The Issue Whether the Respondent should be dismissed from her employment as a teacher because of incompetency, as alleged in the Petitioner's letter to the Respondent dated November 16, 1999, and in the Notice of Specific Charges filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on December 22, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, is the entity authorized to operate the public schools in the county and to "provide for the appointment, compensation, promotion, suspension, and dismissal of employees" of the school district. Section 4(b), Article IX, Florida Constitution; Section 230.23(4) and (5), Florida Statutes (1997). At the times material to this proceeding, Ms. Weinstein was an elementary school teacher employed under a continuing contract by the School Board and assigned to Miami Heights Elementary School ("Miami Heights Elementary"). Ms. Weinstein has been employed by the School Board since 1968. Ms. Weinstein is a member of United Teachers of Dade and is governed by the Contract Between the Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade ("UTD Contract"). During the 1998-1999 school year, Ms. Weinstein taught a second grade class at Miami Heights Elementary. She was placed on alternate assignment on February 9, 1999, and, in March 1999, she took medical leave, which was approved by the School Board. On October 13, 1999, Ms. Weinstein was advised that she must either resign or retire from her position as a teacher with the School Board by October 20, 1999, and that, if she did not do so, a recommendation would be made to the School Board at its November 17, 1999, meeting that she be dismissed from her employment. The decision that Ms. Weinstein could no longer teach in the Miami-Dade County public school system was based on two grounds. First, she had received an unacceptable evaluation for the 1998-1999 school year based on the determination that her teaching performance was not acceptable and that she had failed to remediate the deficiencies identified in the TADS formal observations conducted in September and November 1998 and in January 1999. Second, two psychologists had found Ms. Weinstein medically unfit for duty as an elementary school teacher as a result of psychological evaluations conducted in January 1999 and August 1999. Performance as a teacher Parent and teacher complaints Blanca M. Valle became principal of Miami Heights Elementary in June 1997. Soon after she assumed her duties, Ms. Valle received a letter from a parent complaining that Ms. Weinstein allegedly told her son he was "stupid"; the parent requested that her son not be assigned to Ms. Weinstein's class for the upcoming school year. At the time, Ms. Weinstein was teaching in a summer program at South Miami Heights Elementary School. Although the charge made by the parent was not substantiated, 1/ the child was assigned to a different teacher for the summer program, and Ms. Valle made sure that the child was not assigned to Ms. Weinstein's class for the 1997- 1998 school year. Ms. Valle assigned Ms. Weinstein to teach a kindergarten class during the 1997-1998 school year. Ms. Valle received several letters from parents in September 1997 complaining about Ms. Weinstein's treatment of their children. One parent complained that Ms. Weinstein ignored her son when he raised his hand to participate in class; another parent asked that his child be assigned to another kindergarten class because the child felt intimidated and frightened in Ms. Weinstein's class; another parent complained that Ms. Weinstein was not aware that her daughter was lost in the cafeteria for 45 minutes after lunch; another parent complained that her son's school supplies were stolen from the classroom, his homework was not collected by Ms. Weinstein, and his shirt was cut in several places by another student during the time he was under Ms. Weinstein's supervision. As a result of the complaints, Ms. Valle assigned Ms. Weinstein in October 1997 to teach a third grade class that had just been created at Miami Heights Elementary to accommodate a greater-than-expected number of students. In addition to re- assigning Ms. Weinstein, Ms. Valle assigned another teacher to act as her mentor, assigned the grade level chairperson to work closely with her, and referred her to the School Board's Employee Assistance Program. 2/ After Ms. Weinstein was transferred, Ms. Valle received several letters from parents of third grade students complaining about Ms. Weinstein and asking that their children be transferred to another class. One parent complained that, during a field trip the parent was chaperoning, Ms. Weinstein spent an inordinate amount of time berating students for misbehavior, to no effect; she lacked control of the class, and she was disorganized; another parent complained that, during a conference with Ms. Weinstein and Ms. Clayton, Ms. Weinstein lied about sending progress reports home to the parent and said that her daughter was crazy. During the 1998-1999 school year, Ms. Weinstein was assigned to teach a second grade class. Ms. Valle received several letters from parents complaining about Ms. Weinstein and requesting that their children be transferred to another class. Several parents stated that they wanted their children transferred to another class because they had received negative reports from other parents regarding Ms. Weinstein. One parent complained that her son cried every morning and did not want to go to school, that Ms. Weinstein told the parent that her son lied to the parent and to himself, and that Ms. Weinstein did not have a professional appearance; another parent complained that Ms. Weinstein ignored her daughter when she raised her hand to turn in her homework. Crystal Coffey was the assistant principal at Miami Heights Elementary during the 1998-1999 school year, which was her first year in the position at Miami Heights Elementary. It was not unusual for parents to approach her and ask that their child be transferred out of Ms. Weinstein's class. At the end of the 1998-1999 school year, when Ms. Weinstein was on medical leave, Ms. Valle received letters from three teachers complaining about Ms. Weinstein. The second grade level chairperson during the 1998-1999 school year complained that Ms. Weinstein was very difficult to work with and did not grasp the curriculum or understand how to present lessons. Another teacher commented that she had observed Ms. Weinstein engage in a pattern of unprofessional and often bizarre behavior over the years. A teacher who team-taught language arts with Ms. Weinstein wrote that, among other things, Ms. Weinstein would not let students go to the rest room, that on two occasions Ms. Weinstein sat at her desk during class and ate a chef salad and a tuna salad with her hands, and that Ms. Weinstein would put a "bad behavior" check mark beside children's names for the most minor offenses. Observations of Ms. Weinstein's teaching performance Ms. Weinstein's performance as a teacher was rated acceptable overall and acceptable in every performance category in each annual evaluation from the 1978-1979 school year 3/ through the 1997-1998 school year. Ms. Valle signed Ms. Weinstein's Teacher Assessment and Development System ("TADS") 4/ Annual Evaluation for the 1997-1998 school year based on a formal TADS observation conducted on April 13, 1998, by the then-assistant principal of Miami Heights Elementary, Alice Clayton. Ms. Clayton prepared a CAI-Post Observation Report for the April 13, 1998, TADS observation rating Ms. Weinstein's performance acceptable in each category assessed. She also rated Ms. Weinstein's performance acceptable for each indicator in each category. Ms. Valle conducted informal observations of the classroom performance of each of the teachers in Miami Heights Elementary; it was her practice to visit all of the classrooms in the school at least once a day. During her informal observations of Ms. Weinstein's classroom performance, she observed students who were not on task, discipline problems, and a general lack of teaching and learning in the classroom. Ms. Coffey made it a practice to informally observe each teacher's classroom at least three times each week. Ms. Coffey informally observed Ms. Weinstein's classroom an average of three times each week during the 1998-1999 school year. At the beginning of the school day, Ms. Coffey would often find Ms. Weinstein sitting at her desk in the classroom eating her breakfast or looking "spacey," apparently unaware that the classroom door was open and that a number of parents were trying to talk with her and/or trying to get their children organized for the day. On September 18, 1998, Ms. Valle, who was trained in the use of TADS, conducted a formal TADS observation of Ms. Weinstein's classroom performance and completed both a CAI Post-Observation Report and a Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement with respect to the observation. Ms. Valle rated Ms. Weinstein's classroom performance acceptable in three categories listed on the CAI Post-Observation Report: knowledge of subject matter, teacher-student relationships, and assessment techniques. Ms. Valle rated Ms. Weinstein unacceptable in three categories on the CAI Post-Observation Report: preparation and planning, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. The Record of Observed Deficiencies contains numerous references to Ms. Weinstein's failure to use verbal or non-verbal techniques to redirect students who were off task; rather, Ms. Valle observed that Ms. Weinstein ignored students who were talking and playing and generally behaving poorly, and she seemed to be unaware of the students' behavior in her classroom. Ms. Valle also observed that Ms. Weinstein ignored students who raised their hands with questions or to contribute to the class discussion, did not provide background information for her lesson or any explanation of how to do the problems assigned, did not acknowledge that many of the children were confused by the lesson, and did not provide closure to the lesson. On November 16, 1999, Ms. Coffey, who was trained in the use of TADS, conducted a formal TADS observation of Ms. Weinstein's classroom performance and completed both a CAI Post-Observation Report and a Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement with respect to the observation. Ms. Coffey rated Ms. Weinstein's classroom performance acceptable in two categories listed on the CAI Post-Observation Report: knowledge of subject matter and assessment techniques. Ms. Coffey rated Ms. Weinstein unacceptable in four categories on the CAI Post-Observation Report: preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships. Ms. Coffey observed that Ms. Weinstein did not follow her lesson plan and went beyond the time allotted for the lesson, leaving the teacher who was to teach the next lesson knocking at the classroom door for over five minutes. Ms. Coffey noticed that students already had completed the workbook page for the lesson, and, in Ms. Coffey's opinion, Ms. Weinstein was not teaching a new lesson during the observation but one she had already taught. Ms. Coffey observed that Ms. Weinstein did not use any verbal or non-verbal techniques to redirect the many students who were off task and that she put check marks for bad behavior and stars for good behavior beside students' names, which she had written on the chalk board, without providing any explanation to the students and often for no discernable reason. Ms. Coffey also observed that Ms. Weinstein often ignored students' inappropriate behavior, did not monitor whether the students were learning the lesson, did not provide feedback to the students, and did not respond to students who had questions. A Conference-for-the-Record was held on December 8, 1998, to discuss Ms. Weinstein's September and November performance assessments and related matters and her future employment status with the School Board. Ms. Valle and Ms. Coffey attended the conference, as well as Ms. Weinstein and two union stewards. Ms. Valle discussed the two TADS formal observations with Ms. Weinstein, as well as the prescriptive activities assigned in the observation reports and ways in which Ms. Valle and Ms. Coffey would assist her to improve her teaching performance. Ms. Weinstein was advised that disciplinary action would be considered if her performance did not improve. On January 25, 2000, Ms. Valle conducted her second formal observation of Ms. Weinstein's classroom performance, and she completed both a CAI Post-Observation Report and a Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement with respect to the observation. Ms. Valle rated Ms. Weinstein's classroom performance acceptable in three categories listed on the CAI Post-Observation Report: preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, and teacher-student relationships. Ms. Valle rated Ms. Weinstein unacceptable in three categories on the CAI Post-Observation Report: classroom management, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. At the time of the second observation, Ms. Weinstein had not remedied many of the unsatisfactory teaching behaviors Ms. Valle had observed in her formal observation in September 1998. The lesson observed by Ms. Valle on January 25, 1999, was on the concepts of solid, liquid, and gas, but Ms. Valle observed that Ms. Weinstein did not use any supplemental materials or hands-on activities to teach the students, nor did she provide necessary background information or closure for the lesson. Ms. Valle observed that Ms. Weinstein did not call on students who had raised their hands with questions or to contribute to the class discussion, did not provide feedback to help students who were confused by the lesson, failed to use verbal or non-verbal techniques to redirect students who were off task, and ignored students who were off task, seemingly unaware of their behavior. In addition, Ms. Valle found that Ms. Weinstein had virtually no documentation to support grades for the students: As of January 25, 1999, the most recent grade recorded in Ms. Weinstein's grade book was for December 9, 1998, and there were no assessments and very little work contained in the students' folders. On June 8, 1999, Ms. Valle prepared a memorandum regarding Ms. Weinstein's TADS Annual Evaluation for the 1998- 1999 school year, in which Ms. Valle rated Ms. Weinstein unacceptable in every category of classroom assessment; Ms. Valle rated Ms. Weinstein acceptable in professional responsibilities. The memorandum was prepared in lieu of conducting a conference-for-the-record because Ms. Weinstein was on extended medical leave. In the memorandum, Ms. Valle advised Ms. Weinstein that her performance was unacceptable because the deficiencies identified in the formal TADS observations in September and November 1998 and January 1999 had not been remediated. Ms. Valle advised Ms. Weinstein that the assessment process would continue when she returned to Miami Heights Elementary. Had Ms. Weinstein not gone on medical leave in March 1999, she would have been entitled to at least one, and perhaps two, formal TADS observations conducted by a School Board administrator other than Ms. Valle and Ms. Coffey. As it was, no external TADS observation was conducted, and the TADS assessment process was not completed. Fitness for duty as a teacher In a memorandum to the Office of Professional Standards dated January 13, 1999, Ms. Valle requested that Ms. Weinstein be given a fitness evaluation because she had observed Ms. Weinstein engage in behavior during the 1998-1999 school year that Ms. Valle considered unusual. Ms. Valle attached to the memorandum letters that Ms. Weinstein had prepared requesting that the parents of various students sign a statement "for her autograph book" to the effect that "Ms. Weinstein is a good teacher"; Ms. Weinstein passed the letters out to students and parents and disrupted classes when she took letters to other teachers and asked that they give them to the students whose names she had written on the letters. Both parents and teachers complained to Ms. Valle about these letters. Ms. Valle observed Ms. Weinstein engage in other behavior that Ms. Valle considered unusual: Ms. Weinstein came to school dressed in a manner that Ms. Valle considered inappropriate, and her hair was often untidy; during the winter, Ms. Weinstein sometimes wore a hat pulled down to her eyes the entire day; during a meeting with Ms. Valle and others, Ms. Weinstein took a pair of leopard-print gloves out of a box she carried and put on the gloves; Ms. Weinstein attended a PTA meeting wearing a black see-through skirt and blouse; Ms. Weinstein gobbled her food and ate food such as tuna salad with her hands; Ms. Weinstein walked in the school halls with a blank look on her face. In addition, Ms. Valle noted that Ms. Weinstein had excessive absences from school. Ms. Coffey observed Ms. Weinstein engage in behavior she considered unusual: When she had conferences with Ms. Weinstein, Ms. Weinstein would not look at her or respond to questions or statements except to say that "it's not true"; Ms. Weinstein wore a fur-like hat and long leopard gloves on hot days and sometimes walked around school under an umbrella when it was not raining; and Ms. Weinstein often had a "spacey" look and seemed not to understand what was being said to her. In response to Ms. Valle's request that Ms. Weinstein be referred for a fitness evaluation, a Conference-for-the- Record was held in the Office of Professional Standards on January 27, 1999, to consider, among other things, Ms. Weinstein's performance assessment and her medical fitness to perform her assigned duties. The Summary of the Conference- for-the-Record reflected that Ms. Weinstein was advised that her absences were considered excessive because she used more sick leave than she had accrued, and the two formal TADS observations completed in September and November 1998 were discussed. Ms. Weinstein acknowledged that the School Board had the right to require that she be evaluated to determine her fitness for duty, and she chose to be evaluated by Dr. Larry Harmon, whose name appeared on a list of psychologists approved by the School Board. Ms. Weinstein appended a two-page response to the Summary of the Conference-for-the-Record in which she admitted to some of the behaviors identified by Ms. Valle and Ms. Coffey but disputed the conclusion that these behaviors were unusual. Dr. Harmon's evaluation - January 1999 At the request of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards, Larry Harmon, who is a licensed clinical psychologist, performed a fitness-for-duty evaluation of Ms. Weinstein on January 28, 1999. In evaluating Ms. Weinstein, Dr. Harmon conducted a clinical interview and a mental status examination, administered several psychological tests, consulted with other mental health professionals, and reviewed materials provided to him by the School Board. Dr. Harmon issued a report dated March 10, 1999, in which he deferred his diagnosis with respect to Axis I "Clinical Disorders and Conditions." 5/ He diagnosed Ms. Weinstein with "Personality Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified" with respect to Axis II "Personality Disorders," 6/ commenting that she exhibited moderate to severe patterns of defensiveness, denial, projection, blame, rationalization, distorted thinking, suspiciousness, selective listening, inability to process and accept feedback, poor judgement, and lack of insight. Dr. Harmon deferred his diagnosis with respect to Axis III "Physical Disorders and Conditions" to her physician. Dr. Harmon concluded that Ms. Weinstein was not fit for duty as an elementary school teacher. This conclusion was based on his assessment that [h]er impaired interpersonal behavior and unacceptable work performance in Preparation and Planning, Classroom Management, Techniques of Instruction, and Teacher- Student Relationships is likely to continue and be considered below acceptable standards. Based on this assessment, there is insufficient supporting information to clear her to return to work. . . . Dr. Harmon's assessment that her interpersonal behavior was impaired was based on his observations that Ms. Weinstein was extremely defensive and almost in a state of denial that there were any problems with her interactions and performance; that she had difficulty processing information conveyed to her during the clinical interview and mental status examination; that her judgment was impaired and her problem-solving ability reduced; and that she had a low level of insight into the effect of her behavior on others. Dr. Harmon found that Ms. Weinstein generally had serious difficulties with job tasks requiring interpersonal interactions and stated that individuals with her [Ms. Weinstein's] level of defensiveness, distorted thinking, suspiciousness, denial, selective listening, inability to engage feedback, poor judgement, and lack of insight are likely to evidence significant work difficulties, especially if she is under stress. . . . [T]here appears to be a probability of significant risk that her inadequate interpersonal skills and inability to benefit from feedback will adversely affect her work performance . . . . Among other things, Dr. Harmon recommended in his report that Ms. Weinstein be placed on medical leave for at least one month to allow her to receive intensive mental health treatment to help her improve her interpersonal skills and work performance and that she participate in psychotherapy sessions and follow the recommendations of her psychotherapist. Another Conference-for-the Record was held in the Office of Professional Standards on March 17, 1999, for the purpose of discussing Ms. Weinstein's medical fitness to perform her assigned duties. At the time, Ms. Weinstein was temporarily assigned to the Region VI Office, where she had been placed in early February 1999. Dr. Harmon's report was reviewed at the conference with Ms. Weinstein and the union representative, and the recommendations in his report were accepted by the School Board as conditions for Ms. Weinstein's continued employment as follows: Obtain medical clearance from the Board approved evaluator to return to work within 29 working days of this conference or implement procedures for Board approved medical leave. Participate in psychotherapeutic sessions on a regular basis to be monitored by personnel from the District's support agency. Follow all recommendations of the health care professionals. Sign a limited Release and Exchange of Information for all of your mental health professionals which restricts the release and exchange of information to those symptoms, behavioral patterns, and treatment compliance issues directly relevant to your fitness for duty determination. Upon the recommendation of the District's support agency, which will be based upon discussions with your treating mental health professionals, a re-evaluation will be scheduled for you with Dr. Harmon. Ms. Weinstein was advised that, if she did not comply with Dr. Harmon's recommendations, the School Board would be compelled to take disciplinary measures against her including suspension, demotion, or dismissal. In the School Board's opinion, Ms. Weinstein was not ready to assume her duties after 30 days, and she subsequently took School Board-approved medical leave through the end of the 1998-1999 school year. Dr. Feazell's evaluation - March 1999 After the School Board received Dr. Harmon's evaluation report, Ms. Weinstein sought a second opinion on her fitness to carry out her duties as a second grade teacher with the Miami-Dade County school system. David A. Feazell, a licensed psychologist, conducted a psychological evaluation of Ms. Weinstein on March 22 and 26, 1999, and prepared a report summarizing his findings. Dr. Feazell spent approximately two hours with Ms. Weinstein in a clinical interview and another two hours administering psychological tests, which included personality and intelligence tests. Ms. Weinstein provided Dr. Feazell a copy of Dr. Harmon's report; he did not have access to the information provided to Dr. Harmon by the School Board, although he had access to the summary of the information contained in Dr. Harmon's report. Dr. Feazell noted in his evaluation report that, during the clinical interview, Ms. Weinstein's account of her employment situation was relevant and detailed and consisted of explanations for her behavior and rebuttal of the complaints made about her. Ms. Weinstein believed that she had made an unduly negative impression on Dr. Harmon because she was ill at ease and defensive in answering his questions. The psychological tests given by Dr. Feazell revealed that Ms. Weinstein's MMPI-2 [Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2] profile is defensive, going beyond that which is commonly seen in fitness for duty evaluations. She denies emotional discomfort and vulnerability, as well as common place human faults and frailties. She presents an unusually positive self-image, describes herself as self-controlled and quite socially responsible, and reports unusually low levels of depression or anxiety. In MMPI-2 item responses, she admits minimal social anxiety and characterizes herself as very outgoing, despite describing herself in the interview as shy. Individuals with Ms. Weinstein's MMPI-2 and Rorschach profiles are typically inclined to deny problems and not to have a high level of introspection or insight into their own feelings. They can be simplistic or inflexible into [sic] their approach to problems and tend to see things too much in terms of how others do not understand them or treat them unfairly. Ms. Weinstein actually shows several signs of a particular need for the approval and affection of others, so that she may find situations quite disconcerting in which others evaluate, criticize, or take a demanding, skeptical view of her. In terms of judgment, Ms. Weinstein is capable of thoughtful, perceptive analysis of situations. However, she also appears likely to overlook or misinterpret important details. Her judgment can be inconsistent, especially under conditions of emotional stress. She seems to react strongly to emotional stimuli. She could benefit from the support or guidance of others in learning to stop and to look at a situation from other points of view before she draws unwarranted or inaccurate conclusions. It is noted that testing shows no bizarre thinking or major distortion of judgment. Based on his clinical interview and testing of Ms. Weinstein, Dr. Feazell diagnosed her with an Axis I clinical diagnosis of "Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Disturbance of Emotions and Conduct in the face of occupational and personal stress." Dr. Feazell did not make an Axis II diagnosis, noting that "[a]lthough personality patterns predispose her to respond with some defensive inflexibility to certain interpersonal stresses, there may not be sufficient evidence of a formal personality disorder." Dr. Feazell did note, however, that, at the time of his evaluation, Ms. Weinstein was inclined to overreact to stress and to misunderstand things and form incomplete conclusions when she was under stress. Dr. Feazell finally observed that Ms. Weinstein needs continuing psychotherapy to develop better ways to recognize and deal with uncomfortable feelings, to learn better skills for hearing and taking in feedback and information without over-reacting and selectively misunderstanding it, and to learn better awareness of how her won style of judgment and interaction can hinder her problem solving under pressure. In Dr. Feazell's opinion, Ms. Weinstein was fit for duty at the time he evaluated her in March 1999 "as long as she has the support of treatment while working out her job issues with her principal. It is recommended that Ms. Weinstein return to work with continuing treatment." According to Dr. Feazell, Ms. Weinstein's prognosis is fairly good if she continues in treatment. Dr. Gibb's evaluation - August 1999 Ms. Weinstein was referred by the School Board for a follow-up fitness-for-duty evaluation, which was performed by Charles C. Gibbs on August 13, 1999. Dr. Gibbs conducted a clinical interview with Ms. Weinstein, administered several psychological tests, reviewed records provided by the School Board, and reviewed the evaluations of Ms. Weinstein performed by Dr. Harmon, Dr. Feazell, and Dr. Maurer, a psychologist who evaluated Ms. Weinstein at her request in June and July 1999. Dr. Gibbs tried to contact Ms. Weinstein's psychotherapist, Tyrone Lewis, but Mr. Lewis did not return several telephone calls. In Dr. Gibbs' opinion, Ms. Weinstein's most likely diagnosis would be an Axis I clinical disorder, such as depression, anxiety, or an adjustment disorder. Dr. Gibbs concluded that Ms. Weinstein was not fit to return to her job duties as an elementary school teacher as of August 1999, observing in the report of his psychological evaluation that [c]urrent test results and clinical data indicate that Ms. Weinstein is excessively defensive, guarded, substitutes fantasy for reality in stressful situations and she is plagued with poor judgment given her tendency to make decisions based on inadequate information. Furthermore she is not introspective and lacks insight into her behavior. As such she tends to project blame onto others and minimize the effects of her behavior on those in her environment. The aforementioned summary of the data in my professional opinion would make it difficult for Ms. Weinstein to counsel students when adjustment and/or academic problems arise. Further concern is raised in that she tends to make poor decisions based on inadequate information. Working with children requires a great deal of patience and as noted by results from Dr. Maurer with which I concur she is in a constant state of stimulus overload. Thus such typical stressors such as managing classroom rules and behavior of students will likely result in Ms. Weinstein becoming overwhelmed. Additionally, her unconventional and egocentric style will not allow her to meet the changing and challenging emotional needs of elementary children. I am further concerned that her defensiveness will prevent her from benefiting from constractive [sic] criticism which will impair her participating in professional meetings and being able to put into action new information obtained from conferences and inservice classes. Dr. Gibbs noted in his report that Dr. Feazell and Dr. Maurer had both concluded that Ms. Weinstein was fit for duty but that they had not reviewed the materials he received from the School Board. Dr. Gibbs also was concerned that Ms. Weinstein had some mild organic impairment, and he recommended that she have a full neuropsychological evaluation. He further recommended that Ms. Weinstein continue in therapy for at least three months before having another evaluation of her fitness for duty and that, if she were at some point allowed to resume her duties as an elementary school teacher, she "team teach with another professional for 3 months prior to teaching on her own." Ms. Weinstein's psychotherapy treatment Ms. Weinstein has been in treatment with Tyrone Lewis, a psychotherapist, since January 1999. Mr. Lewis sees Ms. Weinstein once a week and sometimes once every two weeks; he engages in what he describes as "supportive psychotherapy" with Ms. Weinstein, which is designed to provide her with insight into her current situation and to help relieve her depression and anxiety. Currently, he is working with Ms. Weinstein to help her deal with the uncertainty about her job and the possibility that she will not work as a teacher. At the time of the hearing, Mr. Lewis was of the opinion that Ms. Weinstein was much improved, specifically with respect to her cognitive skills, her depression, her anxiety, and her awareness of her current life situation. Final Conference-for-the Record A Conference-for-the-Record was held at the Office of Professional Standards on October 13, 1999, to review Ms. Weinstein's performance assessment and her medical fitness to perform assigned duties. Ms. Weinstein had been working in her alternate assignment in the Region VI Office since the beginning of the 1999-2000 school year. With respect to Ms. Weinstein's performance assessment, the results of the observations done by Ms. Valle and Ms. Coffey in September and November 1998 and in January 1999 were reviewed, and it was noted that her 1998-1999 TADS Annual Evaluation was unacceptable. Ms. Weinstein was advised that her teaching performance was not acceptable and that she had not remediated the cited deficiencies. With respect to Ms. Weinstein's medical fitness to perform her duties, the report of Dr. Gibbs was reviewed with Ms. Weinstein and her union representative. The School Board personnel acknowledged that Dr. Feazell and Dr. Maurer both concluded that Ms. Weinstein was able to return to work, while Dr. Harmon and Dr. Gibbs concluded that Ms. Weinstein was not able to return to work. The School Board accepted the assessment of Dr. Gibbs. Ms. Weinstein requested that she be evaluated by a fifth doctor, as a "tie breaker"; this request was denied, as were Ms. Weinstein's requests that she be transferred from Miami Heights Elementary and that the School Board authorize additional leave to allow time for her to have the neurological examination recommended by Dr. Gibbs. Ms. Weinstein was advised that she must either resign her job or retire because she had been unable to obtain medical clearance to return to her teaching duties and was not eligible for additional leave. Ms. Weinstein did not choose to resign or retire by the October 20, 1999, deadline, and the School Board suspended her and recommended her dismissal from employment at its November 17, 1999, meeting. Summary The evidence presented by the School Board is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Ms. Weinstein is incompetent as a teacher because she failed to communicate with or relate to her students to such a degree that the students were denied a minimum educational experience. Based on the formal and informal observations of Ms. Valle and Ms. Coffey during the fall of 1998 and in January 1999, Ms. Weinstein exercised virtually no control over the students in her classroom and either indiscriminately reprimanded the students or ignored their inappropriate behavior. Ms. Weinstein did not present her lessons in a coherent fashion, did not respond to students who were either confused or wanted to participate in the class, and was seemingly indifferent to whether the students learned in her classroom. No improvement of Ms. Weinstein's classroom performance was noted by Ms. Valle in her formal observation in January 1999 even though Ms. Weinstein had completed the activities prescribed by Ms. Valle and Ms. Coffey with respect to the September and November 1999 observations. The School Board has shown by the greater weight of the persuasive evidence that Ms. Weinstein is unable to perform her responsibilities as an elementary school teacher as a result of inefficiency in the classroom. The evidence presented by the School Board is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Ms. Weinstein is incompetent as a teacher because she is not emotionally stable. Dr. Harmon, Dr. Gibbs, and Dr. Feazell reached virtually the same conclusions regarding Ms. Weinstein's psychological profile and personality traits. All three psychologists found that Ms. Weinstein is extremely defensive, shows little insight into her own behavior, is unable to accept and benefit from feedback, makes judgments based on incomplete or incorrect information, and processes information poorly when she is in a stressful situation. On the basis of their assessments, Dr. Harmon and Dr. Gibbs concluded that Ms. Weinstein is unfit to carry out the duties as a teacher of elementary school children; Dr. Feazell concluded that Ms. Weinstein was fit to return to her teaching duties as of July 1999, as long as she continued in treatment to resolve the issues he identified in his evaluation report. The psychotherapy treatment Ms. Weinstein is receiving is not, however, focused on developing her ability to interact with others, to process and benefit from feedback, or to improve her judgment and ability to react properly in stressful situations, and Mr. Lewis supported his opinion that Ms. Weinstein was fit for duty as an elementary school teacher with nothing more than the observation that she was "much improved." The School Board has shown by the greater weight of the persuasive evidence that Ms. Weinstein is not fit to discharge her duties as a teacher at Miami Heights Elementary as a result of emotional instability.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, enter a final order sustaining the suspension without pay of Yvonne M. Weinstein and dismissing her as an employee of the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, for incompetency. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of September, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of September, 2000.
The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner, DeSoto County School Board (School Board), to suspend Respondent without pay, and terminate her employment as an Exceptional Student Education (ESE) teacher.
Findings Of Fact Parties and Relevant Policies The School Board is charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise public schools in DeSoto County. Art. IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const. (2018). This includes the power to discipline instructional staff, such as classroom teachers. §§ 1012.22(1)(f) and 1012.33, Fla. Stat. Respondent is an ESE classroom teacher at DeSoto County High School (High School). Although Respondent has been teaching for 23 years, she has only been an ESE classroom teacher for the School Board since 2016. Superintendent Cline is an elected official who has authority for making School Board personnel decisions. His duties include recommending to the School Board that a teacher be terminated. § 1012.27(5), Fla. Stat. David Bremer (Principal Bremer) was the principal at the High School at all times relevant to these proceedings, and Cynthia Langston served as the Assistant Principal. The parties’ employment relationship is governed by School Board policies, Florida laws, Department of Education regulations, and the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) entered into by the School Board and the Desoto County Educators Association, a public union. The CBA relevant to this action was effective July 1, 2018, through June 30, 2021. The School Board employed Respondent on an annual contract basis. “Annual contract” means an employment contract for a period of no longer than one school year which the School Board may choose to award or not award without cause. § 1012.335(1)(a), Fla. Stat. The testimony at the hearing and language in the CBA establish that the annual contract of a teacher, who has received an indication he or she “Needs Improvement” or is placed on an improvement plan, is not eligible for automatic renewal. In these situations, the superintendent has discretion regarding whether to renew that teacher’s annual contract. See CBA, Art. 8, § 16. Article 22, section 8 of the CBA provides for progressive discipline for teachers in the following four steps: (1) verbal reprimand (with written notation placed in the site file); (2) written reprimand (filed in personnel and site files); (3) suspension with or without pay; and (4) dismissal. The CBA makes clear that progressive discipline must be followed, “except in cases that constitute a real immediate danger to the district or [involve a] flagrant violation.” February 11, 2019 (the February 11 Incident) This proceeding arises from an incident that occurred on February 11, 2019, after lunch in Respondent’s ESE classroom. The School Board alleges Respondent intentionally threw a foam or Nerf-type football at a student in a wheelchair when he failed to follow her instructions, and the football hit the student. Respondent asserts she playfully threw stress ball-type footballs up in the air and one accidently bounced and hit A.R.’s chair. Respondent’s classroom at the High School consisted of ten to 12 ESE students during the 2018-2019 school year. These students had special needs and some were nonverbal. On the day of the incident, there were nine or ten students in Respondent’s classroom, including A.R., a high school senior with cerebral palsy. Respondent kept small foam or Nerf-type footballs in her desk drawer. The testimony at the hearing established Respondent had used them in the classroom to get the students’ attention in a playful fashion. In addition to Respondent, four paraprofessionals assisted the students in the classroom. Of the four, only three were in the classroom during the February 11 incident: Ms. Walker, Mr. Blevins, and Ms. Murray. Respondent was responsible for A.R. while in her classroom. A.R. uses a wheelchair or a walker to get around, but has a special chair-desk in Respondent’s classroom. A.R. had difficulty in the classroom setting. Specifically, it was noted at the hearing that he has trouble processing what is happening around him, and that he needs help simplifying tasks that require more than one step. Although A.R. is verbal, he is slow to respond. A.R. was described as a “repeater” because he repeats things that others say, smiles if others are smiling, or laughs if others are laughing. In conversation, A.R. would typically smile and nod, or say “yes.” Ms. Walker’s and Mr. Blevins’s recollections of the February 11 incident were essentially the same. They testified that on the afternoon of February 11, 2019, the students returned to Respondent’s classroom from art class. They were excited and did not settle down for their lesson. As a result, Respondent became frustrated and yelled at the students to get their pencils so they could start their work. Respondent asked A.R., who was in his special chair-desk, to obtain a pencil. A.R. did not respond immediately and Respondent told him to get his pencil or she would throw a football. Ms. Walker’s and Mr. Blevins’s testimony established that, at this point, Respondent threw either one or two blue, soft, Nerf-type footballs approximately six inches long at A.R., who was looking in another direction. One of these blue footballs hit A.R. either in the side of his torso or back. A.R. began flailing his arms while he was in his chair-desk, and the entire room became silent. Ms. Murray was not facing A.R. during the incident, but she heard Respondent yell at A.R. to pay attention. She did not see Respondent throw the balls and was unsure if any of the balls made contact with A.R. After the incident, however, she saw two balls on the floor, picked them up, and returned them to Respondent. Ms. Murray did not recall the color of the footballs, and could only describe them as “squishy.” Respondent testified that A.R. was not paying attention, and she admits she told him she was going to toss the footballs if he did not get his pencil. She denies throwing a blue football at A.R., but instead claims she threw two smaller foam brown footballs. She denied any of the balls hit him, but rather, explained one of the brown footballs bounced off the floor and hit A.R.’s chair-desk; the other fell on her desk. The undersigned finds the testimony of Respondent less credible than the paraprofessionals’ testimony. First, all of the evidence established Respondent clearly threw footballs after A.R. did not respond to her instruction, and Respondent knew (or should have known) that A.R. was incapable of catching the football or responding positively. Second, Respondent’s version of what happened to the balls after she threw them is inconsistent with the testimony of Ms. Walker and Mr. Blevins that one ball hit A.R. Respondent’s testimony that one ball fell on her desk is also inconsistent with Ms. Murray’s testimony that she picked up two balls off the floor. Finally, Respondent’s version of events is not believable in part, because neither the brown nor the blue football entered into evidence had sufficient elasticity (or bounciness) to have acted in the manner described by Respondent. Based on the credible evidence and testimony, the undersigned finds Respondent intentionally threw the blue larger footballs at A.R. knowing he would not be able to catch them, one ball hit A.R. in the side or back, and A.R. became startled from being hit. There was no evidence proving A.R. was physically, emotionally, or mentally harmed. Report and Investigation of the February 11 Incident Both Ms. Walker and Mr. Blevins were taken aback by Respondent’s behavior. Ms. Walker was concerned that A.R. did not realize what was happening, and that the rest of the students were in shock. She did not think a teacher should throw anything at any student. Mr. Blevins similarly stated he was stunned and did not believe Respondent’s conduct was appropriate, especially because A.R. was in a wheelchair. At the hearing, Respondent also admitted it would be inappropriate to throw anything at a student even if it was just to get his or her attention. Both Ms. Walker and Mr. Blevins attempted to report the incident immediately to the High School administration. Ms. Walker left the classroom to report the incident to Principal Bremer, who was unavailable. Ms. Walker then reported to Assistant Principal Langston what she had seen happen to A.R. in Respondent’s classroom. During this conversation, Ms. Walker was visibly upset. After listening to Ms. Walker, Assistant Principal Langston suggested she contact the Department of Children and Families (DCF). Ms. Walker used the conference room phone and immediately contacted the abuse hotline at DCF. As a result, DCF opened an abuse investigation into the incident. Meanwhile, Mr. Blevins had also left Respondent’s classroom to report the incident to Assistant Principal Langston. When he arrived, he saw that Ms. Walker was already there and assumed she was reporting what had happened. Therefore, he did not immediately report anything. Later that day, Assistant Principal Langston visited Respondent’s classroom, but did not find anything unusual. She did not speak to Respondent about the incident reported by Ms. Walker. The next day, February 12, 2019, Assistant Principal Langston obtained statements from the paraprofessionals, including Ms. Walker and Mr. Blevins in Respondent’s classroom regarding the February 11 incident. These statements were forwarded to Superintendent Cline, who had been advised of the incident and that DCF was conducting an investigation. It is Superintendent Cline’s practice to advise administrators to place a teacher on suspension with pay during an investigation. If the teacher is cleared, the administrator should move forward with reinstatement. In this case, Principal Bremer met with Respondent on February 12, 2019, and informed her she would be placed on suspension with pay while DCF conducted its investigation into the incident. DCF closed its investigation on February 19, 2019. No one who conducted the DCF investigation testified at the hearing, and the final DCF report was not offered into evidence. Rather, the School Board offered a DCF document titled “Investigative Summary (Adult Institutional Investigation without Reporter Information).” This document falls within the business records exception to the hearsay rule in section 90.803(6), Florida Statutes, and was admitted into evidence. The undersigned finds, however, the Investigative Summary unpersuasive and unreliable to support any findings. The document itself is a synopsis of another report. Moreover, the document is filled with abbreviations and specialized references, but no one with personal knowledge of the investigation explained the meaning of the document at the final hearing. Finally, the summary indicates DCF closed the investigation because no physical or mental injury could be substantiated. On February 21, 2019, Principal Bremer notified Superintendent Cline that DCF had cleared Respondent, but did not provide him with a copy of the DCF report or summary. Principal Bremer did not have to consult with Superintendent Cline regarding what action to take regarding Respondent. Based on the DCF finding that the allegation of abuse or maltreatment was “Not Substantiated,” Principal Bremer reinstated Respondent to her position as an ESE teacher, but still issued her a written reprimand. The reprimand titled “Improper Conduct Maltreatment to a Student” stated in relevant part: I am presenting you with this written reprimand as discipline action for your improper conduct of throwing foam balls at a student. On February 11, 2019 it was reported you threw a football at [A.R.], a vulnerable adult suffering from physical limitations. As a result of this action, Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF) were called to investigate and you were suspended until the investigation was complete. Although maltreatment of [sic] Physical or Mental Injury was not substantiated, DCF reported three adults in the room witnessed you throwing at least two foam balls at [A.R.] because he did not get a pencil on time. Apparently [A.R.] did not follow through with the direction provided by you and you became frustrated for that reason. I am by this written reprimand, giving you an opportunity to correct your improper conduct and observe Building rules in the future. I expect you will refrain hereafter from maltreatment to a student and fully meet the duties and responsibilities expected of you in your job. Should you fail to do so, you will subject yourself to further disciplinary action, including a recommendation for immediate termination and referral of the Professional Practices Commission. On February 25, 2019, Respondent returned to her same position as an ESE teacher, in her same classroom, with the same students, including A.R. Superintendent’s Investigation and Recommendation to Terminate Meanwhile, Superintendent Cline requested a copy of the report of the investigation from DCF and contacted the DCF investigator. Based on his review of what was provided to him and his conversation with DCF, he concluded A.R. may still be at risk. Superintendent Cline found Respondent’s actions worthy of termination because “it is unacceptable to throw a football at a student who has cerebral palsy, and thus, such conduct violates” state rules and School Board policy. School Board PRO at 15, ¶ 72. There was no credible evidence at the hearing that A.R. or any other student was at risk from Respondent. The School Board failed to establish at the hearing what additional information, if any, Superintendent Cline received that was different from the information already available to him, or that was different from the information provided to Principal Bremer. There was no justification or plausible explanation as to why Superintendent Cline felt the need to override Principal Bremer’s decision to issue a written reprimand for the violations. On March 6, 2019, Superintendent Cline issued a letter suspending Respondent without pay effective March 8, 2019, and indicating his intent to recommend to the School Board that it terminate Respondent’s employment at its next regular board meeting on March 26, 2019. Attached to the letter were copies of the Investigative Summary, Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A- 10.081, and School Board Policy 3210. This letter was delivered by a School Board’s human resources employee to Respondent on March 8, 2019. Respondent did not return to the classroom for the remainder of the school year. Respondent’s Disciplinary History Prior to the February 11 incident, Respondent had received an oral reprimand for attendance issues on December 21, 2018. On February 6, 2019, Assistant Principal Langston met with Respondent to address deficiencies in Respondent’s attendance, lesson plans, timeliness of entering grades, and concerns with individual education plans for her ESE students. At that meeting, Assistant Principal Langston explained Respondent would be put on an improvement plan and that if Respondent did not comply with the directives discussed at the meeting, she would be subject to further discipline, including termination. Although the plan was memorialized, Respondent was not given the written plan until after she returned from the suspension. Ultimate Findings of Fact Respondent intentionally threw two footballs in an overhand manner at A.R., a student who could not comprehend the situation and could not catch the balls. She did so either in an attempt to garner the student’s attention or out of frustration because he was not following directions. Respondent did not violate rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., because there was no evidence the incident exposed A.R. to harm, or that A.R.’s physical or mental health or safety was in danger. Similarly, Respondent did not violate School Board Policy 3210(A)(1). Respondent violated rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)5., which prohibits a teacher from “intentionally expos[ing] a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement.” The evidence established Respondent’s action in throwing the ball was intentional and was done to embarrass or belittle A.R. for not following her directions. For the same reason, Respondent’s conduct violated School Board Policy 3210(A)(5). Respondent violated rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)7., which states that a teacher “[s]hall not harass or discriminate . . . any student on the basis of . . . handicapping condition . . . and shall make reasonable effort to assure that each student is protected from harassment.” Again, the credible evidence established the act of a teacher throwing any item at any student, especially one who requires a wheelchair, is inappropriate and would be considered harassment on the basis of a student’s handicap. Similarly, Respondent violated rule 6A-10.081(2)(c)4., which requires that a teacher “not engage in harassment or discriminatory conduct which unreasonably interferes . . . with the orderly processes of education or which creates a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive environment; and, further, shall make reasonable effort to assure that each individual is protected from such harassment or discrimination.” For the same reasons listed above, Respondent’s conduct also amounts to a violation of School Board Policy 3210(A)(7). There was no evidence this conduct constituted a real immediate danger to the district, nor does it rise to the level of a flagrant violation. Therefore, the School Board must apply the steps of progressive discipline set forth in article 22, section 8 of the CBA. Pursuant to the terms of the CBA, Respondent should have received a written reprimand for the February 11 incident.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the DeSoto County School Board: enter a final order finding Respondent violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)5., and (2)(c)4.; and corresponding School Board Policy 3210(A)(5) and (7); rescind the notice of termination dated March 6, 2019, and, instead, reinstate Principal Bremer’s written reprimand dated February 25, 2019; and to the extent there is a statute, rule, employment contract, or Collective Bargaining Agreement provision that authorizes back pay as a remedy for Respondent’s wrongful suspension without pay, Respondent should be awarded full back pay and benefits from March 8, 2019, to the end of the term of her annual contract for the 2018-2019 school year. See Sch. Bd. of Seminole Cnty. v. Morgan, 582 So. 2d 787, 788 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Brooks v. Sch. Bd. of Brevard Cnty., 419 So. 2d 659, 661 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of August, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HETAL DESAI 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 13th day of August, 2019. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark E. Levitt, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. Suite 100 1477 West Fairbanks Avenue Winter Park, Florida 32789 (eServed) Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. Suite 110 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North Clearwater, Florida 33761-1526 (eServed) Adrian H. Cline, Superintendent The School District of DeSoto County 530 LaSolona Avenue Post Office Drawer 2000 Arcadia, Florida 34265-2000 Richard Corcoran Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner, St. Lucie County School Board, has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the undersigned credits and makes the following findings of material and relevant facts: Lockridge has been employed by the School Board and last worked as an ESE behavior technician at Northport K-8 School. Pet. Exh. 1. Lockridge is a continuing status employee covered under the Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") between the School Board and the Classroom Teachers' Association Classified Unit ("CTA/CU"). Resp. Exh. 6. The CTA/CU consists of behavior technicians, paraprofessionals, bus paraprofessionals, and clerical staff. Tr. II, p. 180, lines 10-14. During the 2014-2015 school year, Lockridge was assigned to Teacher Amber McDonald's self-contained classroom for intellectually disabled students at Floresta Elementary. The intellectually disabled classroom is for students with emotional disorders and students with an intelligence quotient ("IQ") under 69. Tr. I, p. 51, line 25-p. 52, line 2. For the 2014-2015 school year, there were five adults working in Ms. McDoanld's classroom: Randolph Lockridge, behavior technician; Sharon Koen, paraprofessional; Stephanie Ludwig, paraprofessional; Ms. McDonald, classroom teacher; and Deborah Ramsingh, student teacher. Tr. I, p. 52, line 24-p. 53, line 7. There were approximately 12 students in the classroom. Tr. I, p. 53, lines 8-10. Student D.S. was an eight-year-old ESE student whose primary disability is intellectual. D.S. is non-verbal and has Down's syndrome. Pet. Exh. 7. Because of his disability, D.S. is limited to two-word utterances "here and there." He has an IQ below 60 and intellectually he is on about a one and one-half- year-old level. Tr. I, p. 54, lines 10-17. September 8 and 9, 2014, Incidents with D.S. On September 8, 2014, Ms. Ramsingh was engaged in a lesson with the students on using crayons, teaching them how to hold the crayons and how to draw on the paper. D.S. kept taking his crayons and throwing them on the floor. She observed Lockridge take the student's hand and press his fingernail into the palm of D.S.'s hand. The student screamed "ow" and pulled his hand back. Tr. I, p. 34, lines 9-18. Lockridge looked at him and asked, "Why are you crying, what's wrong?" Tr. I, p. 35, lines 14-15. Ms. Ramsingh reported what she saw the following day to Ms. McDonald, the supervising teacher in the classroom. Tr. I, p. 35, line 25-p. 36, line 12. On September 9, 2014, when Lockridge and D.S. returned to the classroom from physical education ("PE"), Ms. Ramsingh observed another interaction between them. D.S. had his crayons, and he threw them on the floor again. Lockridge took his hand and pushed his fingernail into the palm of the student's hand again. He said "ow" again, but continued to throw his crayons on the floor. Lockridge pressed his finger into the student's hand a second time. The student said "ow" again. When Lockridge realized Ms. Ramsingh was looking at him, he commented, "I shouldn't do that, they don't like when I do that, some people think it is abuse." Tr. I, p. 36 line 22-p. 37 line 9. Ms. Ramsingh went to Ms. McDonald and told her that Lockridge put his fingernail in the student's hand two more times, and she told Ms. McDonald the statement that Lockridge made. Tr. I, p. 38, lines 12-18. Ms. McDonald left the classroom to report it. Tr. I, p. 38, lines 17- 20. Ms. Ludwig took D.S. into the restroom and yelled for Ms. Koen to come into the restroom. Tr. I, p. 39, lines 14-18. Ms. Koen told Lockridge to get Ms. McDonald. Tr. I, p. 40, lines 9-14. The staff had ice packs on D.S. Tr. I, p. 40, lines 21-23. Ms. Ramsingh observed the fingernail marks in D.S.'s hand and the ice that the staff was putting on D.S.'s wrist. Tr. I, p. 47, lines 5-9. Ms. Ramsingh gave a statement to law enforcement the following day. Tr. I, p. 41, lines 3-7; Pet. Exh. 4. She also provided a statement for the School Board's investigation. Pet. Exh. 7. Ms. McDonald testified about what she observed on D.S.'s body (after the student had returned from P.E.). She described it as a fresh bruise about three to four inches on both of D.S.'s wrists; it looked like he had a hand mark on both his wrists, and it was purplish already. Tr. I, p. 55, lines 5-11. D.S. did not have any bruises on his body before he went to PE. Ms. McDonald asked Lockridge what happened. Lockridge said he did not know, "maybe he fell." Tr. I, p. 56, lines 1-2. Lockridge said he had to help D.S. walk. Tr. I, p. 56, lines 5-6. D.S. did not have any bruising on his body when he left the classroom for PE. But, he returned with bruises on his wrist, and Lockridge was responsible for supervising D.S. while he was at PE. Tr. I, p. 73, lines 17-25. Ms. McDonald testified that her observation of Lockridge was that there were a lot of times he was loud and instead of de-escalating a situation, he would often escalate it. Tr. I, p. 59, lines 1-3. There were parents of children that Lockridge had worked with who had concerns about Lockridge. As a result, Ms. McDonald restricted him from working with specific students in the classroom. Tr. I, p. 58, lines 4-5 and lines 15-18. As a behavior technician, Lockridge was trained in Crisis Prevention Intervention (CPI). Pet. Exh. 20 and Exh. 23. The purpose of CPI is to de-escalate a situation before it ever comes to the point of having to restrain a child. Tr. I, p. 59, lines 4-8, and p. 59, lines 12-14. Ms. McDonald testified that de-escalation means to approach the student and get them to calm down, to breathe. Tr. I, p. 60, lines 1-6. Ms. McDonald also testified that it is not appropriate to restrain a child by the wrist where bruising would be caused. Tr. I, p. 62, lines 21-24. If the child begins to resist, "the teacher should not move, but should stand there until the child is ready to move." Tr. I, p. 64, lines 2-4. Lockridge provided a statement to the principal regarding the September 9, 2014, incident with D.S. Pet. Exh. 9. Law enforcement was contacted. Tr. I, p. 56, lines 14- 15; Pet. Exh. 4. On September 10, 2014, the school security officer, Frank Sisto, notified Maurice Bonner, executive director of Human Resources, of Ms. Ramsingh's report. Pet. Exh. 11. On September 10, 2014, Mr. Bonner hand-delivered a Formal Notice of Investigation and Temporary Duty Assignment to Lockridge and also verbally notified Lockridge of the allegations. Pet. Exh. 6; Tr. II, p. 171, lines 23–p. 172, line 11. Lockridge was temporarily assigned to the ESE office pending an investigation. On March 19, 2015, the School Board's internal investigation concluded. Pet. Exh. 7. On May 1, 2015, Mr. Lockridge received a Letter of Reprimand from Mr. Bonner and was reassigned to Northport K-8 School as a behavior technician. Pet. Exh. 15. Involvement by Mr. Maurice Bonner Mr. Bonner testified that he discussed Lockridge's conduct and his expectations concerning future conduct with Lockridge. Specifically, Mr. Bonner explained to Lockridge that inappropriate discipline of students was not acceptable behavior and that he was to cease and desist from any type of such discipline in the future. Tr. II, p. 174, line 15-21. As executive director of Human Resources for St. Lucie County Public Schools, Mr. Bonner is in charge of the hiring process for applicants, in charge of records for the school district employees, supports administrators in the discipline process, works with employees on leave, interprets School Board policy, and provides support to the superintendent and the School Board members. Tr. II, p. 168, lines 12-17. Mr. Bonner is responsible for applying and enforcing School Board Policy Chapter 6.00, Human Resources. Tr. II, p. 169, line 24–p. 170, line 4. When an allegation of inappropriate conduct or violation of School Board policy is made for an individual who interacts with students, and if it rises to the level of institutional abuse, the school district's protocol is for the School Board administrators to contact the Department of Children and Families, law enforcement, the human resources administrator, and then the parent. Tr. II, p. 171, lines 5-15. After Lockridge was assigned to Northport K-8 School on May 1, 2015, there was another incident involving Lockridge and a disabled student, V.S.I. Tr. II, p. 175, lines 14-18. On January 20, 2015, when Lockridge said he did not want to give any further statement, he and Victoria Rodriguez, his union representative, asked for a copy of the incident report from the law enforcement officer. Tr. II, p. 179, lines 21– p. 180, line 3. The School Board provided the incident report to Lockridge and Ms. Rodriguez, and Lockridge wrote a statement. Pet. Exh. 10. Lockridge said he was too nervous (about the meeting) and he did not want to sit down and answer questions. But, he eventually wrote his statement after reviewing law enforcement's incident report while his union representative was present. Pet. Exh. 10; Tr. II, p. 182, line 6. By letter dated June 29, 2015, Superintendent Genelle Yost informed Lockridge that she intended to recommend to the School Board that he be terminated. Pet. Exh. 22. Mr. Bonner, in his conversation with Lockridge regarding the first incident (with Student D.S.), warned and instructed Lockridge to not use inappropriate discipline on students. Despite this warning, a few weeks later at Northport K-8 School, Lockridge used inappropriate discipline on a student again. Mr. Bonner, as an administrator, had given Lockridge a previous directive that was not followed. In Mr. Bonner's professional opinion, that constituted insubordination. Tr. II, p. 185, lines 17–p. 186, line 1; Pet. Exh. 24. Mr. Bonner testified that sitting on a student's hands is not appropriate discipline. It is not an appropriate method of restraint of a student. Tr. II, p. 186, lines 5-9. In addition, it constitutes a violation of the code of ethics of the standards for employees in the education profession, putting students in danger of harm. Mr. Bonner stated that "We're in charge of their health, welfare and safety and that's not meeting that standard." Pet. Exh. 24; Tr. II, p. 186, lines 10-14. Commenting on the incident involved, Mr. Bonner felt that "sticking a thumb down in a student's palm" was indecent conduct and can be considered abusive to a student. Tr. II, p. 186, lines 21–p. 187, line 1; Pet. Exh. 24. In his opinion, Lockridge's conduct constituted unsatisfactory work performance since he had harmed a student. He also felt it constituted neglect of duty and violation of any rule, policy, or regulation. Tr. II, p. 187, lines 5-18; Pet. Exh. 24. Mr. Bonner explained how progressive discipline works: We have several steps that we can use as far as disciplining employees based on their conduct and based on the severity . . . if we believe that the incident or the behavior is severe enough, we can skip steps . . . we can start immediately with termination if it's severe enough. If we don't believe it is severe enough to go that way, then we go down that continuum--a letter of concern, letter of reprimand, suspension or termination. Tr. II, p. 191, lines 7-23. When you look at progressive discipline, you have to look at what the previous action is. If you're going to look at multiple offenses of the same nature, you can't discredit that. T. II, p. 193, line 23–p. 194, line 2. In Mr. Bonner's opinion, Lockridge's second incident of sitting on a child's hand is "also abusive and discourteous conduct, it's immoral and indecent, it's negligent because he was told not to use inappropriate discipline, it's unsatisfactory work performance, and it's a neglect of his duty because it's not proper protocol or training for restraint of a student. His conduct is also a violation of the rules, policies, and regulations." Tr. II, p. 194, lines 3-10; Pet. Exh. 24. Lockridge had a duty and responsibility, and he failed to discharge that duty knowingly, and that was negligence, in Mr. Bonner's opinion. Tr. II, p. 194, lines 23-25; Pet. Exh. 24. Lockridge knew that sitting on a child's hands was not a proper restraint technique under the CPI training that he has received as a behavior technician for the St. Lucie County Public School System. He was told, based on a previous instruction, that sticking his thumb down in the student's hand was not appropriate discipline or restraint of a student. He knew that what he was doing was not appropriate and that it did not meet the standards of the St. Lucie County Public School System nor the training he received. Tr. II, p. 195, lines 11-23. Mr. Bonner told Lockridge when he gave him the Letter of Reprimand that if Lockridge violated any of the School Board policies again, more severe disciplinary action could be taken. Tr. II, p. 197, lines 13-22. The standard for skipping steps in progressive discipline is based on the employee's behavior. Tr. II, p. 198, lines 12-15. "It is on a case by case basis . . . if you did something very egregious, we don't have to start at the beginning of that continuum. Based on the behavior of the employee then [sic] dictates where we go on to that continuum." Tr. II, p. 198, lines 17-23. May 19, 2015, Incident with V.S.I. Jennifer Staab was a behavior technician at Northport K-8 School. Tr. I, p. 80, lines 1-6. Ms. Staab was certified in CPI. Tr. I, p. 81, lines 5-9. She worked with students in an emotionally behaviorally disturbed ("EBD") classroom on May 19, 2015. It is a self- contained classroom. Tr. I, p. 82, lines 1-7. On May 19, 2015, there were eight or nine students in the EDB self-contained classroom. Tr. I, p. 82, lines 11-14. There was only one way into the desk; the desk was pushed up against the computers. Tr. I, p. 83, lines 11-15. Ms. Staab heard a slap and that drew her attention to that direction. Tr. I, p. 84, lines 5-8. Lockridge was sitting on the desk; his back was towards V.S.I. Tr. I, p. 84, lines 11-12. V.S.I. was sitting in the desk. Tr. I, p. 84, lines 14-18. When Lockridge got off of the desk, Ms. Staab noticed deep indentations, at least two or three of them, on the student's one arm. Tr. I, p. 85, lines 22–p. 86, line 5. Ms. Staab concluded that Lockridge had to have been sitting on V.S.I.'s hands. Tr. I, p. 86, lines 16-18. From the way behavior technicians are trained, Ms. Staab considered Lockridge being seated on the desk and trying to prevent the student from getting out of the desk, to be an inappropriate restraint. Tr. I, p. 87, lines 14-22. If the student is not a threat to themselves or others, then physical restraint is not appropriate. Tr. I, p. 89, lines 15-18. While doing a single-hold restraint, the adult is behind the child. Tr. I, p. 93, lines 1-4. Ms. Staab never observed Lockridge behind the child. Tr. I, p. 93, lines 5-7. Ms. Staab noticed two indentations on V.S.I.'s arm, about three inches long. Tr. I, p. 93, lines 8-19. Testimony of Randolph Lockridge Ms. Staab did not witness V.S.I. trying to elope or run from the classroom. Tr. I, p. 98, lines 22-24. Lockridge admitted that he took hold of V.S.I.'s wrists, causing bruising to her wrists. Pet. Exh. 16; Tr. II, p. 213, lines 6-9. From Lockridge's perspective, "it was crisis because she was not being safe . . . she was 'not complying' with his verbal direction." (emphasis added). Tr. II, p. 213, lines 19-23. Lockridge argued that V.S.I. exhibited behavior, i.e. her elopement, that might harm other students. Tr. II, p. 213, line 24–p. 214, line 5.1/ Lockridge testified, without specific detail, that V.S.I. "could have hit, kicked, maybe spit on somebody or something." Tr. II, p. 214, lines 7-10. Lockridge testified that he was holding V.S.I.'s wrists when he was sitting on them. Tr. II, p. 215, lines 4-6. Despite his training, Lockridge testified that he did not understand that it was an inappropriate method of discipline for him to be sitting on V.S.I.'s hands. Tr. II, p. 215, lines 11-13. Lockridge testified that he did not intentionally violate any School Board policies or intend to violate any directives that he was given. Tr. II, p. 220, line 24–p. 221, line 3. This appeared, in part, to be the crux of his defense to the charges brought. Lockridge testified that when the incident was happening at Northport K-8 School with V.S.I., he reverted to and used his "military restraint training," instead of his School Board restraint training. Tr. II, p. 222, lines 15-17. Lockridge testified that he did not bring up this issue of his military training "kicking in," as he put it, concerning the incident involving V.S.I. However, he discussed it before with a behavior analyst concerning another student. Tr. II, p. 230, lines 19-21, and p. 231, lines 18-20. Lockridge related an incident that had occurred in May 2015. Apparently, a student tried to assault him while he was walking back to the ESE office. His old military restraint training came into play, and he ended up having to put the student on the ground. He physically put the student on the ground. Tr. II, p. 232, lines 12-16, and p. 233, lines 4-11. In a candid admission, Lockridge testified that he does not believe that "at this moment" he could work with disabled students at the school district as a behavior technician. Pet. Exh. 12; Tr. II, p. 236, lines 21-24. Describing his military restraint training (that he sometimes reverts to), Lockridge testified that because he was going to be working with prison detainees, "They taught us various techniques to keep yourself safe and try not to do harm to the prisoners either." Tr. II, p. 237, lines 17-22. Lockridge testified that, unlike CPI training, military restraint training is not non-violent training. It could be violent. Because, as he put it, you are working with prison detainees. So, Lockridge could not say it was non-violent. Tr. II, p. 237, line 23–p. 238, line 3. When asked if it is foreseeable that he could become violent with a student, Lockridge answered, "I don't know. . . . I understand what I did was wrong. I don't know how I could have done some things differently. I don't know." Tr. II, p. 238, lines 4-8. When asked if he can say with any degree of certainty that he may not pose a danger to students, Lockridge testified that, "if I'm put in a stressful situation with a very aggressive student or that I perceive to be aggressive, I do what I think is best for my safety at the time. Or the student's safety too." Tr. II, p. 238, lines 14-24. Lockridge testified, frankly, that for him, it is sometimes more of an automatic response and that he cannot really control this military restraint training that kicks in. Tr. II, p. 238. line 25–p. 239, line 3. Testimony of Virginia Snyder Virginia Snyder works for the Department of Children and Families as a child protective investigator. Tr. I, p. 153, lines 6-8. She prepared a report of institutional abuse, an investigative summary. Pet. Exh. 2.; Tr. I, p. 153, lines 13-25. Her investigation and report involved Lockridge sitting on V.S.I.'s hands to restrain her in the classroom at Northport K-8 School. Tr. I, p. 154, lines 21-25. She went to the school, talked with administration, talked to witnesses, and talked to children involved on the report. Tr. I, p. 154, lines 3-9. Ms. Snyder made verified findings for "threatened harm of physical injury." Tr. I, p. 154, lines 11-16. Ms. Snyder concluded that Lockridge had in fact sat on the child's hand. Tr. I, p. 155, lines 2-4. She also made a finding that the school district's policies and practices were appropriate. Tr. I, p. 155, lines 15-17. "Threatened harm" means the possibility that the person's actions can cause an injury to the child. Tr. I, p. 155, line 23–p. 156, line 1. Ms. Snyder testified that the Department of Children and Families felt that a pattern was appearing due to a prior investigation that was closed without a substantiated finding. When the Department of Children and Families conducted an institutional staffing, the Department of Children and Families was concerned that there was a pattern starting. Tr. I, p. 157, lines 4-8. Specifically, Ms. Snyder "looked at how Lockridge restrained the child, was it appropriate or was it inappropriate . . . . And that is where we established that there was a type of behavior, a pattern starting." Tr. I, p. 157, line 20–p. 158, line 2. "We (DCF) don't make the recommendation. We make the report so that those involved can have a copy of an official report from the Department of Children and Families. We put the findings in there so that whoever administrative-wise is taking a look at it can make a decision, like the School Board, as to what penalty that staff member may face." Tr. I, p. 159, lines 17-24. Based on Department of Children and Families legislation, she felt that the two incidents are "a pattern" and are not reflective of just isolated events. Tr. I, p. 162, lines 1-5, 16-17. Testimony of William Tomlinson Bill Tomlinson is the executive director for Student Services and Exceptional Student Education. Tr. I, p.112, lines 4-5. He has worked for the School Board a total of 29 years. Tr. I, p. 112, lines 13-14. Tomlinson testified regarding whether behavior technicians are trained in any sort of restraint or CPI. He testified that the school district has two separate models that are used in the district. The first is non-violent crisis prevention intervention, better known as CPI. The second model the district uses, for more severe children that may be in a special day school, is professional crisis management. Non- violent CPI is a nationally recognized model that deals primarily with strategies to verbally de-escalate behavior. It employs different levels of strategies with students before getting into physical management of any type of behavior. The physical management piece is a part or a component of the training, but it is really the last resort. In his opinion, "that (i.e., physical management) should be last." Tr. I, p. 114, lines 4-21. It is meant to be a process in which the teacher tries to curtail the behavior of the student by working with them to help them self-regulate so that the student can take ownership of his/her behavior and get themselves under control without the teacher having to do any type of physical management. Tr. I, p. 115, lines 8-16. "Many teachers, many principals have all been trained in this method so that they understand how to de-escalate behavior verbally, how to work with students to offer choices that you can do, versus doing this." Tr. I, p. 115, line 24. Tomlinson noted that "restraint" is a term used "whenever we physically manage a person . . . the way we define it is if you have to immobilize someone's limbs and they're not free, they no longer have freedom of movement, that would be considered a restraint." Tr. I, p. 116, lines 5-10. In his opinion, restraint of anyone is the last resort. Tr. I, p. 117, line 7. He added that "if you see that the behavior is something that you can verbally begin to de-escalate, have conversation with the child, the child is able to understand rationally what it is that you're asking of them, then you're going to employ all of these strategies before you ever get to that last resort." Tr. I, p. 118, lines 4-9. Any time an employee in the district has involvement with a child and there is a report of suspected institutional abuse, Tomlinson is notified. Mr. Bonner (Human Resources) is notified, and he, law enforcement, and the Department of Children and Families all work through the process together. Tr. I, p. 122, lines 16-23. Lockridge was removed and placed in the ESE department, working in the reception area where there was no access to children while the investigation was ongoing. Tr. I, p. 123, lines 6-11. Freedom of movement is good (the child likes the freedom of running off and playing on a playground or during PE) as long as they are safe. Tr. I, p. 126, lines 19-23. "If we end up bruising the child in anything that means to us that we have applied the wrong process or the wrong procedure." Tr. I, p. 127, lines 4-8.2/ "If the child starts fighting back in the process where there is restraint used, they're trying to get out of that, you need to let them go. You may have to resume the restraint once it is safe to do so." Tr. I, p. 127, lines 9-11. "If the child isn't hurting anybody . . . from crawling under (the desk) or crawling out of their desk . . . then it would be appropriate to not bring attention or get attention from someone. Instead, praise another child for acting appropriately or remaining in their chair. This is an effective approach to use." Tr. I, p. 128, lines 3-25. It is "absolutely not appropriate," in terms of restraint, to sit on a child's hand. Tr. I, p. 129, lines 1-3. It is not appropriate to take a disabled child by the wrist to try to get them to go where you want them to. The first appropriate response is "take my hand and let's walk." Tr. I, p. 131, lines 17–p. 132, line 3. Tomlinson testified, "I may take a person simply by the elbow and follow me. . . . That . . . is after you have exhausted the verbal demand for this. Because it's unnatural to have to do that, to lead people or to pull them where you want them to go." Tr. I, p. 132, lines 14-24. The January 13, 2012, mid-year review for Lockridge shows improvement needed in job knowledge and skills and quality of work. Resp. Exh. 5; Tr. I, p. 143 line 25–p. 144, line 2. Listed on Lockridge's mid-year evaluation at the time was that he needed improvement in job knowledge and skills and the quality of work. The narrative indicated that he was required to work with the behavior analyst at Sam Gaines School to review the appropriate protocols to follow to gain compliance from the students with whom he is working. Lockridge was required to attend training offered behavior technicians on early release and professional development days. Tr. I, p. 149, lines 6-14; Pet. Exh. 19. Lockridge was directed to increase his knowledge of behavioral tools to verbally de-escalate a situation, as well as to remain objective instead of entering into a verbal disagreement with students. It means not getting into a verbal power struggle with the child. "Be calm, relaxed in the tone and tenor of your voice and, whenever you work with the individual, don't let that person bring you into the type of behavior that they're exhibiting." Tr. I, p. 149, line 4–p. 150, line 4; Pet. Exh. 19. Finally, Tomlinson testified that it would not be appropriate for a behavior technician to drive their fingernail into the palm of any child. Tr. I, p. 150 lines 5-9.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the St. Lucie County School Board terminating Respondent from his position as an ESE behavior technician. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of April, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of April, 2016.
The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate her employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is a duly-constituted school board charged with operating, controlling, and supervising all free public schools within the Broward County, Florida, pursuant to Florida Constitution Article IX, section 4(b), and section 1012.23, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was employed with Petitioner as an exceptional student education ("ESE") teacher at Silver Ridge Elementary School in Broward County, Florida. The Events Giving Rise to this Proceeding Respondent has extensive educational training and experience in working with disabled and special needs students for many years. Respondent worked in the school system in Long Island, New York, as a paraprofessional for an estimated 13 to 14 years. Her duties included working with exceptional students at a cerebral palsy center, where she assisted teachers in changing students' diapers, feeding them, and assisting them in using various types of adaptive equipment. She also taught and tested special needs students having physical disabilities but possessing greater cognitive awareness. At the encouragement of teachers with whom she worked, Respondent pursued and received her bachelor's degree in elementary education in 1999, while continuing to work as a paraprofessional in the school system. Thereafter, she pursued her master's degree while working as a substitute teacher during the school year and as a teacher for summer school during the summer months. Respondent received her master's degree in special education in 2003. Respondent began working as an ESE teacher at Silver Ridge Elementary School in 2003, shortly after she moved to Florida. The allegations giving rise to this proceeding span the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years. During both school years, Respondent's ESE students were disabled and most of them were nonverbal. Petitioner alleges that during both school years, Respondent engaged in physically and verbally aggressive and abusive actions toward students in her classroom in violation of Department of Education rules and Petitioner's policies. The 2011-2012 School Year Background Starting in August of the 2011-2012 school year, paraprofessionals Rostande Cherelus and Cara Yontz were assigned to assist in Respondent's classroom. Cherelus and Yontz both testified that they had a good working relationship with Respondent. However, this testimony is belied by the credible, persuasive evidence establishing that Respondent did not enjoy a smooth working relationship with either of them. The persuasive evidence establishes that the difficulties in Respondent's relationship with both paraprofessionals stemmed from their frequent tardiness, leaving the classroom during instructional time without Respondent's permission, and frequent use of their cell phones in the classroom during instructional time. Respondent let them know on many occasions that this behavior was not acceptable. The persuasive evidence further establishes that neither paraprofessional was particularly cooperative in assisting Respondent in the classroom. For example, when Respondent attempted to engage the participatory-level students in the various learning activities class, the paraprofessionals ——particularly Cherelus——would often respond with what Respondent characterized as "huffing and puffing," rolling of the eyes, crossed arms, and comments questioning the utility of engaging in activities to educate the students because "that kid can't do anything anyway." Respondent credibly testified that when admonished, Cherelus would make statements such as "thank God, God didn't give me a kid like that." Respondent consistently reported the ongoing problems with Cherelus and Yontz to then-Principal Marion Gundling and then-Assistant Principal Saemone Hollingsworth. However, it appears that this effort was in vain. By November 7, 2011, the situation in Respondent's classroom had deteriorated to the point that Respondent requested a meeting with Gundling and Hollingsworth to address the continuing problems with the paraprofessionals. After the November 7, 2011, the situation in Respondent's classroom did not improve. Respondent testified, credibly, that both paraprofessionals continued to be difficult to work with, that there was constant friction in the classroom, and that both paraprofessionals were aware of her lack of satisfaction with their behavior and job performance. They also knew that she communicated her dissatisfaction to the school administration. On December 1, 2011——notably, before Cherelus and Yontz alleged student abuse by Respondent1/——Respondent contacted Gundling and Hollingsworth by electronic mail ("email"), stating "[m]y classroom is an absolute disaster since our meeting." The email described in great detail2/ events, actions by the paraprofessionals, the dysfunctional atmosphere in Respondent's classroom arising from the paraprofessionals' behavior and poor job performance, and Respondent's continued dissatisfaction with them. On December 15, 2011, Yontz filed a written statement with the school administration alleging that Respondent had taken abusive actions toward students D.N. and J.M. Yontz's statement alleged that in October of that year, Respondent had become angry with D.N., screamed at her, and grabbed her hair from behind. The statement also alleged that in October of that year,3/ Respondent punished student J.M. by confining her to the classroom bathroom from 8:30 a.m. to 1:45 p.m. The statement further alleged that on December 15, 2011, Respondent had become angry with and screamed at student J.M., pushed her face, and attempted to secure J.M's glasses, which were too large for her face, with a rubber band. According to Yontz's statement, Respondent pulled J.M.'s hair, causing her to make noises indicating that she was in pain. Cherelus filed a written statement with the school administration on December 16, 2011, stating that when she had returned from break the previous day, J.M. was upset. According to Cherelus' statement, when she asked J.M. what was wrong, J.M. said "Ms. T. pull" and made a pulling motion while pointing to her glasses. On December 16, 2011, Respondent was removed from her classroom pending an investigation of the allegations against her made by Yontz and Cherelus. Ultimately, the investigation yielded insufficient evidence to support Yontz's and Cherelus' allegations and Petitioner took no disciplinary action against Respondent at that time. She was returned to her classroom in April 2012. Notwithstanding that the investigation absolved Respondent, Petitioner now seeks to take disciplinary action based on these accusations. Allegations in Amended Administrative Complaint In Petitioner's Amended Administrative Complaint filed in this proceeding on April 1, 2014, Petitioner alleges that during the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent engaged in physically and verbally aggressive and abusive acts toward students D.N., J.M., A.S., and C.A., who were assigned to her class. Each of these allegations is addressed below.4/ Student D.N. Petitioner alleges, in paragraph 5. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, that in October 2011, Respondent screamed at student D.N. for being unable to complete her work and pulled her hair. At the final hearing, Cherelus and Yontz both testified that one day in the classroom, Respondent grabbed D.N. by her ponytail. However, their testimony is inconsistent regarding key details and circumstances. Cherelus testified that Respondent grabbed D.N. and pulled her up from her chair because she had asked D.N. to get up and go get her classwork, and D.N. did not do so. Cherelus testified that Respondent said something to the effect of "[l]et's go, you don't want to do your work" and pulled D.N. up from her chair by her ponytail, causing D.N. to fall on the floor. Cherelus testified that D.N. screamed and Respondent let her go. Cherelus further testified that Respondent did not scream at D.N. Yontz, on the other hand, testified that Respondent screamed at D.N. because she was not focusing on the classwork in front of her on her desk. Yontz testified that at one point, Respondent grabbed D.N. by the back of the neck and forcefully held her head to keep her facing downward. Yontz testified that Respondent then grabbed and tugged D.N.'s ponytail and pulled her head backward to force her to look at her work. The inconsistencies between the Cherelus' and Yontz's testimony are significant. Cherelus described a situation in which Respondent jerked D.N.'s ponytail to make her get up from her desk, and that as a result, D.N. fell to the floor. However, Yontz described a situation in which D.N. remained seated and Respondent jerked her head backward by her ponytail to make her focus on the work on her desk.5/ Additionally, Yontz testified that Respondent screamed at D.N., while Cherelus specifically stated that she did not scream. Yontz testified that Respondent grabbed the back of D.N.'s neck, while Cherelus did not testify to that effect. Testimony regarding key details and circumstances surrounding the incident is vital to determining credibility in a case such as this, where the witnesses for both parties have differing accounts of the events at issue. Here, due to the inconsistencies in their testimony regarding significant details and circumstances regarding the alleged incident, the undersigned finds neither Cherelus' nor Yontz's testimony persuasive or credible. By contrast, Respondent provided a clear, detailed account of the incident that significantly differed from that provided by Cherelus and Yontz. On the day in question, Respondent was working with D.N., who has a movement-related disability, to direct her to focus on her work. Because of D.N.'s disability, she was easily distracted and often looked around at activity occurring on either side of her. Thus, when Respondent engaged in one-on-one instruction with D.N., she would stand behind D.N. and use a series of voice and gestural commands, verbal and gestural prompts, and physical prompts as necessary, to get D.N. to focus on her work. Pursuant to D.N.'s individual education plan ("IEP"), she had worn a weighted vest to assist her in focusing on her work, but shortly before the incident, her IEP had been amended to no longer include use of the vest, so Respondent had instead begun using physical compression on D.N.'s shoulders, with her thumbs touching the back of her neck, to assist D.N. in focusing. Respondent credibly testified that the compression was slight, not forceful. On the day in question, Respondent used the compression technique but D.N. continued to look around, so Respondent put her hands on the sides of D.N.'s face to focus her to gaze downward at her work. When Respondent removed the compression from D.N.'s shoulders, she popped backward. Respondent credibly testified that she did not pull D.N.'s hair or jerk her head backward by her ponytail. Respondent's account of the incident is credible and persuasive.6/ Further, the timing of Respondent's email communication with Gundling and Hollingsworth is significant to determining the comparative credibility of Respondent, Cherelus, and Yontz. Respondent's December 1, 2011, email to Gundling and Hollingsworth described in significant detail the events and actions that had taken place in Respondent's classroom following her November 7, 2011, meeting with them. Of particular note is Respondent's detailed description of Cherelus' actions on December 1, 2011, toward student D.N.——specifically, that Cherelus pulled D.N's hair and screamed at her. Respondent's email account of that incident, sent on the same day it was alleged to have occurred and describing it in substantial detail, is far more persuasive than both Cherelus' or Yontz's subsequent statements and hearing testimony regarding the incident. The credible, persuasive evidence leads to the inference that as a result of the paraprofessionals' poor relationship with Respondent, they accused her——after she had reported their poor performance——of the very conduct toward student D.N. that Respondent previously reported that Cherelus had committed. This is a far more reasonable inference than the version of events that Petitioner espouses——which would require the undersigned to infer that Respondent somehow knew that she was going to be accused, at a later date, of pulling D.N.'s hair and screaming at her, so she covered herself by preparing and sending the December 1, 2011, email accusing Cherelus of engaging in that same conduct. For these reasons, the undersigned finds the testimony of Cherelus and Yontz regarding the alleged incident involving D.N. incredible and unpersuasive. Conversely, the undersigned finds Respondent's testimony regarding D.N. credible and persuasive. Accordingly, Petitioner failed to prove the allegations in paragraph 5. of the Amended Administrative Complaint regarding student D.N. Student J.M. In paragraph 5. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, Petitioner alleges that in October 2011, Respondent confined student J.M. to the classroom restroom from 8:30 a.m. to 1:45 p.m. as punishment for urinating in her pants. Petitioner's direct evidence to support this allegation primarily consisted of Yontz's testimony.7/ According to Yontz, J.M. came to school one morning after having wet her pants the previous day, and Respondent immediately placed her in the classroom restroom, with the door closed, to punish her.8/ Yontz testified that Respondent left J.M. in the restroom by herself with the door closed beginning at 8:30 a.m. until 1:45 p.m., only being allowed to leave the restroom for lunch in the cafeteria. Yontz also testified that because J.M. was confined to Respondent's classroom restroom all day, the other students in Respondent's class had to use the restroom in other classrooms. Cherelus did not testify regarding this alleged incident.9/ Respondent's clear, credible explanation of this incident differed sharply from that provided by Yontz. Because J.M. frequently would urinate in her pants, her mother would send multiple sets of clothing to school so that Respondent could change J.M.'s clothes when this happened. J.M. had urinated on herself the previous day and had gone through her last set of clothing that day, so Respondent sent a note home to J.M.'s mother asking her to send a fresh set of clothing to school the following day. However, when J.M. arrived at school the next day, she had urinated in her pants and her mother had not sent extra clothing. Respondent changed J.M. into a borrowed set of D.N.'s clothing. J.M. again urinated in her pants and at that point, there was no extra clothing in the classroom for J.M. to wear. Respondent sent Cherelus to the school clinic to see if there was extra clothing that J.M. could wear and she also contacted J.M.'s mother to bring clothing to school for J.M. During the time it took for Cherelus to go to the clinic and return with clothing for J.M. to change into, Respondent put J.M. in the restroom. Respondent could not recall the exact amount of time that J.M. was confined to the restroom, but estimated that it was a short amount of time. She credibly testified that J.M. did not spend the entire day confined to the restroom, and that J.M. was not placed in the restroom as punishment, but, rather, to await a change of clothing. J.M.'s mother, Shakima Brown, verified Respondent's account of the incident. Brown testified that Respondent called her on the day in question to request that she bring a change of clothes to the school. Brown lived only ten minutes away, and she directed Respondent to place J.M. in the restroom until she could bring the extra clothing to the school. Brown testified, credibly, that J.M. had never communicated to her that Respondent confined her to the restroom as punishment, and that had that happened, J.M. would have let her know. The credible, persuasive evidence supports Respondent's account of this incident. The undersigned finds Yontz's account of this incident incredible and unpersuasive. Petitioner also alleges, in paragraph 6. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, that on December 15, 2011, Respondent verbally abused J.M., slapped her face, and popped her with a rubber band that she had tied to J.M.'s glasses in an effort to keep them on her face. Yontz is the only witness whose testimony Petitioner presented who claimed to have actually seen the incident. Yontz testified that on the day in question, J.M. was attempting to write her name but was unable to do so without making mistakes. According to Yontz, this annoyed Respondent, who screamed at J.M. Yontz testified that J.M.'s glasses kept falling off, so Respondent tied a rubber band on the ends of them to keep them from falling off. However, the rubber band was too tight so kept popping J.M.'s ear, causing her to make noises as if she were in pain. According to Yontz, Respondent pushed J.M.'s face and screamed at her "oh, you're so annoying, you freaking idiot." Yontz testified that Respondent did not slap J.M.'s face.10/ Cherelus' also testified regarding this incident. She testified that on that day, she took J.M. to another classroom, and that as she was doing so, J.M. cried. Cherelus testified that when she asked J.M. what was wrong, J.M. said "Ms. T slapped me" and gestured in a manner that Cherelus interpreted as showing that Respondent had slapped J.M.11/ On cross examination, Cherelus acknowledged that she did not see Respondent slap J.M., pull her hair, or otherwise hurt her. Cherelus further acknowledged that J.M. is largely nonverbal and incapable of articulating sentences, and that she only said "Ms. T." while making a pulling motion. In any event, Cherelus did not have personal, independent knowledge of this alleged incident, and her testimony was based on J.M.'s limited statement and gesture. Maureen McLaughlin, the child abuse designee for Silver Ridge Elementary School, also testified regarding this alleged incident. McLaughlin testified that Yontz brought J.M. to her office,12/ and that at Yontz's prompting, J.M., using a teddy bear, indicated that Respondent had pushed her head using an open hand. McLaughlin testified: [a]nd basically, it's hard to enact, but J. took her hand, sort of open like this, and what I remember is that her head turned, like, she turned her head. So it was hard to tell, like, is it a slap, is it a push, but it was an open hand and her head ended up being turned because of it. McLaughlin reported the incident to the abuse hotline.13/ Respondent provided a credible, persuasive explanation of the incident. She testified that J.M. previously had a pair of glasses that did not fit her and had used a teal elastic band to hold them on her face. At some point, J.M. lost both the elastic band and her glasses, so Respondent contacted J.M.'s mother regarding getting another pair of glasses for J.M.; however, J.M.'s mother told her that they could not afford to purchase another pair of glasses. Respondent gave J.M.'s mother a pair of glasses frames that had belonged to her daughter, and J.M.'s mother had the frames fitted with J.M.'s prescription. However, those glasses also did not fit J.M.'s face and fell off when she looked down. On the day in question, Respondent tried, unsuccessfully, to tie the glasses on J.M.'s face using a large rubber band. The rubber band popped, causing J.M. to make a sound. Respondent apologized, tried one more time to tie the glasses on J.M.'s face using the rubber band, then gave up. Respondent testified that while she was attempting to tie the glasses on J.M.'s face, J.M. was moving around, so Respondent had J.M. put her head down on the desk. J.M. was hearing-impaired and had put her head down on the side on which her functioning ear was located, so Respondent used her open hand to turn J.M.'s head to the other side. Respondent credibly testified that she did not slap J.M., scream at her, or pull her hair. J.M.'s mother, Shakima Brown, testified that she had been informed of the incident concerning J.M.'s glasses and that on her own, over a period of days, had asked J.M. several times if anyone had hit her. Brown testified, credibly, that J.M. said "no" every time she was asked.14/ The credible, persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent did not scream at J.M., did not slap her face, and did not intentionally hurt her by popping her ear with a rubber band. Accordingly, Petitioner failed to prove the allegations in paragraph 6. of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Student A.S. In paragraph 5. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, Petitioner alleges that Respondent handled A.S. in a physically rough manner, causing him to sustain a scratch on his neck. Cherelus testified that she did not recall any incident involving a student named "A.," and she could not recall his last name. Yontz testified that one day, she took the children out for recess, and as they were leaving, A. was in the room with Respondent. A. subsequently came outside and was crying, and Yontz observed scratch marks on A.'s neck. Yontz testified that she had asked what had happened, and Respondent told her that A. had scratched his neck on the corner of the counter as he put trash in the trash can. Neither Yontz nor Cherelus saw Respondent scratch A., and Petitioner presented no other evidence showing that Respondent scratched A. The sum of Petitioner's evidence regarding this allegation is that A. was scratched while in the classroom with Respondent. There is absolutely no competent substantial evidence in the record showing that Respondent scratched A. Additionally, neither Yontz nor Cherelus, or any other witness, specifically identified "A." as the student "A.S." named in paragraph 5. of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Thus, Petitioner failed to present any competent substantial evidence linking the testimony about "A." to any allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Accordingly, Petitioner failed to prove the allegations set forth in paragraph 5. of the Amended Administrative Complaint involving student A.S. Student C.A. Petitioner alleges, in paragraph 7. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, that C.A. went home with scratches on his neck and face over a three-day period, and that when Respondent was questioned, she claimed that C.A. "had an encounter with a tree." Presumably, paragraph 7. is intended to charge Respondent with scratching C.A. and then lying about it. However, this paragraph does not expressly allege that Respondent scratched C.A. or otherwise injured C.A., so fails to allege that Respondent engaged in conduct that, if proven, would violate Petitioner's policies or Department of Education rules. Further, to the extent paragraph 7. could be read to sufficiently allege that Respondent scratched or otherwise injured C.A., there was no testimony presented at the final hearing by anyone having personal knowledge of the alleged incident. Thus, Petitioner failed to present any competent substantial evidence supporting this allegation.15/ Thus, Petitioner failed to prove the allegation involving student C.A. set forth in paragraph 7. of the Amended Administrative Complaint. The 2012-2013 School Year Background Petitioner alleges in the Amended Administrative Complaint that during the 2012-2013 school year, Respondent again engaged in physically and verbally abusive acts toward students assigned to her class. Paraprofessionals Shirley Brown and Monica Jobes were assigned to assist in Respondent's classroom in the 2012-2013 school year. That year, approximately nine ESE students were assigned to Respondent's classroom. The credible, persuasive evidence made abundantly clear that neither Brown nor Jobes enjoyed a smooth working relationship with Respondent. This was, in large measure, due to the fact that Respondent had high expectations regarding their performance in assisting her in the classroom, and she consistently reminded Brown and Jobes of those expectations.16/ In particular, Respondent made clear that her——and, by extension, the paraprofessionals'——job entailed taking reasonable and necessary measures to work with students to help them achieve to their capabilities. Respondent testified, persuasively, that neither Brown nor Jobes were dedicated to this approach and instead viewed their jobs more as caretakers or "babysitters" of the students for the school day. Respondent frequently made clear to Brown and Jobes that as the teacher, she was in charge of the class and the instructional approach and all other activities and aspects of classroom management. It was apparent from the credible, persuasive evidence that Brown and Jobes resented Respondent's repeated, overt assertion of authority over them. The persuasive evidence establishes that Brown was as much as a half-hour late to Respondent's class nearly every day, and that Respondent also regularly had to admonish her about frequent use of her cell phone for personal matters during instructional time. Brown also frequently disregarded Respondent's instructions on a range of student-related matters, and when Respondent confronted her, Brown verbally lashed out.17/ The persuasive evidence also establishes that Jobes often sent and received personal text messages during instructional time, causing her to be distracted and interfering with her work. The persuasive evidence established that Brown's and Jobes' behaviors were disruptive to the classroom environment and, in some instances, posed a danger to the students, and that Respondent let them know that their behavior was unacceptable. Shortly before the holiday vacation in December 2012, a holiday celebration was held in Respondent's classroom. While Respondent tended to the other students in the class and their parents, she specifically asked Brown and Jobes to stay with and tend to student C.R., since he did not have a parent present at the celebration. At some point, both paraprofessionals left C.R. alone. While unattended, C.R. ingested something to which he was allergic, went into anaphylactic shock, and ultimately had to be transported to the hospital. In early January 2013, shortly after school commenced following the holiday vacation, Respondent's students went to the music teacher's classroom. Brown was going to place C.R. on the floor, notwithstanding that Respondent had specifically directed her not to do so because he might again ingest something that could make him ill. At that point, Respondent told Brown not to place C.R. on the floor, to which Brown responded "don't worry, I got this" or something to that effect. Respondent tersely admonished Brown and reminded her that it was her (Respondent's) call because she was the teacher.18/ It was apparent from Brown's testimony that she greatly resented Respondent's assertion of authority over her. To address Brown's ongoing behavior and performance issues, Respondent requested a meeting on January 9, 2015, with Principal Hollingsworth, Assistant Principal Long, and ESE Supervisor Vickie Bloome. At the meeting, Hollingsworth informed Brown that Respondent had complained to her about her (Brown's) repeated cell phone use during classroom instructional time and directed her to refrain from using her cell phone during that time. Notwithstanding this meeting, nothing changed in Respondent's classroom. Respondent continued to experience friction in working with the paraprofessionals, who knew that Respondent had complained to the school administration about their performance. On January 16, 2013, an incident involving C.R., discussed in detail below, occurred. During this incident, C.R. became very aggressive, fought, bit and scratched himself, and grabbed for Respondent's insulin pump, which she wore on her arm. As discussed in greater detail below, Respondent and C.R. fell on the floor. Respondent prepared a written report detailing the incident. Persons who witnessed the incident, including Brown and Jobes, signed the report, and Respondent filed it with the school administration that day. On January 23, 2013, Respondent called a meeting with Jobes and Brown to address their ongoing performance issues, update them on student issues, and cover common core implementation procedures. In the email Respondent sent to Jobes and Brown regarding the meeting, she reminded them: "STILL seeing phones being checked and answered during class time. Even if a phone rings during class, it should NOT be answered until your personal time." At the meeting, Respondent once again reminded Brown and Jobes that they were not to use their cell phones during classroom instructional time. On the afternoon of January 23, 2013, following Respondent's meeting with her and Jobes, Brown reported to Assistant Principal Long an incident in which T.P. allegedly said "Ms. T. hurt me." At some point, Jobes also reported to Long that T.P. told her the same thing.19/ Jobes also sent an email to Hollingsworth that afternoon describing a situation in which T.P told her "Ms. T. hurt me." Thereafter, Long spoke with Respondent to get her version of what had happened. At some point on the evening of January 23, 2013, Respondent sent an email to Long stating that she had not been alone with T.P. that day. It was apparent from Respondent's email that she felt that could not trust Brown. She requested that Brown be removed from her classroom. Brown was removed from Respondent's classroom on the morning of January 24, 2013. At some point thereafter, Brown prepared, signed, and filed a report, dated January 23, 2013, alleging that Respondent had engaged in numerous aggressive and abusive acts toward students over a period of months. It is obvious in reading the report——which references Brown's removal from Respondent's classroom———that it was not prepared until sometime after Brown was removed from Respondent's classroom on January 24, 2015. Jobes also signed the report. She testified that Brown had prepared it and that she had contributed "notes." Brown also prepared and filed another written statement alleging that Respondent had engaged in specific instances of abusive and aggressive behavior toward students in her class. This report also was dated January 23, 2013, but again referenced her removal from Respondent's classroom, so obviously was prepared sometime after January 24, 2013. On the evening of January 24, 2013, Jobes sent an email to Hollingsworth requesting to be removed from Respondent's classroom. The email stated: "I came home today so stressed and exhausted from Ms. T all day at me." Jobes, who was pregnant, was concerned that the stress she was experiencing in working with Respondent in her classroom would adversely affect her health. On January 25, 2013, Jobes was removed from Respondent's classroom. On or about January 29, 2013, Respondent was removed from her classroom and reassigned to another position in the school system pending the outcome of an investigation conducted by the Broward County Sheriff's Office Child Protective Investigations ("CPI") Section. In a statement dated February 3, 2013, Jobes alleged that Respondent had taken aggressive and abusive actions toward certain students in her class over a period of months. She also stated that she felt bullied because Respondent, at times, spoke to her disrespectfully, and that Respondent would "constantly remind everyone in the room that she is the boss and if they wanted to be the boss then they need to go get a 4-year degree." Notably, prior to their January 23, 2013, meeting with Respondent, neither Jobes nor Brown had ever reported that Respondent had engaged in aggressive or abusive behavior toward her students.20/ Allegations in Amended Administrative Complaint In the Amended Administrative Complaint, Petitioner alleges that Respondent engaged in physically and verbally aggressive and abusive behavior toward specific students in her class. Each of these allegations is addressed below. Student M.M. In paragraph 9. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, Petitioner alleges that Respondent grabbed student M.M. by the back of her neck, held her head down in the garbage can to make her retrieve an open bag of chips, and forced her to eat them because she had asked for them. At the hearing, Brown and Jobes both testified that on one occasion during classroom snack time, Respondent had given M.M. a bag of chips at her request. M.M. ate a few chips, then tossed the bag in the trash can. Brown and Jobes testified that Respondent held M.M. by the back of the neck and forced her to remove the chips from the trash can. On direct examination, Jobes testified that Respondent forced M.M. to eat the chips, but on cross-examination, testified that, M.M. did not eat the chips. Brown testified that M.M. ate some of the chips but did not finish. Respondent confirmed that she did make M.M. retrieve the chips from the garbage can, but explained the context and the circumstances for making M.M. do so. She credibly denied that she had forced M.M. to eat the chips. Specifically, M.M. had been purchasing school lunches, but Jobes and Brown informed Respondent that M.M. was not eating her lunch. Respondent contacted M.M.'s mother, and collectively, Respondent and M.M.'s mother arrived at a plan in which M.M. would pick out her lunch and snack items at home. The items would be packed in her lunch box, and she would bring her lunch and snacks to school every day. M.M.'s mother also sent a large bag of snacks for M.M. that was kept in the classroom closet and M.M. would get the snack of her choice at snack time. M.M.'s mother specifically requested that Respondent send home anything that M.M. did not eat so that she (M.M.'s mother) would know what M.M. was and was not eating. On the day at issue, M.M. requested a bag of chips. Respondent gave them to her and M.M. returned to her seat, where she ate one or two chips, then threw the bag of chips away in the trash can. Respondent saw this and told M.M. to retrieve the chips from the trash can. Respondent did this so that she could send them home with M.M., consistent with the plan she had devised with M.M.'s mother. Consistent with Respondent's method of prompting M.M.'s behavior, she asked M.M. three times to remove the chips from the trash can. She then added a gestural prompt, done multiple times, that consisted of pointing to the trash can to inform M.M. exactly what she wanted her to do and where she was to go. When M.M. did not respond, Respondent took M.M. by the hand, led her to the trash can, and again gestured and asked her to remove the chips. Again, M.M. did not respond, so Respondent employed a physical prompt that consisted of placing her hand on M.M.'s shoulder and hand and applying enough pressure to show M.M. that she needed to bend down to retrieve the chips. At that point, with Respondent's help, M.M. retrieved the chips from the trash can. Respondent told M.M. to put them in her lunch box so that she could take them home, consistent with M.M.'s mother's request. Respondent credibly testified that she did not tell M.M. she had to eat the chips or force her to eat them. The evidence does not establish that M.M. cried or was distressed as a result of Respondent's actions, and there was no evidence presented to show that M.M. was injured or sickened as a result of this incident. The credible, persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent did not punish M.M. for throwing the chips away, that she did not forcefully grab M.M. by the back of the neck or hold her head down into the trash can, and that she did not force M.M. to eat the chips. The evidence instead shows that Respondent's actions in dealing with M.M. on this occasion were appropriate and were consistent with her discussions with M.M.'s mother. Petitioner did not prove the allegations in paragraph 9. of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Student T.P. In paragraph 10. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, Petitioner alleges that in December 2012, Respondent force-fed student T.P., causing him to regurgitate. The undisputed evidence establishes that T.P. often refused to eat. On the day in question, T.P. purchased lunch from the cafeteria but he refused to eat the lunch, so was brought back to the classroom, where Respondent attempted to get T.P. to eat his lunch. Brown testified that Respondent forced a piece of chicken and chicken skin into T.P.'s mouth, that he was crying hysterically, and that he gagged. Brown further testified that Respondent made a video recording of T.P. eating. Jobes, who also was present when the incident occurred, did not testify that Respondent force-fed T.P.——only that Respondent was verbally urging T.P. to eat plantains. She did not testify that T.P. gagged or regurgitated. She also testified that Respondent made a video recording of the incident. Respondent testified that T.P. was a very picky eater who did not eat well, and that he regurgitated on the way to lunch every day. She testified, credibly, that she had discussed this issue with T.P.'s parents, and they had directed her to encourage him to eat.21/ Because the sight of other students eating or the smells of food would cause T.P. to vomit, he typically ate at a small table in the cafeteria positioned so he could see the outdoors. On the day in question, the students ate lunch in the classroom. T.P. was having particular difficulty eating that day because he was situated with the entire class as they ate, making him uncomfortable. In an effort to persuade T.P. to eat, Respondent went over to him, picked up a piece of food and coaxed him to eat. T.P. regurgitated all over his food. At that point, Respondent stopped trying to persuade T.P. to eat and sent a note home to his parents describing what had happened. Respondent's version of events is credible. By contrast, the testimony of Jobes and Brown regarding this incident was inconsistent, incredible, and unpersuasive. Thus, Petitioner did not prove the allegations in paragraph 10. of the Amended Administrative Complaint. In paragraph 14. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, Petitioner alleges that on January 23, 2013, Respondent grabbed T.P. by the back of the neck and pushed him toward the door, causing him to stumble and fall to the ground and to verbalize that "Ms. T. hurt me." Jobes testified that on that day, she was in the cafeteria when Brown and T.P. entered, with T.P crying. Jobes testified that Brown told her at lunch that she (Brown) had heard some kind of altercation while she was in the classroom restroom. Jobes did not see Respondent grab, push, or take any other action toward T.P. Jobes testified that later that day, T.P. told her "Ms. T. hurt me," and held his hands in a "U" shape. Jobes interpreted that as indicating that Respondent had choked T.P. Brown testified that she actually saw Respondent grab T.P. by the back of the neck and push him toward the door, causing him to fall, and that he got up, crying, and went with Brown and the rest of the class to lunch. She testified that later in the afternoon, T.P. told her and Jobes that "Ms. T. hurt me." Specifically, she testified: I didn't understand him clearly, you know. So Ms. Jobes was on the other side. He turned, he said 'Ms. Jobes, Ms. Jobes, Ms. T. hurt me, she grabbed me like this." And I, like, what? He said 'I'm going to tell them, I'm going to tell them, Ms. Brown, that Ms. T. hurt me, you see, Ms. T. hurt me.' The undersigned finds Brown's testimony incredible and unpersuasive. First, Brown's statement that she actually saw Respondent grab and push T.P. is inconsistent with her statement made to Jobes while at lunch that same day, that she had been in the restroom at the time and had heard an altercation. Further, the evidence showed that while T.P. is somewhat verbal, he is not capable of the extended, coherent discourse that Brown claims he verbalized in telling her and Jobes that Respondent had hurt him. The undersigned also assigns no weight to Jobes' testimony regarding whether the alleged incident actually occurred. Jobes did not witness the alleged incident, so has no personal independent knowledge regarding whether it occurred. Thus, Petitioner did not prove the allegations in paragraph 14. of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Student M.P. In paragraph 11. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, Petitioner alleges that in an effort to make M.P. stop crying, Respondent jerked her chair backward to scare her to make her stop crying, and that when M.P. did not stop crying, Respondent laid the chair down on the floor so that M.P.'s feet were in the air, leaving her in that position for approximately 20 minutes. Brown and Jobes both testified that M.P. often cried and rocked back and forth in her chair. They testified that in order to make M.P. stop crying, Respondent would try to scare her by jerking the chair backward. Then, if M.P. did not stop crying, Respondent would lay her chair down on the floor so that M.P.'s feet were in the air, and she would leave M.P. in that position until she cried herself to sleep. Both Brown and Jobes testified that they had seen Respondent do this on numerous occasions. Respondent acknowledged that she had, on more than one occasion, laid M.P. down on the floor in the Rifton chair,22/ but, again, provided credible context for taking this action. Specifically, as a result of her exceptionality, M.P. would constantly verbalize and often would rock in her chair. When she became agitated, she would rock her chair so violently that she tipped the chair backward. Initially, Respondent had moved M.P.'s chair against a bookshelf, but M.P. banged her head on the bookshelf. In an effort to prevent M.P. from hurting herself, Respondent then removed M.P. from her chair and placed her on the floor; however, M.P. banged her head on the floor. At that point, Respondent placed M.P. in the Rifton chair. M.P. continued to rock violently, so Respondent ordered a Rifton chair with footrest; however, that measure did not solve the problem with M.P.'s rocking. Respondent then considered placing M.P.'s chair up against the teacher's desk, which would help stabilize the chair but had nothing against which Respondent could bang her head. On one occasion, as Respondent tipped the chair back at a 45-degree angle to place it against her desk, she noticed that M.P. calmed down and closed her eyes. Thereafter, Respondent would sometimes tip M.P.'s chair against her or her desk if she was not otherwise occupied with activities. However, when she was occupied with other activities, she would sometimes completely recline the Rifton chair, with M.P. strapped in it, on the floor. She did this because it calmed M.P., who otherwise would constantly vocalize, cry, and rock back and forth. To determine whether this was an appropriate technique, Respondent asked colleagues who also taught ESE students about their view of this technique and whether there were better techniques of which they were aware. Respondent testified, credibly, that the consensus among other ESE teachers was that if the technique worked to soothe the child and did not endanger her, it was appropriate to use. Respondent also had consulted regularly with occupational specialist Mariana Aparicio-Rodriquez regarding techniques to prevent M.P. from rocking her chair so that she would not tip her chair over and injure herself, but they had not collectively arrived at a solution to the problem. Respondent testified that she and Aparicio-Rodriquez had not specifically discussed reclining the Rifton chair on the floor with M.P. strapped in it. One day, while Respondent was alone in the classroom, Aparicio-Rodriquez entered the classroom and saw M.P. completely reclined on the floor in the Rifton chair. Initially, Aparicio- Rodriquez was alarmed that M.P. had tipped the chair over. Aparicio-Rodriquez testified that Respondent told her that she had placed M.P. on the ground to give her a sense of what it felt like to fall back. Respondent then picked up the chair and placed M.P. in an upright position. Aparicio-Rodriquez confirmed that during the entire time that she was in Respondent's classroom, M.P. was calm, unhurt, and not in distress, and that she did not cry. Aparicio-Rodriquez testified that she did not believe this was an appropriate or useful technique for teaching M.P. not to rock in her chair, and she had intended to report the incident to her supervisor, but because one of Respondent's paraprofessionals informed her that the matter was going to be reported, Aparicio-Rodriquez did not report it. Aparicio- Rodriquez testified that she did not consider the incident to constitute child abuse, so did not report it to the Department of Children and Families. On cross-examination, Aparicio-Rodriquez stated that it was her opinion, from an occupational therapist's perspective, that using the Rifton chair in such a manner was not appropriate; however, she conceded that placing M.P. on the floor in a reclined position in the Rifton chair was not unsafe, and that M.P. was neither hurt nor in imminent or potential danger. She acknowledged that she and Respondent had a difference of opinion regarding the propriety of the use of the Rifton chair in this manner.23/ Aparicio-Rodriquez did not identify any statute, rule, policy, or other applicable standard that was violated by Respondent's use of the Rifton chair in this manner. The persuasive evidence supports the inference that Respondent's placement of M.P. in the Rifton chair in a reclined position on the floor was not intended as a disciplinary measure to frighten or punish M.P. for crying or rocking in her chair, and was appropriate under the circumstances. Respondent credibly testified that she had tried numerous measures to prevent M.P. from harming herself while rocking back and forth, and that when she inadvertently discovered this technique, she discussed it with other ESE professionals, who had suggested that she continue using it since the child was not distressed or injured and the technique worked to soothe her and prevent her from rocking back and forth and potentially injuring herself. Aparicio-Rodriquez disagreed with Respondent regarding the appropriateness of the technique, but she was neither qualified nor presented as an expert witness in appropriate teaching techniques for ESE students or in any other subject, and she did not identify any applicable professional or other standards that were violated by Respondent's use of the Rifton chair in this manner. The persuasive evidence establishes that Aparicio- Rodriquez and Respondent had a difference of opinion regarding the appropriateness of this technique; however, unlike Aparicio- Rodriquez, Respondent had actual successful experience in using this technique without harming M.P. Thus, Respondent's view regarding the appropriateness of using this technique under the circumstances is afforded greater weight than Aparicio- Rodriquez's view. Petitioner did not prove that Respondent distressed, injured or otherwise harmed M.P., placed M.P. in danger, or violated any applicable statute, rule, policy, teaching technique, or standard by placing M.P. in the Rifton chair in a reclining position. Thus, Petitioner did not prove the allegations set forth in paragraph 11. of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Petitioner also alleges that on one occasion, Respondent disciplined M.P. for crying by placing a plastic bag of ice directly on M.P.'s bare chest, and when that technique was unsuccessful, Respondent placed the bag of ice on M.P.'s back, causing her to cry more loudly. Petitioner presented the testimony of Jobes to substantiate this allegation. Jobes testified that "a couple of times," she saw Respondent place bags of ice under M.P.'s clothing on her bare skin in an effort to get M.P. to stop crying, but that M.P. would not stop crying. Petitioner did not present the testimony of any other witnesses to corroborate Jobes' testimony. Respondent flatly denied ever having placed ice on M.P. for any reason, and stated that under any circumstances, she did not know how that would have helped make M.P. stop crying. Respondent also denied having kept ice in the refrigerator in her classroom. Respondent's testimony was credible, and Jobes' testimony was not credible, regarding these allegations. Accordingly, Petitioner did not prove the allegations in paragraph 12. of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Student C.R. In paragraph 13. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, Petitioner alleges that on one occasion, Respondent removed C.R. from his wheelchair, screamed in his ear, held both hands behind his back, laid him face-down on the floor, and laid on top of him for several minutes as he gasped for air. The undisputed evidence shows that on the morning of January 16, 2013, student C.R. (also referred to as "C.J." in the final hearing testimony) arrived at school in an extremely emotionally-distressed state. Although C.R. is a small child who weighs approximately 30 pounds and is confined to a wheelchair, he becomes physically aggressive when distressed and is capable of inflicting injury on others by biting, scratching, and hitting. Upon arriving at school that day, C.R. physically struggled with school personnel, including Jobes, Brown, and Cherelus. Brown took C.R., still upset, in his wheelchair to Respondent's classroom, where he was placed in his classroom chair. C.R. attempted to grab, bite, and scratch Respondent, Jobes, and Brown, bit his own hands, and rubbed and scratched his own face, arms, and legs. Respondent left him in his chair and he eventually calmed down. At that point, Respondent removed C.R. from his chair and carried him to another classroom, where the rest of the class was engaged in instructional exercises. Thereafter, when Respondent carried C.R. back to her classroom, C.R. again became very upset and bit and scratched her. At that point, Respondent notified the school administration and C.R.'s mother of the incident involving C.R. that morning. Assistant Principal Long visited Respondent's classroom to determine what had happened. As of 11 a.m. that day, C.R. was still seated in his classroom chair aggressively biting his own hands and rubbing and scratching his face, arms, and legs.24/ Respondent prepared and submitted an incident report detailing these events, and Brown, Jobes, and Cherelus, and another school staff member, Julie Weiss, signed and dated the report that same day. Jobes testified she read the January 16, 2013, incident report before signing and dating it that same day. She stated that although she had signed the document without being under duress, she had questioned Respondent regarding its accuracy before signing it. Brown testified that she signed the January 16, 2013, incident report that day, but did not read it before she signed it. It is undisputed that at some point in the day on January 16, 2013, Respondent and C.R. ended up on the floor of Respondent's classroom, with Respondent laying on top of C.R. However, there is conflicting evidence regarding the time of day, sequence of events, and circumstances that led to this incident. Jobes and Brown both testified that the events that led to Respondent and C.R. being on the floor with Respondent laying on top of C.R. occurred in the morning after C.R. came to school in an emotionally distressed state, and that Respondent had placed C.R. on the floor and laid on top of him to punish him for his aggressive behavior. However, their testimony is contradicted by the version of events detailed in the January 16, 2013, incident report——which they both had signed and dated that same day, thus tacitly acknowledging its accuracy. As discussed in greater detail below, the credible, persuasive evidence establishes that the incident during which Respondent and C.R. ended up on the floor actually occurred later that same day, and that afterward, C.R. was taken from the classroom to the school clinic and did not return to the classroom for the rest of the day. Had Brown and Jobes been correct regarding the time of day when the incident occurred, C.R. would have been removed from the classroom during the morning. However, according to the January 16, 2013, incident report, C.R. was still in the classroom as of approximately 11 a.m. that day. Indeed, according to the incident report, Assistant Principal Long visited the classroom to investigate the events that were detailed in the report. Had C.R. been removed from the classroom in the morning after the incident, Long would have discovered that when she visited the classroom.25/ Further, Respondent would have known that so would not have stated in the written incident report that C.R. was still in the classroom as of 11 a.m. that day. It is undisputed that Jobes did not actually witness Respondent place C.R. on the floor. Jobes testified that when she looked over from another part of the classroom where she had been tending to other students, she saw C.R. face down on the floor with Respondent on top of him. Notwithstanding that by her own admission, Jobes did not witness the entire incident between Respondent and C.R., she nonetheless testified that Respondent held C.R. down on the floor for three to five minutes.26/ Brown claims to have witnessed the entire incident between Respondent and C.R. She testified that C.R. was acting aggressively, so to punish him, Respondent picked him up, flipped him around, placed him face-down on the floor, and laid on top of him for approximately 20 seconds as he gasped for breath. As noted above, the credible, persuasive evidence establishes that the allegation regarding Respondent laying on top of C.R. arose from an incident that occurred later in the day on January 16, 2013, after lunch and after the incident that had happened earlier that day. The credible evidence establishes that when C.R. returned to Respondent's classroom after having had lunch in the cafeteria under Jobes' and Brown's supervision, his face was red and he was scratching himself and squirming in his chair. Respondent became very concerned, from the previous experience that school year, that C.R. was again having an allergic reaction to something he had eaten. Respondent removed C.R. from his wheelchair in order to place him in his Rifton chair so that she could administer his epi-pen to counter any allergic reaction he might have been having. Respondent is diabetic and wears an insulin pump strapped to her left arm. Respondent testified, credibly, that as she was removing C.R. from the wheelchair, he grabbed at her insulin pump. In an effort to prevent C.R. from pulling her insulin pump off of her arm, Respondent jerked her hand and arm backward, causing her to lose her balance. She fell to the floor with C.R. and landed on top of him. Respondent estimated that she and C.R. were in that position for perhaps five seconds,27/ at which point she scrambled off of C.R. and placed him in his Rifton chair. C.R. was then taken to the clinic to address his allergic symptoms and did not return to the classroom that day. Respondent testified, credibly, that Brown did not witness the entire event because for part of it, she was in the restroom with M.P., consistent with their established routine after the students returned from lunch. The undersigned finds Jobes' and Brown's version of the incident unpersuasive and incredible.28/ Their testimony was imprecise, inconsistent, and directly contradicted by other credible evidence regarding the incident. By contrast, Respondent's testimony regarding the incident was specific, precise, and detailed. The undersigned finds her account of the incident credible and persuasive. Thus, Petitioner failed to prove the allegations in paragraph 13. of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Allegations Regarding Unspecified Students Petitioner alleges, in paragraph 8. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, that Respondent "was observed grabbing students by the arm and forcefully pulling them to the ground." The Amended Administrative Complaint does not identify the students whom Respondent is alleged to have treated in such a manner. Jobes testified that "one or two times" she had seen Respondent grab a student by the arm and pull that student to the ground in an effort to get the student to sit down. She could not recall which students she allegedly saw Respondent treat in that manner and she did not provide any detail regarding these alleged incidents. Her testimony was not corroborated by any other competent evidence in the record and was too vague and lacking in detail to be deemed credible or persuasive. Brown testified that on one occasion, Respondent pushed M.P. to make her walk faster, causing her to fall to the ground. Although Brown identified the specific student, she provided no temporal context or detail regarding the incident. Her testimony was confused and imprecise, so was neither credible nor persuasive. Petitioner failed to prove the allegation in paragraph 8. of the Amended Administrative Complaint that Respondent grabbed students by the arm and forcefully pulled them to the ground. Petitioner also generally alleges, in paragraph 8. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, that on occasion, Respondent would grab students by the neck to force them to look at their work. However, neither Brown nor Jobes identified any specific students to whom Respondent's alleged conduct was directed or provided any detail or context in which these alleged incidents occurred, and their testimony was too vague and imprecise to be deemed credible or persuasive. Petitioner did not present any other competent substantial evidence to substantiate this allegation. Respondent testified that at times, it was necessary for her to physically focus students' attention on their work. At those times, she would place her hands on the student's head and turn the student's face down toward the desk so that the student could attend to his or her work. She testified that she did not grab students by the back of the neck or engage in any forceful techniques as she focused their attention on their work. Her testimony was credible and persuasive. Thus, Petitioner failed to prove the allegation in paragraph 8. of the Amended Administrative Complaint that Respondent grabbed students by the neck and forced them to look at their work. Petitioner also alleges, in paragraph 8. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, that "[i]n one incident, Respondent crumbled [sic] a student's paper into a ball before throwing it at the student." The student whom Respondent is alleged to have treated in this manner was not identified in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Paragraph 8. specifically states that the incidents alleged therein occurred "shortly after the commencement of the school year in August 2012." However, the only evidence Petitioner presented in support of this allegation was the testimony of Cara Yontz, a paraprofessional assigned to Respondent's classroom in the 2011-2012 school year——a completely different school year than Respondent's actions alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Thus, Petitioner failed to present any evidence to substantiate this allegation in paragraph 8. Even assuming that the reference in the Amended Administrative Complaint to the 2012-2013 school year was a drafting error and that Petitioner actually intended to allege that Respondent engaged in such conduct during the 2011-2012 school year, Petitioner still did not prove this allegation by credible, persuasive evidence. Yontz testified that on one occasion, a student named "D." was having difficulty with his work and that twice, when he turned his work in to Respondent, she yelled at him, crumpled up his paper, and threw it back at him, causing him to cry. Petitioner did not present any other competent substantial evidence to support this allegation. Respondent denied having thrown D.'s paper at him and testified, credibly, that she never had thrown anything at any student. The undersigned finds Respondent's testimony on this point credible and persuasive. Thus, Petitioner failed to prove the allegation in paragraph 8. of the Amended Administrative Complaint that Respondent crumpled a student's work and threw it at him. Petitioner also alleges in paragraph 8. that Respondent verbally abused unspecified students, making statements such as "they're so stupid," and that she was "happy that God never gave her kids like them." Petitioner did not present credible, persuasive evidence proving this allegation, and Respondent credibly testified that she had not, and would not, ever address a student in such a manner. Failure to Provide Statement On March 4, 2013, the Broward District Schools Police Department issued a Notice to Appear for Statement ("NTA") to Respondent, informing Respondent that an investigation regarding a reported incident had been initiated. The NTA informed Respondent that on March 11, 2013, she was required to appear at a designated location and provide a statement as part of the investigation. The NTA further informed her that a representative of her choice could be present during the statement and that her failure to appear on the scheduled date and to provide a statement would constitute gross insubordination and lead to disciplinary action up to and including termination. Respondent is a member of the Broward Teacher's Union ("BTU") and was represented by Diane Watts, a field staff representative with BTU, in the investigation. Watts had contact with Kathleen Andersen, a detective with the Broward District Schools Police Department regarding scheduling the appointment and other matters with respect to Respondent's statement. At some point before Respondent was to appear and provide her statement, Andersen called Watts to give her a "heads-up" that the investigation was "going criminal"——meaning that a criminal investigation was being commenced and that criminal charges may be filed against Respondent. Watts testified, credibly, that when a matter "goes criminal," the BTU retains a lawyer to represent the member being investigated. At that point, BTU had not yet retained an attorney to represent Respondent in any investigation that may "go criminal." Under those circumstances, it is customary for the employee not to appear and provide a statement. Watts testified, credibly, that she informed Andersen that under the circumstances, Respondent would not appear as scheduled on March 11, 2013, to provide the statement. Watts understood Andersen to have agreed that, given the circumstances, Respondent was not required to appear and, in fact, she credibly testified that she believed Andersen had called her to give her a "heads-up" specifically so that she and Respondent would not make a wasted trip to appear at the location of the scheduled statement, only to find out there that the investigation had "gone criminal"——at which point, Watts would have advised Respondent not to make a statement pending BTU's retention of a lawyer to represent her. Based on her belief that she had an understanding with Andersen, Watts advised Respondent that she was not required to appear and provide a statement on March 11, 2013. Therefore——specifically at Watts' direction and advice——Respondent did not appear and provide a statement on March 11, 2013. At the final hearing, Andersen disputed that she had agreed with Watts that Respondent did not need to appear and provide a statement as directed in the Notice to Appear. Andersen testified that pursuant to Petitioner's Policy 4.9, Respondent was required to appear and provide a statement, and that she had not done so.29/ IV. Findings of Ultimate Fact Petitioner seeks to suspend Respondent without pay and to terminate her employment as a teacher on the basis of just cause, pursuant to section 1012.33, Florida Statutes. The statute defines just cause to include immorality, misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination; and being convicted of or found guilty of, or entering a plea of guilty of, regardless of adjudication of guilt, any crime involving moral turpitude. Here, Petitioner charges that just cause exists, on each of these bases, to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate her employment. As more fully addressed below, Petitioner bears the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, to establish each element of each offense with which Respondent is charged. Further, whether Respondent committed the charged offenses is a question of ultimate fact to be determined by the trier of fact in the context of each alleged violation.30/ For the reasons discussed in detail above, Petitioner failed to prove, by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence, any of the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint, and therefore failed to prove any of the administrative charges stated in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Petitioner asserts in Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order that "Petitioner had a number of witnesses to testify to these various events. Respondent had none." This mischaracterizes the evidence presented in this case. Although Petitioner presented the testimony of four persons having personal knowledge of some of the incidents, for several of the allegations, Petitioner presented the testimony of only one witness who had personal knowledge of the alleged incidents, and, as discussed above, often that testimony was not credible. Even when Petitioner presented the testimony of more than one witness regarding a particular allegation, as discussed above, often that testimony was inconsistent on significant details, calling into serious question the credibility and reliability of the testimony. Also, Respondent herself testified. Her testimony was clear, precise, credible, and persuasive, and she provided consistent, logical accounts of the incidents that gave rise to the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint.31/ In addition to her own testimony, Respondent presented the testimony of the mother of student J.M., who credibly supported Respondent's version of the incident giving rise to one of the allegations involving her daughter. Here, the undersigned did not find the testimony of Cherelus, Yontz, Brown, or Jobes credible or persuasive on most of the matters about which they testified. As discussed in detail above, in many instances their testimony was vague, unclear, or inconsistent with other testimony or evidence. Moreover, it was abundantly clear that each of these paraprofessionals found Respondent difficult to work with because she was demanding, did not tolerate lax performance, and consistently reminded them that as teacher, she was in charge of the management of her classroom. It was apparent that each of them resented her frequent assertion of authority over them. Each of them had ample motive to be untruthful or to exaggerate regarding certain events——such as those involving J.M. being placed in the restroom, C.R. and Respondent falling on the floor, and T.P. being fed by Respondent. In other instances——such as reclining M.P. in the Rifton chair or directing M.M. to retrieve her snack from the trash can——it is plausible to infer that the paraprofessionals misunderstood Respondent's actions and judged to be inappropriate, when, in fact, they were appropriate under the circumstances. Another factor militating against the paraprofessionals' credibility is that each of them was a mandatory child abuse reporter under Florida law, each of them knew that, and each understood her legal duty. Nonetheless, most of the incidents alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint were not reported until sometime after the incident is alleged to have occurred. In particular, Brown and Jobes first reported that Respondent had engaged in abusive behavior only after she had taken measures to address their classroom performance issues, including her requesting a meeting with the principal and holding her own meeting aimed at, again, addressing their unacceptable behavior and performance. Petitioner focuses on a statement in Respondent's January 23, 2013, email thanking Brown and Jobes for their efforts as indicating that up to that point, Respondent and the paraprofessionals enjoyed a smooth working relationship and that Respondent did not have any problems with their performance, and, in fact, was pleased with their performance. However, this position is contradicted by the strong evidence showing otherwise. Respondent's emails to the school administration dated December 1, 2012, and January 9, 10, and 23, 2013, particularly speak to the ongoing difficulty she was having with both paraprofessionals, even before they submitted statements alleging that she had abused students. Further, the testimony by Brown, Jobes, and Respondent shows that the relationship between Respondent and the paraprofessionals was not a smooth one. In sum, the evidence establishes that the paraprofessionals were not reliable witnesses, and their testimony was neither credible nor persuasive. Conversely, Respondent's testimony was credible and persuasive. Accordingly, Petitioner failed to prove, by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence, that Respondent engaged in conduct during the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years that violated Department of Education rules and school board policies, and, thus, constituted just cause to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate her employment. Petitioner also has charged Respondent with gross insubordination for failure to appear and provide a statement to the Broward District Schools Police Department on March 11, 2013. As discussed above, the credible, persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent did not appear and provide a statement to the Broward Schools Police Department specificially because she had been directed and advised by her BTU representative not to do so. Further, even if Watts did not, in fact, have an understanding with Andersen that Respondent would not provide a statement, it is undisputed that Watts told Respondent that such an understanding existed so that she did not need to appear and provide a statement. Thus, the credible, persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent did not intentionally refuse to appear and provide a statement, but, instead, simply and reasonably followed the advice and direction of her BTU representative, who had specifically told her not to appear and provide a statement. Under these circumstances, it cannot be inferred that Respondent intentionally refused to obey a direct order, reasonable in nature. Accordingly, the credible, persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent did not commit gross insubordination. Based on the foregoing, it is determined that Petitioner failed to meet its burden to prove, by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence, that Respondent engaged in conduct, alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, that violates Department of Education rules and school board policies. Accordingly, Petitioner did not prove that just cause exists to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate her employment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Broward County School Board, enter a final order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint against Respondent; reinstating Respondent's employment as a teacher; and awarding Respondent back pay for the period of her suspension, less the amount of back pay that would be owed for the period commencing on November 6, 2013, and ending on January 23, 2014.42/ DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of October, 2015.
Findings Of Fact Roland C. Foote, Respondent, holds Florida teaching certificate number 107445, Graduate, Rank II. He served as Principal of Webster Elementary School (formerly Webster Junior High), hereinafter called Webster, from 1968 until he was replaced in late 1978. He has been employed in the Florida school system for more than twenty-five years. On May 8, 1978, Respondent sent a letter (Exhibit 10) to the Sumter County School Superintendent recommending the suspension of James Constable, one of the teachers at Webster. This was referred to the PPC for investigation by the Superintendent. By letter dated May 16, 1978 (Exhibit 12) some 11 teachers at Webster signed a letter to Ms. Angela J. Peterson, an investigator for the PPC, requesting an audience to discuss several urgent matters relating to Webster. Constable was one of the signers of this letter. Some of those who signed were aware the purposes was to complain of the manner in which Respondent ran Webster; others thought the purpose was to assist Constable. The first meeting with the PPC representative was held on June 6, 1978. Some eight teachers attended this meeting, discussed with Ms. Peterson several situations of which they were aware involving possible improper conduct by Respondent, and agreed to provide PPC with testimony and facts necessary to prepare charges against Respondent. Numerous additional meetings were held by this group, some with PPC representatives and others without PPC representation, for the purpose of reconstructing the dates of the incidents complained of and to ascertain who had knowledge of the incidents. Prior to discussing the specific charges preferred against Respondent and the evidence relating thereto, additional background information gleaned from the testimony and the exhibits admitted into evidence is first presented. Sumter County is predominantly a small-farm agricultural area as opposed to an urban society, with the socioeconomic level below that of most of the larger counties in Florida. In addition to those permanent residents who live and work on farms, there are migrant workers who appear at harvest time. The population mix is about 1/3 black and that is also the school population mix. Several of these students are classified as educationally mentally retarded and qualify for supplemental education programs. About 7 of the 25 teacher faculty at Webster are black and no evidence of any faculty racial tensions or frictions was presented. Friction has existed at Webster between some faculty members and Respondent for a long time. In school year 1974-75 a special workshop was conducted at Webster to improve the communications between the faculty and the administration. The workshop met with mixed success. Some of the teachers at Webster mad minor complaints to various supervisors over the years but none was ever willing to reduced a complaint to writing and present it to the Superintendent. As a result, the Superintendent on one occasion told the faculty at Webster that he was tired of hearing complaints about Webster and for them to work out their problems at the school. The principal at smaller schools, where assistant principals or deans are not provided, is the primary as well as final, authority in the discipline of students and in particular in the administering of corporal punishment. In addition to a wooden paddle or two, Respondent had provided himself with a leather strap which he also used to administer corporal punishment. The strap used by Respondent was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 20. At the time it was used, a metal slat was inserted between the two pieces of leather comprising the strap to provide additional stiffness. The addition of this metal slat did not make the strap a more sinister punishment tool. Straps similar to Exhibit 20 are sold in tack shops and are called bats. They are approximately 18 inches long and are comprised of two pieces of leather one-eight inch thick, sewed together. The bat is about one inch wide through the first foot of its length and then flares out to two inches wide at the end. The two pieces of leather at the flared end are not sewn and they clap together making a louder noise when something is struck with the bat than would occur with only a single piece of leather. It is this flared part of the bat that contacts the backside of a pupil who is administered corporal punishment. This strap or bat will cause less injury to a student than a wooden paddle if each is used with the same degree of force. While the immediate sting from the bat may be as great as the sting from a paddle, the former is much less likely to bruise a child than is the paddle. Some of the implications of the material allegations, as well as the opinions of some witnesses, are that the use of a leather strap for administering corporal punishment is itself cruel and unusual. So long as corporal punishment is authorized, these implications and opinions are without foundation. The material allegations preferred against Respondent will be discussed in chronological order. It is to be noted that the two earliest incidents were familiar to many people at the time they occurred, but no action was taken until 1978. Material Allegation 3 alleges that on or about March 1, 1972 at 8:30 a.m. Larry James, a ten-year old black student at Webster, received an eye injury resulting in the loss of sight in the injured eye when a nail he was attempting to drive was deflected by the hammer and became impaled in his right eye. James was attempting to repair a loose leg on a chair which his teacher had told him to get the custodian to fix. While the teacher was out of the room, James attempted to repair the chair and the accident ensued. James pulled the nail from his eye and ran to the bathroom. His teacher, Mrs. Batten, took him to the office. Respondent was not at school on March 1, 1972 and did not see James until after James returned to school several days later. Petitioner presented five witnesses, including James, the doctor who treated him, his mother, and Mr. and Mrs. Donahue, who were teachers at Webster to whom James was taken by the teacher, Mrs. Batte. None of these witnesses saw Respondent on the day of the accident. James was not sent to a doctor and spent most of the day in Mrs. Donahue's class until the school bus took him home, presumably after 2:45 p.m. His mother testified she had James taken to a doctor that day, which she identified as 2 March, two days after her youngest child was born on 28 February 1972. 1972 was a leap year and February that year contained 29 days. James was referred to the hospital in Ocala by his family doctor, Dr. Wiley. The medical records show James was admitted at 3:56 p.m. on March 2, 1972. It is doubtful James could have reached home on the bus before 3:15 p.m. or reached Dr. Wiley's office before 4:00 p.m. The only time and date certain was the date and time admission to the hospital. The parties stipulated that school records would show Larry James was absent from school on March 2, 3 and 4, 1972. Accordingly, the accident obviously occurred March 1, 1972. The evidence was undisputed that on March 1, 1972, Respondent Foote was in Leesburg attending the closing on the residence he was purchasing. Respondent's testimony to this effect was corroborated by the bank closing officer and documents executed at closing (Exhibit 43). Respondent testified that he first learned of James' injury the following day when he returned to school. Material Allegation 11 alleges that in school year 1971-72 or 1972-73 Respondent struck Louise Weddell, a student, in the face knocking her to the ground. The date of the incident was not established with any degree of certainty. Louise Weddell, now 20 years old, testified that she was 15 and in the seventh grade when the incident occurred. According to Louise, she was fighting with another girl outside the building when Respondent came out with a paddle in his hand to break up the fight. Louise testified that Respondent slapped her with his left hand, knocking her to the ground; that she got up, called him a black mother fucker and ran away. She denied spitting in Respondent's face. For running away she was suspended for 10 days. Several witnesses observed the incident. All except Respondent testified to the slapping and one saw Foote wipe his face with his handkerchief after Louise ran away. Respondent's testimony was that while he was stopping the fight Louise called him the name and spit in his face. He admitted only "pushing" her in the face with his left hand. Material Allegation 10 alleges that during the 1974-75 school year Respondent paddled Gralyn Dorsy numerous times on the buttocks, legs, sides and hips while calling him "a sorry nigger on food stamps and welfare." The evidence is undisputed that Respondent paddled Dorsey several times during that school year (Exhibit 45). The incident leading to the allegation occurred on March 3 1975 when Dorsey was brought to Foote by Mrs. Jones for a discipline problem she did not know how to handle. It appears that the previous day while Foote was away from school Dorsey had committed some vulgar act, the nature of which was not disclosed at the hearing, with another boy in the bathroom. Mrs. Jones expected Respondent to counsel Dorsey. Instead, Dorsey was given a paddling. Mrs. Jones does not remember if James Constable was also present. She testified that she counted 13 licks. Exhibit 45, the paddle list, shows 5 licks given to Dorsey. James Constable testified he also observed the paddling of Dorsey and that after Dorsey had been given 2 or 3 hard licks he started to get up. Respondent pushed him back over the chair saying "I'm not through with you, boy", appeared to lose control and began flailing away while calling Dorsey a sorry nigger on food stamps and welfare. According to Constable, Dorsey received 12 or 13 licks and, while squirming around, some of the blow landed on the side of Dorsey's hip and one landed on his hand. Mrs. Jones was upset over the severity of the paddling. Neither she nor Constable made a complaint until after May, 1978. The school secretary, Doris Brank, whose desk was just outside Foote's office, recalls two paddlings of Dorsey, one at which he was given 3 licks. She never heard Respondent make racial slurs to children while disciplining them. Material Allegation 2 alleges that in the spring of 1976 Herbert Brown, a student, injured his ankle on the playground before school and Respondent wouldn't allow Mrs. Miriam Jones, his teacher, to take him home or to the doctor but required he remain in school. On 2 February 1976 Herbert Brown, a twelve-year old black student, injured his ankle while playing before school. Mrs. Jones took roll call in Herbert's room and learned his ankle was hurting him. She took him to Respondent and asked permission to take him home. Respondent examined the ankle, saw it was slightly swollen and had his secretary, Mrs. Branch, call the phone number on Herbert's records. No answer was received. Respondent refused Mrs. Jones' request to take Herbert home. The ankle continued to swell. Mrs. Branch also called the doctor, whose office was closed. When school was out, Mrs. Jones drove Herbert home. His mother took him to Dr. Lehrer, who examined Herbert's ankle in the emergency room at the hospital and diagnosed the injury as a sprain. No medication was prescribed, as the pain did not appear sufficient to warrant treatment. The doctor has no independent recollection of the incident but, because he prescribed no medication, would assume the sprain was not severe. Material Allegation 9 alleges that on or about January 6, 1977 Respondent paddled Greg Christian while stating that people in the "subs" did not tell "this white man" what to do. When taken to Respondent for disciplining by his teacher, Molly Jo Teters, Greg told Respondent his brothers said Foote was not to paddle him any more and to run home if he did. Mrs. Teters testified that Respondent, while paddling Greg, told him "people in the subs don't tell this white man what to do." Greg's testimony was that following his remarks about Foote not paddling him, Foote held up a clenched fist saying, "This is black power", covered it with his right hand and said, "This is white supremacy." Daniel Lee Christian, Greg's father, recalled Greg telling him of the paddling and of Foote's gestures and remarks about white power over black power. Foote denied all allegations of using racial slurs to students while disciplining them or otherwise. Material allegation 7 alleges that on May 13, 1977 Respondent paddled Joanne Williams with a leather strap, hitting her on her bottom and later on the front of her body as she turned; and that, during the paddling called her a nigger and made comments about welfare, free lunches and food stamps. Mrs. Simpson, Joanne's teacher, took Joanne to Foote for discipline because she had stolen money from another student, spent it and failed to repay the money as directed by Mrs. Simpson. Foote had her bend over a chair and paddled her with the leather strap. After the first blow, Mrs. Simpson testified Joanne turned over and Foote continued to strike her on the front portion of her body while appearing to lose control. During this time, Mrs. Simpson testified, he said Joanne's family was on food stamps, free lunches and had everything given to them and when not given, they stole. Exhibit 45 shows 4 licks awarded to Joanne by Foote. Foote denies making the remarks and Mrs. Branch, who was immediately outside the office, heard no such remarks made. Mrs. Simpson was upset following the incident and vowed never to take another child to Foote for discipline. However, on April 25, 1978, she sent one of her students, James Jackson, to Foote for discipline after Jackson had been paddled by her and continued his misconduct. Material Allegation 8 alleges that in the fall of 1977 Respondent paddled Bobby Clemons with a leather strap and, while so doing, called him a "no-good nigger". Nancy Gridley took Bobby Clemons to Foote for authority to discipline him for being a "smart-mouth". While talking to Bobby, a ten-year old black student whose mother is a teacher at Webster, Mrs. Gridley testified Foote became angry, picked up his strap and gave Bobby three licks while yelling that Bobby was a nigger who would end up in prison if he kept getting into trouble. Bobby confirmed that he was called a nigger by Foote and told he would end up in jail if his conduct didn't improve. Mrs. Clemons was told of the incident by Mrs. Gridley and when she asked Bobby about it, he confirmed the incident. All witnesses agreed that Bobby was a discipline problem. Respondent acknowledged the paddling, denied the racial slur and testified he told Bobby he needn't expect to get away with misbehavior because his mother was a teacher. Mrs. Branch confirmed Foote's testimony. Material Allegation 6 alleges that Respondent on February 22, 1978 paddled Jeannie Barnes, a fifth grade student, with a leather strap in the library in front of students. James Constable witnessed the paddling, which consisted of three blows with the leather strap. The paddling took place in the library which was serving as the temporary office while the old offices were being renovated. Constable's testimony that a class was being held in the library at the time constituted the only testimony that classes were held in the library. Respondent recalled no other student being present when this punishment was administered. Material Allegation 5 was that during February or March, 1978, Respondent paddled one of the Roper twins in the workroom of the library without an adult witness present, striking the student on the sides, back and legs. Mrs. Newell testified she came into the room while Respondent was paddling Landis Roper with a paddle. Landis was lying on the floor, Foote had hold of his wrist and blows were landing on back, legs and arm. She also testified that Roper was screaming his head off and threatening to kill himself if Foote didn't stop. As Mrs. Newell walked in, Mrs. Stevens and Mrs. Hodges were exiting the room. Mrs. Newell is the only witness to testify the other Roper twin was also present. Mrs. Newell took Landis outside after the paddling. Mrs. Stevens was in the library when Foote came in, got his paddle and paddled Roper. She was in the room while the paddling was going on but didn't watch. She was upset because so many licks (about 10) were given to a special education child. Mrs. Hodges did not testify that she was in the library at any time during the Roper incident. Both Respondent and Mrs. Branch recalled the paddling of Roper and that three licks were given. Landis had been reported for fighting in the cafeteria that morning by Mrs. Carter, whose glasses he had accidentally knocked off while swinging at his opponent. Mrs. Carter inquired later if Mr. Foote had seen Landis and was advised no. After lunch Foote sent for Landis, and after talking to him a short while started to paddle Roper. When several children appeared in the hall, Foote then took Roper into the workroom, leaving the door open while the paddling took place. Mrs. Branch testified no other child was present. Foote's testimony was that he gave Roper three licks with the paddle just inside the workroom door and that no other child was present. Material Allegation 4 alleges that on May 16, 1978 Respondent administered corporal punishment to Kenny Robertson with a leather strap without an adult witness present. Kenny Robertson testified that he was paddled with a leather strap by Foote for fighting, that nobody else was in the room, and that Mrs. Branch was at her desk just outside the door. Molly Jo Teters testified she was in outer office, did not see Mrs. Branch, but heard Foote yell at Kenny that he was not to pull girls off bars and to keep his shirt tucked in. Shortly after the last blow she walked by the door, saw Foote returning the strap to his desk and saw only Foote and Robertson. Mrs. Sellers had bus duty May 16, 1978 and saw a boy whose name she didn't know push a girl off the monkey bars. She took him to Foote and observed the paddling. Mrs. Branch testified that Mrs. Sellers brought Kenny Robertson to Foote because of some problem on the playground and that both she and Mrs. Sellers witnessed the paddling given Robertson. Mrs. Branch didn't see Mrs. Teters in the office at that time. Material Allegation 12 alleges that in May 1978 Respondent paddled Ronald Hise, using excessive force, in the lunchroom in front of second and third grade classes. Frances Simpson witnessed Foote paddle Ronnie Hise in the lunch room in May 1978 after a teacher had told Foote Ronnie was misbehaving in the lunch line. Foote picked up his paddle, pulled Ronnie out of the line and gave him three "hard" licks. Theresa Lee, another teacher, also witnessed the Hise paddling. Her version was that another teacher brought Ronald to Foote for discipline because he misbehaved in the lunch line and Foote paddled him there. She thought the blows "too severe" for the "very thin, pale child." Foote acknowledged that from time to time he has paddled children in the lunchroom because he found that this procedure often had a therapeutic effect in calming down a noisy lunchroom. Material Allegation 1 alleges that in May 1978 Herschell Bellamy seriously injured his eye during physical education in the afternoon, that his mother was notified and was coming to pick him up, but Respondent instructed he be put on the school bus to go home at the end of the day. Herschell Bellamy fell on the monkey bars near the end of his physical ed period and cut his eyelid. His P.E. teacher, James Constable, took him to his office, cleaned and bandaged the eye using a large eye patch. Constable then went to the office with Herschell, who remained there, got Herschell's folder and called the phone number there listed for emergencies, which phone belonged to the next-door neighbor. The neighbor advised that she would tell Herschell's mother to come for him. The neighbor later called back to the school office to advise that Herschell's mother was enroute to pick him up. James Constable, Patricia Newell, and Dorothy Stevens all testified that shortly before time for the buses to leave they were in the office with Herschell Bellamy and Foote, from his inner office, asked what the commotion was about. Someone advised him that Bellamy had hurt his eye. Foote then asked if he was white or black and when told Herschell was black, said "Put him on the bus". Foote's testimony, corroborated by Mrs. Branch, was that he returned to school from a meeting in the county office just at the bell was ringing to end the school day. As he entered the building he passed a lady taking a small boy with a bandage over his eye out of the building. He denied making any comment regarding Herschell's race. Herschell and his mother both testified. When Herschell fell on the monkey bar and hurt his eye, Coach Constable put a bandage on it and took him to the office where he waited a long time before his mother came to pick him up. He didn't hear Mr. Foote say anything but testified Foote was in the office when his mother came to pick him up. Herschell's mother testified she came to school in response to the message that her son had been hurt and that she arrived just as the children were about ready to get on the bus to go home. She saw Foote, but he said nothing to her or look at Herschell. She took Herschell to Dr. Wiley, who treated Herschell for a lacerated upper eyelid, a minor injury. Wayne Ham, a supervisor in the Sumter County school system, acknowledged that he had received complaints from Mrs. Simpson, Mrs. Jones and Mrs. Teter regarding Foote's use of the leather strap to discipline children. They considered use of the strap constituted too severe punishment. Ham doesn't recall if he passed these complaints to his superior. He denied telling Mrs. Teter not to show to anyone a written complaint she had prepared. Bernard Shelnutt, the other Sumter County supervisor, who functions similar to Ham, had never heard a complaint against Foote of brutality, failure to get medical attention for children, or use of racial slurs. In addition to denying the allegations preferred against him, Respondent presented numerous witnesses who testified to Foote's good reputation in the community, to their satisfaction with the job Foote was doing as principal, to Foote's administrative capabilities, and to lack of knowledge of any irregularities at Webster until the charges here considered were published in the newspaper. Two principals of Orange County schools, for whom Respondent had worked before coming to Webster, attested to his capability and competence as well as to their conclusion that the job of principal is the most difficult in the field of education. The principal is the one primarily responsible for the discipline in the school and the manner in which punishment is administered. Corporal punishment policy is usually left to the sound judgment of the principal at each school, subject however to statutory restrictions, and prescribed school board policies. None of the four elected Sumter County school board members who testified on behalf of Respondent had ever received any complaints against Respondent, prior to the investigation by the PPC, involving medical neglect, severe punishment or racial slurs, nor had complaints been received from the black community. They considered Respondent a good administrator with a good reputation. The only complaints they had received involved minor administrative matters such as school bus schedules, and teacher complaints that Respondent worked them too hard. Several witnesses for Petitioner admitted that they were not happy with Respondent's requirement that all teachers attend PTA meetings unless they had a good excuse for being unable to do so. Eighteen teachers, former teachers, substitute teachers, and speech clinician called by Respondent had never seen or heard Respondent medically neglect, abuse, or use racial slurs to students at Webster. Most, if not all of these witnesses, had never hear of the complaints against Respondent before reading them in the newspapers shortly before the fir trial. The chiefs of police of Webster and Center Hill attested to Respondent's good reputation in their communities and that they had never received a complaint that Respondent had abused a student. Five parents whose children now attend or had attended Webster testified that Respondent had provided proper treatment to their children, their children had never complained of medical or physical mistreatment or abuse by Respondent, and that when children had been neglected by other teachers a call to Respondent corrected the situation. Two employees, other than Mrs. Branch, who had worked at Webster for many years had never seen or heard Respondent medically neglect, physically abuse, or direct racial slurs towards children at Webster. They first became aware of complaints when they read in the news that charges had been preferred against Respondent. No direct testimony was presented that the misconduct here alleged to have been committed by Respondent seriously reduced his effectiveness in the school system. It is perhaps significant that approximately one week in May 1978 (May 8- 16) provided one-third of the twelve material allegations preferred against Respondent. Coincidentally, Respondent's letter recommending James Constable for dismissal was dated 8 May 1978 and the letter to the PPC signed by eleven teachers was dated May 15, 1978. It is further noted that two of the material allegations involve incidents occurring 6 or 7 years ago.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board is responsible for the operation, control and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Miami-Dade County, Florida (including, among others, Phillis Wheatley Elementary School (Phillis Wheatley) and Palm Springs Middle School (Palm Springs)), and for otherwise providing public instruction to school-aged children in the county. Respondent is now, and has been since October 1987, employed as a classroom teacher by the School Board. She holds a professional services contract. Respondent first taught for the School Board at Phillis Wheatley. In 1996, she moved to Palm Springs, where she remained until she was "assigned to a paid administrative placement at [the] Region Center I [effective October 4, 2007] pending the resolution of investigative case # N-85085" (referenced in paragraph 14 of the Notice of Specific Charges). Respondent has previously been disciplined by the School Board for using physical means to control student behavior. In 1992, following an investigation during which Respondent "admitted to placing tape on one student's mouth and telling the other to place the tape on his mouth" and "also admitted to hitting a student on the head with a dictionary and tapping another student on the hand with a ruler," she received the following "letter of reprimand" from her principal at Phillis Wheatley: On August 8, 1992, you were charged with conduct unbecoming a School Board employee and battery of students. You violated the Chapter 6B-1.01(3), Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida, and Dade County School Board Rule 6Gx-13-4A-1.21, "Conduct Unbecoming a School Board Employee." The above infractions were substantiated by the Special Investigative Unit, Case No. 92-00946. You are directed to comply with the procedures outlined in the Chapter 6B- 1.01(3), Code of Ethics of the Education Profess[ion] in Florida, to refrain from demeaning students, punishing them by taping mouths, touching or taping students to discipline them or to demonstrate affection, and to conduct yourself in a professional manner. Any recurrence of the infractions will result in further disciplinary actions. In 1995, Respondent was reprimanded for striking a student with a stack of papers and received the following "Confirmation of Administrative Action" from the Phillis Wheatley principal: Please be advised that after a complete investigation of Case Number 95-12689 done by this administrator the following guidelines must be reviewed with this administrator. Review the faculty handbook pg 18, on Corporal Punishment. Review a copy of School Board Rule 6Gx4A-1.21, Employee Conduct, and Chapter 6B-1.01(3), Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida. You are to refrain from touching or tapping students to discipline them and you must conduct yourself in a professional manner at all times. Any recurrence of this infraction will result in further disciplinary action. In 2004, after determining that Respondent had "acted inappropriately" when, in anger, she had "grabbed" a student by the "hair yanking [the student's] head backwards," the Palm Springs principal issued Respondent the following written reprimand: On December 11, 2003, you inappropriately disciplined (a) student(s) while waiting in front of the cafeteria. You violated the Contract between the Miami- Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade, Article VIII, Section 1. [a]s well as School and Miami-Dade County School Board Rules, 6Gx13-5D-1.07, Corporal Punishment, and 6Gx13-5D-1.08, Code of Student Conduct. It is your responsibility as a classroom teacher to maintain control and discipline of students. However, it is imperative that you follow school and Miami-Dade County School Board rules in doing so. Rules governing student discipline a[re] outlined in the Code of Student Conduct, Board Rule 6Gx13-5D-1.08, faculty handbook, and Promoting and Maintain[ing] a Safe Learning Environment document, and are referenced in the United Teachers of Dade Contract, Article VII, Section I. You are directed immediately to refrain from using any physical means to affect student behavior. You are directed immediately to implement the appropriate procedures for dealing with inappropriate student behavior as stipulated in the documents above[]. The above infraction was substantiated by an Administrative Review, Case Number J08655. You are directed to refrain from using inappropriate procedures in the performance of your assigned duties. You are directed to implement immediately, approved procedures in the performance of your assigned duties. Any recurrences of the above infraction will result in further disciplinary action. As a School Board employee, Respondent is expected to conduct herself in accordance with School Board rules, including the aforementioned School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21 and 6Gx13- 5D-1.07. At all times material to the instant case, School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21I has provided as follows: Permanent Personnel RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES Employee Conduct All persons employed by The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida are representatives of the Miami-Dade County Public Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct themselves, both in their employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system. Unseemly conduct or the use of abusive and/or profane language in the presence of students is expressly prohibited. At all times material to the instant case, School Board Rule 6Gx13-5D-1.07 has provided, in pertinent part, as follows: Corporal Punishment - Prohibited The administration of corporal punishment in Miami-Dade County Public Schools is strictly prohibited. Miami-Dade County Public Schools has implemented comprehensive programs for the alternative control of discipline. These programs include, but are not limited to, counseling, timeout rooms, in-school suspension centers, student mediation and conflict resolution, parental involvement, alternative education programs, and other forms of positive reinforcement. In addition, suspensions and/or expulsions are available as administrative disciplinary action depending upon the severity of the misconduct. Procedures are in place for students to make up any work missed while on suspension, or to participate in an alternative program if recommended for expulsion. As an instructional employee of the School Board, Respondent is a member of a collective bargaining unit represented by the United Teachers of Dade (UTD) and covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and UTD (UTD Contract). Article V of the UTD Contract addresses the subject of "[e]mployer [r]ights." Section 1 of Article V provides, in part, that the School Board has the exclusive right to suspend, dismiss or terminate bargaining unit employees "for just cause." Article VIII of the UTD Contract addresses the subject of "[s]afe learning environment." Section 1.D. of Article VIII provides as follows: The parties recognize the potential for difficult circumstances and problems related to the use of corporal punishment. Accordingly, the parties agree that such punishment shall be prohibited as a disciplinary option, and further agree to act affirmatively in continuing to identify and implement more effective alternatives for dealing with student behavior. The involvement of school-site personnel in developing such alternatives is critical to their potential for success. Article XXI of the UTD Contract addresses the subject of "[e]mployee [r]ights and [d]ue [p]rocess." Section 1.B.1.a. of Article XXI provides that "[a]ny member of the instructional staff may be suspended or dismissed at any time during the school year, provided that the charges against him/her are based upon Florida Statutes." Section 1.B.2. of Article XXI provides, in part, that "[d]ismissals and suspensions shall be effected in accordance with applicable Florida Statutes, including the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) " In the instant case, the School Board is seeking to dismiss Respondent based on conduct in which she allegedly engaged during the 2007-2008 school year. While assigned to Palm Springs during the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent taught three periods of language arts to sixth and seventh grade Spanish-speaking ESOL students. She also had responsibility for a sixth grade homeroom class. Y. L., J. T., and I. M. were sixth grade students at Palm Springs during the 2007-2008 school year. They each had Respondent for homeroom and language arts for a brief time during the beginning of that school year. At all material times during the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent understood that the School Board had a policy "strictly prohibit[ing]" the use of corporal punishment. Nonetheless, on more than one occasion during this time period, Respondent used physical means to redirect Y. L. She grabbed him by the hair and pulled him by the arm, hurting him in the process. She also "grabbed other students by their arms" to control their behavior. Respondent made threats to throw Y. L. and other students out the window if they did not behave. Although Respondent had no intention of carrying out these threats, Y. L. believed that the threats were real and that Respondent meant what she had said. On one occasion, Respondent opened a window, had Y. L. stand next to it, and told him that if he moved at all, she would toss him out the open window. As a disciplinary measure, Respondent had Y. L. pick up his wheel-equipped book bag (filled with textbooks and notebooks for all his classes) and hold it on top of his head for an extended period of time while he was standing in place. Y. L. felt some discomfort in his shoulder when he did this. Afraid of Respondent, Y. L. often "hid[] in the bathroom" at school instead of going to Respondent's classroom. On numerous occasions, Y. L.'s mother had to pick him up from school before the end of the school day because he had vomited. At home, Y. L. had trouble sleeping and refused to eat. He lost approximately 20 pounds (going from 100 pounds down to 80). Y. L. was not the only student that Respondent directed to stand with a filled book bag on his head. J. T. and I. M. were also issued such a directive by Respondent. It happened the first week of the school year on a day when the students remained in their homeroom classes until dismissal because of a power outage that left the school without lights and air conditioning for much of the day. Towards the end of the day (after power had been restored to the school), J. T. and I. M. were talking to one another when they were not supposed to. In response to their transgression, Respondent instructed them to stand in separate corners of the classroom and hold their book bags (which were similar to Y. L.'s) on top of their heads.2 The book bags remained on their heads for a substantial enough period of time to cause them to experience pain. 3 Y. L., J. T., I. M., and their parents complained to the Palm Springs administration about Respondent's disciplinary tactics. In response to Y. L.'s and his mother's complaints, one of the school's assistant principals, Niki Ruiz, interviewed "randomly selected" classmates of Y. L.'s. These students "corroborated what Y. [L.] was saying." On September 26, 2007, the matter was turned over to the School Board's General Investigative Unit (GIU) for investigation. Respondent was removed from the classroom and placed on alternative assignment pending the outcome of the investigation. Following the GIU investigation, the matter was referred to the School Board's Office of Professional Standards. There was a conference-for-the-record held on February 6, 2008, at which Respondent had the opportunity to tell her side of the story. In her remarks, she expressed a disdain for authority when she said, "I'm very professional but I don't stick to rules." The School Board's Superintendent of Schools recommended that the School Board suspend Respondent and initiate termination proceedings against her. The School Board took such action at its May 21, 2008, meeting.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board issue a final order sustaining Respondent's suspension and terminating her employment as a professional service contract teacher with the School Board for the reasons set forth above DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of December, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of December, 2008.
