records management. 10/ Bennett and Clemons both signed this IPAS form on November 15, 1999. Between November 11, 1999 through December 1, 1999, Bennett again assessed Clemons using the IPAS, rating her "unsatisfactory" in the areas of instructional planning and behavior management. In this period, Clemmons improved her rating in the records management area to "satisfactory," but slipped to "needs improvement" in the category, lesson presentation. 11/ Bennett and Clemons signed this IPAS evaluation form on December 9, 1999. On December 10, 1999, Clemons met with Bennett for a mid-point evaluation. Also in attendance was Valerie Proffer, a union representative. Bennett called this meeting to inform Clemons of progress achieved, as well as to make recommendations for correcting deficiencies that persisted. The minutes of the mid-point review meeting report that the participants discussed the many types of assistance that already had been provided Clemons, which included the services not only of Coach Lewis, but also input from the school's Curriculum Facilitator (who had provided suggestions and feedback on effective transitioning techniques) and the Grade 3 Team Leader (who had helped Clemons develop and implement a classroom discipline plan). Bennett notified Clemons that classroom behavior management remained a major area of concern and that deficiencies relating to instructional planning still needed to be corrected. The principal made specific recommendations for curing these problems and prescribed additional interventions, including the retention of an outside consultant to videotape Clemons for a self-critique. By memorandum dated February 3, 2000, Bennett notified Clemons that she had scheduled a conference for February 11 (the last day of the 90-day probation period) to discuss the final IPAS evaluation of Clemons, which would cover the period from January 27, 2000 to February 11, 2000. Also on the agenda for discussion were Clemons' PDPs and her "continued employment at Lauderdale Manors Elementary School." Clemons acknowledged receipt of this memorandum by signing it on February 3, 2000. On an IPAS form dated February 11, 2000, Bennett recorded her final assessment of Clemons. She concluded that Clemons' performance was "unsatisfactory" in the areas of instructional planning and behavior management. The ratings of "U" in these two categories compelled an overall performance rating of "unsatisfactory." Clemons received a "satisfactory" rating, however, in the eight other performance areas identified on the IPAS: lesson management, lesson presentation, student performance evaluation, communication, classroom management, records management, subject matter knowledge, and professional competencies. Thus, while the final IPAS evaluation of Clemons showed, on the one hand, that she had not corrected all identified performance deficiencies, it did demonstrate, on the other, that the teacher had improved during the 90-day probation period in the areas of records management and lesson presentation, and also that she was performing satisfactorily in most of the rated performance areas. Clemons attended the meeting on February 11, 2000, that Bennett had scheduled. At the meeting, Bennett provided Clemons with her final IPAS evaluation. Clemons disagreed with the evaluation and refused to sign it. Bennett informed Clemons that because performance deficiencies remained, she would recommend termination of Clemons' contract. Dwight Hamilton, a BTU representative who attended the meeting, explained the termination process to Clemons. Bennett told Clemons that the next Monday, February 11, 2000, she was to report to the Media Center rather than her classroom, from which Clemons was now being removed. Clemons became angry with Bennett and Assistant Principal Miller (who was also present) and apparently made some intemperate remarks, but these were not the subject of formal charges. By memorandum dated February 11, 2000, Bennett notified the superintendent of her recommendation that Clemons be dismissed immediately, pursuant to Section 231.29, Florida Statutes, for failure to correct performance deficiencies within the 90-day probation period. The superintendent accepted Bennett's recommendation and so informed Clemons by letter dated February 16, 2000. The superintendent advised Clemons, "[p]ursuant to Florida Statute ," that he would recommend to the Board, at its meeting on March 7, 2000, that she first be suspended without pay and, thereafter, dismissed from employment. He expressly predicated the recommendation of suspension without pay on "unsatisfactory job performance." As apparent additional legal authority for his intended recommendations to the Board, the superintendent cited to, and quoted from, Section 230.33(7)(e), Florida Statutes. The superintendent closed his letter by notifying Clemons that the Board would act on his recommendation to dismiss her at its meeting on April 4, 2000, unless she made a written request for formal administrative proceedings before the close of business on March 22, 2000. Clemons timely requested a hearing by letter dated March 2, 2000. The Board met on March 7, 2000, and suspended Clemons without pay pending termination of her contract. A memorandum dated March 15, 2000, to the Supervisor of Personnel Records confirms that Clemons was suspended without pay effective March 8, 2000. Clemons has not complained about any alleged defects in notice or other procedures. Clemons does contend, however, that the assistance afforded her at times interfered with her ability to teach and was not always helpful. 12/ The preponderance of evidence showed, however, that the interventions prescribed for her benefit were appropriate and designed to help Clemons overcome her noted performance deficiencies. In short, the greater weight of the evidence established, as fact, that the Board followed the procedures and met its substantive responsibilities under Section 231.29(3)(d), Florida Statutes. Clemons did not correct all of the performance deficiencies that were identified at the outset of her performance probation in October 1999. At hearing, Clemons admitted that deficiencies in the area of behavior management had not been "totally corrected" by the end of the 90-day probation in February 2000. (T. 134.) While Clemons maintains, with some evidentiary support, that she made progress during the probation period, the established fact is that performance deficiencies, at least in the area of behavior management, remained as of February 11, 2000. In sum, the greater weight of the evidence established, as fact, that Clemons' performance deficiencies were not "satisfactorily corrected" during the 90- day probation, as that phrase is used in Section 231.29(3)(d)2.b., Florida Statutes. The greater weight of the evidence failed to show, however, that Clemons was guilty of any "just cause" for dismissal within the meaning of Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes. 13/ Specifically, as will be discussed below in the legal conclusions, a preponderance of evidence did not show, as fact, that Clemons either committed "misconduct in office" or demonstrated "incompetency" as those terms are defined in Rule 6B-4.009, Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board: (1) reinstate Clemons and pay her back salary from March 8, 2000, through the date of reinstatement, pursuant to Section 231.36(6)(a), Florida Statutes; and (2) terminate Clemons' employment pursuant to Section 231.29(3)(d), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 28th day of December, 2000.
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which Respondent is charged with violation of Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes, by reason of failing to complete required continuing education courses prior to renewal of his license.
Findings Of Fact Respondent David L. Lewis is, and was at all times material hereto, a licensed real estate salesperson in the State of Florida having been issued license number 053344 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued was as a salesperson c/o All Keys, Inc., 1720 North Roosevelt Boulevard, Key West, Florida 33040. By renewal notice, Petitioner notified Respondent his real estate salesperson's license would expire September 30, 1996. The renewal notice advised Respondent that "by submitting the appropriate renewal fees to the Department or the agency, a licensee acknowledges compliance with all requirements for renewal." On or about August 1, 1996, Respondent submitted the required fee to renew his real estate salesperson's license for the period commencing October 1, 1996. As of that date, he had not completed the continuing education requirement. Relying upon Respondent's representation that he had completed all requirements, Petitioner renewed Respondent's salesperson's license. Petitioner discovered the Respondent's status in an audit. In response to Petitioner's request for proof of education for the renewal period commencing October 1, 1996, Respondent submitted a certificate of completion of a continuing education classroom course finished October 2, 1996. By letter dated August 14, 1998, addressed to Petitioner's Investigator Barbara A. Kiphart, Respondent informed Petitioner that the Bert Rodgers School of Real Estate received the correspondence course October 1, 1996. According to the course report, Respondent finished the 14-hour continuing education requirement for the 1996 period on October 2, 1996, two days late. Respondent mailed the correspondence course materials to the Bert Rodgers School of Real Estate sometime during the last few days of September of 1996. At the time he mailed those materials, Respondent believed they would arrive in time to be processed prior to the September 30, 1996, deadline. As a result of some unknown vagary of the mail, the materials arrived on October 1, 1996, and were processed the next day.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case concluding that Respondent committed the violation charged in the Administrative Complaint and imposing as the only penalty a written reprimand. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 23rd day of February, 1999.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Education Practices Commission should deny Petitioner's application for a teaching certificate on the grounds that Petitioner lacks the requisite good moral character and that he has committed an act or acts for which such a certificate could be revoked.
Findings Of Fact The evidence presented at final hearing established the facts that follow. During the 1999-2000 school year, Rolle was employed as a public school teacher in the Miami-Dade County School District (the "District"). He was assigned to Mays Middle School, where he taught drama to sixth, seventh, and eighth grade students. Holding a temporary Florida Educator's Certificate, Rolle was hired initially to work as a substitute teacher. Later during the 1999-2000 school year, Rolle's contract status was reclassified, and he became a "3100" or "temporary" teacher. A 3100 teacher's contract automatically expires at the end of the school year. Before the close of the subject school year, Rolle was removed from the classroom after allegations of misconduct were made against him. When the school year ended, Rolle's supervisor gave him an unsatisfactory evaluation and recommended that the temporary teacher not be re-hired. Consequently, Rolle separated from employment with the District following the 1999- 2000 school year. In the meantime, Rolle applied to the Department of Education for a professional (i.e. non-temporary) teaching certificate, pursuant to Section 231.17, Florida Statutes. On March 28, 2001, the Commissioner, as the head of the Department of Education, issued a Notice of Reasons setting forth the grounds for denying Rolle's application. In a nutshell, the Commissioner alleged that Rolle lacked the good moral character required of a teacher and that he had violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession. Below are the relevant historical facts concerning the specific incidents upon which the preliminary denial of Rolle's application was based.2 The Vulgar Joke On March 17, 2000, Rolle told a vulgar joke to his sixth grade class. One of his students, an 11-year-old girl named D. M., reported the joke to the school's administration, submitting a handwritten statement dated March 23, 2000, that quoted Rolle's monologue.3 Rolle admits having told the joke; indeed, he repeated it in full while testifying at hearing. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by including the entire joke in this Recommended Order. The punch line——"Your mouth smells exactly like your butt"——is sufficient to convey the crudity of Rolle's ill-considered attempt at comedy, which would have been inappropriate in polite adult company. Telling such a coarse joke in the classroom to a group of young schoolchildren at a minimum reflected appallingly poor judgment on the teacher's part. The R-Rated Movies On several occasions during the school year, Rolle showed movies to his sixth and seventh grade classes.4 At least two of the movies, Rolle admitted, are rated "R." Another, Rolle claimed, is rated "PG-13."5 Rolle did not obtain the permission of his students' parents to show the children any of these films in class. While the movies themselves were not offered into evidence, it is a matter of general knowledge based on common experience that R-rated movies are intended for a "restricted" audience and typically contain language, images, and plots to which children under the age of 17 should not be casually exposed. At any rate, clearly, children aged 11 and 12 should not be shown R-rated movies in a public school classroom without parental knowledge and consent. Rolle showed these movies, not for a pedagogic purpose, but merely to entertain the children. Making matters worse, Rolle instructed his students to have sheets of paper on their desks while a videotape was playing so that they could pretend to be "critiquing" the movie if someone (presumably another teacher) were to enter the classroom. Rolle also directed the children not to tell others that R-rated films were being screened in his class, warning the students that if word got out, then someone might complain, with the predictable result that the school's administration would forbid such movies from being shown in the future. The Impromptu Skits In class, Rolle often required small groups of his students to act in impromptu skits as a means of developing improvisational skills. Rolle would describe a scene in broad terms, and the students selected to perform would play assigned parts, making up appropriate dialogue extemporaneously. The plots for some of these impromptu skits were taken from the students' textbooks. But Rolle required the students to act out some other scenes that he had imagined on his own. Several of these skits were highly inappropriate, to say the least. In the sixth grade class, for example, Rolle assigned children to play in a scene involving a lesbian having an affair with her female boss at work; a skit in which a girl describes losing her virginity and becoming pregnant; and a vignette wherein a girl who has been raped reports the crime to her parents and the police. Students not chosen to perform in these skits were obligated to watch them. D. M., the young girl who reported the gauche joke discussed above, was one of the sixth-grade students chosen to play a lesbian. She refused the assignment, whereupon Rolle threatened her with a failing grade. Rolle also instructed his seventh grade students to perform in impromptu skits having adult themes.6 More than once, the plot required these adolescent (or pre-adolescent) children, aged 12 and 13, to explore the subject of homosexual relationships. On one occasion, according to the credible testimony of a (then) seventh-grade student named M. M., Rolle suggested that two girls kiss. One of the girls refused. M. M. described a separate incident during which she and another girl, playing lesbians in an impromptu skit under Rolle's direction, actually did kiss one another, although M. M. professed not to have been adversely affected by the experience. Rolle's Explanations Rolle conceded that he had exercised "bad judgment" in connection with the incidents described above and stressed that he had been "reprimanded" by the District for them. Rolle admitted that he had believed his actions were appropriate at the time taken, but upon reflection he now recognizes that he made what he calls "first year teacher" mistakes. Rolle adamantly denied having intended to harm or embarrass any student. Ultimate Factual Determinations Rolle's classroom conduct during the 1999-2000 school year repeatedly fell short of the reasonable standard of right behavior that defines good moral character. By any reasonable measure, it is wrong for a teacher to show R-rated movies to impressionable sixth and seventh grade students; when that teacher, an authority figure acting in loco parentis, further instructs the students to be prepared to lie about or conceal the fact that such films are being shown, as Rolle did, he not only exhibits a propensity for dishonesty that is incompatible with the position of great trust he holds but also encourages the children in his charge likewise to be deceitful. Similarly, when Rolle told that scatological joke to his sixth grade class, he revealed a lack of respect for the rights of others and behaved in a manner inconsistent with the high standard expected of a public school teacher. Finally, asking children as young as 11 years old to act out or watch scenes in which lesbians discuss an illicit workplace romance; a rape victim describes her trauma; and a pregnant girl speaks about her first sexual experience, as Rolle did, reveals a personality that is preoccupied with subjects unsuitable for the middle school curriculum. If Rolle were soon permitted to teach again, parents understandably would question their children's safety and well-being. The risk of allowing Rolle to return to the classroom, at this juncture, is too great. The conduct in which Rolle engaged, moreover, took place in the classroom during the 1999-2000 school year and directly involved the students in his care. Thus, the conduct involved in this case is both recent and rationally connected to Rolle's fitness to teach in the public schools of Florida. In sum, the evidence fails to establish that, more likely than not, Rolle possesses the good moral character required of a teacher to whom the custody of children is entrusted. For that reason, Rolle is not eligible for certification. There is, further, ample proof that Rolle failed on numerous occasions to exert a reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to learning, health, or safety as required under Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, which is part of the Principles of Professional Conduct. Rolle's multiple violations of this Rule would be grounds for revocation of a teaching certificate and hence independently justify the denial of his application for one. Finally, the greater weight of evidence does not demonstrate that Rolle specifically intended to expose his students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement in violation of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order denying Rolle's application for a teaching certificate and providing that he shall not be eligible to reapply for certification for a period of 15 years from the date of the final order, during which time the Department of Education, in its discretion pursuant to Section 231.262(6)(a), Florida Statutes, may refuse to consider his application, neither granting nor denying same. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of December, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 14th day of December, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is Lawrence J. Ferrara. He holds Florida teaching certificate number 150262, issued by the State of Florida, Department of Education. He is certified to teach social studies, grades 7-12. He has not been assigned to teach outside of this subject area at any time relevant to this proceeding. While Respondent's performance for the school years 1981-82 through 1985-86 is at issue in this proceeding, a review of his annual evaluations for the years 1966 to 1986 indicate a continuing problem in the control of students in the classroom and teaching effectiveness. Respondent was assigned to teach at John I. Leonard High School beginning with the 1970-71 school year and remained in this assignment until his suspension on February 19, 1986. John I. Leonard High School consisted of a 40 acre campus, 145 teachers, and about 2,200 students during the 1985-86 school year. Luke Thornton has served as principal of John I. Leonard High School since October 22, 1981. In dealing with employees, he follows guidelines set out in the collective bargaining agreement with the Classroom Teacher's Association. He is also guided by district school board policy, administrator's directives and the John I. Leonard High School Teacher and Student Handbooks. Thornton has several assistant principals, including "deans", who are authorized to counsel and reprimand employees. Deans are, however, primarily responsible for discipline of students and working with parents. Guidance counselors at the high school are also known as Senior High Counselors. They provide individual and group counseling to students, interpret test results and assist students in career planning. Guidance counselors may counsel other staff members when need arises. While designated department chairpersons within the school have authority to counsel with teachers in their respective departments, the chairpersons do not have the authority to reprimand or evaluate teachers. The chairperson for the social studies department at John I. Leonard High School is Catherine Thornton (no relation to the principal, Luke Thornton). As the chairperson, Ms. Thornton reviews lesson plans of all 16 teachers in the department to assure that objectives of the unified curriculum program are covered by the teacher. This action is mandated by the school board. Teachers are required to prepare lesson plans one week in advance. They must also prepare emergency lesson plans which can be used by a substitute teacher in the event the teacher is unexpectedly absent. Course assignments within the social studies department are recommended by the chairperson and reviewed by the assistant principal assigned to that task. The entire schedule is eventually approved by the principal. Textbooks are issued to each teacher within the social studies department by the chairperson. The teacher returns the books at the end of the semester or school year. If books are not returned, the teacher must collect the cost of the missing textbook from the student responsible for it. The 1981-82 School Year During the 1981-82 school year, Respondent was assigned three 9th grade American government classes and two 11th grade history classes. Respondent's hours of work, to accommodate this teaching schedule, were normally 9:45 a.m. until 5:15 p.m. In previous years, Respondent's assignment had been all 11th grade classes and his hours were normally 6:45 a.m. through 2:15 p.m. Shortly after the beginning of the school year, Luke Thornton became principal. Respondent sought to have his assignment changed by Thornton. The principal denied the request and told Respondent the subject would be revisited at the semester's end. At the end of the semester, Thornton again denied Respondent's request for change in course assignment due to disruption that would be caused in the master schedule, concerns about Respondent's performance, and what Thornton considered to be an excessive amount of failing grades received by students in Respondent's classes during the first nine weeks of the previous semester. During the fall semester, Respondent was absent on several occasions. After the refusal of his request at the end of the semester for a change of his teaching assignment, Respondent took a leave of absence for the entire second semester. During Respondent's absences in the 1981-82 school year, Mary Sandt substituted as the teacher of his classes. Lesson plans were available during the first semester. However, no lesson plans were provided for the second semester. Respondent did not provide any assistance to the substitute teacher in this regard, although testimony of Sandt establishes that other teachers normally provided such assistance. More than any other teacher during the 1981-82 school year, Respondent referred students from his classes to the deans for disciplinary reasons. The referrals were for minor infractions such as talking out of turn, sharpening pencils, and squeaking chairs. Sometimes he referred groups of students for discipline. Earl Higgs, a dean during this school year, discussed ways of handling minor infractions with Respondent. Higgs advised Respondent to review the John I. Leonard Handbook discipline provisions. Respondent was not responsive to these recommendations. Higgs was required to review class rules with Respondent's students on at least three occasions as a result of being called to the class by the Respondent because the class was out of control. Initially, Mary Sandt had some disciplinary problems with Respondent's classes during her substitute teaching for him, but the deans provided her with assistance in gaining control. Thereafter, she was able to control the students with only minor problems. Before referring students, Ms. Sandt attempted to resolve discipline problems in the class. If unsuccessful, she documented her action on a discipline referral slip. Respondent did not follow this procedure. Luke Thornton's first evaluation of Respondent following the 1981-82 school year noted Respondent had a considerable amount of discipline problems with 9th and 11th grade students. In addition, it was noted that students have "difficulty understanding his approach to teaching." Respondent's ineffective working relationship with associates and his failure to attend open house and graduation functions at the school were also noted. The evaluation reflected no areas of strength beyond the observation that Respondent "uses various methods and materials." The 1982-83 School Year The chairperson of the social studies department recommended that Respondent be assigned all 9th grade American Government classes for the 1982-83 school year. The recommendation was approved by Assistant principal Shirley Jackson and by Luke Thornton, the principal. Respondent felt "absolutely demoralized, devastated and dehumanized" and worthless in the eyes of fellow teachers as a result of his assignment to teach 9th grade. The 1982-83 school year produced numerous complaints about Respondent's teaching. His teaching technique essentially consisted of giving students a text book reading assignment and have them answer review questions at the end of the chapter. Students completed these assignments in class time while Respondent read the newspaper or listened to the radio. Students cheated on many occasions in order to complete their work by passing answer sheets around the classroom while Respondent was present. Respondent sometimes gave lectures to his classes. Many times the lectures had nothing to do with the course content. Respondent discussed a lawsuit he had initiated against the school board without relating it to the lesson content. He repeatedly told his students they were immature, he hated them and he preferred to teach upperclassmen. Respondent would tell students to be quiet or find the answer in the book when they asked for assistance. Respondent called students names such as "jackass" and "jerk" in class. Students did not pay attention to Respondent because they found his classes boring. Respondent's general reputation among students was that he was not a good teacher; that he treated students in the same manner each year, and that he was "weird." Many of Respondent's students tried to transfer out of his class. Reasons given to Pat Konttinen a school guidance counselor, for requesting transfers included no motivation for students, inability to understand Respondent's lectures when he gave them, Respondent's failure to lecture on the subject matter, testing students on materials not covered in class, and that the class was boring. Ms. Konttinen discussed specific complaints of students with Respondent, but he did not change his teaching style. The testimony of students concerning the 1982-83 school year reveals that they have had no other teachers at the school who taught as poorly as Respondent. Respondent had the highest rate of textbook losses for the 1982-83 school year. During the first semester of the 1982-83 school year, Ms. Sandt again substituted for Respondent when he was absent. No lesson plans were available contrary to the requirement that such plans be provided. Respondent also failed to complete emergency lesson plans. Ms. Sandt wrote lesson plans and gave assignments when substituting because she had no idea when he would return. When Respondent did return, he threw assignments completed by the students in the trash because Sandt had not graded the work. Substitute teachers do not normally grade papers. The students felt the substitute teacher, Ms. Sandt, was a better teacher than Respondent. During Respondent's absences, Ms. Sandt experienced no discipline problems. Earl Higgs, in his capacity as dean, continued during the 1982-83 school year to receive numerous discipline referrals from Respondent. In each case, Higgs asked students for their side of the story and advised Respondent of actions taken on referrals. These referrals indicated that Respondent did not have proper control of his classes. Students were referred for minor disciplinary matters because Respondent did not want to handle problems on his own. Students who were referred for discipline by Respondent were either never previously referred by any other teacher, or, at most, referred one other time. Respondent continued to send groups of students to the dean. Sometimes the students would get out of control talking and laughing in class because "they could get away with it." On occasion, Respondent would shut the door to the classroom, close the windows and turn off the air conditioner as punishment for the class until the class was in control. On one particular occasion, Luke Thornton walked back to Respondent's room with four girls after they complained that Respondent would not open the room windows and the air conditioning was not working. On arrival at the room, Thornton found the room extremely hot. Respondent was wearing a sweater and the room windows were closed. The principal opened the windows to prevent students from passing out in the heat. Respondent improperly grabbed a student by the arm to discipline him during the 1982-83 school year. Bruises were left on the arm. After an investigation, Respondent was counseled concerning the incident. In his 1983 evaluation of Respondent, Luke Thornton noted that Respondent had knowledge and understanding of his subject matter, maintained an appropriate appearance, possessed appropriate educational qualifications and adhered to the defined duty day. The principal noted no other areas of strength. Numerous performance deficiencies were noted in a sheet attached to the 1983 evaluation form. Specific recommendations for improvement were cited. In regard to teaching technique, Respondent was informed he should vary methods of instruction. Consistency in discipline standards was noted as a way to improve classroom environment. Respondent was urged to strive to achieve rapport with peers and parents, as well as to timely submit lesson plans. Luke Thornton held several conferences with Respondent to discuss the deficiencies noted in the 1983 evaluation. Respondent was not receptive to suggestions. He complained of unfair treatment in course assignments and repeatedly discussed his lawsuit against school officials. Respondent continued to maintain he was better suited to teach 11th graders, although he was certified to teach 9th and 11th graders. The principal told Respondent to be responsible to his students regardless of other personally perceived problems. He also told Respondent that he should work to improve performance. While there is no significant technical difference in teaching either 9th or 11th grade, there is a difference in maturity levels of the students in each grade. Such a difference in maturity levels requires a difference in teaching style. Pat Martin, a guidance counselor, testified that ninth grade boys "get a little antsy" and have to be motivated by the teacher. This testimony was corroborated by Assistant Principal Earl Higgs who preferred to teach 9th graders but conceded they required more assistance and can be more difficult to handle. The 1983-84 School Year Respondent remained in the same teaching assignment during the 1983-84 school year. He did not request a transfer to another school, nor did he request a schedule change. Testimony of students of Respondent for 1983-84 school year was consistent with the testimony of his students from the 1982-83 school year. Respondent's teaching techniques did not vary from the previous year. Respondent's attitude remained unchanged in the 1983-84 school year as he continued to advise his students that they were immature and that he preferred to teach upperclassmen. Students requested transfers at an increased rate from Respondent's classes, indicating that Respondent was unresponsive and they did not know how they were doing in his class. Respondent was advised of student and parent complaints by guidance counselors Pat Konttinen and Melinda Wong. They observed no change in his behavior. Two written complaints were received by Ms. Wong concerning Respondent's behavior in the classroom. Respondent did not issue required progress reports to students at the proper time to advise them whether they were failing. When several students were failed by Respondent, they complained about this fact. Luke Thornton discussed this problem with Respondent. Respondent had the second highest rate of textbook losses for the social studies department. Students defaced a number of books due to Respondent's improper storage of the books. Respondent continued to ignore requests to make lesson plans available. As of February, 1984, Respondent had turned in three lesson plans for a 20 week time period. By June, 1984, Respondent had completed five lesson plans when he should have completed a total of 36 lesson plans. The lesson plans completed by Respondent were usually unsatisfactory. Respondent was on leave for approximately three weeks during the Spring semester of this school year. The substitute teacher was Robin Thomas. Respondent left no lesson plans, nor did he have emergency lesson plans available as required. Catherine Thornton, the department chairperson, provided Ms. Thomas with assistance. Thomas created lesson plans, gave assignments to students and corrected the results even though she was not required to do so. She had no problems with discipline in any of Respondent's five classes. She was 21 years old at the time. When Respondent returned to the class after his absence, the students did not want him back and told Respondent to go away. Respondent did not consider Thomas' graded assignments. Students were required by Respondent to repeat the work previously given by Thomas. Also, after returning to school, Respondent requested lesson plans from Ms. Thomas contrary to normal procedure. On several occasions, David Culp, a dean at the school, was advised by Respondent that he, Respondent, refused to teach the class. Students also told Culp that Respondent would stop teaching. Culp received numerous complaints from parents about the lack of teaching their children received from Respondent. Respondent refused to grade papers on one occasion. He also refused to sign a withdrawal slip for a student even though requested to do so by Culp's office. Both Culp and Earl Higgs received frequent discipline referrals from Respondent. Higgs, serving his last semester as dean during the first semester of the 1983-84 school year, testified that Respondent's referrals did not diminish while he was a dean. Culp became a dean beginning with the 1983-84 school year. Culp's testimony was consistent with that of Higgs concerning the type of referrals Respondent sent to him. Culp was also called to Respondent's room to assist Respondent in regaining control of the class. According to Culp, he routinely visited Respondent's class because of his personal observation that Respondent did not have adequate control of students and the atmosphere in the classroom was so hostile that learning could not take place. Culp discussed Respondent's large number of discipline referrals with Respondent. Culp, like Higgs, had many more discipline referrals from Respondent than other faculty members. Culp estimated 25 per cent of all referrals received by him were from Respondent with the remaining 75 per cent split among the remaining 139 faculty members. Students continued to complain that Respondent did not open windows or turn on the air conditioner when requested. A parent's complaint regarding Respondent's discipline techniques was filed with Luke Thornton. Respondent began to come to work late and leave early. This action was noted and Respondent was warned to adhere to the defined duty day. On April 25, 1984, Luke Thornton placed Respondent on a remedial program known as the Notice, Explanation, Assistance and Time (NEAT) procedure as a result of Respondent's continuing problems. The purpose of the program is to provide assistance to teachers with performance problems. Respondent was given a detailed written summary of all deficiencies noted in his performance and given until October 16, 1984, to correct those deficiencies. Among the deficiencies noted were failure to use acceptable teaching techniques, lack of a positive classroom environment through use of acceptable control, lack of professional and effective working relationships with peers and failure to submit proper records. Respondent believed the NEAT procedure was a "device used to get rid of tenured teachers, especially those who made waves." He characterized the "T" in NEAT for "termination," not "time". Respondent's evaluation for the 1983-84 school year noted that the same deficiencies pointed out previously still existed. The evaluation noted that Respondent possessed appropriate educational qualifications and used good oral and written language. Among other subjects, Respondent was criticized for having an inadequate variety of methods and materials, inadequate planning, using inappropriate language with students, discussion of inappropriate topics with students during class time, unwillingness or inability to work effectively with parents, unwillingness or inability to provide a positive learning environment, failure to submit proper records, failure to comply with defined duty days, and failure to have an effective relationship with colleagues. He was admonished to avoid improper language with students, to maintain appropriate standards of discipline and to promote a positive relationship between students and teacher. The 1984-85 School Year At the beginning of the 1984-85 school year, Luke Thornton asked Respondent what assistance he could offer Respondent that had not yet been provided. Respondents refused the principal's offer of assistance. Based on testimony of students who had him as a teacher for the 1984- 85 school year, Respondent's teaching methods did not vary. Students again confirmed that Respondent told them he hated 9th graders and felt they were immature. Students also confirmed that when given worksheet assignments, some students would cheat while Respondent read the newspaper, listened to the radio or looked out the window. Respondent continued to refer to his lawsuit against the school board and school officials during class time. He also discussed with his students the qualifications of another teacher in the social studies department. Respondent's general reputation among his students was that he was boring and no one liked or respected him. Instead of paying attention to Respondent, some students would sleep or "horse around." Students indicated they did not learn anything or learned very little because Respondent did not teach. Also, these students had not encountered any other teachers at the school with teaching problems like those of Respondent. Complaints by students regarding Respondent's refusal to open windows and doors for air continued. On one occasion, Respondent told the class the air conditioner was not working, but refused to open windows because the students were too loud. Respondent refused to give credit for assignments given by the substitute teacher. He refused to issue progress reports. He refused to change a student grade after being directed to do so by Luke Thornton, although such change was appropriate. Guidance counselors continued to receive requests from students seeking transfers from Respondent's class. A new guidance counselor for the 1984-85 school year, Pat Martin, received reports that Respondent constantly talked about his lawsuit during class time. Another guidance counselor also received numerous self-referrals from Respondent's students who were concerned that they were not learning American government, the course subject matter, and that Respondent was talking about his court case. Martin, who had formerly served as a social studies teacher at the school with Respondent, was unable to discuss complaints she received with Respondent. He would not communicate with her and requested she not be allowed to sit in parent conferences with him. As a result, Martin was forced to communicate with Respondent in writing. She handled several complaints of students and parents in this manner. Guidance counselor Elizabeth Konen informed Respondent of complaints from students and parents. Usually, Respondent advised Konen he had no time to participate in conferences with the parents and students. In some instances, Respondent would not respond to parents requests that he contact them. At other times in parent conferences, Respondent would discuss his personal problems with the administration rather than the student's problems. Respondent improved in this school year slightly on textbook accountability, but books and desks continued to be defaced. He also continued to disregard his defined duty hours. Respondent did not turn in any lesson plans during the entire school year. At the conclusion of the year, he turned in a complete set of plans. Those plans did not meet requirements of indicating what part of the unified curriculum objectives had been met. In addition to David Culp, who continued to receive a large number of student discipline referrals from Respondent, Sandra Cowne was assigned to be a dean. Ms. Cowne's testimony is that 35 to 45 percent of her time was spent dealing with referrals by Respondent. Cowne noted 75 per cent of those referrals could and should have been handled by Respondent. Cowne requested students who were referred by Respondent to write out the details of the incident where the student's version differed with that of Respondent. Usually, Respondent did not indicate on the referral form that any action had been taken by him, or whether he had provided instruction to his students about expected and acceptable behavior. Students admitted to administrators that they deliberately "egged" Respondent on, particularly when he made personal comments about them. They also complained that Respondent would shut the windows and make them sit in the heat for discipline, or that he would turn off the air conditioner. They complained that Respondent made them write sentences as punishment, an inappropriate method of discipline. Cowne dealt with several problems when it became apparent Respondent did not have control of his classes. She assisted Respondent in calming classes down and restoring order. The disruption caused by discipline problems adversely affected the amount of learning that took place in Respondent's classroom. Luke Thornton decided to extend the NEAT Procedure to the cover the entire 1984-85 school year. During this time, numerous conferences were held and memos provided to Respondent concerning a multitude of problems. Respondent was observed in class by three administrators. The first observation was conducted on September 19, 1984, by H. W. Berryman, an assistant superintendent and area administrator. An employee of the Palm Beach County School District for 24 years, Berryman has evaluated the performance of principals, teachers, department heads and directors. In his memo to Luke Thornton following the observation, Berryman noted that too much time was taken with roll call and students were not attentive to Respondent's lecture. Berryman was concerned that students in the class were not involved in the total learning process. Berryman stated that he foresaw Respondent "in serious difficulty in managing conduct of students and considered this his most urgent need for growth." On October 4, 1984, Respondent was observed by Dr. Mona Jensen. Jensen is a consultant, certified by the Florida Performance Measurement System (FPMS). The FPMS was designed to determine effective teaching behaviors. Jensen also trains other administrators in the use of FPMS, both locally and statewide. The FPMS utilizes a written instrument called a Summative Observation Form. This form is used to evaluate teacher performance by recording the types of effective and ineffective behaviors observed in four domains: management of student conduct, instructional organization, presentation of subject matter and communication skills. Jensen has previously observed teachers with performance problems on the NEAT procedure. The report provided by Jensen to Respondent and Luke Thornton was based on actual behaviors of Respondent which she observed. Jensen noted in the report that students were talking to one another and not participating in the activity at hand. Jensen provided specific recommendations for improvement in all the areas addressed by the Summative Observation Form. According to Jensen, the main problem with Respondent's teaching technique was the lack of several positive teaching behaviors. She offered Respondent a conference and assistance, but he rejected her offer. Respondent was also observed by Lois Biddix on October 29, 1984. She is a FPMS certified state trainer and is authorized to train administrators to observe teachers. Biddix used the Summative Observation Form in her observation of Respondent. Biddix provided a written summary to Respondent and to Luke Thornton. She observed students talking and engaging in activities unrelated to the lesson. The atmosphere in the classroom, she observed, was sedentary and lethargic. Students suffered from boredom and frustration caused by Respondent's lack of enthusiasm and failure to introduce new content into the lesson. Biddix's observation of students talking, putting on makeup and sleeping are consistent with those of Berryman and Jensen. Biddix's concern was that students were not involved in the learning process. Her recommendations for improvement were consistent with those noted by Jensen. Dr. Jensen completed a second observation of Respondent on January 31, 1985. Again, she provided a written summary of her observations to Respondent and Luke Thornton. On this occasion, Respondent was presenting a lesson and students were not paying attention or participating in the class discussion. Respondent became frustrated with a student who made a personal remark to him. Jensen's recommendations for improvement were basically the same as those proposed by her in October, 1984. She again offered to arrange a conference with Respondent to discuss recommendations and he again spurned her offer. In response to a recommendation by Earl Higgs that Respondent observe successful teachers in their classrooms, Respondent advised that he wanted to observe Catherine Thornton and Mike Lott. Respondent did not associate with these teachers professionally or otherwise. Both Lott and Catherine Thornton requested that Respondent not be allowed to observe their classes. This request was honored by Luke Thornton because he was aware that Respondent disliked these two teachers. Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1984-85 school year indicated the atmosphere in his class was not conducive to learning. He was criticized again concerning the discipline of his class. It was also noted that he continued to make unprofessional comments to his students despite warnings not to do so. Luke Thornton had reviewed specific incidents of such conduct with Respondent during the school year. The evaluation also noted Respondent's failure to adhere to defined duty days after warnings, other poor work habits (i.e., lesson plans) , and his inability to get along with his peers. The 1985-86 School Year Luke Thornton extended the NEAT procedure for Respondent through November 1985, with the hope that Respondent's performance would improve. In the August 19, 1985 letter, Thornton stated: In order to assure that you are given every opportunity to be successful, I am extending the NEAT procedure to November 1, 1985. If at that time, the deficiencies consistently noted . . . continue to exist, I will make my recommendation to the superintendent concerning your employment status with the Palm Beach County School Board. The testimony of Respondent's students for the first semester of the 1985-86 school year confirm that Respondent did not change his teaching techniques despite suggestions given to him for improvement. 9l. One student testified that on the first day of class Respondent told the students they were immature. Other students testified to Respondent's repeated statements that they were immature, childish and that he did not like them. Further, Respondent continued to discuss his problems with the administration during class time. Classroom temperature remained uncomfortable. Respondent advised students to complain to the administration. In one instance, a student vomited in the classroom, creating a foul odor. Although students complained about the smell and administrators located another available classroom, Respondent refused to move his classes. Students testified that Respondent's reputation among them was that he was a "jerk" and a bad teacher who was not liked or respected. Several students stated that they would not want Respondent as their teacher again. He had a bad attitude and they either did not learn anything or they did not learn as much as they felt they should. Respondent did display improvement in taking roll call issuing progress reports, adhering to defined duty days and reducing the number of failures in his classes. He continued to fail to attend open house and to provide adequate lesson plans. In addition to Ms. Cowne and Mr. Culp, Linda Chubbuck was assigned as dean at John I. Leonard High School for the 1985-86 school year. Chubbuck received referrals of students from Respondent which were usually for such minor infractions as talking in class, refusing to be quiet, or not writing "punishment sentences". Student and parent complaints were received by the deans as a result of Respondent continued making students write repetitious sentences. Groups of students were still referred by Respondent. On two occasions, Chubbuck was referred nine to ten students at one time. Cowne was referred six students at one time. The groups were usually referred by Respondent because the students were not being quiet, would not settle down or were otherwise causing disruption. The students who were referred to the deans described Respondent's classes as chaotic. They described Respondent as "caustic and cutting with them." Further, Respondent did not take action to control his classes and rarely instructed students concerning behavior. The deans continued to answer Respondent's requests to come to his class to settle the class down. David Culp saw no improvement in Respondent's ability to control his classes over a three year period. Respondent continued to have more referrals than other teachers, and it was difficult to support Respondent's actions. Due to the constant chaos in Respondent's classes, the deans concluded that very little learning could be taking place. The number of referrals from those classes decreased sharply after Respondent was later suspended from the school. Guidance counselors continued, during this school year, to receive the same type of complaints about Respondent as they had in the past. The only difference was the names of the students making the complaints. The guidance counselors concluded that Respondent was not benefiting students emotionally or academically. Dr. Mona Jensen conducted her third and final observation of Respondent on December 2, 1985. She observed that Respondent's pattern of instruction had not changed. She determined his lesson plan to be insufficient. Respondent had not added any of Jensen's prior recommended positive behaviors to his technique. Respondent continued to fail to provide motivational or positive reinforcement to his students. Jensen concluded that Respondent's "teaching behaviors" were ineffective, ranking Respondent below average as a teacher. Jensen testified that a teacher's behavior should not change based upon the quality of the students. Further, a professional should not allow personal problems with the administration to interfere with providing successful opportunities to students. H.W. Berryman conducted a second observation of Respondent in December, 1985. Berryman was more complimentary of Respondent than was Jensen. Berryman noted Respondent had improved in getting instruction started in the class. He also commended Respondent's knowledge of the subject matter, but noted Respondent seemed to be writing off a majority of the students in the class by allowing them to be inactive and uninvolved in the learning process. Respondent did not communicate well with other social studies teachers at any time at issue in this cause. No improvement of Respondent's behavior in this area was noted during the first semester of the 1985-86 school year. He had heated words for Catherine Thornton, the department chairperson, and expressed his disdain for her. He accused another teacher of theft of a map from his classroom. The atmosphere of the workroom for social studies teachers at the school was hostile and uncomfortable when Respondent was there. Respondent continued to perceive his assignment to teach 9th graders to be a demotion. His peers did not agree. Testimony of teachers indicates that each level of teaching has unique problems. Some teachers volunteered to teach 9th grade. Respondent had difficulty with the administration over reserved parking spaces for the deans, refusing to refrain from parking in the places reserved for them until ordered by Luke Thornton to park elsewhere. The school's security officer was asked by Respondent to investigate the theft of pens and pencils from his desk, as well the source of a stick figure drawing of Respondent. The security officer had not received similar requests from other teachers. An evaluation of Respondent on November 18, 1983, noted he did not have an up to date plan book; that parent complaints about Respondent's unwillingness to work to resolve student problems had been received; and that Respondent remained unable to have a positive relationship with coworkers. Respondent was on the NEAT procedure for a total of 16 academic months. During that time, Respondent's teaching style did not change. He continued to make disparaging remarks to students, failed to provide classroom management and failed to improve his peer relationships. He did not attend open house functions, and failed to maintain adequate lesson plans. Parent and student complaints about him did not diminish. District administrators and school personnel were unable to influence Respondent to change his behavior. Due to Respondent's inability to change and the finding that Respondent was damaging students, Luke Thornton recommended Respondent be terminated from employment. Respondent was suspended in February of 1986, and subsequently terminated from employment by the school board. In Luke Thornton's professional opinion, which is credited, Respondent performed incompetently as an educator from the fall of 1981 until his termination. Further, Respondent's personal conduct during that time seriously reduced his effectiveness as an employee of the district school board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered revoking Respondent's teaching certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of August, 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 24th day of August, 1988. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS Petitioner submitted 128 proposed findings of fact. Those findings are treated as follows: 1. Included in finding 2.-3. Included in part in findings 1-3, remainder rejected as unnecessary for conclusion reached. 4.-5. Included in findings 4-5. 6. Included in findings 6-7. 7.-8. Included in findings 9-10. Included in finding 12. Included in finding 11. Included in part in finding 6, remainder rejected. Included in finding 7. Addressed in findings 13-14. 14.-15. Addressed in finding 14. 16. Included in finding 15. 17.-18. Addressed in findings 16 and 14. Included in finding 17. Included in finding 18. 21.-22. Included in findings 18-19. 23.-24. Included in findings 20-21. Included in finding 23. Included in finding 24. Included in finding 25. 28.-30. Included in findings 26-28. Included in finding 29. Included in finding 30. Rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. 34.-35. Included in finding 32. 36.-37. Included in findings 33-34. Included in finding 31. Included in finding 36. 40.-41. Included in findings 37-39. 42.-43. Included in findings 41-42. 44. Addressed in part in finding 43. Remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. 45.-55. Included in findings 44-54. 56.-57. Addressed in finding 55. Included in finding 56. Included in finding 48. 60.-61. Included in findings 56-57. 62. Included in findings 58-59. 63.-64. Included in findings 60-61. 65.-66 Included in finding 62. 67.-70. Included in findings 63-66. 71.-75. Included in findings 67-70. 76.-83. Included in findings 72-77. 84.-85. Included in finding 76. 86. Included in finding 71. 87.-94. Included in findings 77-83. 95.-128. Included in findings 85-111, except for a portion of proposed finding 122 which is rejected as unnecessary for conclusion reached. RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS Respondent submitted 145 proposed findings of fact. They were encompassed in 52 pages and are treated as follows: 1.-19. Rejected as unnecessary to conclusion reached and cumulative. 20.-24. Included in part in findings 13-14, and 21; remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. 25. Addressed in part in finding 15. Remainder unnecessary for conclusion. 26.-28. Rejected as unnecessary for conclusion reached. 29.-31. Addressed in part in finding 20. Remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. 32.-33. Included in findings 37-38. 34. Included in finding 60. 35.-36. Included in part in finding 88, remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. 37.-38. Included in part in finding 108, remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. 39.-40. Included in part in findings 3133, remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. 41.-52. Rejected as unnecessary to conclusion reached. Included in part in findings 20-22, remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion reached. Rejected as unnecessary to conclusion reached. Included in part in finding 40, remainder unnecessary to conclusion. Included in finding 23 in part, remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. 57.-63. Rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. 64.-65. Included in part in finding 93, remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. 66.-73. Rejected as unnecessary to conclusion reached. 74. Included in part in finding 113-114, remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. 75.-80. Rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. Addressed in finding 45. Rejected as unnecessary to conclusion reached. 83.-84. Included in part in finding 46, remainder unnecessary to conclusion reached. 85. Rejected, unnecessary. 86.-87. Addressed in part in findings 46 and 57, respectively; remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. 88. Included in part in finding 88. Remainder unnecessary. 89.-90. Rejected as unnecessary to conclusion reached. 91.-96. Included in part in findings 34-35, remainder rejected as unnecessary. 97.-100. Rejected as unnecessary to conclusion reached. 101.-102. Included in part in finding 14, remainder unnecessary to conclusion. 103.-107. Rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. 108.-113. Included in part in findings 58-59, and 79; remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. 114.-118. Rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. 119.-120. Included in part in finding 87, remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. 121.-123. Rejected as unnecessary to conclusion reached. l24.-125. Included in part in finding 80. Remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. 126.-129. Included in part in findings 81-84, remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. Included in part in finding 67. Remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. Included in part in finding 86, remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. Rejected, unnecessary to conclusion and cumulative. Included in part in finding 88, remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. Included in part in finding 89, remainder rejected as unnecessary. 135.-136. Rejected, unnecessary to conclusion reached. 137.-141. Included in part in findings 102-103, remainder unnecessary to conclusion. 142.-143. Included in part in finding 85, remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. 144.-145. Included in part in finding 110, remainder rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire 325 John Knox Road Suite C-135 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Thomas W. Young, III, Esquire 208 West Pensacola Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sydney H. McKenzie, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Martin B. Schapp, Administrator. Professional Practices Services Department of Education 319 W. Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Karen B. Wilde Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been employed by Petitioner as a teacher pursuant to a continuing contract for approximately 15 years. He has a bachelor's degree and a master's degree in the area of education. During the 1988-89 school year Respondent was assigned as a teacher to Highland Oaks Middle School. Danielle Fisher was a student in Respondent's fifth period math class. On May 8, 1989, during math class, Dantelle Fisher became involved in a loud argument with one of her friends over which of the two girls was the owner of a "fucking lipstick." Fisher, who was also eating candy, kept proclaiming to the other girl, "Fuck you. It's mine." Fisher's argument disrupted Respondent's math class and the class next door. Respondent directed Fisher to be quiet, and Fisher refused. Respondent directed her again to be quiet, and again she refused. Respondent directed her to leave the room, and she refused. Respondent again directed her to leave the room, and she yelled at him "Fuck you. Screw you, asshole." Fisher continued yelling profanities, and Respondent went over to where she was sitting. He took her left arm to guide her out of her seat, and she resisted, refusing to move. He then exerted a small amount of force, pulling her up from her seat. Respondent gave her her books and her purse and led her by her left arm to the open classroom door, instructing her to report to the office. Respondent then closed the classroom boor. Fisher then opened the classroom door and screamed at Respondent, "Fuck you. I'm going to get you fired." She then yelled to her classmates, "Everybody, remember this." She then showed them her left arm which at that moment showed finger prints, i.e., the impression of where Respondent's fingers had been on her arm. She then left. By the time that Fisher reached the principal's office, she had red welts and scratches on her right arm. Respondent had not touched Fisher on her right arm. Fisher was not humiliated or embarrassed by the incident. She had been removed from Respondent's classroom on previous occasions for disruptive conduct and had been removed from her social studies class on a previous occasion for banging on the wall.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Specific Notice of Charges filed against Respondent and reinstating Respondent to his position as a classroom teacher with full back pay from the date of his suspension to the date of hid reinstatement. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of April, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER D0AH CASE NO. 89-6345 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1 and 6 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact lumbered 2 and 3 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this proceeding. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 4 has been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues herein. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 5 and 7-12 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence in this proceeding. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 13 and 14 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting recitation of the testimony, conclusions of law, or argument of counsel. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 5 and 6 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact: numbered 1-4 and both numbers 7 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting recitation of the testimony, argument of counsel, or conclusions of law. COPIES FURNISHED: William DuFresne, Esquire DuFresne and Bradley 2929 Southwest Third Avenue Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 Jaime C. Bovell, Esquire 1401 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Dr. Paul W. Bell, Superintendent Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Sydney H. McKenzie, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether the employment screening standards in Chapter 435, Florida Statutes, can, without more, serve as the basis for the Petitioner's terminating the Respondent's employment as a teacher. If so, whether Respondent's actions were sufficient to warrant termination of his employment.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties and on the contents of Exhibits 1 through 4 attached to the Agreed Motion to Request Submission of Briefs in Lieu of Hearing, the following findings of fact are made: At all times material to these proceedings, Mr. Ano was employed by the School Board as a teacher, a position that he has held for approximately 21 years. The facts and events stated in the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office Offense Report prepared April 5, 2002,3 led to the arrest of Raymond Ano and his wife, Toby Ano, late on the evening of March 28, 2002, and the early morning hours of March 29, 2002. An Amended Information was filed on September 18, 2002, with the Criminal Division of the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, charging Raymond T. Ano with battery on a police officer, resisting an officer with violence, and defrauding an innkeeper. On October 31, 2002, Mr. Ano pled guilty to the offenses of battery (lesser), resisting an officer with violence, and defrauding an innkeeper. In an Order entered November 5, 2002, the court withheld adjudication of guilt and sentenced Mr. Ano to probation for 18 months for defrauding an innkeeper and for resisting an officer with violence and for 12 months for battery, with the sentences to run concurrently. Mr. Ano did not report his arrest and guilty plea to the School Board; however, this violation of School Board policy is not, of itself, sufficient to justify termination of his employment.4 On July 16, 2004, the School Board voted to suspend Mr. Ano without pay and to terminate his employment, based on Mr. Ano's plea of guilty to the charge of resisting an officer with violence. The School Board followed its procedural rules in investigating this matter and in voting to terminate Mr. Ano's employment. An Amended Petition for Suspension without Pay and Dismissal from Employment was issued July 30, 2003, in which the School Board alleged that there was just cause for Mr. Ano's suspension and termination based on his failure to report his arrest and his plea of guilty to an offense enumerated under Chapter 435, Florida Statutes, specifically, resisting arrest with violence, in violation of Section 843.01, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Broward County, Florida, enter a final order: Finding that Mr. Ano's plea of guilty to a violation of Section 843.01(2)(gg), Florida Statutes, does not provide a legally-sufficient basis for terminating Mr. Ano's employment with the School Board of Broward County, Florida; Reinstating Mr. Ano's employment with the School Board of Broward County, Florida; and Paying Mr. Ano his back salary from the date of his suspension without pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 June, 2004.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent's professional service contract should be re-newed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the Dade County School Board (Petitioner) was a duly constituted school board, charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Article IX, Constitution of the State of Florida, and Section 230.03, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Helen F. Ruby (Respondent) was employed with the Petitioner as a teacher pursuant to a professional service contract (PSC). Respondent has been employed with Petitioner as a PSC teacher for approximately 15 years. Respondent is a member of the United Teachers of Dade (UTD). As a member of UTD, Respondent is bound by all the provisions of the labor contract between Petitioner and UTD. The UTD contract requires the utilization of the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS) to evaluate the performance of teachers. All teachers employed by the Petitioner are evaluated pursuant to the TADS, which is an objective instrument used to observe minimal teaching behaviors. The TADS instrument evaluates teacher classroom performance in six categories which are preparation and planning; knowledge of subject matter; classroom management; techniques of instruction; teacher-student relationships; and assessment techniques. A seventh category, referred to as professional responsibility, reflects the duties and responsibilities of a teacher in complying with the Petitioner's rules, contractual provisions, statutory regulations, site directives, and all policies and procedures relating to record-keeping and attendance. This system of evaluation records deficiencies observed during the observation period and provides the prescription for performance improvement. At all times material hereto, the document used to evaluate Respondent's performance was the TADS document, more specifically, TADS, Classroom Assessment Instrument (CAI). The TADS CAI contained the six categories, not the seventh, in evaluating Respondent's performance. 1995-96 School Year During the 1995-96 school year, Respondent was assigned to John F. Kennedy Middle School (JFK) to teach Language Arts at the seventh grade level. On November 13, 1995, Respondent was formally observed by JFK's Assistant Principal. Respondent was found unacceptable in classroom management. As a result, she was placed on prescription and was prescribed activities to help her overcome her deficiencies in classroom management. The prescription, which includes the prescriptive activities and a date certain for completion or submission of the prescriptive activities, is recorded on the TADS Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement (ROD). After the formal observation, the Assistant Principal held a post-observation conference with Respondent at which the Assistant Principal discussed the deficiencies and the prescriptive activities on the ROD. Respondent was notified, among other things, that she had a right to write any explanation that she may have on the TADS document; but Respondent did not provide a response on the TADS document to the noted deficiencies. On December 15, 1995, a mid-year Conference-for-the- Record (CFR) was held. Present at the mid-year CFR were the Principal, Assistant Principal, Respondent, and a UTD representative. During the mid-year CFR, Respondent's prescription status was addressed, due to her unsatisfactory performance in classroom management, and her future employment status with Petitioner. Respondent was provided an opportunity to address the deficiencies and concerns noted in the mid-year CFR; however, Respondent did not provide a response. A written summary of the mid-year CFR, dated January 8, 1996, was prepared by the Principal. Respondent received a copy of the summary. On March 11, 1996, Respondent was formally observed by the Principal. Respondent was found to be unacceptable in techniques of instruction and assessment techniques. As a result, she was placed on prescription and was prescribed activities to help her overcome her deficiencies in classroom management, which were recorded on the ROD. After the formal observation, the Principal held a post-observation conference with Respondent at which the Principal discussed the deficiencies and the prescriptive activities. Respondent was notified, among other things, that she had a right to write any explanation that she may have on the TADS document or an appendage thereto; however, Respondent did not provide a written response to the noted deficiencies. At times during the post-observation conference, Respondent was argumentative and resistant. On March 21, 1996, a CFR was held. Present at the CFR were the Principal, an Assistant Principal, Respondent, and two UTD representatives. During the CFR, Respondent's unacceptable performance in the classroom, resulting from the unacceptable observations of November 13, 1995, and March 11, 1996, was discussed. Respondent was notified that a second unacceptable consecutive summative would result in an external review and that a recommendation to not renew her professional service contract may be made. A written summary of the CFR, dated March 22, 1996, was prepared by the Principal. A copy of the CFR summary was provided to Respondent. The evidence is insufficient to conclude that a summative observation form was provided to Respondent or Respondent’s UTD representatives. By letter dated March 22, 1996, the Petitioner’s Superintendent of Schools notified Respondent, among other things, that she was being charged with unsatisfactory performance in classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships, and assessment techniques. Further, Respondent was notified that, if her performance deficiencies were not corrected during the 1996-97 school year, her employment with the Petitioner may be terminated; and that the assessment of her performance would continue throughout the remainder of the school year. By letter dated March 28, 1996, the Petitioner’s Associate Superintendent of Schools notified Respondent, among other things, that she had not been recommended for renewal of her PSC and that the Petitioner had acted on the recommendation to not renew her PSC. Further, Respondent was notified, among other things, that her performance would continue to be assessed throughout the 1995-96 and 1996-97 contract school years; and that, unless her performance deficiencies were remediated, her employment with the Petitioner would terminate at the close of the 1996-97 contract school year, with her last day of employment being June 14, 1997. On April 29, 1996, Respondent was formally observed by JFK's Assistant Principal. Respondent was found to be unacceptable in classroom management and techniques of instruction. As a result, she was placed on prescription and was prescribed activities to help her overcome her deficiencies in classroom management and techniques of instruction, which were recorded on the ROD. After the formal observation, the Assistant Principal held a post-observation conference with Respondent at which the Assistant Principal discussed the deficiencies and the prescriptive activities. Respondent was notified, among other things, that she had a right to write any explanation that she may have on the TADS document or an appendage thereto; however, Respondent did not provide a written response to the noted deficiencies. As a result of Respondent receiving three unacceptable observations during the 1995-96 school year, JFK’s Principal requested an external review of Respondent’s classroom performance. An external review is a formal observation which requires an on-site administrator and an off-site region or district office administrator to be observers, a two-on-one observation. The observers are both in the teacher’s classroom at the same time; they observe the same lesson plan; and they rate the TADS CAI items independently, using their own judgment. After the two observers independently assess the teacher’s classroom performance, they meet and collaboratively prepare a prescriptive record of observed deficiencies which includes their observations substantiating the deficiencies. The prescription is recorded on the ROD. Written notice must be provided to the teacher that an external review will be conducted. The CFR summary dated March 22, 1996, provided Respondent with notice that an external review would be conducted if a condition precedent occurred, which was the occurrence of a second unacceptable consecutive summative. There is no dispute that the formal observations conducted on November 13, 1995, and March 11, 1996, comprise the first two consecutive TADS CAI observations; and that the formal observations conducted on March 11, 1996, and April 29, 1996, comprise the second two consecutive TADS CAI observations. There is disagreement as to whether the observations comprise the first unacceptable consecutive summative and the second unacceptable consecutive summative, respectively; however, a finding is so made and, therefore, the condition precedent was satisfied. Moreover, a finding is made that the mid-year CFR summary dated March 22, 1996, provided Respondent notice of the external review. On May 30, 1996, an external review of Respondent’s classroom performance was conducted by JFK's Assistant Principal (the on-site administrator) and by the Instructional Supervisor of the Division of Language Arts and Reading (the off-site administrator). Both observers rated Respondent’s classroom performance on the TADS CAI as unacceptable in preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships, and assessment techniques. Each observer rated Respondent independently on the TADS CAI. The two observers did not discuss their ratings of Respondent prior to completing the TADS CAI rating. After performing their independent ratings, the two observers discussed Respondent’s performance. Neither observer changed their ratings during or after the discussion. As a result of Respondent receiving an unacceptable external review, the two observers discussed and developed prescriptive activities to assist Respondent to overcome her deficiencies, which were recorded on the ROD. After an external review, the on-site observer has the responsibility of conducting the post-observation conference and preparing and issuing the prescription. In accordance therewith, the Assistant Principal held a post-observation conference with Respondent and discussed the noted-deficiencies and the prescriptive activities. On June 14, 1996, Respondent was placed on prescription in the category of professional responsibility, the seventh category of TADS, by the Principal. Respondent was given prescriptive activities to assist her to overcome her deficiencies in professional responsibility, which were recorded on the ROD. The Principal held a conference with Respondent to discuss the prescription. Respondent’s annual evaluation was conducted on June 14, 1996. During the 1995-96 school year, the Principal and her staff provided Respondent with assistance to overcome the noted deficiencies. However, Respondent’s classroom performance remained unacceptable. Respondent’s overall performance was found unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships, assessment techniques, and professional responsibility. Respondent had failed to remediate these unacceptable categories. Respondent received an overall unacceptable annual evaluation for the 1995-96 school year. 1996-97 School Year JFK had a new principal for the 1996-97 school year. The Principal was informed as to Respondent’s prescription status. The Principal met with Respondent, reviewed the prescription with her, and offered to assist Respondent with the prescriptive activities. Respondent indicated to the Principal that she needed no assistance. By memorandum dated September 24, 1996, the Principal notified Respondent that, pursuant to the prescription, Respondent had failed to submit the prescriptive activities which were due on September 20, 1996, and that, therefore, she was in noncompliance with the prescription. Respondent was also notified that, if she failed to submit the prescriptive activities by September 25, 1996, the professional responsibility (category seven) prescription would be extended for noncompliance. Finally, the Principal provided Respondent duplicates of the June 14, 1996, prescription and TADS documents. Respondent failed to complete the prescriptive activities by September 25, 1996. On October 3, 1996, a CFR was held. Present at the CFR were the Principal, the Assistant Principal, Respondent, and the UTD steward. During the CFR, Respondent’s prescriptive status, noncompliance with the prescription and administrative directives, and future employment status with Petitioner were discussed. The June 14, 1996, prescription was extended to November 4, 1996, and Respondent was advised that her failure to complete the prescriptive activities by the prescribed deadline would be considered insubordination. A written summary of the CFR was prepared by the Principal. Respondent was provided a copy of the summary. On October 8, 1996, approximately one week after the CFR, Respondent was formally observed by the Principal. Respondent was found to be unacceptable in techniques of instruction and assessment techniques. As a result, she was placed on prescription and was prescribed activities to help her overcome her deficiencies in techniques of instruction and assessment techniques, which were recorded on the ROD. After the formal observation, the Principal held a post-observation conference with Respondent at which the Principal discussed the deficiencies and the prescriptive activities. Respondent was notified that she had a right to write any explanation that she may have on the TADS document or an appendage thereto; however, Respondent did not provide a written response to the noted deficiencies. On October 14, 1996, a memorandum from the Principal was submitted to Respondent which notified Respondent that she had failed to submit all prescriptive activities which were due on October 4, 1996, in accordance with the prescription dated June 6, 1996. Respondent was also notified that the required prescriptive activities must be submitted by October 15, 1996; and that, if they were not, the prescription of June 6, 1996, would be extended due to noncompliance. On December 16, 1996, a mid-year CFR was held. Present at the mid-year CFR were the Principal, the Assistant Principal, Respondent, and the UTD steward. During the mid-year CFR, Respondent’s noncompliance with school site directives, noncompliance with Petitioner’s rules, prescriptive status, and future employment status with Petitioner were discussed. Additionally, the assistance provided Respondent to assist her in improving her classroom performance was reviewed. During the mid-year CFR, Respondent was advised that she was in her second year of unacceptable performance status and that she had failed to remediate her noted deficiencies. She was also advised that, if she failed to remediate the noted- deficiencies by the end of the 1996-97 school year, a recommendation would be made for the non-renewal of her PSC, which would be reported to the Florida Department of Education. Additionally, during the mid-year CFR, Respondent was advised that to remediate the noted deficiencies she must receive two consecutive acceptable summative decisions, which would require three formal observations. Respondent was further advised that, if she received two consecutive unacceptable summatives or four formal observations with no pattern of two consecutive acceptable or unacceptable summatives, an external review would be conducted. A written summary of the mid-year CFR was prepared by the Principal. Respondent received a copy of the summary. On February 6, 1997, Respondent was formally observed by the Assistant Principal. Respondent was found unacceptable in classroom management and techniques of instruction. As a result, Respondent was placed on prescription and prescribed activities to help her overcome her deficiencies in classroom management and techniques of instruction, which were recorded on the ROD. Respondent was required to complete the prescriptive activities by February 26, 1997. After the formal observation, the Assistant Principal conducted a post-observation conference with Respondent at which the Assistant Principal discussed the deficiencies and the prescriptive activities. Respondent was notified that she had a right to write any explanation that she may have on the TADS document or an appendage thereto; however, Respondent did not provide a written response to the noted deficiencies. Respondent failed to complete the prescriptive activities by February 26, 1997. By memorandum dated March 4, 1997, the Assistant Principal notified Respondent, among other things, that she was in noncompliance with the prescription because of her failure to complete the prescriptive activities by February 26, 1997; and that she had until March 5, 1997, to submit the prescriptive activities. On February 24, 1996, a CFR was held. Present at the CFR were the Principal, the Assistant Principal, Respondent, and a UTD steward. During the CFR, among other things, Respondent’s prescriptive status, unacceptable classroom performance, and noncompliance with school site directives were discussed. Respondent was advised that she had not remediated her deficiencies and was notified that, therefore, an external review was requested. Respondent was also notified that, if she did not remediate the noted-deficiencies, a recommendation would be made to terminate her employment with the Petitioner and not renew her PSC. A written request for an external review was made by the Principal. Respondent received a copy of the request. A written summary of the CFR was prepared by the Principal. A copy of the CFR summary was provided to Respondent, who was informed that she could provide a written response to the summary. Although not required for PSC teachers, an interim evaluation is used to inform PSC teachers on prescription of the latest summative decision. Also, the interim evaluation notifies the PSC teacher that he/she may be in jeopardy of losing their PSC at the end of the school year. On February 27, 1997, Respondent received an interim evaluation. She was found to be unacceptable in classroom management, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. The overall unacceptable interim evaluation was based on the compilation of the unacceptable formal observations of October 8, 1996, and February 6, 1997. On March 7, 1977, Respondent was formally observed by JFK's Assistant Principal. Respondent was found to be unacceptable in preparation and planning, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. As a result, Respondent was placed on prescription and prescribed activities to help her overcome her deficiencies in preparation and planning, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques, which were recorded on the ROD. After the formal observation, the Assistant Principal held a post-observation conference with Respondent at which the Assistant Principal discussed the deficiencies and the prescriptive activities. The Assistant Principal offered to provide any assistance that Respondent requested to assist her to improve her performance. The date for completion of the prescriptive activities was March 27, 1997. Respondent failed to timely complete the prescription, submitting the prescriptive activities on April 9, 1997. By letter dated March 10, 1997, the Petitioner’s Superintendent of Schools notified Respondent, among other things, that the deficiencies noted in Respondent’s performance in the 1995-96 school year had not been corrected, that he would be recommending to the Petitioner that Respondent’s PSC not be re-issued, and that the Petitioner would act on his recommendation on March 19, 1997. Further, Respondent was notified that her performance would continue to be assessed for the remainder of her contract. On March 19, 1997, the Petitioner acted on the Superintendent’s recommendation. The Petitioner decided not to renew Respondent’s PSC and not to reappoint Respondent to a teaching position. On April 16, 1997, an external review of Respondent’s classroom performance was conducted by JFK's Principal (the on- site administrator) and by the Instructional Supervisor of the Division of Language Arts and Reading (the off-site administrator). Both observers rated Respondent’s classroom performance on the TADS CAI as unacceptable in classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships. Each observer rated Respondent independently on the TADS CAI. The two observers discussed and developed prescriptive activities to assist Respondent to overcome her deficiencies, which were recorded on the ROD. The two observers collaboratively prepared the prescriptive record of observed deficiencies and recorded the prescription on the ROD. After the external review, the Principal held a post- observation conference with Respondent. The Principal discussed the noted deficiencies and the prescriptive activities. Subsequent to the post-observation conference, the Principal assisted and assigned school staff to assist Respondent to improve her classroom performance and with her prescriptive activities. The date for completion of the prescriptive activities was May 9, 1997. Respondent completed the prescriptive activities on May 8 and 9, 1997. On May 29, 1997, an external review of Respondent's classroom performance was conducted by JFK's Assistant Principal (the on-site administrator) and by the Petitioner's Regional Director (the off-site administrator). Both observers rated Respondent’s classroom performance on the TADS CAI as unacceptable in classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships. Each observer rated Respondent independently on the TADS CAI. The two observers discussed and developed prescriptive activities to assist Respondent to overcome her deficiencies, which were recorded on the ROD. The two observers collaboratively prepared the prescriptive record of observed deficiencies and recorded the prescription on the ROD. After the external review, the Assistant Principal held a post-observation conference with Respondent. The Assistant Principal discussed the noted deficiencies and the prescriptive activities. Subsequent to the post-observation conference, the Principal again assisted and assigned school staff to assist Respondent to improve her classroom performance and her prescriptive activities. The date for completion of the prescriptive activities was June 12, 1997. Respondent failed to timely complete the prescriptive activities, submitting them on June 13, 1997. During the 1996-97 school year, Respondent failed to remediate the noted deficiencies. Respondent’s annual evaluation was conducted on June 11, 1997. Respondent’s overall performance was found to be unacceptable in the categories of classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships. Respondent had failed to remediate these unacceptable categories. Respondent received an overall unacceptable annual evaluation for the 1996-97 school year. By letter dated July 15, 1997, the Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards notified Respondent, among other things, that her performance assessment record for the 1995-96 and 1996-97 school years had been transmitted to the Florida Department of Education. Respondent was further informed that her performance assessment record was transferred due to Respondent receiving two consecutive unsatisfactory annual evaluations and that she was being provided written notice that her employment with Petitioner was being terminated, not being renewed, or that the Petitioner intended to terminate, or not renew, her employment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County enter a final order: Not renewing the professional service contract of Helen F. Ruby. Dismissing Helen F. Ruby from employment with the School Board of Dade County. Denying backpay to Helen F. Ruby. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of September, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Twila Hargrove Payne, Esquire School Board of Dade County 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Leslie A. Meek, Esquire United Teachers of Dade 2929 Southwest 3rd Avenue, Suite 1 Miami, Florida 33129 Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Mr. Roger C. Cuevas, Superintendent School Board of Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 403 Miami, Florida 33132-1308
The Issue The issue is whether the Education Practices Commission should impose a penalty or sanctions against Respondent’s teaching certificate pursuant to Sections 1012.795 and 1012.796, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006, based upon the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator’s Certificate No. 602255, which encompasses Elementary Education and English to Speakers of Other Languages, which is valid through June 30, 2003. After beginning her teaching career working in its Reading Lab, Respondent began teaching a fourth-grade class at Ft. Pierce Elementary School. After a year in that position, she taught for approximately nine years at Bayshore Elementary School, also teaching fourth grade, then transferred to St. Lucie Elementary School, where she also taught a fourth-grade class her first year. St. Lucie Elementary School was a new school, which had opened in August, 1996. Respondent taught third grade during the 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 school years at St. Lucie Elementary School after being reassigned from her fourth-grade class. Dr. Jane Hartman is, and was, at all material times, principal of the school. Among her many duties, Dr. Hartman evaluates the instructional staff and attempts to be in the various classrooms frequently. Dr. Hartman provides feedback and support to her teachers in a variety of ways, including staff development days, written suggestions to teachers, and grade chair meetings. Teachers at St. Lucie Elementary School are given a copy of the school handbook, which is discussed at the beginning of each year. In the event Dr. Hartman receives a parent complaint, she first contacts the staff member to discuss the issues. Thereafter, Dr. Hartman arranges a face-to-face conference with the parent, administration, and the teacher, to ensure that everyone is “comfortable that the relationship has mended” so they can “move forward.” During Respondent’s first year at St. Lucie Elementary School, 1997-1998, Dr. Hartman received some complaints from parents concerning Respondent’s dealings with the parents of her students and with various classroom management issues. Dr. Hartman engaged in informal counseling with Respondent concerning these complaints, and observed some changes on Respondent’s part, although not enough. Dr. Hartman and other members of her administration frequently sent notes to Respondent concerning recommendations and criticisms about her classroom performance. Dr. Hartman reassigned Respondent to a third-grade class at the end of her first year teaching at St. Lucie Elementary School, believing that Respondent would have more success with a smaller number of students who, being younger, might be easier to teach. The average age of a fourth-grade student is nine years old. During her career as an educator, Dr. Hartman has both taught fourth graders and had the opportunity to observe fourth graders in the classroom. Fourth graders are normally at that age where they love their teacher; are able to read and write; are creative; and are ready to learn about their world. Dr. Hartman believed Respondent’s class to be an average class of students, a “sweet class in that they not only cared what was said to them personally,” but also, “what was said to their friend, what was said to someone who wasn’t as strong academically.” Respondent referred to many of the students in the class as having behavior problems. Ms. Drew, a music teacher at St. Lucie Elementary School, taught many of Respondent’s students the year they were in her class. Ms. Drew found these students not to be “bad,” but to be “children who had some bad experiences.” Ms. Drew “felt bad” for many of the students who were in Respondent’s class and agreed to teach a fifth-grade class the next year to help many of Respondent’s former fourth graders. Petitioner’s witnesses at hearing consisted primarily of students from Respondent’s fourth-grade class and their parents. The students complained that Respondent had belittled them in her class and made their fourth-grade year a miserable experience. The former students related comments having been made that they were “slow,” “stupid,” “babies,” “stupid idiots,” and that Respondent was “smarter and had more education than all your parents put together.” The students testified that Respondent yelled at them, “was mean,” told them to “shut up,” embarrassed them in front of the other students, and threatened to tape record them so that their parents could hear how much they misbehaved in class. One student was embarrassed in front of the class when Respondent insisted she call her mother on a speakerphone to address why she had not returned her paperwork and money for a candy sale. Another student reported to his mother that Respondent, an African-American herself, told him he was “acting like a stupid nigger.” Many of the students testified that, while they had previously enjoyed school, after being in Respondent’s class, their self-esteem had been shattered by Respondent’s behavior in class. St. Lucie Elementary School followed “Loving Discipline A to Z,” a guide for teachers to follow regarding discipline. Respondent failed to follow these guidelines. Respondent would punish the entire class for the actions of a few students by making them write sentences that, in some cases, were grammatically incorrect. Respondent would also punish the entire class for the actions of a few students by not allowing them to have recess or go to music or art classes outside the regular classroom. Respondent, for another form of punishment, would not choose “Lynx Leaders,” an award given to students who performed well. Respondent enforced inconsistent policies concerning use of the restroom. Although she testified that students could use the restroom whenever they needed as long as it was vacant, at times she refused to allow students to use the restroom, resulting in at least one student wetting his pants in class on more than one occasion and being ridiculed by other students in the class. The allegations by the students against Respondent were made at the time the students were in her class, both verbally to their parents and in writing to their parents and school officials, as well as in testimony at hearing, six years after they had been in Respondent’s fourth-grade class. Respondent’s disciplinary measures were too harsh for fourth graders. Assistant Principal Linda Applebee testified that Respondent had problems following directions. Respondent failed to participate in a bus evacuation drill in February of 1998, and failed to perform a required book check at the end of a nine-weeks' period, which resulted in the school not billing parents for missing books and therefore having to pay for books that were not returned. Dr. Hartman testified that “chaos” reigned in Respondent’s classroom, and that there had never been a teacher, either before or after Respondent, who had such difficulty maintaining classroom management. Dr. Hartman suggested that Respondent observe other classrooms where her students experienced physical education, art, or music, and did not experience the same disciplinary problems. Respondent never took Dr. Hartman’s suggestion. Respondent admitted to some chaos in her classroom when she described one day when a student was simulating a sex act on the floor while another one scribbled on her desk with a marker. Respondent blamed these problems on “poor parenting skills” rather than on her inability to control the classroom. Respondent had a policy of calling a student’s parents when a student refused to follow a warning to behave, but she failed to follow her own procedure. Dr. Hartman believed that Respondent did not follow school procedures and had difficulties with classroom management. Dr. Hartman repeatedly gave Respondent advice and support, but Respondent failed to change her behavior. For example, Dr. Hartman met with Respondent on September 7, 1998, to discuss the resources available at the school for dealing with classroom management. Dr. Hartman informed Respondent that 1) Level I infractions should be handled by the individual staff member involved, rather than immediately calling the front office, which Respondent often did; 2) Discussions about a student should not be held in front of the student or the class; 3) Students should be given supplies needed to participate in class; 4) Students need to be told what to do; 5) Students should be praised for doing what is expected; 6) Students should not be placed in the planning room for time out; and 7) Respondent should point out only positive behaviors of the students. Dr. Hartman explained that violations of these items as set forth in her letter dated September 7, 1998, would have a negative effect on her competence to perform as a teacher. Respondent refused to attend monthly faculty meetings on a regular basis. Further, when she did attend, Respondent often had to be called and reminded to attend, then arrived late and refused to sit with her team members, sometimes even typing at a computer during the meeting. Faculty meetings are important because they help the administration achieve its goals of having a school act with consistency and a common vision and purpose. Respondent sometimes failed to cooperate with parents and the administration in the scheduling and conducting of parent-teacher conferences. At least one family had to involve both Dr. Hartman and the School Board in order to hold a meeting with Respondent. Often, the meetings proceeded badly with Respondent taking little or no responsibility for the issues expressed by the parents. In January of 1998, an incident occurred involving Respondent at a basketball game in St. Lucie County between Lincoln Park Academy and its cross-town rival. Respondent’s daughter, along with one of her friends, was arrested at the game because they refused to listen to law enforcement officers who attempted to remove them from a confrontation with other students who had congregated outside the over-filled gym where the game was taking place. When Respondent arrived at the rowdy scene outside the basketball game, she began to argue with the two law enforcement officers who were arresting Respondent’s daughter and her friend. Respondent used racial epithets directed at the two officers and engaged in disorderly conduct. She called Officer Terry Miller, an African-American, an “Uncle Tom” which he took to mean an African-American person who takes the side of white people rather than people of his own color. She called Lieutenant David Trimm, who is white, a “cracker,” a racial slur used to describe a white person who is prejudiced against African-Americans. In addition to the racial epithets, Respondent attempted to incite the crowd by yelling about the Ku Klux Klan getting away with whatever they want, and that no arrests would have been made had the crowd been predominately white rather than African-American. Based upon Respondent’s actions, both Officer Miller and Lieutenant Trimm feared for their safety. Both officers had dealt with arrests of minors in the past and with their parents who become upset when they see their sons or daughters in handcuffs, but Respondent’s behavior was “totally different” from what they had experienced in the past. Officer Miller “was shocked” at Respondent’s behavior, especially in light of the fact that she was a teacher, and Lieutenant Trimm would have arrested her had he known at the time she was a teacher. Respondent’s behavior at the basketball game was unprofessional and so racially charged that a riot could have resulted from her actions. Dr. Hartman did not reprimand Respondent at the time of the incidents giving rise to this hearing because she believed Respondent could actually improve and change her behavior. After Respondent failed to take Dr. Hartman’s and Ms. Applebee’s advice, Dr. Hartman decided to change Respondent’s position so that she taught third-grade students, in hopes that “a little bit younger would soften her a bit.” Dr. Hartman’s reassignment of Respondent to a third- grade class for the following school year necessitated that her classroom be moved. Some of Respondent’s classroom items had been moved at the beginning of the 1999-2000 school year, and Respondent attempted to take compensatory leave at the start of the year, but failed to follow the proper procedures which included seeking prior permission from Dr. Hartman. Dr. Hartman called Respondent into her office to discuss Respondent’s failure to follow school policies concerning attendance and attitude at faculty meetings and unauthorized use of compensatory time. Respondent did not respond to Dr. Hartman’s questions, but handed her a letter of resignation, accompanied by an anonymous letter criticizing her teaching abilities that had been left in Respondent’s school mail slot. Respondent claims to have written the resignation letter the night before in response to the anonymous letter that she considered to be “harassment.” The substance of the letter, purportedly from a “very concerned parent,” was that Respondent “will always be remembered as a miserable, nasty, uncaring, cruel teacher that does not deserve to teach anyone, especially children.” Respondent further claims that she wrote the letter of resignation in an attempt to be transferred from St. Lucie Elementary to another school. Respondent is aware that, in order to be considered for a transfer to another school, she must first interview with that school and be offered a position. No other school had offered Respondent a position at the time she handed her resignation letter to Dr. Hartman. Therefore, Dr. Hartman could not have considered her request for a transfer. Initially, Dr. Hartman only read the first part of the resignation letter since, once she realized she was going to be without a teacher on the first day of school, she acted quickly to inform her assistant, Ms. Applebee, so that she could immediately seek a substitute to start the next morning. Once Ms. Applebee read the letter, she perceived it to be a threat to the safety of the students and faculty of St. Lucie Elementary School. Dr. Hartman did not read the entire letter until 6:00 p.m., on August 19, 1999, the first day of school because she was busy with all of the special challenges the first day of school presents every year. Once she read the letter, however, Dr. Hartman had “extreme concerns” about the following paragraph: After considering my remaining options, I decided to depart from this position because of YOU and the lack of professionalism displayed on your behalf. I have been subjective [sic] to an extraordinary amount of harassment every [sic] since I’ve been under your supervision. This included lack of administrative support, extreme and undue stress, your trifling and vindictive ways, and last but not least, your prejudice and racist attitude toward students, minorities, and me. These are conditions in [sic] which no one should be subjective [sic] in the workplace. In fact, it seems to almost define going postal. (Emphasis added) Dr. Hartman believed the “going postal” language meant that Respondent might come in and shoot people. Assistant Principal Applebee was concerned for their safety, after she read the letter. Ms. Jane Grinstead, Executive Director of School Operations for Zone 2, St. Lucie County School District, thought the letter constituted a threat. Even Respondent admitted that her husband warned her that “somebody might take your letter offensively,” yet she still gave it to Dr. Hartman. The letter came to Dr. Hartman at a time that was close to the shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado. Dr. Hartman was trained to be on alert for the type of traits that might be exhibited by a person who would do violence at a school. Those traits include antisocial behavior and failure to follow procedures, two traits exhibited by Respondent during her tenure at St. Lucie Elementary School. Further concern arose because this was a time when some United States Postal workers had assaulted, shot and killed their supervisors and some innocent bystanders. As a result of her concerns, Dr. Hartman contacted Ms. Grinstead who put her in touch with Dave Morris, head of security for the St. Lucie County School District. Mr. Morris arranged for a school resource officer to follow Dr. Hartman around the next school day, August 20, 1999. At the end of the day, Assistant School Superintendent, Russell Anderson, spoke with Respondent and informed her that if she wanted to resign, she must leave the school premises, and the resignation would be accepted at the next School Board meeting. During the meeting with Respondent, Mr. Anderson discussed her claims of harassment with her and offered her the chance to file a formal complaint for harassment against Dr. Hartman. Also, Respondent’s union representative, Ms. Clara Cook, informed her that she could file a formal complaint, yet Respondent declined to do so. Based upon his safety concerns, Mr. Anderson asked the school resource officer, Mr. McGee, to escort Respondent off campus. He then drafted a Notice of Temporary Duty Assignment which informed Respondent that she is “further prohibited from being on any school district property.” Respondent requested to rescind her resignation on August 23, 1999. On August 24, 1999, Respondent’s letter of resignation was rescinded and she was suspended without pay by the St. Lucie County School District. On October 6, 1999, Respondent was suspended without pay and notified that the St. Lucie County School District would recommend that she be terminated at the next School Board meeting based on her violation of School Board policies. After a hearing, Respondent was terminated by the St. Lucie County School District as a result of the contents of the resignation letter. As a result of the incidents culminating in her dismissal, Respondent’s effectiveness as a teacher has been called seriously into question. Dr. Hartman explained that an effective teacher is one who “cares about children, cares about their learning, knows how to communicate, [is] open to learning themselves at all times, [is] very caring, compassionate, willing to work with others, realizing the accountability and responsibility that we hold each day, celebrating. You have to be very intelligent because you’re constantly thinking on your feet, planning and preparing and organizing.” Assistant Principal Applebee believes that Respondent did not like the children she taught because she noticed Respondent was not always nice to them; she complained about them; and the children believed they had no one in the classroom who cared about them. Ms. Grinstead, a school district administrator with 35 years of experience, believes that an effective teacher is one who is 1) sensitive; 2) caring toward children; 3) communicates well with peers; 4) communicates well with parents and students; and 5) can give suggestions on ways the parents and the school can work together for the children. Other teachers at St. Lucie Elementary School “rallied to assist” Respondent’s class. Ms. Drew decided to teach fifth grade so she could teach the same students who had been in Respondent’s fourth-grade class. Dr. Hartman would not reemploy Respondent. Assistant Superintendent Anderson would not recommend Respondent for re-employment in the St. Lucie County School District based on the seriousness of the charges. Assistant Principal Applebee would never re-employ Respondent because she did not believe Respondent to be an effective teacher. Officer Miller believes that Respondent should not be reemployed as a teacher by the St. Lucie County School District. Each of Respondent’s former students and their parents does not believe that Respondent should be employed as a teacher anywhere. Respondent takes no responsibility for any of the allegations made against her. She believes that she did nothing wrong, but that the problems complained of by the administrative staff, law enforcement personnel, her former students, and their parents are the result of either discrimination, harassment, or manipulative children and their parents who refuse to take responsibility for their children’s behavior. Despite all the complaints lodged against Respondent by her former students and their parents, her former principal, assistant principal, school district administrators, and law enforcement officers, Respondent received satisfactory evaluations from Dr. Hartman for the period in question in this case. Respondent currently works for the Head Start program, caring for three- and four-year-old children. Before the Administrative Complaint was filed in this case, a substantially similar Administrative Complaint (the same except for the statutory citations which were renumbered by the Florida Legislature) was filed and scheduled for hearing before DOAH. The case proceeded to hearing and the prior Administrative Law Judge opened the record. Petitioner then attempted to amend the Administrative Complaint to correct statutory citations that had been renumbered by the Legislature. Respondent objected to Petitioner’s ore tenus motion to amend. When the Administrative Law Judge announced that he would not rule on the motion to amend at the hearing, Petitioner announced that it was voluntarily dismissing the Administrative Complaint without prejudice and would thereafter file a new complaint with the revised statute numbers. Respondent asserted at that time that she believed Petitioner’s voluntary dismissal would be dispositive of the claims and allegations in it; that she did not agree to a voluntary dismissal; and that she was prepared to proceed. Nonetheless, Petitioner voluntarily dismissed the Administrative Complaint, and DOAH entered an Order Closing File.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent’s teaching certificate be revoked for a period of 10 years, with reinstatement subject to the provisions of Subsection 1012.795(4)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of June, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of June, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Kelly B. Holbrook, Esquire Broad and Cassel 100 North Tampa Street, Suite 3500 Post Office Box 3310 Tampa, Florida 33602-3310 Mark F. Kelly, Esquire Kelly & McKee, P.A. 1718 East 7th Avenue, Suite 301 Tampa, Florida 33605 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 1244 Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of failing to make reasonable effort to protect a student's safety, in violation of section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a).
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator Certificate 646554 in the area of Mentally Handicapped. For the past six or seven years, Respondent has been employed as an ESE teacher at Windy Ridge. The record contains no evidence of prior discipline of Respondent's educator certificate, but the District suspended her for five days without pay for the three incidents that are described below. For the 2012-13 school year, Respondent and four paraprofessionals taught a class of seven ESE students. The paraprofessionals performed tasks assigned to them by Respondent. Absences on December 4, 2012, reduced the class to five ESE students, Respondent, and two of the four paraprofessionals regularly assigned to Respondent's classroom. The principal assigned a substitute for one of the two absent paraprofessionals, so four adults were supervising five students on that day. One of the five students present on December 4 was D.R., who was nine and one-half years old and suffered from a "significant cognitive disability." As documented by his Individual Educational Plan (IEP), which is dated November 6, 2012, D.R.'s mother was "very concerned" about the safety of her son, who was tube-fed, "non-verbal," and able to follow only "some simple one-step commands." The IEP warns that D.R. was in a "mouthing stage," meaning that he put "everything" in his mouth for sensory input. As described in his social/developmental history, which is dated November 1, 2012, D.R.'s health was "fragile." The three incidents at issue took place during approximately one hour at midday on December 4. The first incident took place at 11:10 a.m. Serena Perrino, a District behavior trainer, was sitting alone in Ms. Barnabei's classroom, which is next to Respondent's classroom. The two classrooms are joined by the two teachers' offices, so it is possible to walk between the classrooms without entering the hallway. On a break, Ms. Perrino had turned off the lights and was on the computer at the front of Ms. Barnabei's classroom. While facing the computer monitor, Ms. Perrino heard a noise behind her, turned around, and saw D.R., by himself, seated on the floor playing with a toy. Ms. Perrino knew that he belonged in Respondent's classroom. Without delay, Ms. Perrino walked D.R. toward his classroom, but, as they were passing through the teachers' offices, Ms. Perrino and D.R. encountered one of Respondent's paraprofessionals, who said that she was "just coming to get him, thanks." The second incident took place between 11:30 a.m. and noon. Bernadette Banagale, the substitute paraprofessional assigned to Respondent's classroom on that day, was eating lunch in a small outside courtyard that is located at the end of the hallway where Respondent's classroom is located. Ms. Banagale saw D.R., by himself, enter the courtyard from the doors at the end of the hallway. Ms. Banagale approached D.R. and, with some difficulty, walked him back to Respondent's classroom where she left him in the custody of the other two paraprofessionals, Susan Brown and Delta Porter, but not Respondent, who was not in the classroom when Ms. Banagale returned the child. The third incident took place shortly after noon. Cathy Zimmerman, a teacher, was sitting in a classroom eating lunch with another teacher. Looking out the window of the classroom, Ms. Zimmerman noticed D.R. in the adjoining breezeway, which divides the building from the school parking lot. Ms. Zimmerman did not know D.R., nor where he belonged, but she saw that he was unescorted. Approaching D.R. in the breezeway, Ms. Zimmerman guided him back through the doors leading to a hallway that, after a short distance, intersects the hallway where Respondent's classroom is located. As she was walking the child into the building, Ms. Zimmerman directed the teacher with whom she had been having lunch to enter the nearest classroom to see if anyone could identify the child. As directed, the other teacher entered Ms. Barnabei's classroom, where she found Ms. Perrino, who again took custody of D.R. and immediately returned him to Respondent's classroom where Ms. Perrino found Respondent and one or more paraprofessionals. In an effort to prove that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect D.R., Petitioner offered two pieces of evidence: during direct examination, the principal prescribed that a classroom teacher is required to know at all times the location of her students, and, during cross-examination, Respondent agreed with the metaphor supplied to her by Petitioner's counsel that a classroom teacher is the "captain of the ship." The principal's prescription and Respondent's metaphor constitute the entirety of Petitioner's explicit analysis of the reasonableness of Respondent's effort to protect D.R. The principal's prescription and Respondent's metaphor do not prove that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect D.R. in the first incident. The principal's testimony is inapt because Petitioner failed to prove that a paraprofessional did not always know D.R.'s location; that Respondent failed to protect D.R. when a paraprofessional knew his location, regardless of whether Respondent knew his location; and that D.R.'s safety was compromised at any time during the few seconds that he was in the adjoining classroom. Respondent's testimony is inapt because Petitioner did not prove that a paraprofessional failed to make reasonable effort to protect D.R.'s safety, which would be a pre-condition to attributing this failure to the captain of the ship, as discussed in the Conclusions of Law. The principal's prescription and Respondent's metaphor do not prove that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect D.R. in the second incident. Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent was in the classroom at the time of D.R.'s escape or at any time during his ensuing absence from the classroom and failed to prove that Respondent's absence from the classroom was unauthorized. As for the absence of Respondent from the classroom at the time of the escape in the second incident, the strongest evidence is Respondent's written statement to this effect. Other evidence tends to support Respondent's written statement that she was not in the classroom at the time of the escape. Ms. Banagale's scheduled lunch was 11:30 a.m. to noon, and nothing in the record suggests that the substitute paraprofessional took her lunch at other than her scheduled time. The distance between the front door of Respondent's classroom and the exterior doors leading to the courtyard is the width of the single classroom that separates Respondent's classroom from these exterior doors, so it would not have taken D.R. long to travel from the front door of the classroom to the exterior doors leading to the courtyard. Respondent's scheduled lunch was 11:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., but Respondent testified that she was behind schedule when she took her lunch. She also testified that she returned to the classroom "a little after noon." Nothing in the record indicates how long Respondent took for lunch, but, if she took all of her allotted time, she likely left the classroom shortly after Ms. Banagale, leaving a very narrow window for D.R. to escape, if he were to do so after Ms. Banagale's departure, but before Respondent's departure--a fact that Petitioner has not established. The only evidence suggesting that Respondent was in the classroom at the time of D.R.'s escape comes from Respondent's testimony at the hearing to this effect. Notwithstanding the inculpatory nature of Respondent's testimony, it is impossible to credit it. Provided nearly two years after the incident, Respondent's testimony was, at times, confused and unclear, but her written statement is clear and straightforward. It would appear that, based on the findings below concerning the third incident, Respondent may have confused the second and third incidents. The principal's prescription and Respondent's metaphor do not prove that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect D.R. in the third incident. The third incident is more complicated than the first and second incidents because it is more difficult to determine exactly what Petitioner proved and the extent to which the material factual allegations extend to the proof of the third incident.2/ At minimum, Petitioner pleaded3/ and proved that D.R. escaped from the classroom, and Respondent was in the classroom at the time of the escape. Respondent gave a written statement admitting that she was present when D.R. left the classroom and that she was unaware of his departure "because my back was turned by me working with another student on the computer, [as D.R.] left out the rear door." At the hearing, Respondent testified confusingly, possibly suggesting that she was at lunch or in planning when D.R. escaped in connection with the third incident, but any such exculpatory testimony is discredited for the same reason that her inculpatory testimony regarding the second incident was rejected. As was true of the written statement in connection with the second incident, other evidence tends to support Respondent's written statement in connection with the third incident. As noted in the discussion of the second incident, Respondent returned to the classroom "a little after noon." At this point, Respondent, Ms. Banagale, and Ms. Brown were in the classroom. Ms. Porter's scheduled lunch was from noon to 12:30 p.m., and nothing in the record suggests that she did not take her lunch as scheduled. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, analysis of whether Respondent failed to meet a reasonableness standard may be facilitated by consideration of the burden of taking precautions sufficient to prevent an escape, the probability of an escape, and the magnitude of the threat to D.R.'s safety, if he escaped. The burden of taking additional precautions was not insubstantial. The classroom has three exits, and D.R. used each of them in connection with the three incidents. In the first incident, as noted above, D.R. used a side exit through the teachers' offices to get to the adjoining classroom of Ms. Barnabei. In the second incident, D.R. used the front door to get to the courtyard. In the third incident, D.R. used the rear door to access the adjoining breezeway, where Ms. Zimmerman found him no more than 75 feet from the rear door. Evidence suggests that locking the doors at each of these exits was forbidden, possibly due to fire regulations. Although three adults were supervising only five ESE students at the moment of D.R.'s escape in the third incident, the paraprofessional who normally taught D.R. one-on-one at the time of the escape was absent. It is not entirely clear how long Respondent was in the classroom before D.R. escaped, but Respondent was performing instructional duties at the moment of the escape, so additional attention by Respondent to security would have meant reduced instruction, at least of the child whom she was teaching one-on-one at the time of the escape; this adds to the burden of taking escape precautions.4/ The probability of D.R.'s escape was demonstrably very high, as evidenced by his three escapes in a single hour on December 4. The magnitude of the threat to D.R.'s safety from an escape is difficult to assess. D.R. was a medically fragile, highly vulnerable child. However, he suffered no injuries in any of the three escapes that are the subject of this case. The magnitude of the threat posed to D.R.'s safety from escaping was thus low. Considering that the burden of taking additional precautions was moderate, the probability of escape was high, and the magnitude of threat to D.R.'s safety from an escape was low, it is impossible to find that Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect D.R.'s safety by preventing the escape in connection with the third incident. The analysis in the preceding paragraphs focuses on Respondent's failure at the moment of D.R.'s escape, not on the duration of his absence from the classroom and any ongoing failure to notice that the child was missing from the classroom. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, Petitioner did not plead these failures as grounds for disciplining Respondent, but, in an abundance of caution, the following findings address these alternative grounds for determining that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect D.R.'s safety in connection with the third incident. There is no direct evidence of how long D.R. was out of the classroom in connection with the third incident. There is only one point in time established by direct evidence: Ms. Zimmerman first saw the child at 12:10 p.m. There is no direct evidence of when D.R. escaped from the classroom, nor could there have been such evidence from the known witnesses. Ms. Zimmerman's written statement notes that all of the physical education teachers, which may include her, were in the area of the breezeway from noon to 12:07 p.m., and they never saw D.R. Ms. Zimmerman's statement implies that someone would have seen D.R. if he had been anywhere in the breezeway by himself. Although Ms. Zimmerman could have estimated how long she had the child before turning him over to Ms. Perrino, no one asked her to do so.5/ And there is no other direct evidence of how long Ms. Zimmerman had the child. Based on the evidence cited in the preceding paragraph, D.R. escaped the classroom between 12:08 p.m. and 12:10 p.m. and returned to the classroom between 12:11 p.m. and 12:13 p.m. Limiting inferences to those supported by clear and convincing evidence, as discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the earliest that D.R. left the classroom was 12:09 p.m., and the latest that D.R. returned to the classroom was 12:11 p.m. This means that Petitioner has proved that D.R. was absent from the classroom for no more than two minutes: one minute by himself and one minute accompanied by Ms. Zimmerman. The burden of taking adequate precautions to detect the child's absence and return him to the safety of the classroom is lower than the burden of preventing the escape, which can occur in a few seconds, although it is difficult to assess what exactly would have been required of Respondent to conduct a search or, by notifying school administrators, to cause a search to be conducted. The burden of preventing an escape is much greater than the burden of noticing, within two minutes, that a child is missing from a five-student classroom. The magnitude of the threat to D.R.'s safety rises the longer that he is out of the classroom, especially unescorted. Presenting a closer case than the pleaded case involving only an escape, the claim that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort, when directed to the length of time that D.R. was out of the classroom, requires consideration of any effort that Respondent made during D.R.'s absence. The duration of D.R.'s absence is thus linked to whether Respondent noticed that D.R. was missing and, if so, what Respondent did upon discovering that he was gone. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, because inferences are limited to those supported by clear and convincing evidence, Petitioner has not proved that Respondent and the paraprofessionals failed to notice that D.R. was missing. There is no direct evidence that Respondent and the paraprofessionals failed to notice that D.R. was missing from the classroom. The record lacks admissions from Respondent and the two paraprofessionals in the classroom during the third incident that they were unaware of D.R.'s absence.6/ Both Ms. Zimmerman and Ms. Perrino testified that they did not see anyone in the vicinity of the classroom looking for D.R., and this testimony is credited, but supports no more than an inference by a preponderance of the evidence that the adults in the classroom were not looking for the child, and does not support even an inference by a preponderance of the evidence that the adults in the classroom had failed to notice that D.R. was missing. Ms. Perrino testified that when she returned D.R. to the classroom, none of the adults present seemed to have realized that the child had been missing. This testimony is credited, but, lacks important detail, including on what this testimony is based and whether this observation applied to Respondent, so as to support no more than an inference by a preponderance of the evidence that the adults had not noticed that D.R. was missing. Thus, even if Petitioner has pleaded the duration of D.R.'s absence and a failure to notice the absence of the student as grounds for determining that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect his safety, Petitioner failed to prove these claims by clear and convincing evidence
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of December, 2014.
