Findings Of Fact Based on my obersvation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the arguments of counsel, and the briefs which were filed post- hearing, the following relevant facts are found. Ernest B. Brown is the holder of Post-Graduate Rank II Florida Teaching Certificate No. 167290, covering administration and supervision, elementary education and junior college which by its term is valid until June 30, 1985. Ernest Brown, Respondent, has been employed in the public schools of Pinellas County as fifth grade teacher at Gulf Beaches Elementary School since August, 1975, and was on continuing contract during the 1976-77 school year. He resigned effective May 31, 1977 after inquiries were raised concerning his personal conduct with a female fifth grade student (Michelle Stewart). Thereafter the Department of Education received a report from the Pinellas County School officials on or about June 1, 1977 indicating that Respondent had been charged with lewd and lascivious acts in the presence of a female child under the age of 14 and handling and fondling a female child under the age of 14 years. Pursuant thereto and following an inquiry by the staff of the Professional Practices Council, on July 18, 1977, said Council issued a report to the Executive Committee of the Professional Practices Council whereupon the Executive Committee recommended that the Commissioner of Education find that probable cause exist to believe that Respondent is guilty of acts which provide grounds for the revocation of his Florida teaching certificate. By letter dated July 27, 1977, the Commissioner found probable cause and directed the filing of the instant petition herein. Michelle Stewart, eleven years old and presently a fifth grade student at Gulf Beaches Elementary School, was a student of Respondent while she completed here third grade instruction. Ms. Stewart was approximately three weeks late reporting for classes during her third grade school year. After being in school for approximately two weeks, she sought assistance from Respondent regarding problems she was having with her math. At that time, there were approximately three or four other students also seeking assistance from the Respondent. Respondent asked Michelle to sit in a chair behind his desk where she waited until the other students had received their assistance. According to Ms. Stewart, Respondent asked to touch her pants in the crotch section. Ms. Steward was shocked but did not protest when the Respondent touched her in the seat of her pants for approximately one minute. On another occasion, Respondent was invited to attend a birthday party given at Michelle's house by her. Respondent was reluctant to attend inasmuch as he did not have a gift to give her. He reluctantly agreed to attend based on the enticement of Ms. Stewart, her mother, and several other students who attended the party. When persuaded to attend the party, Respondent agreed only to come if Ms. Stewarts mother permitted him to take Ms. Stewart shopping for some clothing within the next few days. As best as can be determined from the record, it appears that the birthday party was during the early part of May, 1977. Within a few days, Respondent arranged to take Ms. Stewart shopping by obtaining permission from her mother. However, as the facts were later brought out, it appears that Respondent obtained permission from Ms. Stewart's mother by telling her that he wanted Ms. Stewart to assist him in arranging some books on his book shelves, and Ms. Stewarts mother agreed with the condition that Ms. Stewart be brought back home before six oclock. Ms. Stewart testified that she was picked up by Respondent and taken to his home where they were alone. Immediately after entering Respondents house, he asked here if she was hungry and whether or not she would like to fix herself a sandwich and watched TV for a few minutes. Thereafter Respondent took some pictures of here with his Polaroid camera. Respondent later offered her some clothing and brought them out telling her that she could try the dresses on in his presence. Ms. Stewart undressed in Respondent's presence and when she finished trying on her dresses that he had purchased, Respondent went to the bathroom and undressed, entering his living room area with only his shirt on. During this time Ms. Stewart was undressed and Respondent asked her to lie down on the floor where he had placed a towel and had relocated an electric fan positioned so that it would blow down on them. She testified that he laid on top of her for approximately ten minutes stroking and kissing her. After this incident was over (approximately ten minutes) Respondent pleaded with Ms. Stewart to refrain from telling anyone about the incident to which she agreed. However she testified that she did tell some of her friends about the incident. Ms. Stewart testified that during the next school year she opted to be in another teacher's classroom and Respondent rebelled by talking to her and here mother in an attempt to get her to change her mind. She refused to do so because she wanted to be in the class with a neighbor and her boyfriend. During the school year Ms. Stewart recalled that she and approximately two other students were taken to several extracurricular activities by Respondent after school hours, including the circus, lipizian stallions, and Holiday on Ice. Detective William Creekbaum presently employed as a real estate salesman, was formerly employed as a detective with the St. Petersburg Police Department was assigned to investigate complaints regarding incidents that the Respondent had allegedly been engaged with several minor students including Michelle Stewart. Detective Creekbaum was assigned to investigate the case on or about May 19, 1977 at which time, and during the course of his investigation, he interviewed approximately ten minor female students. On May 31, 1977, he decided that he should contact the Respondent and make certain inquiries of him, which he did at the school. He visited the school and asked the Respondent to come with him down to the police station for some questions. The Respondent drove his car down to police headquarters and a statement was given to Detective Creekbaum. Prior therto, Respondnent was apprised of his rights per Miranda. Detective Creekbaum explained to Respondent the necessity of his being truthful during his investigation, although he stressed the fact that he made no promises that the matter would be handled internally". He testified, and the statements bear out the fact that the Respondent was, in fact, advised that the investigation was criminal in nature. Initially, during the interview, Respondent denied the material allegations of the charges that he had fondled Michelle Stewart, however, upon repeated questioning by Detective Creekbaum, Respondent admitted that he had fondled Michelle Steward as charged. Although Respondent's position on this admission is that he only told Detective Creekbaum that he had fondled Michelle Stewart because he "thought that was what he wanted to hear and further he was led to believe that nothing would come of it". After the admissions by Respondent, Detective Creekbaum advised Respondent that he was under arrest where he was taken to the booking section of the police department. Immediately thereafter, Douglas McBriarty, an employee of the personnel department for the Pinellas County school system and charged with resolving teacher problems, visited Respondent at the jail where Respondent also admitted to the charge of fondling Michelle Stewart. Dr. McBriarty advised Respondent that it would be the Board's recommendation to immediately suspend him pending a decision on the merits and further action by the board to seek revocation of his (Respondent's) teaching certificate by the Professional Practices Council. Respondent asked if he had any options whereupon Dr. McBriarty told him that he could resign. At that point, the Respondent resigned effective May 31, 1977. The Respondent took the stand and testified that he was misled by Detective Creekbaum into thinking that nothing would come of the incident and that while he denied initially fondling Ms. Stewart, he only changed his story to an admission because he was of the opinion that that was what Detective Creekbaum wanted. He also testified that he was of the opinion that nothing would come of the incident as related by Detective Creekbaum. 1/ Without question, the Respondent enjoys a good reputation in the community and by his fellow peers at the school. He is regarded as a very good instructor who goes over and above his call of duty with respect to his classroom duties. Witnesses Nancy H. Akins and Catherine Smith, both instuctors in the Pinellas County school system, testified of their familiarity with the Respondents professional life and both gave him high marks. As stated, the Respondent denied the material allegations of the charging allegations in this case. Presently he is project director for the Tampa sickle cell disease project. In addition to denying the allegations of the complaint herein he testified that he was "set up" by Detective Creekbaum. He voiced his opinion that he felt that if he were cooperative and stated what Detective Creekbaum wanted him to say that he would go free. The undersigned has examined the record to see whether or not any misrepresentations or other statements were made to prompt Respondent to admit to the fondling of Michelle Stewart and the record is barren in this regard. Based thereon, I shall recommend that the allegations contained in the petition filed herein be sustained.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings and Conclusions, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the teaching certificate of Respondent, Ernest B. Brown, be suspended for a period of two years. ENTERED this 20th day of September, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Mail: 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
The Issue Should the State of Florida, Education Practices Commission impose discipline against the Respondent for sexual misconduct with a student.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent held Florida Teaching Certificate No. 686332, covering the area of emotionally handicapped education, which was valid through June 30, 2002. At all times pertinent hereto, the Respondent was employed as a teacher at Bayonet Point Middle School in Pacso County School District. A.Y. was an emotionally handicapped student who had been a student of the Respondent in the 1999-2000 school year. Between June and December 2000, when A.Y. was 13 years old, the Respondent engaged in an inappropriate relationship with A.Y. This relationship included kissing, fondling, and on more than one occasion the Respondent's digital penetration of A.Y.'s vagina. On or about December 15, 2000, the Respondent was observed meeting A.Y. at a library when she got into his car and drove away. He later claimed he was counseling her. The Respondent was charged with two counts of committing lewd and lascivious acts with a minor as a result of his behavior with A.Y. On November 26, 2001, the Respondent entered a plea of guilty to both counts. The Respondent was adjudicated guilty on both counts, and sentenced to eight years in prison, followed by seven years of probation, concurrently on each charge. James Davis, the Director of Human Resources for the School Board of Pasco County where the Respondent taught, testified. Mr. Davis was a certified teacher with many years of experience and testified about professional standards and the impact of the Respondent's acts upon the school system. For a teacher to enter into a sexual relationship with a student, especially a young, emotionally handicapped student, is very harmful to the student emotionally and academically. A.Y. became defensive, and then felt guilty that she had caused the Respondent to get into trouble. Furthermore, such conduct destroys the faith the parents and other community members have in the educational system. There were articles in the newspaper about the situation which were adverse to the educational environment. The parents of A.Y. were very angry about the acts committed by the Respondent. The Respondent, when questioned by administrative staff for the Pasco School District, admitted he made an error in meeting A.Y., but denied any other inappropriate conduct.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered permanently denying the Respondent a teaching certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 27th day of February, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire Post Office Box 131 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731-0131 James C. Howard Gulf Correctional Institution 500 Ike Steele Road Wewahitchka, Florida 34655 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether the Respondent's teaching certificate should be disciplined in accordance with Sections 231.262(6) and 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, for alleged acts of misconduct as set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint, dated May 19, 1993, in violation of Sections 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, and the Florida Code of Ethics of the Education Profession, Rule 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds Florida Teaching Certificate No. 454394, covering the areas of Elementary Education, Junior High School Science, and Administration and Supervision, which is valid through June 30, 1994. At all times pertinent to the allegations in this case, Respondent was employed as a teacher at Lake Mary Elementary School in the Seminole County School District. On or about March 14, 1988, Respondent was arrested in Volusia County, Florida, and charged with Sexual Activity with a Child by a Person in Familial or Custodial Authority and Committing a Lewd and Lascivious Act in the Presence of a Child. A Felony Arrest Warrant for Respondent was issued by the Circuit Court of Volusia County, dated March 11, 1988. An Information was thereupon filed against Respondent in the case of State of Florida v. Larry O. Williams, Case No. 88-17776, and it charged Respondent with two (2) offenses: Count I: Sexual Activity with a Child by a Person in Familial or Custodial Authority, and Count II: Committing a Lewd and Lascivious Act in the Presence of a Child. The state issued a Nolle Prosequi to the charge of Sexual Activity with a Child. Respondent entered a plea of Nolo Contendere to the lesser included charge in Count II of Attempted Lewd or Lascivious Act in the Presence of a Child, a third degree felony. On or about April 16, 1990, Respondent was adjudicated guilty of Attempted Lewd or Lascivious Act in the Presence of a Child by the circuit court. He was sentenced to serve three (3) years probation, pay $41.00 per month for the cost of supervision, pay $225.00 in court costs and fines, and successfully complete sexual offender counseling. He was also ordered to have no further contact with the victim or any other individuals involved in the case. Detective Diana Floyd, with the Edgewater Police Department, was one of the detectives who assisted in the investigation of Respondent. The victim of the criminal activity by Respondent was Kristina Adkins. Detective Diana Floyd interviewed Kristina Adkins as part of her investigation on March 9, 1988. or about March 15, 1988, the Respondent was suspended with pay by the Seminole County Superintendent of Schools, Robert W. Hughes. On or about March 24, 1988, the Respondent was suspended without pay by the School Board of Seminole County. Respondent was on an annual contract, and his contract called for a renewal each year. The School Board, on or about March 24, 1988, decided not to renew his contract for the following school year. During the 1987-1988 school year, Naomi Whitker was a fifth grade student at Lake Mary Elementary School, and was frequently in Respondent's classroom because her best friend, Cristie Braddy, was a student in Respondent's class. At that time, Naomi Whitker was ten years of age. Naomi Whitker and Cristie Braddy would regularly assist in Respondent's classroom, generally after school. On a regular basis, Respondent would touch Naomi Whitker's buttocks and hug her while she was in his classroom. This occurred during the 1987-1988 school year at Lake Mary Elementary School. The student would put her arms around Respondent's waist, and he would put his hands around her back and then move them slowly down until he touched her buttocks. Naomi Whitker did not think that it was right for a teacher to touch her in that way, and she felt uncomfortable and confused. A similar incident occurred when Respondent hugged Naomi and grabbed her buttocks as he was dropping the two girls off after taking them to dance class. On one occasion in late February or early March, 1988, Naomi was hanging up something on Respondent's classroom wall, and was standing on a chair. Respondent came over, reached under her clothing, and put his hands on her stomach while he was holding her. As a result of this touching of Naomi's stomach, she turned and ran out of the class. She felt afraid, angry, and embarrassed. She did not tell him to stop, but was so afraid that she ran out of the room. On another occasion, Respondent invited Naomi Whitker, Cristie Braddy, and another girl out during the 1987-1988 school year to Monday night skate night, and to Show Biz Pizza thereafter. Respondent paid for the entire evening. As they were driving Respondent asked Cristie if she had any underwear on. Respondent also told Cristie that he was not wearing any underwear either. Cristie Braddy, a student in Respondent's fifth grade class at Lake Mary Elementary School in the 1987-1988 school year, and best friend of Naomi Whitker at that time, was touched by Respondent. He would rub Cristie's back and stomach and then go down to her buttocks. He would also rub her shoulders. Respondent also touched Cristie Braddy outside of the classroom, specifically at Show Biz Pizza, where he touched her back and shoulders. Also on a school sponsored camping trip he rubbed Cristie Braddy and touched her on the outside of her clothes, when he touched her back and shoulders, but on the inside when he touched her stomach. The touching of Cristie Braddy by Respondent occurred during the entire 1987-1988 school year, and was not an isolated incident. It occurred on a daily basis. On separate occasions, Respondent asked Naomi Whitker and Cristie Braddy to come over to his apartment, and help clean it. However, they declined. On another occasion, Respondent gave Naomi Whitker and Cristie Braddy a silver ring which said "love" on it. In handing the ring to Naomi and Cristie, Respondent said that he wanted them to have it because "I love you". Also during the 1987-1988 school year at Lake Mary Elementary School, Respondent invited Naomi Whitker and Cristie Braddy to the beach or to the mall with him, but they did not go with him. Respondent made inappropriate comments to students in his classroom. For example, he would talk about how he and his wife got divorced because she would not have sex with him. He would also look at Naomi, and say that she needed to shave her legs, or that she was in a bad mood because she was beginning her period. He would also ask about whether the girls were kissing boys. On another occasion in Respondent's fifth grade classroom at Lake Mary Elementary School, Cristie Braddy was sitting in the teacher's chair. Respondent came up from behind her and sat on the chair directly behind her with his legs spread around her. Cristie Braddy quickly jumped out of the chair and went to a different part of the room. Monica Graham, a student in Respondent's fifth grade elementary class at Lake Mary Elementary School in the 1987-1988 school year, was also touched by Respondent. Respondent touched Monica Graham inappropriately on the shoulders and buttocks on the outside of her clothing, and on one occasion, he pinched her buttocks. Monica Graham, as a result of the touching by Respondent, felt weird and embarrassed because he did it to her in front of the other students. She was also angry and hurt by Respondent touching her. On the same camping trip that Christie Braddy and Monica Graham attended, Respondent, who was a chaperon, told the girls on the camping trip that if they got scared at night, they could come sleep in his tent. Respondent invited Monica Graham to go swimming at his house, and one night asked if she wanted to come over and eat dinner with him. Monica Graham did not go because she told her parents, and they said it was inappropriate. Respondent gave Monica Graham his home phone number. He told Monica it was for help in homework, but when she called, he did not talk about homework. Tiffany Gormly, a fifth grade student in Respondent's fifth grade elementary school class at Lake Mary Elementary School during the 1987-1988 school year, was touched by Respondent. Respondent rubbed her shoulders, and tried to hold her hand. When Respondent tried to hold Tiffany Gormly's hand, she kicked him. As a result of Respondent's touching Tiffany Gormly, she felt uncomfortable and embarrassed. There were other students in front of her when Respondent rubbed her shoulders. She was angry, and told Respondent to stop. Respondent also invited Tiffany Gormly to come to his apartment and go swimming. It bothered her, and she did not go. On occasion, Respondent would look under the long table where students sat, as they watched movies in his classroom, and would try to look up the dresses of the girls.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued finding that Larry O. Williams is not guilty of violating the provisions of Sections 231.28(1)(c), Florida Statutes; but is guilty of violating Section 231.28(1)(e), Florida Statutes, for having been convicted of a felony; and is guilty of violating Sections 231.28(1)(f) and (h), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), (e) and (h), Florida Administrative Code, due to his inappropriate touching and conduct with four of his students. It is further RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued revoking Respondent's teaching certificate for the above violations. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 24th day of November, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-2215 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 of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (in part), 8 (in part), 9, 42, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 72, 74, 75, 76, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 96, 98, 99, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107, 111, 114, 116, 117. Rejected as hearsay: paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 43. Rejected as irrelevant or subsumed: paragraphs 7(in part), 8 (in part), 20, 38, 39, 40, 41, 45, 55, 63, 67, 70, 71, 77, 78, 79, 90, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 94, 95, 97, 100, 101, 106, 108, 109, 110, 112, 113, 115. Respondent did not submit proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Boyd, Esquire BOND & BOYD, P.A. 411 East College Avenue Post Office Box 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Larry O. Williams 403 North Monroe Street Versailles, Missouri 65084 Sydney H. McKenzie General Counsel The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Karen Barr Wilde Executive Director 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether respondent's teaching certificate should be revoked on the grounds that he fraudulently obtained a higher ranking teaching certificate and thereby committed an act of gross immorality and moral turpitude.
Findings Of Fact I. Respondent's Wrongdoing Respondent, age 33, taught school in Dade County for over six years. From 1969-1972, he taught physical education at South Miami Junior High School; he then resigned and did not return to teaching until 1978, when he became a substitute teacher at Brownsville Junior High School. Shortly thereafter, he was hired in a full-time position at Brownsville Junior High, where he remained until he resigned in July, 1980. His principal at Brownsville considered him a "very good teacher," (Tr. 55) as "one of the teachers who gave his very best." (Tr. 56.) (Testimony of Carstarphen, Oden; P-4.) Respondent attended high school and junior college in Pensacola. From 1966-1969, he attended Bethune Cookman College in Daytona Beach and earned a bachelor of science degree. His postgraduate training consists of one course he took at Nova University to secure a science certificate. (Testimony of Carstarphen; P-4.) During 1978, Respondent met Eugene Sutton ("Sutton"), an employee of Florida A & M University ("Florida A & M") located in Tallahassee, Florida. One month after their initial meeting, Respondent agreed to pay Sutton approximately $2,800 for a false transcript from Florida A & M purporting to award him a master's degree in elementary education. During the ensuing months, each party performed his part of the agreement: Respondent paid Sutton the $2,800, and Sutton furnished him a false transcript. The transcript, dated April 6, 1979, indicated that he had successfully completed various postgraduate courses at Florida A & M from 1976-1978 and had been awarded a master of education degree; the transcript was a forgery. He never attended Florida A & M University. (Testimony of Carstarphen; P-4.) Since 1969, Respondent had held a rank III (graduate) teaching certificate issued by the Florida Department of Education. A postgraduate degree qualifies a teacher for a higher ranking (rank II, post graduate) teaching certificate. So, in early 1979, Respondent filed an application for the higher ranking certificate; he attached to the application a copy of the fake master's degree transcript from Florida A & M and signed, under oath, the following notarization: I understand that Florida Statutes provide for revocation of a teacher's certificate if evidence and proof is established that the certificate has been obtained by fraud- ulent means. (Section 231.28 F.S.) I fur- ther certify that all information pertaining to this application is true and correct. (Testimony of Carstarphen; P-4.) On June 28, 1979, the Department of Education--relying on the false transcript--approved his application and issued him a rank II, postgraduate teaching certificate, No. 257364. He then applied to his employer, the School Board, for a salary increase based on his postgraduate teaching certificate. His application was routinely granted. During the ensuing 12 months, the School Board paid him an additional $4,047.55 because of his higher ranking postgraduate teaching certificate. (Testimony of Carstarphen Gray; P-5, P-6, P- 8.) In mid-1980, Respondent's wrongdoing was discovered. On October 20, 1980, he pleaded guilty to criminal charges: forgery and grand theft-second degree (two counts). The Circuit Court of Dade County placed him on three years' probation and directed that restitution be made to the School Board. (P- 7.) Respondent has complied with the terms of his probation. He is now repaying, by regular payments, the money which he wrongfully obtained from the School Board. (Testimony of Carstarphen.) II. Appropriate Penalty: Suspension or Permanent Revocation The Respondent contends that his wrongful acts warrant suspension, not revocation of his teaching certificate. In support of that contention, he offered the following testimony: The reason I'm asking for this is that this was my chosen profession, and I think that I am good at it. I realize the fact that I made a tragic mistake that I'm sure would never happen again. It was a circumstance that I feel that someone would have to be involved in to really understand what actually happened. But I could only say that I'm requesting a suspension as opposed to a complete termi- nation so that I can pursue what I've been trained to do and, again, that I do well. (Tr. 48-49.) No evidence was presented which establishes that Respondent's wrongful acts have seriously reduced his effectiveness as a classroom teacher. Respondent has never before been convicted of a crime; neither has he been involved in any prior disciplinary infraction. (Testimony of Carstarphen.) Respondent did not fully cooperate with law enforcement officers investigating his conduct and the fake Florida A & M transcripts. For example, he refused to divulge the name of a friend--even though he did not know whether that person was involved in the fraudulent transcript scheme. (Testimony of McAllister, Jacobson, Carstarphen.) Respondent knowingly submitted the false Florida A & M transcript to the Department of Education; his motive was monetary gain. After filing the higher ranking postgraduate teaching certificate with his employer, he received increased salary payments for approximately one year. (Testimony of Carstarphen, McAllister, Jacobson, Gray.) III. Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Parties The findings of fact proposed by the parties have been considered. Those proposed findings which are not incorporated above are rejected as irrelevant to the issue presented or unsupported by the preponderance of evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Education Practices Commission enter a final order permanently revoking Respondent's teaching certificate, No. 257364. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of October, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Telephone: (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of October, 1981.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence submitted, the following facts are determined: On August 29, 1979, John A. Hall filed with the DEPARTMENT an application for a Florida teaching certificate. Official records indicate that HALL was convicted and found guilty of assault to commit murder in the second degree on November 19, 1970. He was sentenced to 13 1/2 years in the State Prison, and released on a two-year parole in 1977. (R.E. 1.) On January 4, 1980, HALL was employed as a substitute teacher at Beasley Middle School in Palatka, Florida. The only qualifications for being employed as a substitute teacher in Putnam County are that the individual be of age and hold a high school diploma. At his request, HALL's name had been placed on the Beasley Middle School list of available substitutes although it does not appear that anyone at the school was acquainted with him. (Testimony of Meredith Barker.) On January 4, 1980, Harry Willis was a 13-year-old student in the seventh grade math class where HALL was assigned as a substitute teacher. HALL saw him in the back of the room, told him to go to his seat, and pushed him into his chair. When the bell rang, Harry got up and tried to go out the door. HALL told him he wasn't going anywhere, pushed him back, and struck him in the jaw with his fist. Harry pleaded with him to let him go and, finally, pushed him out of the way as he rushed to the principal's office. It took several hours for Harry, with the support of the principal and assistant principal, to regain his composure; he was visibly shaken by the incident. He had never been a disciplinary problem at the school. (Testimony of Ivey, Barker, Lamoreaux). HALL was directed to report to the office of the school principal, Meredith Barker. There, he admitted striking Harry, but defended it was necessary to "uphold discipline." He said he wanted to apologize to Harry and return to his class. Ms. Barker, however, dismissed HALL, telling him to gather his belongings and leave the school grounds. HALL's effectiveness as a teacher at Beasley Middle School has been seriously reduced due to the notoriety of the incident and the expressed desire by parents that he not be allowed to teach there again. (Testimony of Barker.) Immediately prior to the opening of hearing, HALL informed counsel for the DEPARTMENT that the hearing could be cancelled since he was withdrawing his application for a teaching certificate; HALL then abruptly left the hearing room. However, since HALL's statement was not made in writing or on the record, Respondent asserted that the application remained in effect and requested that the hearing be conducted, as scheduled.
Conclusions Petitioner failed to establish entitlement to the requested teaching certificate; moreover, the Respondent Department established two grounds for denial of Petitioner's application: (1) his conviction of a felony, and (2) his having engaged in personal conduct which seriously reduces his effectiveness as an employee of the school board. Petitioner's application for a teaching certificate should, therefore, be DENIED.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That John A. Hall's application for a Florida teaching certificate be DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of November, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of November, 1980.
The Issue The ultimate issue to be resolved in this proceeding is whether the Petitioner should be awarded a doctor of education degree by Florida State University. Petitioner contends that he properly completed the requirements for the degree, that a valid offer of the degree was made to him, that he accepted the offer, and that the degree was then wrongfully withheld. The university contends that Petitioner did not meet the requirements for the degree and that no valid, enforceable offer of it was made to Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact In 1976, Petitioner was admitted into the doctoral program in biology at Florida State University. He applied to transfer to the science education program and was admitted to the doctoral program in science education within the College of Education at Florida State University on June 24, 1977. He was pursuing a doctor of philosophy (Ph.D.) degree. Among the requirements that Petitioner needed to meet in order to receive the degree were successful completion of a diagnostic examination, completion of thirty-six resident hours of course work, course work in the field of statistics, a preliminary examination, approval of a prospectus for a doctoral dissertation, and presentation of an acceptable dissertation and a successful dissertation defense. Following his admission into the Ph.D. program in science education, a supervisory committee was established for the Petitioner, and a major professor was appointed. It was the major professor's and supervisory committee's function to monitor Petitioner's progress and ultimately to make a recommendation as to whether petitioner should be awarded a degree. By November 7, 1980, Petitioner had completed all of the requirements for a Ph.D. degree except for the presentation of his dissertation and the dissertation defense. These were scheduled to be conducted by the supervisory committee on November 7, 1980. Petitioner had been advised by at least two members of the committee that he might not be ready to present and defend his dissertation. Petitioner felt that he was. On November 7, 1980, Petitioner met with his supervisory committee and presented and defended his dissertation. After his presentation, Petitioner left the room, and the committee evaluated the dissertation and defense. The committee unanimously concluded that the dissertation and defense were inadequate. The dissertation was not marginally inadequate. It was grossly below standards. The committee unanimously and appropriately concluded that the dissertation and defense were not acceptable, and that Petitioner had not met the requirements for a Ph.D. degree. Petitioner's major professor felt that the Petitioner had devoted considerable time, energy, and hard work to the degree program. He was concerned that the effort not be totally wasted. He requested that the committee consider accepting the dissertation as adequate for the award of a doctor of education (Ed.D.) degree or a "master's specialist" degree, and that the committee recommend that Petitioner be awarded one of those degrees or that he be allowed to continue working toward a Ph.D. degree. None of the members of the supervisory committee had had experience with the Ed.D. degree. They all considered it an inferior degree and felt that awarding it to Petitioner would constitute something of a "consolation prize." In fact, an Ed.D. degree from Florida State University is not intended to be an inferior degree. Its focus is somewhat different, but the requirements for obtaining the degree are basically the same. The committee was mistaken in considering the offer of such a degree to Petitioner. Indeed, the requirements for an Ed.D. degree being similar, and in some cases identical to those for the Ph.D. degree, Petitioner had not qualified for the award of an Ed.D. degree. After the committee adjourned its proceedings on November 7, Petitioner's major professor discussed the committee's actions with Petitioner. He told Petitioner that pending proper approval, Petitioner would have the options of continuing to work toward a Ph.D. degree, or receiving an Ed.D. or master's specialist degree. It appears that the major professor was overly sensitive about the Petitioner's feelings, and he may not have bluntly advised Petitioner that he failed his dissertation, presentation, and defense. Petitioner considered his options and told his major professor that if it was possible, he would be amenable to accepting an Ed.D. degree. The major professor contacted administrative officials and was advised that the award of an Ed.D. degree would be possible. The major professor advised the Petitioner of that and told him that pending approval from the department chairman who had charge of the science education program, Petitioner could receive the Ed.D. degree. The major professor also advised Petitioner that some revisions would need to be made in the dissertation and that the title page would need to be retyped in order to reflect that it was being submitted in support of an Ed.D. degree. Petitioner complied with the direction to retype the first page, but made only minor revisions in the dissertation. Members of the supervisory committee signed off on the dissertation as being acceptable in support of an Ed.D. degree. The matter was submitted to the department chairman. The department chairman read the dissertation and concluded that it was grossly inadequate. He determined that he would not authorize the award of an Ed.D. degree because Petitioner would need to be properly accepted into an Ed.D. program before he could be awarded such a degree, and additionally because he considered the dissertation inadequate to support an Ed.D. degree. This action was communicated to the supervisory committee. The committee met again and determined that since the Ed.D. degree could not be awarded, that Petitioner should be given failing grades for the dissertation, presentation, and defense. Prior to the department chairman's review of the dissertation, Petitioner had paid his fees and was anticipating being awarded an Ed.D. degree. Since it was not approved by the department chairman, the degree was not awarded. Thereafter, the Petitioner opted not to apply to have his work considered in support of an Ed.D. degree or master's specialist degree. He continued working toward a Ph.D. degree for approximately six months. Ultimately, he decided to drop out of the program, and he initiated this proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by Florida State University denying Petitioner's application for award of an Ed.D. degree and dismissing the Petition for Administrative Hearing. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of January, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of January, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John D. Carlson, Esquire Woods, Johnston & Carlson 1030 East Lafayette Street Suite 112 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Patricia A. Draper, Esquire Charles S. Ruberg, Esquire Florida State University Suite 311, Hecht House Tallahassee, Florida 32306 Dr. Bernard F. Sliger President Florida State University 211 Westcott Tallahassee, Florida 32306
The Issue Whether just cause exists to suspend Respondent without pay for a total of ten days, based on two separate incidents.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Marshall has been a teacher in Broward County for approximately 20 years. At all times pertinent to the instant case, Mr. Marshall was employed as a math teacher at McArthur High School. Prior to working at McArthur High School he had taught math at Hollywood Hills High School, and then at Flanagan High School. During his tenure at Hollywood Hills High School, Mr. Marshall was placed on a Performance Development Plan (PDP), which required Mr. Marshall to remediate and reteach math lessons in an effort to obtain 70 percent comprehension in his classes. During his tenure at Flanagan High School, Mr. Marshall was once again placed on a PDP, which included the same requirements as the previous PDP at Hollywood Hills. Mr. Marshall was next transferred to McArthur High School for the 2007-2008 school year. Because Mr. Marshall had not completed the second PDP while at Flanagan High School, he was placed on a PDP and 90-day probationary period to start his tenure at McArthur High School. He successfully completed the PDP. During the fall of 2010, Mr. Marshall complained about Mr. Jose Gonzalez, the assistant principal who supervised the math department at the time. Mr. Marshall was then permitted to choose which assistant principal would supervise him. He chose Shawn Aycock, who at the time worked as the assistant principal for the language arts department. On November 5, 2010, Ms. Aycock observed Mr. Marshall in his classroom. Ms. Aycock noticed the following deficiencies: Mr. Marshall did not have the students start an activity as soon as the students entered the room, he had the students perform a task that had no educational value and was not tied to the day's activity, he gave inappropriate responses to students' questions, the students were confused with the lesson, he did not provide proper feedback to the students, he did not provide complete answers to student questions, he used vocabulary that was beyond the students' ability, he gave the students a sample problem but did not work through the problem with the students, and he made no attempt to re-teach the lesson or remediate in any way. On November 16, 2012, Ms. Aycock met with Mr. Marshall to discuss the observation. Mr. Marshall was confrontational, denied that the observation of hers was accurate, and accused Ms. Aycock of lying. Ms. Aycock had observed many teachers before she observed Mr. Marshall, but had never seen the need to write up notes after a meeting with a teacher. But after her meeting with Mr. Marshall, she did. Since then, she has not seen the need to write notes arising from a meeting with any other teacher. During the meeting, Mr. Marshall indicated that he would not water down his instruction for any student, and that he would have no problem with observations that were done ethically and did not consist of lies that were made by unqualified individuals. On November 19, 2010, Ms. Aycock provided Mr. Marshall with a memo detailing her concerns and expectations: Concerns: Students were asked upon entering the class to copy the day's objective. Students did not understand all of the math vocabulary used to explain the lesson. A student seeking further explanation on a problem was told,"If you didn't get it not to worry. It will not be on the quiz." Students were referred back to their notes when they questioned the lesson. Only two math problems were worked during a half an hour review. Expectations: All student activities should be of value and tied to the day's activity. Teacher will use math vocabulary consistent with student ability level and explain lessons in multiple ways. Insinuating that lessons are learned only for a test is inappropriate. All student questions will be answered and explained in full. During a review a minimum of five review problems will be worked per concept. Additionally, we discussed the importance of you checking your email. I am directing you to check your email prior to the conclusion of first period and again prior to the conclusion of fourth period. It is important for you to know and understand that these are the same issues that you have had in previous years. Your previous Performance Development Plans (PDPs) have addressed these same concerns. You have received hours upon hours of assistance in these areas. My expectation is that you will follow the directives listed above immediately. If you feel you need assistance, please see me. Next, Ms. Aycock requested that Principal LaPace, who had an extensive math background, observe Mr. Marshall. He did so on January 7, 2011. Mr. LaPace's extensive notes regarding the observation detail Mr. Marshall's failure to have a proper lesson plan, his scattered presentation manner, and his ineffective management of the classroom. Mr. LaPace prepared a memo detailing his concerns and expectations: Concerns: Students were not given clear directions causing confusion among the students. The lesson was not sequential. The objective on the board did not match the lesson being taught. Modeling sample problems were ineffective. Expectations: Always give clear and concise directions to students. Plan and deliver lessons so that are presented in sequential order. The lesson presented in class will align with the objective posted for the day. During a lesson a minimum of three sample problems will be worked per concept. It is important for you to know and understand that these are the same issues that you have had in previous years. Your previous Performance Development Plans (PDPs) have addressed these same concerns. You have received adequate assistance in these areas. My expectation is that you will follow the directives listed above starting immediately. When Mr. LaPace met with Mr. Marshall regarding his observation, Mr. Marshall disagreed with Mr. La Pace's observations, but did not indicate why he did. Mr. Marshall also declined all types of support from other staff members. The administration asked Mr. Marshall to provide documentation of remediation and retesting of students if he had over 35% of his students earning Ds or Fs. The documentation needed to be specific information regarding times that Mr. Marshall sat down with students in small group settings, or phone logs regarding communication with parents, or any type of specific information regarding steps that Mr. Marshall was taking to raise the level of success of his students. Mr. Marshall was never observed remediating or re-teaching, despite the fact that all teachers were asked to allot the final 30 minutes of a class to these activities. On February 17, 2011, Ms. Aycock, Mr. Gonzalez, and Mr. Marshall met for a Pre-Disciplinary Meeting. Mr. Marshall was given a verbal reprimand for insubordination. In the memorandum which documented the verbal reprimand, Ms. Aycock directed Mr. Marshall to: Reduce the number of students in your class receiving D's [sic] and F's [sic] to at or below thirty-five percent through re-teaching and remediating of those students. Check your school email throughout the day, a minimum of twice per day. Follow all directives given by and with proper authority. Failure or refusal to follow the above directives will result in further disciplinary action. On September 20, 2011, Ms. Aycock again met with Mr. Marshall to discuss concerns and expectations, and also to conduct a Pre-Disciplinary Meeting, wherein Mr. Marshall was issued a second verbal reprimand for insubordination. On September 22, 2011, Ms. Aycock wrote a memorandum detailing the conversation during the meeting, and reminding Mr. Marshall that from June 2010 through September 2011, he had attended seven meetings regarding the high percentage of students in his classes that were receiving Ds and Fs. At each meeting, he had been directed to reduce the number of students receiving Ds and Fs to at or below 35 percent, through remediation and re-teaching. Because Mr. Marshall had failed to comply with these directives, and had failed to provide a reason why he should not be disciplined, he was issued the second verbal reprimand. He was also directed to: Reduce the number of students in your class receiving Ds and Fs to at or below thirty-five percent through re-teaching and remediation of those students. Follow all directives given by and with proper authority. Stemming from the same meeting, Ms. Aycock documented her concerns and expectations: Concerns: You are receiving a large number of student and parental complaints in relation to your teaching practices. Students are not being graded in a fair and consistent manner. The department grading policy is not being followed. Meaningful assignments are not being given to students. Students are not receiving corrective and immediate feedback as it relates to their assignments. Expectations: You will model lessons for students. You will differentiate instruction to meet the needs of all the students. You will develop and implement rubrics so students have clear expectations of class participation and effort requirements. All assignments will correlate to the standards as tested by the Geometry EOC. Students will receive corrective feedback within seventy-two hours. It is important for you to know and understand that these are the same issues that you have had in previous years. Your previous Performance Development Plans (PDPs) have addressed these same concerns. You have received adequate assistance in these areas. My expectation is that you will follow the directives listed above starting immediately. Around December 2011, Ms. Aycock was promoted to the position of Principal for a middle school, and Ms. Arnita Williams became Mr. Marshall's supervising Assistant Principal. Ms. Williams and Ms. Aycock once again conducted a classroom observation of Mr. Marshall, and Ms. Williams documented her concerns and expectations as follows: Concerns: Students were not given clear directions causing confusion among the students. The lesson was not sequential. You did not address students' questions and concerns. Modeling sample problems was ineffective. You did not provide and use the correct mathematical vocabulary. Expectations: Always give clear and concise directions to students and check for understanding. Plan and deliver lessons so they are presented in sequential order. Students' questions and concerns need to be addressed. Mathematical vocabulary on student's level should be used. In previous memos additional directives were given. Below were the following expectations: You will develop and implement rubrics so students have clear expectations of class participation and effort. Provide a copy of your participation rubric to Ms. Aycock by the close of business on Friday, September 26, 2011. Differentiate instruction every day the last 30 minutes of class the [sic] meet the needs of ask [sic] your students. Student will receive corrective feedback within seventy-two hours on all graded work. Reduce the number of students receiving Ds and Fs to at or below thirty-five percent through re-teaching and remediation of those students. Daily indicate in your lesson plans interventions and strategies used to differentiate instruction. A minimum of two grades each week must be entered into pinnacle per student. Vocabulary used in class must be consistent with student's ability. Check your school email throughout the day, a minimum of twice daily (before and after school). During a lesson a minimum of three sample problems will be worked per concept. Follow all directives given by and with proper authority. You have been given the above directions numerous times in the past. It is my expectation that all directives will be implemented immediately. On December 12, 2011, Ms. Williams issued a written reprimand for failing to meet the performance standards required of his position as a math teacher. As grounds for the written reprimand, Ms. Williams focused on Mr. Marshall's repeated failure to reduce the number of students receiving Ds and Fs to at or below 35 percent through remediation and re-teaching, and his failure to follow all other directives given by and with proper authority. School administration consistently directed Mr. Marshall to remediate and re-teach daily; he advised the administration that he would do so on one particular day of the week. The administration denied that request. As a result of Mr. Marshall's non-compliance, students were moved from Mr. Marshall's class to other classes, which resulted in a disparate amount of students in other classes. While most math teachers had from 30-35 students in their classes, Mr. Marshall's class was reduced to about 17 students. On January 5, 2012, Ms. Williams conducted a pre-disciplinary meeting with Mr. Marshall, for failure to provide daily re-teaching and remediation for students the last 30 minutes of class, as he had been instructed to do numerous times. He was informed by letter that he was being recommended to the School Board for a three-day suspension. On October 10, 2012, approximately nine weeks into the next school year, Ms. Williams sent Mr. Marshall a memorandum that stated: Due to the large number of complaints, schedule changes, high failure rate and conferences, you are hereby directed to provide the following documentation for each of the 93 students (Juniors) who presently have a grade of F in your class at interims by October 15, 2012. Please provide copies to Ms. Williams and Ms. DiPaolo by 2:45 p.m. Interventions and strategies for each student Parent phone contact log On that same date, Mr. Marshall responded to this request by giving Ms. Williams a document that read as follows: MATHEMATICAL RUBRIC Tests/Quizzes Correct Problems 10pts. Completely Wrong 0pts. Total is 100% Please note that the total number of questions can affect the outcome. Since the reply by Mr. Marshall was completely lacking in usefulness and did not supply the information requested by Ms. Williams, she attempted once again to solicit the proper information from Mr. Marshall by sending an e-mail to him on October 15, 2012, at 6:03 a.m., giving him a second notice that the deadline for production of the requested information was that same day. Mr. Marshall never complied with the directive to provide information on each student who was failing his class. He never asked for more time to collect the information, and despite that fact that he admitted it would have been easy to retrieve his phone log and submit it, he never did so. Ms. Williams met with Mr. Marshall, informing him that he would be recommended to the School Board for a seven-day suspension. The greater weight of the evidence established that Mr. Marshall is guilty of gross insubordination for his conduct before and after July 2012.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board issue a final order suspending Mr. Marshall without pay for a total of ten days, based on his conduct before and after July 2012. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of August, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JESSICA E. VARN 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 28th day of August, 2013.
