The Issue Whether respondent should be terminated from her employment as a continuing contract school teacher, pursuant to Section 231.36(6), Florida Statutes (1981), for alleged gross insubordination within the meaning of Section 231.36(6), Florida Statutes (1981), and Rule 6B-4.09(4), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Elva Jean Newland has been a school teacher for 36 years. She has a Bachelor's Degree in Education from Radford College, a Master's Degree in Learning Disabilities from the University of Virginia, and has completed numerous post-graduate courses. (Testimony of Respondent) She has spent her career teaching young children, ages five through eleven. For the past 16 years, she has been employed as a teacher by the School Board of Charlotte County. Until her suspension in May, 1982 (for alleged gross insubordination) , she was employed, under continuing contract, as a kindergarten teacher at Neil Armstrong Elementary School in Port Charlotte, Florida. (Testimony of respondent) She has developed a personal philosophy on discipline in the classroom. Essentially, she maintains that "You cannot teach a child unless you have that child's attention. You cannot get his attention if there is a disruptive influence. (Tr.-175) For many years, she handled disruptive influences in the classroom by using a small paddle which she referred to as "Mister Bolo." When students became disruptive (such as talking too loud or running about the room) she would invite "Mr. Bolo" to "talk" to them. This was accomplished by the child spanking his or her own hands or feet (after removing the shoes) with the bolo paddle. If the child did not administer the spanking, respondent would. (Testimony of respondent, Hrstka) At her principal's request, respondent eventually discarded the "Mr. Bolo" paddle. The School Board maintains that she used other methods of disciplining disruptive children, that she repeatedly administered corporal punishment in direct disobedience of orders of her superiors and rules of the School Board, and that such misconduct constitutes gross insubordination. Respondent denies having administered corporal punishment in violation of orders or rules, and denies the charge of gross insubordination. II. Rules for Administering Corporal Punishment During the 1980-81 and 1981-82 school years, respondent was aware of the rules of the School Board and the Neal Armstrong Elementary School governing corporal punishment. (Prehearing Stipulation, p. 4) These rules defined "corporal punishment" as: the moderate use of physical force or physical contact by a teacher or principal as may be necessary to maintain discipline or to enforce school rules. However, the term corporal punishment does not include the use of such reasonable force by a teacher or principal as may be necessary to protect themselves or other students from disruptive students. (P-2) Essentially,a teacher may administer corporal punishment to enforce discipline (where other methods of seeking cooperation have failed) in accordance with specific criteria. Corporal punishment must be administered in the principal's office; prior approval of the principal is necessary; an adult witness must be present; the witness and the child must be told of the reasons for the corporal punishment; excessive force cannot be used; and, a written report of the incident must be filed with the principal and sent to the child's parents. (P- 2, P-5) Respondent concedes the propriety of these rules and that corporal punishment may not be administered without first complying with them. (Prehearing Stipulation, pp. 6-7) III. During the 1980-1981 School Years, Respondent Administered Corporal Punishment in Violation of the Rules of the School Board and in Defiance of the Orders of Her Principal In early 1981, Lawrence H. Nickler, then principal of Neal Armstrong Elementary School, received complaints from parents that respondent physically punished her students. Mr. Mickler reacted by issuing her a written order. The order, dated February 13, 1981, instructed her to put aside all references to corporal measures; any gesture which might be misconstrued as of a corporal nature; or the use of any devices in such a manner which might be considered as dealing corporal punishment. This includes or could include a ruler, paddle, bolo paddle, etc. (P-7) He specifically warned her that the continuing concern of parents could threaten her career, that her reputation and professional future were in jeopardy. (Testimony of Mickler, P-7) Nonetheless, on or about May 5, 1981, respondent administered corporal punishment to Michelle White, a student, by striking her on the head--a blow which broke the blue plastic headband she was wearing and bruised the child's scalp. Respondent administered this blow to Michelle in the classroom in the presence of other and without first taking her to the principal for corporal punishment, without first securing the presence of an adult witness, and without advising the witness of the reason for the punishment. She also failed to complete the report which must be filed with the principal and sent to the child's parents. (Testimony of respondent, White, P-8) Faced with this violation of his orders, principal Mickler called respondent to his office on May 6, 1981, and discussed the incident with her, informed her that her action violated his previous order, and specifically warned that any further violations would result in disciplinary action. (Testimony of Mickler, P-9) IV. During the 1981-1982 School Year, Respondent Administered Corporal Punishment in Violation of Rules of the School Board and Orders of Her Principal During the 1981-1982 school year, Robert Hrstka became principal of Neal Armstrong Elementary School. On the first day of school, he met with his teachers (including respondent) and reviewed the school handbook, including procedures for handling disciplinary problems. He specifically informed them that they could use corporal punishment only if they followed the rules; that any teacher who intended to use corporal punishment should report to him for a demonstration of the proper technique for administering it. Respondent, however, did not report to him for the demonstration. (Testimony of Hrstka, Prehearing Stipulation, p. 5) Respondent did, however, come to Mr. Hrstka's office the next day and explain to him how she used her "Bolo" paddle. He responded that her use of the paddle constituted corporal punishment, instructed her that she was to discontinue using it, and reminded her that if she wanted to administer corporal punishment she would have to follow the rules. (Testimony of Hrstka, Prehearing Stipulation, pp. 6-7) Nonetheless, during the ensuing school year, respondent administered corporal punishment to five students, on six separate occasions, in violation of the School Board's rules and her principal's orders. Emily Robarge. In October, 1981, respondent administered corporal punishment to Emily Robarge, a kindergarten student, by slapping her on the hands, causing her to cry. This was done in the classroom in the presence of other students, without securing an adult witness, without first taking the student to the principal's office, without first advising an adult witness of the reason for the corporal punishment, and without completing and filing the corporal punishment report form required by the School Board. (Testimony of Hrstka, Respondent's Response to Requests for Admissions, para. 15) Rebecca Hoop. During February, 1982, Rebecca Hoop, a fourth grade student, was making noise by clicking the handle on the front door of the school. Respondent opened the door, pushed her back, and pinched her on the arm, breaking the skin and causing a black-and-blue bruise. This constituted corporal punishment and was administered without taking the student to the principal's office, without first securing an adult witness, without advising an adult witness of the reason for the corporal punishment, and without completing and filing the corporal punishment report form required by the School Board. (Testimony of Jones, respondent, Hrstka) Brian Chelarducci. During March or April, 1982, respondent took Brian Ghelarducci, a student, into the restroom within her classroom and administered corporal punishment by striking him on the hands three or four times, using a ruler or other wooden object. 3/ This occurred in the presence of the other students and without respondent first securing an adult witness, without advising the witness of the reason for the corporal punishment, without taking the student to the principal's office, and without completing and filing the corporal punishment report form required by the School Board. (Testimony of Smoak, Hrstka) Emily Robarge. During the spring of 1982, Respondent again administered corporal punishment to Emily Robarge, a kindergarten student. Emily was late returning from recess and respondent met her outside the classroom door in the hallway. The door was closed. Respondent held the girl by one arm and spanked her fairly hard on the buttocks four or five times, causing the student to cry. (This was more than a series of taps or a nudging to encourage Emily to move more quickly.) This constituted corporal punishment and was administered without respondent first taking Emily to the principal's office, without securing the presence of an adult witness, without advising an adult witness of the reason for the corporal punishment, and without completing and filing the corporal punishment report form required by the School Board. (Testimony of Hrstka, Collard) Jeff Elliot. In January, 1982, respondent administered corporal punishment to Jeff Elliot, a kindergarten student, by striking him on the hands. In the presence of other students, respondent took him behind a classroom bookcase, told him to hold out his hands, and asked if he was going to slap them or would she have to do it. Several slapping sounds ensued, followed by the boy's cries. 4/ This occurred without respondent first taking Jeff to the principal'S office, without securing an adult witness, without advising the witness of the reason for the corporal punishment, and without filing the report form required by the School Board. (Testimony of Barker) Robert Myers. During 1982, respondent administered corporal punishment to Robert Myers, a kindergarten student, by striking him on the buttocks with a yardstick while he leaned across a desk. She struck him three or four times, the blows were hard enough to hurt, and the boy cried. (She admits that she "swatted him on the backside." Tr.-186) Respondent took this action in the presence of other students, without first taking Robert to the principal's office, without first securing the presence of an adult witness, without first advising the witness of the reason for the punishment, and without completing and filing the report form required by the School Board. (Testimony of Barker) V. Respondent's Violation of Rules and Orders Governing Administration of Corporal punishment Was Intentional Respondent's repeated violations of rules and orders governing corporal punishment support an inference that the violations constituted willful and intentional disobedience of lawful authority. When Mr. Hrstka became principal, Endress Barker--a teacher's aide and friend who worked closely with respondent--asked her not to do anything to jeopardize her (respondent's) job--not to spank children without following the procedures and filing the necessary reports. Respondent replied, "Well, we'll see." (Tr.-154) When this statement is considered together with her admission that she was aware of the corporal punishment procedures--procedures which were clear and definite, and which she repeatedly violated--the willful, even defiant, nature of her violations is convincingly established. The evidence supports a conclusion that she made a conscious decision to continue disciplining children in her own way, notwithstanding the contrary rules of the School Board and the orders of her principal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the School Board sustain charges that respondent engaged in gross insubordination, violative of Section 231.36(6), but allow reinstatement on a probationary basis, conditioned upon her acknowledging her duty to comply with the lawful orders of her principal and the rules of the Board. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 15th day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of March, 1983.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent, William Doran, committed the acts alleged in the Statement of Charges and Petition for Ten-Day Suspension Without Pay, and, if so, the discipline to be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty of operating, controlling, and supervising all free public schools within St. Lucie County, Florida, pursuant to Article IX, section 4(b), Florida Constitution, and section 1001.32, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed as a teacher at SMS, a public school in St. Lucie County, Florida, pursuant to a professional services contract. Respondent has been employed by the School Board for approximately eight years. Respondent most recently provided individualized instruction and assistance to students with individualized education plans. At all times material to this case, Respondent’s employment with the School Board was governed by Florida law, the School Board’s policies, and the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the St. Lucie Classroom Teachers’ Association. Lydia Martin, principal of SMS, was authorized to issue directives to her employees, including Respondent. The 2010-2011 School Year On November 8, 2010, Respondent was counseled by Principal Martin for discourteous and disparaging remarks to students causing them to feel unnecessary embarrassment. Students and parents reported that Respondent made comments in the classroom including “the Bible is crap and we should not believe it,” told students they could not work in groups because they “would just bullshit,” called a student “stupid,” and referred to a group of African-American students as the “black coffee group.” Parents also expressed concern that Respondent discussed prostitution and told students that, in some countries the younger the girls are, the better it is considered because they have not lost their virginity. Respondent denied saying that the Bible is “crap” but admitted telling students that he did not believe in it. Respondent denied calling a student stupid but admitted that he told a student certain choices may be what a “not so smart” person would do. Respondent admitted to referring to a group of black students as a “coffee klatch,” but denied any reference to race or ethnicity. Respondent admitted discussing prostitution in the context of human rights and his personal observations of sex trafficking while serving in the military in East Germany. Principal Martin provided Respondent with a written Summary of Conference that stated, “In the future, do not make comments to students that may cause them embarrassment or that are unprofessional. My expectation is that you will treat students with respect and follow the district guidelines under 6.302 Employee Standards of Conduct and Code of Ethics for Educators.” On May 2, 2011, Principal Martin gave Respondent a Letter of Concern for making comments to a student that caused embarrassment to the student when Respondent stated that, “somebody cried about not getting their stupid PTO FCAT Goodie bag” and that “they were filled with cheap candy.” The daughter of the PTO president was in the class. The 2011-2012 School Year During the fall of 2011, Respondent was accused of inappropriately touching students.1/ As a result, on December 5, 2011, Respondent was removed from the classroom at SMS and placed on Temporary Duty Assignment at the School Board district office pending an investigation into the allegations. In a letter from Maurice Bonner, director of personnel, dated December 14, 2011, Respondent was directed not to engage witnesses, their parents, or potential witnesses during the open investigation. While he was working at the district office, two co- workers of Respondent overheard Respondent contact the parents of one of the student witnesses involved in the investigation by telephone to discuss the investigation. Also, during the investigation, it was discovered that Respondent had taken pictures of students when they were misbehaving in his class as a means of disciplining those students. On February 13, 2012, Principal Martin provided Respondent a Letter of Reprimand for the violation of the administrative directive (not to contact witnesses and parents during a pending investigation) and inappropriately disciplining students. This Letter of Reprimand reminded Respondent of his previous counseling and Letter of Concern and notified Respondent that his failure to follow the prior directives or violation of any other School Board policy would result in more severe disciplinary action being taken against him. In May 2012, Respondent received a three-day suspension without pay for embarrassing students. Respondent is alleged to have announced a student’s name in class and stated that he (Respondent) was “just wasting red ink” by grading the student’s paper. Respondent does not deny the statement, but claims he muttered it under his breath, and it was overheard by several students. Respondent embarrassed another student by sharing personal information about her family with the class. A student’s mother had privately discussed with Respondent the fact that her daughter might act out in class due to the distress she was experiencing as a result of her parents’ divorce. During a classroom discussion about families, this student made a comment that she had a “normal” family. Respondent said to the student, in front of the class, “If you’re so normal, where is your father?” Respondent admits this was inappropriate behavior on his part. The 2012-2013 School Year On May 3, 2013, Respondent was in the classroom of another teacher for the purpose of providing additional teaching assistance for several students. On this date, the usual classroom teacher was absent, and a substitute teacher was present. While walking around the classroom, Respondent observed two students, M.M. and A.L., engaged in a game of “slaps,” in which both students tried to hit each other’s hands. Respondent directed M.M. to stop and asked why he was doing the game during class time. M.M. responded that he was trying to cheer up A.L., it felt good, and they liked playing the game. At this time, Respondent was approximately eight to ten feet away from M.M. who was sitting at a desk. Respondent told M.M. that he didn’t care if it felt good for M.M. to “jump off a bridge,” it was not to go on in the classroom and to get back to work. M.M. asked Respondent what he meant and the two began to argue. Respondent approached M.M. and bent over him while M.M. remained seated at his desk. Respondent testified that he closed the gap between him and M.M. when he felt M.M. told him to shut up by saying “get out of my face.” Respondent stated, “At that point I decided I wasn’t going to let him push me around and I decided to engage him.” The credible testimony from several of the student witnesses was that Respondent approached M.M. and stood over him and that M.M. repeatedly asked Respondent to “please, get out of my face” and to leave him alone. M.M. also cursed and used a racial slur directed at Respondent.2/ Respondent told M.M. to get up and get out of the classroom. When Respondent did not move away from looming over M.M., M.M. said something to the effect of “I don’t want to do any of this.” M.M. stood up, and he and Respondent were face to face, only a few inches apart. M.M. told Respondent that he was a grown man and that he was “acting like a bitch.” Respondent repeatedly mocked M.M., yelling in his face, “Come on big man-- What are you going to do about it, hit me?” and told M.M. to hit him because it would “make my day.” Respondent called M.M. a coward several times when M.M. refused to hit Respondent and backed away. While this was going on, the other students in the classroom believed that Respondent and M.M. were going to have a physical fight, and they stood up, pushed the desks and chairs back, and got out their cell phones to take photos and video. Several of the students began screaming and yelling.3/ M.M. left the classroom and continued to curse at Respondent as Respondent followed him to the Dean’s office. During this altercation, the substitute teacher did not intervene or attempt to help or contact the SMS office. Respondent admits that, once M.M. told Respondent to “get out of his face,” Respondent did nothing to de-escalate the situation. To the contrary, Respondent intentionally escalated the altercation. According to Respondent, “He [M.M.] needed to be shown you can’t tell an adult to shut up.” Respondent testified that he believed that he was teaching M.M. a “life lesson”-–that “you can’t engage an adult and expect to get away with it.” SMS has a protocol for handling belligerent students in the classroom. Teachers receive training at the beginning of each school year regarding the difference between classroom managed behaviors and office managed behaviors. Teachers are trained not to engage a belligerent student but rather to use the buzzer which is tied to the intercom or telephone, available in every classroom, to notify the main office of the situation. In response, someone from the trained management team will come to the classroom to retrieve the student and bring them back to the Dean’s office. As explained by Principal Martin, the purpose of sending an adult from out of the classroom to retrieve a disruptive student is to minimize the possibility of harm to either the student, teacher, or other students, and to allow a “cooling off period” while the misbehaving student is escorted to the Dean’s office. During the altercation with M.M., Respondent made no effort to use the buzzer or the telephone or ask anyone else to notify the office of the escalating situation. Respondent was aware of the protocol but chose to ignore it. According to Respondent, “[M.M.] wanted to intimidate me and he failed and I let him know about it.” Respondent was purposely confrontational and testified that he wanted to show M.M. that Respondent “was not going to back down.” Respondent disregarded the protocol because he believed it would be ineffective and he wanted to teach M.M. a “humility lesson.” Respondent’s explanation, that he thought using the buzzer or telephone would be ineffective because sometimes the buzzer does not work or he was blocked from reaching the buzzer by M.M., was not supported by credible evidence. Further it was directly contradicted by Respondent’s explanation that he didn’t contact the office because M.M.’s behavior problems likely started in elementary school and that at this point, M.M. was not responsive to “conventional means of disciplining students.” While the undersigned is sensitive to the difficulty faced by teachers when dealing with confrontational and unruly students, no rational justification was provided for Respondent’s extreme and outrageous act of attempting to engage M.M. in a fight and labeling him a coward in front of his peers. Respondent’s actions were an unwarranted attempt to bully and belittle a middle school student. In May 2013, Respondent received a letter from then Superintendent Michael Lannon advising Respondent that he was recommending him to the School Board for a ten-day suspension without pay. During the School Board’s investigation and at the final hearing of this matter, Respondent expressed no remorse regarding his actions towards M.M. and testified that, despite knowing his actions constitute a violation of School Board policies, he would do the same thing again. Respondent received all the necessary steps of progressive discipline required by the collective bargaining agreement between the parties prior to receipt of the recommendation for the ten-day suspension without pay. As discussed in greater detail below, the School Board proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent engaged in misconduct in office in violation of rule 6A-5.056(2).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Lucie County School Board enter a final order finding William Doran guilty of misconduct in office, suspending his employment without pay for a period of ten school days, and placing him on probation for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of August, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY 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 19th day of August, 2014.
The Issue Whether Respondent's employment as a teacher by the Duval County School Board should be terminated for the reasons specified in the Notice of Termination of Employment Contract and Immediate Suspension without Pay dated March 27, 2013.
Findings Of Fact The Duval County School Board (School Board) is charged with the responsibility to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Duval County, Florida. Ms. Beverly L. Howard has been employed by the Duval County School Board as a classroom teacher for over 32 years. She went to Paxton Senior High School and then to Florida A & M University, graduating with a bachelor of science degree in elementary education. The School Board seeks to terminate Ms. Howard’s employment. Her substantial interests are affected by this intended action. Ms. Howard has a history of past misconduct and disciplinary action. While teaching at Hyde Grove Elementary School in 1992, Ms. Howard received three memoranda from Principal Theresa Stahlman concerning her interactions with parents and students and her teaching performance. Among other comments, Ms. Stahlman noted that Ms. Howard needed significant improvement to “show sensitivity to student needs by maintaining a positive school environment.” Ms. Stahlman testified that Ms. Howard exhibited a “very loud punitive behavior management style” and that she wanted to help Ms. Howard improve. A note at the end of one memorandum indicates that Ms. Howard had said that she did not need cadre assistance and that she would request assistance if she needed it. A note on another memorandum indicates that Ms. Howard refused to sign it. Ms. Howard testified at hearing that the things Ms. Stahlman wrote in the three memoranda were lies. Ms. Howard said that Ms. Stahlman was a racist and was prejudiced. Ms. Stahlman gave Ms. Howard an unsatisfactory evaluation. The next year, Ms. Howard got an option to go to another school. On March 8, 1995, a conference was held between Ms. Howard, a parent of one of her students, and Principal Debbie Sapp. The student had alleged that Ms. Howard had pushed her down. Principle Sapp noted in a memorandum that Ms. Howard “vehemently denied this, in an extremely rude and unprofessional manner” and said that she would never put her hands on a student. Principal Sapp advised Ms. Howard that being argumentative and defensive with parents was unacceptable and only made bad situations worse. On March 10, 1995, Principal Sapp was making morning classroom checks when she overheard Ms. Howard repeatedly yell at a student, “Get out of my classroom.” Ms. Howard’s final comment was “Get out before I throw you out.” Principal Sapp then entered the classroom and saw a student standing at her desk, about to leave. Ms. Howard said that the student had been misbehaving all morning. Principal Sapp told the students that she did not expect teachers to yell at them or threaten them and admonished them to behave. In a memorandum to Ms. Howard, Principal Sapp wrote that Ms. Howard needed to work on controlling her temper, noted that Ms. Howard’s classroom was frequently in disarray, and stated that yelling at students and threatening them was inappropriate behavior that only made things worse. Ms. Howard testified at hearing that when Ms. Sapp came down the hall and heard a teacher yelling, Ms. Sapp never came face-to-face with her, and that it could have been the voice of another teacher which Ms. Sapp heard. On May 27, 2003, the Office of Professional Standards investigated a complaint from a student’s parent that Ms. Howard had grabbed the student by the arm, choked him, and caused him to vomit. The student said that Ms. Howard dug her fingernails into his arm when he got up to retrieve a paper that another boy had taken from his desk. He said that her nails were hurting him, so he began hitting Ms. Howard. He then said that she put her hand around his throat and made him choke. He said he felt sick and threw up. Ms. Howard denied the accusation. She stated that the student was in a fight with a female student in her class and that she separated them. She said she asked the female student to sit down and attempted to gain control of the male student. Ms. Howard showed the investigator a scratch on her thumb that she said was made by the student. She stated that after she assisted the student to his desk he began gagging and attempting to vomit. She said that only saliva came up and she asked him to go to the bathroom to clean himself up. The investigation was closed as “unable to prove or disprove.” The Office of Professional Standards investigated allegations of unprofessional conduct against Ms. Howard on April 28, 2004. The mother of student T.J. had left a message with Ms. Howard to call her to talk about scratches on T.J.’s arm. Ms. Howard called the mother at her workplace, University of Florida Jacksonville Physicians. The mother asked Ms. Howard if she knew where the scratches came from, and Ms. Howard said they came from an incident in the library. The mother could then hear Ms. Howard asking T.J. and another girl in her class about what had happened. The other girl said that T.J. had done things to cause the incident. Ms. Howard immediately relayed to the mother that the incident had been T.J.’s fault. The mother became upset, realizing that Ms. Howard had not been present and yet was completely accepting the other girl’s version of what had happened. The mother then told Ms. Howard that this was not right and that she would go to see the principal. Ms. Howard told the mother that she could talk to whomever she wanted to, and then put the phone down as if intending to disconnect the call, but the mother could still hear what was going on in the classroom. Ms. Howard said, “Class, isn’t T.J. a nasty little girl?” The class responded, “Yes, ma’am.” The mother heard Ms. Howard say, “Class, don’t I send home paperwork?” The children responded, “Yes, ma’am.” The mother could hear T.J. trying to ask Ms. Howard a question, and Ms. Howard saying, “Go sit your behind down.” At this point the mother became angry that Ms. Howard was verbally abusing her child in front of the other children. She asked her “lead” at her workplace to continue to monitor the call. She immediately left, and drove directly to the school to talk to the principal, Ms. Blackshear. The investigator received statements from the mother’s lead and several co-workers which contained additional statements Ms. Howard made to the students. Ms. Howard said: [T.J.] get out of my face, you can go home and tell your mama all of those lies. Yeah, she is probably going to want to have a conference with Ms. Blackshear. Go ahead and get out of my face with your nasty disrespectful face. Ms. [T.J.] sit down, I have already told your mama that you will be retained in the second grade. You want to be all that, well I can be more. The investigator determined that the phone number shown on the workplace caller ID feature was the number of Ms. Howard’s cell phone. When interviewed by the Office of Professional Standards, Ms. Howard denied making the above comments regarding T.J. She stated that T.J. had been a problem all year and that the student’s mother “got an attitude” with her. Ms. Howard did admit she placed a “shelter kid,” who was a juvenile inmate, outside of her classroom without supervision “for a few minutes.” She stated that everyone in the school knew it was a bad class, but she was being blamed. Ms. Howard testified at hearing that the lead and co-workers of T.J.’s mother were lying when they made statements about her interactions with the students in her classroom. She said she put the phone in her purse, and the purse in her desk drawer, and that no one could have heard any conversations in the classroom. Student T.J. was then reassigned from Ms. Howard’s class. At hearing, T.J. testified that when she was in Ms. Howard’s third-grade class, she “got her card flipped to pink” on a daily basis (this color indicating the worst conduct). She admitted that she deserved this sometimes, but not all the time. She testified that she remembered that Ms. Howard used to pinch her arm when she was “in trouble.” T.J. remembered that Ms. Howard called her names, saying she was nasty, disrespectful, and in need of home training, in front of the other students. She testified that she had problems in Ms. Howard’s class because she needed to go to the bathroom frequently and Ms. Howard would only let her go once a day. She would sometimes wet her pants. She then would have to wait until she was allowed to go to the office to call her mother to get clean clothing. On May 17, 2004, the Duval County School Board administered discipline to Ms. Howard for her interactions with her class as reported by T.J.’s mother and her co-workers. She was issued a written reprimand, suspended for five days without pay, and required to attend an anger management session. Ms. Howard was informed that she had been given the opportunity of constructive discipline instead of a reduction of pay or dismissal to afford her progressive discipline, and that any further improper conduct on Ms. Howard’s part would subject her to more severe disciplinary action. The written reprimand set forth Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) in its entirety, with its requirement that she “make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student’s mental and/or physical health and/or safety.” Ms. Howard signed a Receipt and Acknowledgement that she received a copy of the reprimand. On September 6, 2012, shortly after the start of the 2012-2013 school year, Louis Sheffield Elementary School held an open-house night. Ms. Lindsey Connor, assistant principle at the school, credibly testified to Ms. Howard’s response to a parent’s assertion that Ms. Howard had refused to allow her son, T.S., to go to the bathroom and that he had wet his pants in her class. Ms. Howard said to the mother of T.S., “What seems to be the problem?” in a harsh tone. After some discussion, Ms. Howard said something to the effect of: “Your son is a liar. He lies. He doesn’t need to be in my classroom anymore.” Ms. Howard denied that she ever told the mother of T.S. that her child was a liar. She stated that that would have been unprofessional. Ms. Howard testified that Ms. Connor’s statement that this had happened was a lie and that Ms. Connor was always taking the parents’ side. Ms. Howard testified that she never prevented a child from going to the bathroom and that T.S. just wet himself. Ms. Conner received numerous complaints about Ms. Howard from parents of Ms. Howard’s kindergarten students. Ms. Connor received six requests from parents to remove their children from Ms. Howard’s class. Ms. Connor testified that this was an unusually high number of requests and that she was concerned. J.F. was a student in Ms. Howard’s kindergarten class who exhibited behavioral problems. She would do acrobatic flips in the classroom and would tie her shoelaces to the chairs. She appeared to be hyper-active and would fall out of her chair when she was at her seat. J.F. would go all around Ms. Howard’s classroom and did not listen to Ms. Howard. She would back-talk Ms. Howard and showed her no respect. J.F. was frightened of Ms. Howard and often cried. Ms. Howard testified that she wanted to get specialized treatment or placement for J.F. but that the parents would not agree. In response to a complaint from the parents of J.F., Ms. Connor asked Ms. Howard to prepare a chart on which stickers could be placed to document J.F.’s progress in school. Ms. Connor asked Ms. Howard to bring the chart to a meeting to discuss how to help J.F. advance. Ms. Howard did not bring anything to the meeting and said nothing about how she might be able to help J.F. The mother of W.B. testified that her son was in Ms. Howard’s kindergarten class and that he loved Ms. Howard as a teacher. On one occasion in Ms. Howard’s classroom, W.B.’s mother observed Ms. Howard pull J.F. by the arm over to her when J.F. had gotten into trouble. The mother stated that J.F. appeared scared and she would not have liked Ms. Howard to do that to her child. In response to a call from the parent of C.B., a student in Ms. Howard’s class, Ms. Connor suspected that Ms. Howard may have hit one or more of her kindergarten students with a book. In a discussion with the Professional Standards office, Ms. Connor was told that she should investigate, advise the teacher, and contact the Department of Children and Families. Ms. Conner conducted interviews with students assigned to Ms. Howard’s class in the presence of a witness and took notes as to what the students told her. She testified that she brought the students into her office individually, that they didn’t know beforehand what she was going to talk to them about, and that they had no opportunity to collaborate or coordinate their statements. After conducting interviews with the children, Ms. Connor advised Ms. Howard of an allegation that Ms. Howard struck J.F. on multiple occasions with a book. Ms. Howard responded that she would not provide a written statement because she had never hit a student. Ms. Connor notified the Department of Children and Families. The report and testimony of the child protective investigator indicated that J.F was open, happy, and smiling during the “non-threatening” portions of the interview, but the investigator testified that when asked about Ms. Howard’s class, J.F. became nervous, chewed on the ends of her clothes, began to fidget, and asked if Ms. Howard was going to know what J.F. was saying. The investigator interviewed several students in the class. The report indicated that J.F. was free of suspicious marks or bruises. When the investigator interviewed Ms. Howard, she denied ever hitting J.F. with a book or slamming her down in her seat when J.F. was misbehaving. Ms. Howard indicated that she was close to retirement and would not hit a child. Student J.F. testified at hearing that she did not like Ms. Howard as her kindergarten teacher because Ms. Howard “did not want to be nice to me.” She testified that Ms. Howard “hurt me.” She testified that Ms. Howard “hit me on the leg with a book.” She testified that Ms. Howard hit her with the book because Ms. Howard had told her to get down on the carpet. She held up five fingers when asked how many times Ms. Howard had hit her. During cross-examination, she testified that she had been hit five times in succession on a single occasion. On redirect, she testified that she had been hit on five separate days. Student K.D., aged six, testified that J.F. did bad things in Ms. Howard’s class. He testified that J.F. put her head in her shirt. He testified that the class would sit on the carpet every day for a little while. He testified that sometimes J.F. would stay on the carpet when she was supposed to go to her seat. He said that J.F. got spanked on her back by Ms. Howard with a book. He testified that Ms. Howard hit her on more than one day, and when asked how many days, said “sixteen.” He did not know how he knew it was 16 days. He later testified that Ms. Howard hit her “sixteen times every day.” The father of student J.C.M. testified that he transferred J.C.M. from a Montessori school to Louis Sheffield Elementary because his wife was going to have another baby and that school was closer to their home, which would mean a shorter drive for her. The first day that J.C.M. went to Ms. Howard’s class was February 11, 2013. The parents immediately began receiving “agenda notes” from Ms. Howard saying that J.C.M. was not behaving well. The father testified that J.C.M. did not want to go back to Ms. Howard’s class the next few days and would cry when they dropped him off. The father testified that since J.C.M. had never been a discipline problem and had done well at his prior school, he sent a note in after the second day to schedule a conference with Ms. Howard. The father testified that on the second or third day, J.C.M. came home complaining that his arm hurt, but when questioned as to what had happened, J.C.M. gave different stories. First he said a lady had grabbed his arm in the classroom. When asked “What lady?” J.C.M. said that it was a friend, another student. Later, he said that the injury had happened on the playground. Still later, he said that the injury was caused by his grandfather. The father was confused by these different answers. When the parents received no response to the request to meet with Ms. Howard, the parents went to the school and met with Ms. Connor, who advised them that Ms. Howard was no longer in the classroom, but she did not tell them why. Since J.C.M. now had a new teacher, his parents did not ask that he be moved to another class. Student J.C.M., aged six, testified that he had been moved into Louis Sheffield Elementary in the middle of the school year and only had Ms. Howard as his teacher for a few days. J.C.M. testified that on one of those days, “I was in the door and then I -- I didn’t kicked it. I didn’t kicked it, I touched it with my feet.” He testified that Ms. Howard grabbed him and put him by her desk or table and that his “arm hurted for a little bit –- a little bit long.” He testified that he saw Ms. Howard hit J.F. on the head with a book because she was not writing when she was supposed to be writing. He testified that on a later day Ms. Howard also hit him on the head with a book when he was on the rug, but he forgot if he was supposed to be on the rug or not. Ms. Howard testified at hearing that she never put her hands on any of the students. She did not know why the children would say that she had, except that they had been coerced to say it. She testified that she had been under a doctor’s care and that she had had back surgery and that her medical condition affected her ability to lift or throw items. She testified she could not bend over or lift heavy objects because it probably would have torn her sutures. She testified that she had been under a doctor’s care since January 30 and that it took her until February 14, the day she was reassigned, to recover. She testified that not only was it not in her character to hit a child, she was physically incapable of doing so at the time. The testimony of Ms. Connor that the kindergarten children had no opportunity to coordinate their statements and that they did not even know in advance why she wanted to talk to them is credited. Ms. Connor’s notes as to what each child told her supplement and corroborate the testimony of the children later at hearing. Although the direct testimony as to Ms. Howard’s actions all came from these young children, they were capable of observing and recollecting what happened in their kindergarten class and capable of relating those facts at hearing. Their responses to questions at hearing showed that the children had a moral sense of the obligation to tell the truth. There was no objection from Respondent as to the children’s competency, and they were competent to testify. These young children’s accounts of events were sufficiently credible and corroborative to prove that Respondent struck J.F. with a book on multiple occasions. There was credible testimony that J.F. was struck on her legs with a book when she would not get down on the carpet as she was supposed to, was struck on her back with a book when she would not get up off of the carpet as she was supposed to, and was struck on the head with a book when she would not write as she was supposed to. These physical contacts took place in front of other students. While the exact number of times she was struck was not clear, the testimony that it was deliberately done and was constantly repeated is credited. Ms. Sonita Young is the chief human resource officer of Duval County Schools. She reviewed Ms. Howard’s personnel file in making her recommendation to the Superintendent that Ms. Howard be suspended without pay pending termination. Ms. Howard’s employment record, including both performance issues and disciplinary issues, was considered in determining the appropriate recommendation to be made to the Superintendent and ultimately to the Board. A Notice of Termination of Employment Contract and Immediate Suspension without Pay from her position as a kindergarten teacher at Louis Sheffield Elementary was presented to Ms. Howard on March 27, 2013. The Notice alleged that Respondent had violated certain provisions of the Code of Ethics, contained in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.080, and a Principle of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, contained in rule 6A-10.081. Ms. Howard challenged the grounds for her termination and sought a hearing before an administrative law judge with the Division of Administrative Hearings. The rules cited above were adopted by the State Board of Education and relate to the public schools or the public school system. Rule 6A-10.081 was renumbered, but is substantively identical to the rule cited to Ms. Howard earlier in her May 17, 2004, Written Reprimand. Ms. Howard was well aware of her responsibility to protect students from conditions harmful to learning or to students’ mental or physical health or safety, because she had previously been disciplined for failing to do so. Ms. Howard’s actions in striking J.F. with a book failed to protect her students from conditions harmful to their mental and physical health and safety in violation of rule 6A- 10.081. Ms. Howard’s constantly repeated actions in striking J.F. constitute persistent violation of the rule and are cause to terminate her employment as a teacher. Ms. Howard’s deliberate actions in striking J.F. constitute willful refusal to obey the rule and are cause to terminate her employment as a teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED That the Duval County School Board enter a final order terminating the employment of Beverly L. Howard. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of October, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 15th day of October, 2013.
The Issue Whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment as a classroom teacher for the conduct alleged in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner has been the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Both West Hialeah and Aventura are public schools in Miami-Dade County, Florida. During the 2011-12 school year, Respondent was employed as a teacher assigned to West Hialeah. Respondent's teaching assignment during the 2014-2015 school year was as a teacher at Aventura. Respondent's employment is governed by the collective bargaining agreement between Petitioner and the United Teachers of Dade ("UTD Contract"), Florida Statutes, the regulations issued by the Florida State Board of Education as set forth in the Florida Administrative Code, and the School Board's policies and procedures. Respondent's Prior Discipline During the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent was investigated for hitting an exceptional student education (ESE) student at West Hialeah. The investigation concluded that there was probable cause to charge Respondent with violating School Board Policies 3210 and 3210.01. As a result, a conference-for- the-record (CFR) was held on December 15, 2011, wherein OPS District Director, Dr. Brown, issued Respondent directives to: adhere to all School Board policies, specifically 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct; 3210.01, the Code of Ethics; and 5630, Corporal Punishment and the Use of Reasonable Force; refrain from contacting in person or by any other means any of the parties involved in the investigation; refrain from using physical means as a form of discipline; and [] conduct [herself], both in [her] employment and in the community, in a manner that reflects credit upon [herself] and the district. Respondent signed on January 3, 2012, that she was in receipt of these directives. Although the charges against Respondent relating to physical aggression against a student merited a recommendation from the School Board that Respondent be terminated, the School Board took into consideration Respondent's length of service with the School Board and the fact that she had not received any prior discipline. As such, it was recommended that Respondent be suspended for 25 workdays without pay. Respondent contested this recommendation. Following a final hearing on September 24, 2012, Administrative Law Judge Stuart M. Lerner found that Respondent used physical aggression toward an ESE student and recommended that the School Board uphold Respondent's 25-workday suspension. Ultimately, Respondent was suspended for 25 workdays without pay. The September 2011 incident was reported to the Florida Department of Education (Florida DOE), and a hearing was held on October 15, 2014, to determine whether any disciplinary measures should be taken on Respondent's educator certificate. Following that hearing, conducted by the undersigned, it was recommended to the Florida DOE that "Respondent be placed on probation for 90 days with a letter or reprimand to be placed in her certification file." The Recommended Order provided that, "[t]his penalty takes into account that Respondent's conduct, in striking the student, was inappropriate under any circumstances, but also places the conduct in perspective in relation to Respondent's otherwise incident-free teaching career." The September 17, 2014, Incident Respondent later began working as a teacher with ESE students at Aventura beginning in the 2012-2013 school year. During the 2014-2015 school year, Respondent worked as an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) teacher. M.C., who suffers from ASD, was a student in Respondent's class during the 2014-2015 school year. M.C. and his family are from Argentina and the 2014-2015 school year was the first year M.C. attended a public school in the United States. Initially, M.C. could not take instruction in class. Respondent worked with him to develop the skills to take instruction by demonstrating actions, repeating instruction and praising the student for doing things correctly. Respondent taught M.C. how to write his name, catch a ball, and hold a pencil. Respondent shared a classroom with fellow teacher, Ms. Stubbs. Ms. Stubbs had her own set of students with varying exceptionalities. Ms. Stubbs had six middle school students and Respondent had six elementary school students. Ms. Pollard acted as Respondent's paraprofessional, helping Respondent with her students. Additionally, Ms. Charles would assist Respondent with M.C. for a few hours each day. Respondent's planning period was during the time her students went to art once a week on Wednesday. Respondent voluntarily gave up her planning period to assist the art teacher, Ms. Garcia, with the students. Ms. Garcia worked as an art teacher at Aventura for six (6) years. On September 17, 2014, Ms. Garcia was teaching art to Respondent's students. After Ms. Garcia had provided instructions for the class, she began walking around the room while the students worked on their assignment. M.C. was seated at his desk coloring with crayons. M.C. began throwing crayons on the floor and Respondent, who had been standing behind M.C. with her hands on his shoulders, grabbed M.C.'s hands and wrists and pulled him down to the floor, causing M.C. to fall down to his knees. Respondent told M.C. to pick up the crayons in a loud tone that conveyed she was annoyed. Once Respondent had M.C. on the floor, she held M.C.'s wrists, forcing him to pick up the crayons off the floor. All the while, M.C., who is non-verbal, was making noises like he was not happy. Ms. Garcia tried to help, but Respondent did not allow her, insisting that M.C. had to clean up by himself. M.C. eventually returned to his seat and then began spitting on the floor. Once again, Respondent pulled M.C. to the floor by his wrists, causing him to land on his knees. Respondent again appeared annoyed as she was forcing M.C. to wipe up the spit. Ms. Garcia attempted once more to assist in the clean-up, but Respondent did not allow her, stating that M.C. had to clean up his own mess. Although Ms. Garcia has seen other ESE students being restrained, she has never seen a teacher treat a student like Respondent treated M.C. by forcefully pulling him to the floor. There was no indication that M.C. was going to hurt himself or other students. Although Ms. Pollard did not see the interaction between Respondent and M.C., because she was busy helping the students with their assignment, she did hear Respondent yell, "Pick it up!" in a tone loud enough to be heard over the noise of the classroom. At the end of the art class, M.C. pinched another student with ASD, K., in front of Respondent. Respondent responded by instructing K. to pinch M.C. back. Ms. Garcia was only three feet away from Respondent when she heard Respondent say this. K. is a very obedient student. When Respondent told him to pinch M.C. back, K. looked confused, shrugged his shoulders and reluctantly pinched M.C. back. Ms. Garcia was shocked by what she witnessed. She verbally intervened by telling Respondent that she would not tolerate Respondent's behavior in her classroom. Ms. Garcia admonished Respondent that the students should not be taught to retaliate against each other. Respondent just stood silent and stunned during the confrontation. Meanwhile, M.C., upset at K.'s retaliation, ran off and pinched another student, R., who retaliated by repeatedly hitting M.C. back. The situation Respondent created was total chaos. Two children, K. and R., who are otherwise well-behaved, were acting aggressively towards each other. Ms. Garcia then had to physically intervene by separating the fighting children because Respondent just stood by. Ms. Pollard, who had been outside Ms. Garcia's classroom with the rest of the class, began to wonder what was taking the other students so long. When Ms. Pollard peered back into the classroom, the expression on Ms. Garcia's face startled her. Ms. Pollard asked Ms. Garcia what was wrong, to which Ms. Garcia responded, "Do you believe she [Respondent] told K. to hit M.C.?!" Ms. Pollard looked over to Respondent, but Respondent remained silent. Ms. Garcia informed Principal Bello that she witnessed Respondent handle M.C. in an inappropriate manner and that Respondent instructed another student to pinch M.C. in retaliation. Respondent denied these allegations. Ms. Garcia did not have any issues with Respondent prior to Ms. Garcia reporting the incident to Principal Bello. After the incident, Respondent stopped coming into Ms. Garcia's classroom with her students. Respondent's Post-Incident Conduct On September 29, 2014, Mr. Bello issued Respondent a letter, directing her to refrain "from contacting any complainant(s) and/or witnesses, with the intent to interfere with the investigation of the above listed allegation." In November of 2014, M.C.'s mother, S.C., received a telephone call from Respondent on a Saturday night at around 8:00 p.m. Respondent proceeded to tell S.C. that she was going to lose her job and teaching license because of S.C.'s son, M.C. Respondent asked S.C. to have her ex-husband, M.C.'s father, write a letter and backdate it to the first day of school in August 2014. Respondent's call made S.C. feel "extremely horrible" and "guilty." S.C. did not want anyone losing their job because of her son. Subsequently, Respondent repeatedly took advantage of the fact that S.C. picked up M.C. in the classroom to talk to S.C. about the allegations. Respondent cried to S.C., telling her that M.C. had behaved well on the last day of school before the Thanksgiving break because M.C. must have known it would be Respondent's last day as his teacher. Respondent's words and actions towards S.C. made S.C. question why the school was investigating or targeting Respondent and she wanted to ask the school to stop their investigation. The effect that Respondent's words and actions had on S.C. is precisely what Petitioner tries to avoid by issuing standard directives that employees being investigated may not contact witnesses with the intent to interfere with the investigation.1/ Respondent was afforded her employee and due process rights, including the opportunity to file exceptions to the investigative report and request a superintendent's review. At its regularly scheduled meeting on December 10, 2014, the Petitioner took action to suspend Respondent without pay and initiated dismissal proceedings against her. Respondent claims that allegations against her are falsified, that Ms. Garcia was "coached" for reasons Respondent could not articulate, and that her co-teacher, Ms. Stubbs, is out to get her. She also believes "the principal and his agents" conspired against her. Notably, Ms. Stubbs was not the individual who reported the incident. She did not provide a statement in support of the allegations nor did she testify at the final hearing. Respondent could not identify the alleged agents of the principal. Respondent's denial of the allegations and conspiracy theory are identical to the defenses she asserted in response to her prior incident of inappropriately touching a child for which she received a 25-day suspension and probation.2/ Respondent presented no credible evidence in support of these defenses. Respondent also claims that M.C.'s father gave her verbal permission at the beginning of the school year to teach his son "life skills" and put physical limits on his son. The father did not testify, there was no corroboration, and it was denied by S.C. Even assuming this was true, it is implausible that M.C.'s father, or any parent, would envision a scenario in which his child would be pulled to the ground forcibly by his teacher, or another student would be encouraged by a teacher to physically retaliate against his child, to teach "life skills." Findings of Ultimate Fact As discussed in greater detail below, Petitioner proved Respondent engaged in misconduct in office, gross insubordination, and violated School Board rules 3210 and 3213.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, including Respondent's prior 25-day suspension for similar conduct (inappropriate physical contact with a student) and the seriousness of these violations, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a Final Order terminating Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of June, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY 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 26th day of June, 2015.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds teaching certificate number 230805 issued by the State of Florida, Department of Education. Respondent's teaching certificate is valid through June 30, 1996. Respondent is certified in administration, supervision, and physical education. Respondent has been employed by the Orange County School District for approximately 20 years (the "District"). Respondent was employed as a physical education teacher at Hungerford Elementary School for approximately 13 years ("Hungerford") until 1991 when he was transferred to Orlando Vocational Technical Center. Respondent is currently the Dean of Students at Orlando Vocational Technical Center. While he taught at Hungerford, Respondent was respected by his peers and by his students. Students generally enjoyed Respondent's physical education classes. Respondent holds a black belt in karate and is a weight lifter. He routinely allowed several students at a time to jump on him during physical education class and wrestle with him. Respondent was a strict teacher at Hungerford. He believed strongly in discipline. Students in his classes were generally well-behaved. Physical Force Against Students At Hungerford, Respondent frequently used physical contact to gain the attention of misbehaving male students. He typically tapped boys on top of their heads, in the sternum with an open hand or fist, or in the rear end with a track baton. Respondent never intended to embarrass or disparage any of his male students. The vast majority of students recognized that Respondent was merely attempting to gain their attention or playing around. Respondent's discipline in karate gave him more than adequate control to prevent harm to any misbehaving student when Respondent used physical contact to gain their attention. Respondent never lost that control in his classes. No student was physically injured as a result of physical contact from Respondent. Respondent's physical contact was not calculated to cause misbehaving students any pain or discomfort. Respondent was criticized by some who thought he was too severe a disciplinarian. In 1987, some students lodged complaints against Respondent for alleged physical abuse. Two legal proceedings were brought by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services over allegations of physical abuse. Respondent successfully defended both proceedings. Sometime in 1988 or 1989, Respondent tapped Andre Hunter in the chest with an open hand. At the time, Andre was a third grade student at Hungerford. Respondent did not hurt Andre. Andre ". . . didn't feel nothing. It didn't hurt. It just felt like he tapped me." Transcript at 24. On separate occasions in 1988 or 1989, Respondent tapped Billy Washington on the head with his fist and hit him on the behind with a track baton. Billy was in Respondent's physical education class during the second, third, and fourth grades. When Respondent tapped Billy on the head, "It was funny. It didn't hurt." Transcript at 34. When Respondent hit Billy on the behind with a track baton, "It stung a little bit, but it didn't bother me." Id. Emotionally, Billy ". . . felt all right." He ". . . didn't think about it. It didn't bother me." Transcript at 35. On separate occasions in 1988 or 1989, Respondent tapped Bobby King in the chest with Respondent's fist. At the time, Bobby was in the first or second grade. It hurt Bobby and made him mad. Bobby did not understand why Respondent struck him. On September 22, 1989, Respondent received a letter of reprimand from the District. The District reprimanded Respondent for using unnecessary physical force against a student on March 20, 1989. The letter directed Respondent to refrain from the use of threatening behavior and physical force against students. Attendance And Inadequate Supervision During the 1988-1989 and 1989-1990 school years, Respondent sometimes failed to properly supervise students in his class. Respondent was late to class a few times. A few times, he left the school campus prior to the end of the school day without permission. Respondent failed to let other school employees know that he would not be at school. However, his attendance record neither adversely affected his teaching effectiveness nor impaired his relationship with his colleagues or students. On February 14, 1990, Respondent received a letter of reprimand from the District. The District reprimanded Respondent for leaving the school campus without permission from the principal, not adequately supervising his students on one occasion, and for acting in a threatening or intimidating manner toward the principal when confronted about Respondent's supervision of his students. Transfer To Vo-Tech On August 21, 1990, Respondent was removed from his classroom duties at Hungerford and placed on relief of duty status with full pay and benefits. The District took the action as a result of allegations of inappropriate discipline, leaving students unsupervised, and insubordination. Respondent was subsequently transferred to Orlando Vocational and Technical School. Respondent continues to enjoy wide respect as a teacher from parents, other teachers, and community leaders. As Dean of Students, Respondent currently holds a responsible position of employment with the District. Respondent functions effectively in that position. Deferred Prosecution Agreement On October 8, 1991, Respondent and Petitioner entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement. On or before October 8, 1992, Respondent agreed to successfully complete college courses in Assertive Discipline, Classroom Management, and Methods of Teaching Elementary Physical Education. Respondent further agreed to provide written verification that Respondent completed the required courses. Respondent failed to complete the required courses in a timely manner. Although Respondent ultimately completed the required courses, he had not supplied Petitioner with written verification as of the date of the formal hearing. If Respondent had timely complied with the Deferred Prosecution Agreement, this proceeding would not have been instituted. Respondent believed in good faith that his transfer out of the classroom to his position as Dean of Students made the courses on classroom techniques unnecessary. Respondent was notified in 1993 that he was in violation of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement. Respondent promptly enrolled in the required classes and completed them. Respondent has now complied with all of the conditions of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Educational Practices Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of the charge that he failed to make a reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to their learning and not guilty of the remaining charges in the Administrative Complaint. It is further recommended that the Commission issue a letter of reprimand to Respondent and, pursuant to Section 231.262(6)(c), impose an administrative fine not to exceed $750. RECOMMENDED this 22d day of November, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 22d day of November, 1994.
The Issue Whether Respondent's suspension and termination from employment as a teacher by the Franklin County School Board was justified and, if not, whether backpay and attorney's fees should be awarded.
Findings Of Fact At the time of the incident that gave rise to this proceeding, Respondent, Webster Bozeman, was a teacher employed under a continuing contract at Carrabelle High School, Franklin County, Florida. Respondent had been employed by the Franklin County School Board from August 1985, until he was suspended on November 1, 1991. The Respondent was assigned to teach Physical Education (PE) classes for the 1991-1992 school year at Carrabelle High School, by the principal, Dr. J. Krawchuk. The Respondent had previously taught Social Studies from 1985 until 1989, and taught special education classes for two years, during 1989-90, and 1990-91. His teaching certification with the Florida Department of Education was in Social Science, with a designation for middle school. Mr. Bozeman was assigned to teach the Physical Education classes for the 1991-1992 school year because those classes were very free maintain control and discipline in more standard regular and special education classes. On September 6, 1991, Respondent's doctor had changed his medication from Triavil, a combined antipsychotic and antidepressant. The Triavil contained Trilafon, or perphenazine which is an antipsychotic used to modify psychotic abnormal behavior. The medication was changed because there was no indication that Respondent was overtly psychotic. Respondent remained on an antidepressant. However, the withdrawal of such an anti cause uncharacteristic aggressive behavior and the recurrence of any psychosis which the medication had been controlling. Approximately a week and one half later, on September 17, 1991, during Respondent's sixth period physical education class in the gym at Carrabelle High School, a group of eighth graders were sitting on the bleacher throwing wadded up paper. Lance Bockelman, a student in the class, was seated on the bleacher behind Respondent. Bockelman threw a piece of paper that struck Respondent on the left side of the head in the area of his ear. Although the evidence at the hearing demonstrated that Respondent was only struck by a wadded up piece of paper, either because his medication had been changed or because Respondent's eardrum already was traumatized, Respondent believed that he had been struck with something hard like metal. Respondent became angry and upset over being struck. Respondent ordered Bockelman to follow him to the locker room and Bockelman complied. The door between the gym and the corridor leading to the locker room closed behind them. Respondent told Bockelman to go over to the wall on one side of the corridor. Bockelman did not threaten Respondent but thought the incident a joke and exhibited laughter. Bockelman was also moving around although he wasn't trying to get away. In an attempt to discover what had hit him and to focus Bockelman's attention, Respondent grabbed Bockelman around the neck and pushed him up against the wall by putting his hands around Bockelman's collarbone area. Respondent began to inquire as to what Bockelman had thrown and was shaking his index finger at Bockelman, occasionally poking him in the chest. At some point, Respondent drew his fist back in a threatening, angry manner, saying, "I'll knock the shit out of you." Billy Dalton, a tenth-grade student, came from the locker room area into the corridor and observed Respondent holding Bockelman in a firm grip. Respondent appeared to be mad. Bockelman by then had realized the seriousness of the situation and was on the verge of tears. Dalton intervened by placing himself between Respondent and Bockelman, grabbing or tapping Respondent's raised arm and telling Respondent to cool off. Respondent let go of Bockelman and returned to the gym. At the point of Dalton's intervention, Respondent's physical contact with Bockelman had been minor and Respondent only threatened to use corporal punishment on Bockelman; Respondent never in fact used any corporal punishment against Bockelman, primarily because Dalton intervened. A group of students had followed Respondent and Bockelman and had gathered around the gym door, which was then open, and witnessed Respondent's actions. After Dalton interevened, Bockelman left the area and ran to where the buses pick up students. Maxine Taylor, a bus driver, saw Bockelman crying and walked him to the office where he spoke with the principal. Later, Principal Krawchuk conducted a conference with Bockelman's mother and Respondent. At the time of the conference, Mr. Krawchuk did not observe any outward signs of injury to Respondent, though Respondent began to complain that his head was ringing. Respondent also complained of ear pain caused by the object Bockelman had thrown. At the conference Bozeman denied any wrongdoing. However, at the hearing, Respondent admitted that pushing Bockelman up against the wall was not necessary. Respondent also admitted that his reaction to Bockelman's misbehavior was inappropriate. After the conference, Respondent filled out worker's compensation forms and visited Dr. Leslie Wilson. Dr. Wilson found an inflammation of the ear drum and prescribed antibiotics and pain medication. At a follow Wilson decided Respondent did not need to see a specialist. Dr. Wilson opined that the injury was the result of trauma, but could not determine the cause. Dr. Wilson also determined that Mr. Bozeman's ear drum injury resulted from "something hitting the head or actually hitting the ear drum." The injury to Mr. Bozeman could not have resulted from being struck by a piece of paper. Dr. Wilson's opinion was based, in part, on the information he had received from Respondent. Mr. Krawchuk, the principal, conducted an internal investigation of the incident. The investigation included searching the gym for any evidence of a hard object that could have been concealed in the paper Bockelman had thrown. Mr. Krawchuk was unable to find any such objects in the gym area. He had students who witnessed the incident write statements concerning this event. 1/ Krawchuk concluded that Respondent's actions were improper and amounted to excessive force and that Respondent's effectiveness would be diminished "quite a bit." He testified that the ability to keep order in a classroom and discipline students relates to effectiveness and that if a teacher could not keep students in line, the teacher was ineffective. Krawchuk also testified that using force against a child is a breach of a teacher's duty to protect the child's safety and health and violated the Code of Professional Conduct. The effect is to embarrass and demoralize the child, and has an adverse effect on the child's peers. He knew of no justification for physically touching a student in this situation. The appropriate response was to verbally reprimand the student and refer him to the office for discipline. Based on his entire investigation, Krawchuk recommended that Respondent be suspended without pay and then terminated. Krawchuk felt that Respondent could no longer be effective in the classroom, because he did not "have it within him now to deal with children." Mr. Ponder, the superintendent, agreed with Mr. Krawchuk and concluded that Respondent violated the Code of Professional Conduct by failing to protect the health, safety, welfare and learning environment of the students and that Respondent should therefore be terminated. He also concluded that Respondent violated the code by failing to preserve students from embarrassment and disparagement. Mr. Ponder believed that Respondent's actions amounted to misconduct in office because there would be concern or fear on the part of children later in that class. He testified that Respondent's actions seriously impaired Respondent's effectiveness in the classroom because Respondent's conduct was unprofessional, the students would be afraid and would lose respect for Respondent. Mr. Ponder also testified that an appropriate response to being hit by an object would be to send the student to the office. Once the student stops his bad conduct, there would be no justification for striking, touching or hitting the child. On the other hand, none of the students who testified offered any competent substantial evidence that there would be any ill effect to the students caused by Mr. Bozeman returning to teach. Indeed, Bockelman told another student, Jonathan Tindell, that he was not trying to get Mr. Bozeman fired, and did not want him fired on his account. In fact, the evidence showed that Respondent at the time did not have the respect of the students and was not very good at maintaining order in his classes. However, the evidence showed that Respondent's behavior prevented him from regaining any student's respect, thereby continuing his ineffectiveness as a teacher. Therefore, the evidence did demonstrate that Respondent remained ineffective as a teacher at least due in part to his conduct towards Bockelman. Franklin County does use progressive discipline for employees. However, an assault on a student is a severe infraction and at a minimum merits suspension under Franklin County's progressive disciplinary code. On the other hand, Respondent's disciplinary record shows no serious discipline being imposed other than peer help in maintaining better order and discipline in his classes. Based on these facts, the school board has demonstrated that Respondent committed misconduct in office by threatening the use of excessive force against Lance Bockelman. The evidence showed that Respondent's conduct was serious enough to continue his impaired effectiveness as a teacher. Therefore, the Board could have taken disciplinary action against Respondent. Finally, there were no mitigating factors shown by the evidence. Therefore, given the severity of Respondent's attempted use of force which was thwarted only by a student's intervention, termination is an appropriate penalty.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is accordingly, RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be found guilty of violating Chapter 231.36, Florida Statutes, (1991), by committing an act of misconduct in office which seriously impaired his effectiveness as an employee of the school board and that his suspension without pay be upheld as well as his dismissal. DONE AND ORDERED this 2nd day of August, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of August, 1994.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent, Mr. Alain Sanon, violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2013), and implementing administrative rules,1/ as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact The Commissioner is responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct against individuals holding educator's certificates. Mr. Sanon holds Florida Educator's Certificate 1010405, covering the area of mathematics, which is valid through June 30, 2019. At all times relevant to the complaint, Mr. Sanon was employed as an intensive math teacher at John F. Kennedy Middle School in the Miami-Dade County School District. Mr. Sanon was born in Haiti and lived there most of his life. He came to the United States in 2003. His native language is French. He also speaks Creole and is fluent in English. In August 2017, Mr. Sanon taught a seventh-grade intensive math class during fifth period. About 50 percent of this class was Haitian-American, and some students in the class spoke French and Creole. Student A.R. testified at hearing that, on August 27, 2013, Student N.R. was laughing and talking with some other students who did not quiet down after Mr. Sanon asked them to. Student A.R. testified that Mr. Sanon asked them if they were gay. At this question, many of the students in the class started laughing. Student A.R. testified that Mr. Sanon then said, "This is a no homo zone." Student A.R. testified that Mr. Sanon said these things in a playful, not hostile manner, as a joke. Student A.R. testified that Student N.R. looked embarrassed. Mr. Sanon, in his deposition and later at hearing, admitted that he used the word "gay," but denied that he used it to refer to anyone as a homosexual, even jokingly, but rather used it in the sense of "happy." He testified that it was all a misunderstanding stemming from his question in French to Student N.R. and his companions: "Why are you so happy today?" Mr. Sanon explained that the French word for happy is "gaie" and that, when other students in the class heard that word, they began to say that Mr. Sanon had made an allusion to the boys' sexual preferences. Mr. Sanon testified that students were becoming excited and things were beginning to get out of hand, so he then said, "You know what? This is no homo calling. Nobody is calling anybody names in this classroom." He denies ever saying, "This is a no homo zone." The testimony of Student A.R., as supplemented by the written statements of other students, is more credible than that of Mr. Sanon, and Student A.R.'s testimony is credited. Student N.R. was removed from Mr. Sanon's class. The other fifth-period students remained with Mr. Sanon for the rest of the school year. It can be reasonably inferred, from Student A.R.'s testimony and the fact that Student N.R. was subsequently removed from Mr. Sanon's class, that Student N.R. was embarrassed by the incident. This is corroborated by Student N.R.'s written hearsay statement. Mr. Sanon has been employed at the Miami-Dade County School District for about 12 years. He has never before had any discipline imposed against his license.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Mr. Alain Sanon in violation of section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, through his violation of Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.081(3)(a) and 6A- 10.081(3)(e), and issuing him a letter of reprimand. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of March, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 8th day of March, 2017.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent committed the allegations contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is the head of the Florida Department of Education, the state agency charged with the responsibility of investigating and prosecuting complaints of violations of section 1012.795, Florida Statutes, against teachers holding Florida educator's certificates. Respondent, who has no prior disciplinary history, holds Florida Educator's Certificate 709850, covering the area of mathematics, which is valid through June 30, 2014. The Events The incident that gives rise to this proceeding occurred during the morning of April 8, 2011, at Dillard High School ("Dillard"), where Respondent has taught mathematics since 2004. At that time, Respondent was lecturing to his Algebra I honors class, which comprised approximately 15 students. During the lecture, one of the male students, 15-year- old D.P., took out his cell phone and viewed it, contrary to one of Respondent's classroom rules. Respondent immediately directed D.P. to put the phone away, and the student complied; a few moments later, however, D.P. again took out his phone, which resulted in the same reaction from Respondent. For reasons known only to D.P., he took out his phone a third time——conduct that prompted Respondent to confiscate the item. Later, during the same class period, D.P. inquired of Respondent as to when his phone would be returned. Respondent replied that the phone could be retrieved at the end of the day from Mr. Levinsky, one of Dillard's assistant principals. None too happy with this turn of events, D.P. stewed for several minutes, at which point he got up from his table and approached the front of the room, where Respondent was seated behind his desk. Suspecting that D.P. might attempt to recover the phone (which lay on Respondent's desk), Respondent picked it up. At that point, and in an audacious move, D.P. grabbed Respondent's cell phone off the desk and stated, in an angry tone, that he would return Respondent's phone when Respondent relinquished possession of his (D.P.'s). Understandably disinclined to negotiate, Respondent calmly directed D.P. to return his property. D.P. refused. Respondent again asked, to no avail, that D.P. place the phone on the desk. After a third request, which, like the others, went entirely unheeded, Respondent stood up, walked around his desk, positioned himself near D.P., and instructed D.P.——for the fourth time——to put down the phone. D.P. complied, only to pick up the phone once again just seconds later. (While doing so, D.P. remarked that he was not going to return Respondent's "mother-fucking phone.") It is at this point that the witness' accounts diverge: D.P. and student S.H. contend that Respondent reached out with one hand and, in an unprovoked act of violence, grabbed D.P. by the throat and pushed him backwards, which resulted in D.P. falling over several desks that had been placed together; students A.A., R.B., and A.P. claim that Respondent, without provocation, slammed D.P. onto the desks after taking hold of the student's throat; finally, Respondent asserts——as corroborated by student T.F.——that D.P. moved toward him in a threatening manner and that he (Respondent) simply defended himself5/ by extending his arm, which made contact with D.P.'s upper chest or neck area. Respondent and T.F. further testified that, as a result of the defensive contact, D.P. moved backward and either tripped or fell over the desks. Before the undersigned resolves the question of how D.P. wound up on the floor, a brief rehearsal of the relevant subsequent events is in order. Moments after the physical encounter, Respondent informed D.P., who was uninjured, that he intended to escort him to one of Dillard's administrators. Enraged, D.P. removed his shirt and followed Respondent into the hallway; as D.P. did so, he directed several vulgar threats toward Respondent, such as, "I'm going to fuck you up" and "I'm going to kill you." Moments later, Respondent encountered one of Dillard's security guards, Noel Buhagiar, from whom Respondent requested assistance. Mr. Buhagiar proceeded to restrain D.P., at which point Respondent made his way to school administration. Once in the front office, Respondent provided a brief description to Mr. Levinsky (as noted previously, an assistant principal) concerning his incident with D.P. Mr. Levinsky instructed Respondent to return to class and issue D.P. a referral. While en route to his classroom, Respondent walked by D.P., who, still restrained, repeated his earlier crude threats. From what can be gleaned from the record, D.P.'s behavior ultimately earned him a five-day suspension from school. Shortly after the incident, Respondent was questioned by Edward Jackson, a school resource officer assigned to Dillard. During the interview, Respondent explained that D.P. had approached him in a "fighter's stance" and that, as a result of this aggressive behavior, he feared for his safety and used an open hand (which made contact with D.P.'s neck) to ward D.P. away. Subsequently, Officer Jackson conducted an interview of D.P. in the presence of Mr. Levinsky and the student's father, during which D.P. provided a description of the incident that largely coincided with Respondent's version of events. These statements were credibly recounted during the final hearing by Officer Jackson, who testified: The child told me, in front of his father, and A.P. [Levinsky], that there was a conversation about a cell phone. He went to get his cell phone back, in an aggressive manner, and that's when [Respondent], fearing for his safety, extended his arms out, and I guess in such force, that he caused the student to fall over some chairs. I then asked, well, Mr. [Levinsky] asked the student, did at any time, did [Respondent] use his hand to choke, choke you. And D.P. answered, to the question, indicating that [Respondent] did not use his hands to choke him. And that was said in front of his father, and in front of Mr. Levinsky, so, there was no choke at all. Final Hearing Transcript, p. 173 (emphasis added). Upon the conclusion of his investigation, Officer Jackson charged D.P. with misdemeanor assault,6/ at which time the matter was forwarded to the State Attorney's Office.7/ Ultimate Findings It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Petitioner has failed to adduce clear and convincing evidence of the Amended Administrative Complaint's principal allegation—— namely, that Respondent grabbed D.P. in a "choking manner and pushed him onto [a] desk." In so finding, the undersigned rejects the testimony of Petitioner's witnesses on this issue, which, for several reasons, is less persuasive than that of Respondent and T.F. First, had Respondent committed the act alleged, it is reasonable to expect that D.P. would have suffered some form of harm, particularly since Respondent, a football coach, outweighed D.P. by at least 608/ pounds. Yet, and as D.P. conceded during the final hearing, he sustained no marks, bruises, or injuries of any kind.9/ In addition, D.P.'s present description of the event is highly dubious in light of Officer Jackson's credible testimony, which establishes D.P.'s admission during the police interview that he (D.P.) had moved toward Respondent aggressively and that Respondent had merely extended his arm for protection. Finally, D.P.'s wholly outrageous conduct, both before and after the incident——taking Respondent's property and refusing to return it, removing his shirt, and threatening to "kill" Respondent——is far more suggestive of his culpability as the aggressor. Owing to the undersigned's crediting of Respondent's final-hearing testimony, it necessarily follows that Respondent's report of the incident to law enforcement, in which he claimed self-defense, was in no manner false or dishonest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Education Practices Commission dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S EDWARD T. BAUER 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 30th day of May, 2013.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent, Ms. Claudine Etienne, violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2011),1/ and implementing administrative rules, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact The Commissioner is responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct against individuals holding educator's certificates. Ms. Etienne holds Florida Educator's Certificate 845026, covering the areas of English and mathematics, which is valid through June 30, 2018. At all times relevant to the complaint, Ms. Etienne was employed as an English teacher at Miami Springs High School in the Miami-Dade County School District. On or about January 20, 2012, an unknown student ignited a smoke bomb or large firecracker in a locker in Ms. Etienne's classroom. Ms. Etienne was unsure what the device was or how it was ignited. Smoke was generated from the device, and it filtered into the classroom. One or more students requested to leave the room because of the smoke. In her deposition, Ms. Etienne indicated that at the time of the incident, she was aware that one of the students assigned to her class, C.E., had asthma because she had a conversation with C.E.'s mother in December about it. Ms. Etienne testified that she did not recall C.E. asking her to leave the room on the day of the incident, however, and in fact did not remember if C.E. was even in class that day. Ms. Etienne did not believe the smoke was sufficiently serious to require her to allow the students to leave the room. She was uncertain how to proceed until administrators who had been called arrived in the classroom. Ms. Etienne instructed the students to stay in the room until an administrator arrived. One student subsequently required medical attention as a result of the smoke inhalation. In her written statement, C.E. stated that paramedics came to the school to assist her because she could not breathe after her exposure to the smoke in the classroom.2/ Ms. Etienne later received a verbal reprimand from the school district.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Ms. Claudine Etienne in violation of section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, through her violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), issuing her a letter of reprimand, and assessing a fine against her in the amount of $500. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of February, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 7th day of February, 2017.
The Issue The main issues in this case are whether, as the district school board alleges, a teacher has given the district just cause to terminate his employment contract for incompetency, and, alternatively, whether the teacher failed to correct performance deficiencies during a 90-day probationary period, which would constitute separate grounds for dismissal if proven true.
Findings Of Fact The Broward County School Board ("School Board"), Petitioner in this case, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Broward County Public School System. At all relevant times, Respondent Christopher Marshall ("Marshall") was employed as a math teacher in the Broward County school district, a position which he had held for some 15 years before this proceeding began. During that period, Marshall taught at a few different schools, the latest being McArthur High, where he worked for several years up to and including the 2013-14 school year. Marshall's teaching career, sad to say, has been mediocre. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that, at least as early as 2002, Marshall was identified by administrators and colleagues as a teacher of marginal ability. More than once over the years Marshall was placed on performance probation due to concerns about his unsatisfactory performance. Rather than terminate Marshall's employment, however, the district transferred Marshall from school to school, and somehow he managed to muddle through, doing enough to be rated "satisfactory" and avoid getting the sack. One of Marshall's defining characteristics has been the remarkably high percentages of Fs and Ds that his students consistently have earned, year in and year out. Frequently more than half of his students took home final grades lower than a C——and sometimes quite a bit more than 50 percent fell into this category. This was true across grade levels (Marshall taught grades nine through 12) and without regard to degrees of subject-matter difficulty (Marshall taught advanced as well as basic classes; he was not assigned only struggling students). It was not uncommon for Marshall to fail between one-quarter and one-third of his students. In the 2013-14 school year, for example, 31 percent of Marshall's Liberal Arts Math 2 students received a failing grade; 25 percent of his Math College Readiness students failed; and ten percent of his Algebra 2 students got Fs. This was consistent with a decade-long pattern. Needless to say, a teacher whose students in large numbers routinely get Ds or worse in his classes attracts attention from students, colleagues, parents, and administrators. In Marshall's case, students complained to other teachers——and to their parents. Parents, of course, complained to administrators and demanded that their children be placed in other classes. Often, to placate angry parents, Marshall's students were transferred, with the result that Marshall's classes were small, and other math teachers had to squeeze in additional students. Teachers complained about this. It must be acknowledged that poor grades are not necessarily a reflection of the teacher's ability or lack thereof. Certainly, as a general rule, each student bears substantial responsibility for his or her own grade, and no one should expect a teacher simply to hand out high marks that are unmerited and unearned. Sometimes, to be sure, an F or a D is as richly deserved as an A or a B. That said, the sheer persistence of Marshall's grade distribution under different conditions and through changing student populations implies that something other than resistance or indifference to learning, poor study habits, or lack of intellectual ability must be at work. The undersigned has combed the record for an explanation of his students' poor grades that might exonerate Marshall but can find none. There is no persuasive evidence, for example, that Marshall is a demanding teacher who sets the bar high for his students, administering tough but fair tests that are difficult for the unmotivated or unprepared to pass. To the contrary, Marshall had his students spend time on rote exercises, such as copying definitions and formulas from the textbook, which have little educational value. Nor did Marshall's students tend to excel in their next math classes. Rather, after being taught by Marshall, his students often had difficulty in their subsequent courses because they had not learned the prerequisite material. For years, administrators have tried to cajole or compel Marshall to reduce the number of students receiving Fs and Ds in his classes, not by the expedient of grade inflation, but by implementing different pedagogical techniques and strategies. Marshall, however, has ignored these importunings and directives, and nothing has changed. Marshall's apparent imperviousness to criticism has been an ongoing source of frustration to his colleagues and administrators. Marshall considers himself to be an "awesome" teacher, and therefore he concludes that anyone who has a different opinion——which unfortunately seems to be nearly everyone with whom he has worked——is either mistaken, lying, or treating him unfairly. This has led Marshall to file numerous grievances and complaints against his supervisors, none of which has been successful. He is not, however, confrontational, discourteous, or abusive in his workplace relationships. Rather, Marshall engages in passive-aggressive behavior. Faced with a demand or a directive, Marshall does not argue (although he might politely disagree); he simply does not comply. The greater weight of the evidence persuades the undersigned to find that the bad grades Marshall's students consistently have received are a symptom of Marshall's inability to teach. Although he knows his subject, Marshall lacks the skills necessary to impart his knowledge to his students, who consequently do not learn math in his classes. It is not that Marshall is deliberately trying not to succeed. He is not being insubordinate in this regard. He is simply not suited to the job of teaching high school math. In 2011, following a legislative directive then recently enacted, the school district adopted a teacher evaluation system known as the Broward Instructional Development and Growth Evaluation System ("BrIDGES"), which is based on Dr. Robert J. Marzano's strategies for educational effectiveness. When rating a teacher's classroom performance using BrIDGES, an evaluator inputs his or her observations into a database by filling out an electronic "iObservation" form. The iObservation tool contains 60 "elements," each of which represents a discrete strategy, action, or skill that a teacher might employ as appropriate: e.g., "Using Academic Games," "Identifying Critical Information," and "Displaying Objectivity and Control." The elements are organized under four separate "domains" as follows: Domain 1: Classroom Strategies and Behaviors (Elements 1-41) Domain 2: Planning and Preparing (Elements 42-49) Domain 3: Reflecting on Teaching (Elements 50-54) Domain 4: Collegiality and Professionalism (Elements 55-60). The 41 elements of Domain 1 are further subdivided into nine Design Questions, DQ1 through DQ9. On October 8, 2013, the school district and the Broward Teachers Union entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") setting forth their agreements regarding the use of BrIDGES to evaluate teachers for 2013-14. Pursuant to the MOU, each classroom teacher was to receive at least three observations, including one formal (30 or more minutes), one informal (15-25 minutes), and one snapshot or walkthrough (3-10 minutes) observation. During an observation, the subject teacher receives a "datamark" (prescribed number of points) for each element that the evaluator chooses to rate. For 2013-14, the datamarks were as follows: Innovating (Highly Effective), 4 points; Applying (Effective), 3 points; Developing (Effective), 2.5 points; Beginning (Needs Improvement), 2 points; and Not Using (Unsatisfactory), 1 point. Each teacher was to receive at least 45 datamarks, comprising at least 25 datamarks in Domain 1 and 10 within Domains 2, 3, and/or 4. A weighted average of the datamarks assigned to a teacher's performance as recorded on the iObservation forms became the teacher's Instructional Practice Score ("IPS"). The IPS was equal to 0.68X plus 0.32Y, where X was the average of the teacher's Domain 1 datamarks and Y was the average of the teacher's datamarks for Domains 2, 3, and 4 combined. The IPS was reported as a number having three decimal digits, to the thousandths place. This created a false precision, for the calculated result could not possibly have been more precise than the number having the least number of significant figures in the equation, which would always be a one-digit integer (unless the teacher happened to receive strait 2.5s——possible, but unlikely, and not the case here). In other words, the numbers to the right of the decimal point in the teacher's IPS were mathematically insignificant, spurious digits, because the original data could not support a measurement beyond the precision of one significant figure. The IPS should have been (but was not) rounded to a single-digit integer to avoid reporting insignificant digits. For 2013-14, the BrIDGES Overall Evaluation Score equaled the sum of the teacher's IPS (weighted as 49%), Deliberate Practice score (weighted as 1.0%), and Student Growth score (weighted as 50%). Teachers at McArthur High (including Marshall) for whom no individual student data were available automatically received a Student Growth score of 3.0 for that school year, and all teachers (including Marshall) who completed a self-assessment received a Deliberate Practice score of 3.0. The Overall Evaluation Scale for 2013-14 was Highly Effective (3.450-4.000), Effective (2.500-3.449), Needs Improvement (2.000-2.499), and Unsatisfactory (1.000-1.999). As of February 4, 2014, Marshall had received eight observations: three formals, three informals, and two walkthroughs. He had received 56 datamarks in Domain 1 and five datamarks in Domains 2, 3, and 4. His weighted IPS, to that date, was 2.145 (but this computed score was precise to no more than one significant figure and therefore should be understood as a 2 after rounding off the spurious digits), or Needs Improvement. Pursuant to the MOU, once a teacher receives an average IPS of Needs Improvement or Unsatisfactory among other conditions that Marshall had met as of February 4, 2014, a Performance Development Plan ("PDP") may be written for that teacher. Accordingly, in early February 2014, a PDP was written for Marshall. As well, on February 12, 2014, the principal of McArthur High placed Marshall on performance probation for 90 calendar days, delivering to Marshall a notice of "less than effective performance" ostensibly pursuant to section 1012.34(4), Florida Statutes. The statute, however, authorizes 90-day performance probation only for a teacher whose performance is unsatisfactory, and Marshall's performance was not unsatisfactory; it was Needs Improvement. Needs Improvement is, to be sure, less than Effective performance, but it is better than Unsatisfactory. Indeed, none of the levels of performance besides Unsatisfactory denotes unsatisfactory performance and thus, logically, all teachers rated Highly Effective, Effective, or Needs Improvement fall within the range of satisfactory performance. In any event, between February 28 and May 7, 2014, Marshall received 12 more observations, which added 75 datamarks to his total in Domain 1 (making 131 in all) and six additional datamarks in Domains 2, 3, and 4 (for a grand total of 11). The iObservation forms for Marshall's last six observations, incidentally, are not in evidence. As of May 7, 2014, Marshall's IPS was 1.963. This number, by itself, would be Unsatisfactory on the Overall Evaluation Scale. Given, however, that the initial numerical data was captured (mostly) in single-digit integers, together with a handful of 2.5s, the decimal places are spurious in this result; there is no meaningful distinction between "1.963" (which is a textbook example of false precision) and "2" (which is what 1.963 should be rounded up to, to avoid the fallacy of overprecision). Thus, if the insignificant figures are ignored, Marshall's IPS, by itself, is actually Needs Improvement. But more important, Marshall's IPS was not his Overall Evaluation Score, and therefore it is improper and unfair to deem his performance Unsatisfactory on the Overall Performance Scale based on an IPS of 1.963 as the School Board wants to do. Marshall's Overall Evaluation Score, as calculated by the School Board, was 2.492 — Needs Improvement.1/ Again, Needs Improvement is less than Effective and clearly not ideal, but it is not Unsatisfactory. To the contrary, Needs Improvement is one of the levels of satisfactory performance. Going a step farther, if Marshall's IPS were rounded to 2, as it should be to eliminate the false precision, and his Overall Evaluation Score recalculated absent the spurious decimals, then his final score would be 2.51, which in turn should be rounded to 3 to avoid overprecision, but which equals Effective performance regardless. The point is, based on a final score of 2.492, Marshall's overall performance can as correctly be deemed Effective as Needs Improvement, for there is no real difference between 2.492 and 3 based on the original data used to make these calculations.2/ (To repeat for emphasis, computations cannot make the original data more precise.3/) Determinations of Ultimate Fact The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Marshall is guilty of the offense of misconduct in office, which is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056(2).4/ The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Marshall is guilty of incompetency,5/ which is just cause for dismissal from employment. A preponderance of the evidence establishes that Marshall's performance as measured in accordance with the BrIDGES evaluation system was not Unsatisfactory during the 2013-14 school year. Therefore, the evidence does not support the termination of Marshall's employment contract pursuant to section 1012.34(4). The evidence does not support a determination that Marshall independently violated section 1012.53, apart from his incompetency, which affords a sufficient basis (as "just cause") for dismissal. The evidence does not support a determination that Marshall independently violated School Board Rule 4008(B), apart from his incompetency, which affords a sufficient basis (as "just cause") for dismissal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order dismissing Marshall from his employment as a teacher in the Broward County Public Schools for the just cause of incompetency as a result of inefficiency. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of March, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 24th day of March, 2016.
