The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent should be suspended or dismissed from her employment with the School Board of Dade County, Florida (Board).
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses the following findings of fact are made: Respondent was employed as a first grade elementary school teacher at Fulford Elementary School during the 1988-89 school year. In September, 1988, the principal at Fulford Elementary, Mrs. Pope, asked the primary education coordinator for region 2, Mrs. Neely, to perform an observation and assessment of all primary teachers at Fulford. Accordingly, Mrs. Neely observed all classrooms for grades kindergarten through three and made recommendations to the teachers and Mrs. Pope. Mrs. Neely visited respondent's classroom on several occasions and observed the Respondent's treatment of students and her teaching methods. Respondent did not follow the lesson plan for the daily lesson, did not have a schedule to specify times for subjects to be taught, and did not have a based reading program as required by the board. When Mrs Neely attempted to counsel Respondent in order to assist her to correct these deficiencies, Respondent became hostile and argumentative. During one visit Mrs. Neely observed the Respondent chasing students around the classroom. At first Mrs. Neely assumed the conduct to be a game of some type. When the conduct continued for several minutes without interruption or comment from Respondent, Mrs. Neely realized that the class was out of control and that the Respondent was unable to restore order. Consequently, Mrs. Neely took charge and got the children into their seats. When she instructed the class to get quiet, Respondent also took her chair and refused to speak. Ultimately, Mrs. Neely taught the class for the remainder of the lesson. Respondent refused to cooperate with Mrs. Neely and did not correct the deficiencies in teaching and class management which Mrs. Neely observed. During a portion of October and November, 1988, Vincent Golden was assigned to Respondent's classroom to work as a teacher's aide. During the three weeks he was with Respondent's class, Mr. Golden observed Respondent on a daily basis. Twice during this period Respondent grabbed a student named Devon by the throat to reprimand inappropriate conduct. On another occasion Respondent grabbed a female student by the hair in order to chastise the student. In a fourth incident, Mr. Golden heard the Respondent instruct students in the class to chase down another student. This chase resulted after Respondent had thrown off her own shoes, failed at catching the student within the room, and had become frustrated the student bolted from the classroom. Mrs. Pope apprehended the errant student and Respondent's posse in the halls. During the fall of 1988, Mary Williams was employed as a systems aide at Fulford Elementary. On one occasion she observed two students outside of Respondent's classroom who were unable to open the door because Respondent and a student were holding it closed from the inside. One of the students was crying hysterically and was taken to the library to calm down. On a second occasion Respondent refused to allow a new student who was handicapped into her room. Mrs. Williams went to Respondent's classroom almost everyday to ask Respondent for her reading groups. It was Ms. Williams' responsibility to enter the reading group information into the school computer. Respondent refused to provide the reading group rosters. During the fall of 1988, Charles Mixon supervised a maintenance crew at Fulford Elementary. One day while Mr. Mixon was observing a crew mowing the lawn adjacent to Respondent's room, he saw Respondent shove two students out of the classroom. Mixon then overheard Respondent tell the students to fight outside if they wished to continue. The students were then left in the hall unsupervised. On another occasion Mr. Mixon overheard the Respondent tell a teacher to kiss her backside. Mr. Mixon watched Respondent make the comment as she pulled her dress halfway up. Lossie Jordan was an exceptional education teacher at Fulford Elementary during the 1988-89 school year. On one morning Ms. Jordan was in the office copying some materials when Respondent approached her and asked her if she had a squirrel for her. When Mrs. Jordan replied in the negative and asked Respondent why she would ask that, Respondent told her that a woman had come to her house the day before to tell her to ask Mrs. Jordan that question. No further explanation was offered by Respondent. A second incident occurred when Respondent entered Mrs. Jordan's classroom to drop students of for instruction. Mrs. Jordan was in the process of showing another teacher a new blouse she had bought. Upon entering, Respondent told the students that Mrs. Jordan was a thief and that she had stolen the new blouse. A third incident arose when Respondent, Mrs. Jordan and Mrs. Forbes, another teacher, were in the workroom waiting for the copy machine. Respondent was the third to center the room and when Mrs. Forbes told her that they were ahead of her to use the machine, Respondent shoved Mrs. Forbes against Mrs. Jordan who fell against the cabinets. Respondent then left the workroom. On still another occasion, Respondent told Mrs. Jordan to kiss her backside. On October 27, 1988, Mrs. Pope called Respondent into her office for a conference for the record. Mrs. Pope was concerned about the number of incidents which had been reported regarding Respondent's conduct. Mrs. Pope had also observed Respondent's class. During one observation Mrs. Pope watched a group of students who were sitting at a back table in Respondent's class. One student pulled another student's sweater and tied it behind his back so that the student could not use his hands. Mrs. Pope mentioned the problem to Respondent who advised her that since the student had gotten himself into the situation he would have to get himself out of it. On other occasions Mrs. Pope observed Respondent chasing students around the classroom. Respondent failed to properly supervise students in her classroom. As a result, Mrs. Pope was required to return students to Respondent's room after they wandered out into the school halls. Another unsupervised student got her arm caught in a chair and was brought to Mrs. Pope who had to contact Fire Rescue to release the child's arm. On November 2, 1988, Mrs. Pope directed Respondent to come to the office for a conference with a parent regarding allegations the parent's child had made. Respondent refused to meet with the parent. After directives from Mrs. Pope not to lock her classroom door, Respondent locked her door. After directing Respondent not to leave her class unsupervised, Mrs. Pope found Respondent's class unsupervised at least four times. Respondent had physical contact with students to administer discipline after Mrs. Pope directed her to refrain from such conduct. Respondent refused to accept a handicapped student after Mrs. Pope directed her to admit the child into her class. Following a number of the incidents described above, parents asked Mrs. Pope to remove their children from Respondent's class. Respondent's effectiveness was impaired by her behavior and her failure to properly supervise and instruct her class. Mrs. Pope directed Respondent to an employee assistance program. Ultimately, following a conference with Dr. Monroe, Dr. Poiret, a psychiatrist, performed a psychological assessment of Respondent. Following interviews with Respondent on November 22, 1988 and December 1, 1988, Dr. Poiret determined Respondent was not medically fit to carry out her assigned responsibilities. Consequently, Respondent was relieved of her teaching duties and spent the remainder of the school year on leave. During the leave Respondent was to undergo individual psychotherapy on at least a weekly basis and to have a complete physical examination. Later, Dr. Monroe requested that Respondent submit documentation regarding her psychotherapy Respondent did not do so. In August, 1989, Dr. Poiret met with Respondent again to evaluate her ability to return to the classroom. As in the prior instances, Respondent continued to be hostile, noticeably irritable and angry. Since she had made no significant improvement, Dr. Poiret determined Respondent was not medically fit to discharge her teaching duties due to a lack of emotional stability. Respondent repeatedly demonstrated a failure to effectively and efficiently manage the behavior of students assigned to her classroom. She failed to provide a curriculum of education to the students in her class, failed to communicate appropriately with her peer teachers and administrators who attempted to assist her, and failed to carry out her professional1 duties. As a result, Respondent's effectiveness in the school system has been seriously impaired. Respondent failed to take corrective measures to amend her deficiencies, failed to obey reasonable instructions given to her by the principal, and failed to present documentary evidence of her successful completion of therapy required to rehabilitate her for classroom duties.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the School Board of Dade County, Florida enter a final order dismissing the Respondent from her employment with the public school district. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of May, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-7035 PETITIONER: Paragraph 1 is accepted. Paragraphs 2 and 3 rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 4 and 6 accepted as addressed in paragraph 8, otherwise rejected as irrelevant or recitation of testimony. Paragraph 5 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 7 and 8 are rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 9 is accepted. Paragraph 10 is accepted. Paragraph 11 is rejected as hearsay. Paragraph 12 is accepted. As addressed in paragraph 5, paragraphs 13 through 15 are accepted; otherwise rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Except as addressed in paragraph 9, paragraph 16 is rejected as hearsay. Except as addressed in paragraphs 2 through 4, paragraphs 17,18, and 19 are rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 20 is accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 21 is accepted. The balance of the paragraph is rejected as irrelevant or hearsay. The first six sentences of Paragraph 23 are accepted. The balance is rejected as repetitive, irrelevant or argumentative. Paragraph 24 is rejected as repetitive or irrelevant. Paragraph 25 is rejected as recitation of testimony. Paragraph 26 is accepted to the extent addressed in paragraph 6; otherwise rejected as irrelevant, recitation of testimony or argumentative. Paragraph 27 is accepted. Paragraph 28 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 29 through 31 are accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: Paragraph 1 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Todate, Respondent has not submitted written or other evidences from a treating physician which would establish she is medically able to return to the classroom. Paragraph 2 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Irma Annette Butler Lowe 17350 N.W. 17th Avenue Miami, Florida 33056 Frank Harder Twin Oaks Building, Suite 100 2780 Galloway Road Miami, Florida 33165 Mrs. Madelyn P. Schere Assistant School Board Attorney School Board of Dade County Board Administration Building, Suite 301 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue Whether Respondent should be dismissed from her employment with the School Board of Dade County, Florida, upon grounds of incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, misconduct in office and/or absence without leave. POST-HEARING PROCEDURE A transcript of the formal hearing was provided the undersigned on March 21, 1985, and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law were timely filed by both parties. A subsequently-filed revision of Respondent's initial proposal was accepted without objection and considered. When a party's proposed findings of fact were consistent with the weight of the credible evidence admitted, they were adopted and are reflected in the Recommended Order, but to the extent proposed findings of fact were not consistent with the weight of the credible evidence, they have been rejected or, where possible, modified to conform to the evidence. To the extent proposed findings of fact have not been adopted or are inconsistent with the findings herein, they have been specifically rejected as irrelevant or not supported by the evidence. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact has thereby been made either directly or indirectly except where the proposed finding of fact was cumulative, immaterial, or unnecessary. Based upon observation of the witnesses and their candor and demeanor while testifying, all exhibits admitted in evidence, and the proposals and arguments of counsel, the following relevant facts are found:
Findings Of Fact Respondent was initially employed by Petitioner on November 15, 1982, at West Little River Elementary School. She suffered a non-school related accident and was absent approximately 121 days during the 1982-1983 school year. Observations of her teaching by her then-principal, John Johnson II, were unfavorable, but due to the prolonged absences, those observations did not result in any formal evaluations/recommendations. Respondent's requested leave for this period was granted and approved by Petitioner upon the basis of her severe electrical shock and back injury. Some of this period was classified as leave without pay. Petitioner also paid Respondent's insurance premiums for this period. Having thus condoned this absenteeism, Petitioner cannot now be heard to complain of it. (See allegations of Paragraph 18 of the Notice of Charges.) Principal Nicholas Rinaldi of Bay Harbor Elementary School hired Respondent as the teacher for its new "home-based" gifted program beginning there for the 1983-1984 school year. Although Principal Johnson would not have recommended Respondent for employment in the second year, he was not consulted by Principal Rinaldi. Principal Rinaldi told Respondent that she was limited to a $1,000.00 budget for purchasing materials for the program she was to develop. Principal Rinaldi understood that Respondent knew she was both to stay within this budget which is the standard limit at all home-based gifted programs and that she was required to get prior approval of her purchases from him. Apparently, Respondent grasped, the concept of a $1,000.00 "cap" but did not initially understand that she was to obtain prior written permission. After two orders were cancelled, she still had overspent by $60.00. She was then told specifically not to make any further purchases without the principal's permission. Thereafter, another order placed by Respondent was received at the school but Petitioner did not establish that Respondent placed the order after the cancellation of two prior orders and after Rinaldi's specific instruction not to order any more goods whatsoever. (See allegations of Paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Notice of Charges.) Respondent was clearly informed that she needed prior authorization for phone calls. She did not get prior permission for five long distance phone calls made personally or by students at her direction. The total cost of these calls is 8.56, which is very minimal. All calls were related to classwork with the exception of one call for $.44 and one call for $.25, which were admittedly of a personal nature. Respondent reimbursed the $.72 after the fact when notified of investigation into the phone bill. (See allegations of Paragraph 2 of the Notice of Charges.) Twenty-five students are required for a home-based gifted program. Bay Harbor was one of three North area schools piloting a home-based program in the 1983-1984 school year. In prior school years, gifted children from Bay Harbor attended a center program physically located elsewhere. A center program places a team of teachers of subjects from various schools in one physical location. Eligible students from various schools come to the center for two days a week for the gifted program and they receive their basic skills education at their respective home schools in the remaining three days per week. In a home-based program, a school which has enough gifted students elects to keep those students physically at the home school. They usually go into that program for two hours a day, every day. Some subject or subjects are used to deliver the gifted program. Those subjects are then graded by the home- based gifted teacher, who in this case was Respondent. When he hired her, Principal Rinaldi told Respondent that mathematics would be part of the new "home-based" gifted program, but math was essentially unstructured in the beginning. Thereafter, Principal Rinaldi instructed Respondent to utilize the standard Dade County "total math program, (TMP). When the TMP program was selected by Principal Rinaldi in approximately, December 1983, his motivation was that he understood TMP provided a structure for math that allows students to enter at the level that they are individually and moves each at a pace commensurate with his individual ability. Unfortunately, because a home-based program does not select its students on their specific giftedness in content area, some students in Bay- Harbor's 1983-1984 pilot program were lower than others in math. Some were even below their grade level. Those above the grade level were becoming bored with the program and those below the grade level were in a constant state of frustration struggling to keep up. A failure on Respondent's part to communicate surfaced, and misunderstandings arose between Respondent and parents and students as to the nature of projects, when projects were due and the reasonableness of homework. Problems concerning teacher absences also arose. The more academic and less "time-out-of-school" atmosphere of a home-based versus a center-based program also caused problems between the Respondent teacher and students/parents and between the Respondent and her principal. Upsets among the students and their parents resulted in many students being permanently removed from the gifted program. Over a period of time, the decrease in enrollment threatened to destroy the Bay Harbor gifted program, the survival of which required 25 students. On January 4, 1984, Principal Rinaldi observed Respondent's class for an hour for teacher evaluation purposes. This resulted in a basically good evaluation with some areas targeted for improvement (instructional planning and maintenance of student records [P-7]). The crux of this targeting was the principal's perception that Respondent did not record sufficient grades and her student files were not arranged alphabetically with papers arranged chronologically within each file. This standard of record-keeping is personal to Mr. Rinaldi and not uniform among other Dade County principals. At the standard post-observation conference, the two argued over the evaluation and the exactitude required by the principal, and Respondent refused to sign the evaluation to acknowledge that she had seen and received a copy of the document. As will be related infra, this refusal to sign or initial merely for acknowledgment of receipt of documents became a constant and continuing refusal on Respondent's part whenever the issue came up. Six days later she refused again; on January 17, 1984, Respondent responded in four written pages defending her methods. As events unfolded chronologically thereafter what started basically as a personality clash of the principal's "irresistible force" authoritarianism and the teacher's "immovable object" obstructionism mushroomed to affect students, parents, teachers, and administrators. In early January, Respondent complained concerning the inclusion of math in the gifted program to a higher outside administrator Dr. Agerwald. Mr. Rinaldi objected to this contact. On January 11, 1984, Mrs. Vickers, Petitioner's Director of Exceptional Students Program, arrived to observe Respondent's classes. She prepared a "School Visitation Report." The report is basically positive but does comment that the gifted classes are too big and current IEPs (records) were not and should have been available in the classroom. On February 2, 1984, Vickers issued a commendation to Hay Harbor on quality of cumulative records for exceptional children. Mr. Rinaldi passed this commendation (R-19) on to Respondent with the note, "Mrs. Burton, please continue this fine record 2/6/84." On 1/23/84, he also commended her on quick responses to the Miami Module records-keeping requests (R-20). Petitioner's advisor to gifted teachers, Richard Huffman, was assigned to assist Respondent at the beginning of the 1983-1984 school year. He testified that in his opinion she was a fit teacher, but he was removed as her advisor at the end of January or early February. February 24, 1984, Assistant Principal Vince Vignola observed Respondent in the classroom for a full hour and rated her overall acceptable except that she needed more grades in math and had, lost a student "contract" which had never been signed. Principal Rinaldi called in Gary Rito, Petitioner's Director of Academic Excellence for help resolving the gifted class problems. On March 2, 1984, Mr. Rito met with Respondent, Principal Rinaldi, and Mrs. Laurence, mother of a gifted student. Respondent and Laurence, who teaches elsewhere in Dade County, exchanged sharp words. It was agreed to meet again on March 8, 1984. At that time, James Miley, Petitioner's Supervisor of Gifted Programs, was present. Respondent was given written notice of the meeting one day in advance. Respondent elected to continue in this meeting at the conclusion of the school day. At this time most of her concerns, as expressed to all others present, were with the number of subjects she was required to cover and with the content of the mathematics curriculum in particular. Mr. Rito explained that "gifted" symbolizes a "technique" not a "subject," that Respondent was to use this technique for teaching subjects of math, science (which Respondent should be teaching anyway), and social studies, and for teaching a health and safety unit which was taught for only one or two grade units. Respondent strenuously objected to the use of the TMP math program. Rinaldi and Miley concurred that it was reasonable to include math in the gifted program. Math was, in fact, successfully used in the other two home-based programs beginning in Bay Harbor's Division that year, but the programs utilized may not have been the TMP. Nonetheless, the following adjustments were agreed upon among all those present at the March 8, 1984 meeting: Principal Rinaldi agreed to relieve the academic excellence program of the TMP math program and increased their enrichment activities; Ms. Thomas, Say Harbor's 6th Grade math teacher, was assigned by Principal Rinaldi to help Respondent in math. It was later Ms. Thomas' assessment that Respondent did not understand the TMP concept; and Respondent was directed and agreed to develop four units of study in botany (2 intermediate and 2 primary) to cover the rest of the school year (9 weeks). These plans were to cover instructional objectives, classroom activities, student evaluation methods and homework assignments on a time line. A preliminary plan was to be shown by Respondent to Mr. Miley on March 20. This assignment was primarily the result of a request by Ms. Laurence and other parents requesting to see a sets of plans for purposes of deciding whether to leave their children in the Respondent's class or return those who had already been withdrawn. Rinaldi, Rito, and Miley felt the plans required by the directive would ease the primary problems of implementing the program and of parent-teacher communications and misunderstandings which had been growing, and also felt they were reasonable and necessary. Everyone was aware that withdrawal of Mrs. Laurence's child could reduce program enrollment below the 25 student minimum required. However, no one clearly expressed the belief that this directive was a prescription to improve Respondent's teaching performance, which had been found basically sound up to this point. 1/ The direction itself was for a reasonable and necessary purpose (preserving and improving the gifted program). However, despite Mr. Miley's opinion that the plans as initially directed were reasonable and necessary and despite Respondent's failure to object to the direction at this point, the initial scope of the direction was actually unreasonable under the circumstances. Mr. Miley postponed his scheduled meeting with Respondent from March 20 to March 23, 1984. On that date, Respondent had nothing to show him with regard to the required botany units she had been asked to prepare. Mr. Miley met with Respondent anyway and reduced the required units from 4 to 2 and extended the time for preparation until April 12, 1984. He also gave her a document entitled "Standards of Excellence" for use in the units she was to prepare and agreed to let Respondent continue with her present evaluation system. This adjustment, made in consultation with Respondent also rendered the scope of the direction to prepare the units reasonable. 2/ On April 12, 1984, Mr. Miley asked for the required botany units and received nothing from Respondent. He returned to the school on April 13, and Respondent produced a series of goals and objectives essentially copied from the "Standards of Excellence" wherein she had identified part of a program for the primary students but none for the intermediate students. There were no classroom activities listed, no homework mentioned, and no time lines provided. Despite the extension of time, Respondent did not fulfill the required directive even in its reduced and consequently reasonable form. 3/ The units were not further amplified by Respondent before she left on April 20 and Mrs. Laurence's child was permanently removed from the gifted program. (See allegations of Paragraphs 5 and 7 of the Notice of Charges). On March 12, 1984, Respondent called Principal Rinaldi a liar three times in the presence of two other school employees. 4/ (See allegations of Paragraph 4 of the Notice of Charges.) Respondent later informed Principal Rinaldi that she perceived the March 8 meeting as disciplinary in nature. He had not considered it so. He accordingly removed a request for her signature from a summary he had prepared of the March 8 meeting and scheduled a "conference-for-the-record" for March 16, 1984. Conferences-for-the record are disciplinary conferences. The March 16, 1984 meeting was postponed at the request of the Respondent's union representative. A second request for postponement for emergency reasons peculiar to the schedule of that particular union representative (Ms. Perez), was not granted and the conference-for-the-record went forward on March 20, 1984, with Respondent accompanied by her union steward, James Collings. At this conference, Rinaldi discussed the same matters that had been discussed at the March 8, 1984 meeting, the incident which had occurred March 12 when Respondent called him a "liar" three times, Respondent's unsatisfactory attendance record that year, and the fact that her absences were having an adverse effect on the program. Respondent was specifically instructed by her union advisers not to speak at this conference. Certainly she did not deny the March 12 "liar" incident. When she did not respond to Principal Rinaldi's accusations and inquiries, he became agitated. Respondent had received prior approval for a half-day in-service conference (8:30 a.m. to noon on March 21, 1984) with Mrs. Vickers, Director of Petitioner's Exceptional Student Education Program. When she did not report back to teach at Bay Harbor that afternoon, Mrs. Macri, secretary to Principal Rinaldi made inquiries and Respondent's continued presence with Mrs. Vickers was confirmed, but not approved. This constitutes a 1/2 day's absence without leave. No substitute was procured since Respondent had been expected to teach her afternoon class. (See allegations of Paragraph 12 of the Notice of Charges.) On March 28, 1984, during a regularly scheduled parent meeting, the parents present expressed a great deal of dissatisfaction with various aspects of the gifted program, particularly math. Principal Rinaldi publicly attributed the problems in the gifted program to Respondent and Respondent retaliated by publicly stating that she did not believe TMP math should ever have been included in the gifted program and that she had no control over the inclusion of the math. The majority of witnesses actually present at this meeting found its entire tone and nature informative prior to Principal Rinaldi's comment. Even then, Respondent's comments may have been less than tactful but were hardly untruthful, unprofessional, irresponsible, or incendiary. (See allegations of Paragraph 6 of the Notice of Charges.) Respondent was tardy to the March 29, 1984 faculty meeting. Based on the contemporaneous memoranda and letter, Respondent's estimate of 3-4 minutes tardiness is accepted over Dr. Rinaldi's later estimate of 20 minutes. The causes related contemporaneously by Respondent are entirely reasonable. (See allegations of Paragraph 11 of the Notice of Charges.) At Principal Rinaldi's April 16, 1984 classroom observation of Respondent, he rated her teaching performance as unacceptable in 3 categories: preparation and planning, assessment techniques, and professional responsibility (P-18). Rinaldi testified that his negative ratings in preparation and planning were due to what were minor concerns on the January evaluation. However, as observed above in Fact Paragraph 6, the January evaluation actually concentrated on the principal's particularly harsh requirement that Respondent's student files must be arranged alphabetically with papers neatly arranged chronologically within each file. Since his perception of the adequacy of records is so intensely personal to Mr. Rinaldi and in light of interim commendations to Respondent for record-keeping, his April analysis of inadequate records of assessment renders the final evaluation "score" highly suspect. 5/ (See allegations of Paragraph 8 of the Notice of Charges.) Respondent was tardy to work and failed to timely sign in on March 26, 27, 28, and April 20, 1984. (See allegations of Paragraph 13 of the Notice of Charges.) Respondent was absent on April 17, 18, and 19. She requested leave for April 17-18 late but it was approved and authorized in advance by Principal Rinaldi for participation in religious holidays. However, these were absences without pay and pushed Respondent over the number of personal leave days to which she was annually entitled. Respondent was absent without authorization on April 19; this was an absence without pay. (See allegations of Paragraphs 14 and 19 of the Notice of Charges.) On April 20, 1984, Respondent protested, but finally agreed to meet with Principal Rinaldi in his office for a post-observation conference. Post- observation conferences are not normally considered disciplinary in nature. By this time, he had added Respondent's late notification of the 4/17-4/18 absence and her 4/19 absence to the prescription sheet as deficiencies. Respondent declined an oral dialogue with Rinaldi wherein she was invited to respond to the rating criticisms and prescriptions and offer alternatives and also refused to initial his notation that she insisted on responding in writing. Midway in this meeting, Respondent announced she was going to leave. Again, she would not sign to acknowledge receipt of the observation and prescriptions. Rinaldi instructed her that she was obligated to discuss the rating and if she left, he would consider it insubordination. Respondent left his office and the school and did not return to work as a teacher at Bay Harbor again. A formal reprimand issued partly as a result of this incident. (See allegations of Paragraph 9 of the Notice of Charges.) On April 23 and April 24 Respondent was absent without pay. April 23 was unauthorized leave. (See allegations of Paragraphs 14 and and 19 of the Notice of Charges.) With regard to the frequent' short absences, which total led 18 as of April 22, Respondent rarely if ever complied with the "Teachers' Handbook" guidelines for advance notification. Respondent originally felt that it did not matter what type of leave (personal or sick) was listed because she had no leave left anyway. Although many of these absences were for legitimate illnesses or injury of herself or a relative, there was either an on-going absence of lesson plans or a failure on Respondent's part to inform the principal that she had created plans since he last commented on there being none. Consequently, he often could not or did not secure substitutes. This resulted in wasted class time and interfered with classroom continuity. Some of Respondent's unauthorized absences were simply gifted programs she chose to attend without notifying the principal in advance. Respondent was also absent during the 1983-1984 school year for two lengthy periods, which, with all other absences, totalled 62 1/2 days. Medical narratives, admitted without objection, corroborate Respondent's testimony that the two lengthy absences were the result respectively of unanticipated allergic complications of a CAT scan (from January 30 to February 10, 1984,) and of surgery to correct acute sinusitis and recovery time from late April until release. One doctor released her from this last treatment On May 29, 1984; the other released her on June 8, 1984. During the period of time she was absent immediately following the April 20 "walkout" incident until approximately June 8, Respondent failed to adequately inform Petitioner of her proposed date of return. Certified letters sent to her post-office box were returned because Respondent did not pick them up and Petitioner could not send these to her by regular mail or by hand- delivery via a "visiting teacher" because Respondent had never informed Petitioner of her street address. The failure of Respondent to stay in touch, her failure to indicate when she could return to work, and her failure to indicate that her absence would be lengthy resulted in an inability of Petitioner to immediately hire a permanent substitute teacher. Therefore, the gifted classes had to "make-do" with a series of short term substitutes (4 or 5) until Mr. Rinaldi finally hired Mrs. Judith Dryanoff. This process created a lack of continuity in the classroom and more student withdrawals from the gifted program. The problem with multiple substitutes was compounded by Respondent's failure on April 24 and thereafter to have available substitute lesson plans. 6/ Because of Respondent's failure to leave any form of lesson plans or grade book, substitute Judith Dryanoff had to make up her own lesson plans for science and enlist the help of Janice Thomas for math plans. (See allegations of Paragraph 10 of the Notice of Charges.) On May 24, Principal Rinaldi signed Respondent's Annual Evaluation, not recommending her for employment in the next school year (P-22). When released by her doctors, Respondent was assigned by Administration to the North Area Office for June 11-15 and was expected by her principal to be at Bay Harbor simultaneously. She obviously could not do both. She was at the North Area Office for part of June 12 and at Bay Harbor for part of June 14. She was in neither location on June 11, 13, and 15. These days constitute absences without leave. (See allegations of Paragraph 19 of the Notice of Charges.) On June 12, 1984, James Monroes, a supervisor in Petitioner's Division of Personnel Control, ordered Respondent to begin the 180 hour course, Beginning Teacher Program, to start at 10:00 a.m., June 14, 1984, at Bay Harbor Elementary School. 7/ At 7:20 a.m. that morning Respondent confronted Principal Rinaldi in his office and called him "malicious, devious, incompetent," and "a sorry excuse for a principal." She accused him of personally taking her personal items from her room and of attempting to get her fired. 8/ Although she initially refused to come back for the program, she returned at 10:00 a.m. and repeated essentially the same harangue in the presence of Mrs. Thomas, the peer teacher selected to oversee Respondent's Beginning Teacher Program. Mrs. Thomas was called in by Mr. Rinaldi who had anticipated that a scene would ensue. Thereafter, out of Mr. Rinaldi's presence, Respondent invited Mrs. Thomas to sign a petition "to get rid of Mr. Rinaldi". (See allegations of Paragraph 15 of the Notice of Charges.) Dr. Huffman testified that Respondent also frequently yelled at Mr. Rinaldi in Dr. Huffman's presence prior to Dr. Huffman's February reassignment, and Mrs. Macri, secretary to Principal Rinaldi testified that she had heard Respondent call Mr. Rinaldi a "bastard" or refer to him as a"bastard," but the date of this incident(s) was not proven. On August 29, 1984, Dr. Richard Artmeier, supervisor of Petitioner's Division of Personnel Control, directed Respondent to be psychiatrically evaluated the next day to determine if there were any mitigating circumstances for her June 14, 1984 behavior. Respondent is obligated to submit to such evaluation by terms of her employment. After vacillation, Respondent refused to sign the written directive indicating its receipt and adamantly refused to see a psychiatrist. Finally, Dr. Artmeier directed her instead to report to the North Area Office the next day. Respondent did, however, actually go the next day as originally directed for psychiatric evaluation to Dr. Gail Wainger. Dr. Wainger was on Petitioner's "approved" list. In so doing, Respondent could not immediately comply with the directive to report to the North Area Office. Respondent reported to the North Area Office later the same day after her psychiatric evaluation. Petitioner accepted Dr. Wainger's psychiatric evaluation of Respondent, paid for it, and it was admitted at hearing upon Petitioner's motion (P-38). Since Respondent could not be in two places at once, she fulfilled the alternative directives reasonably by fulfilling them sequentially even if she did initially refuse. (See allegations of Paragraphs 16 and 17 of the Notice of Charges). The psychiatrist's evaluation is admissible under Section 231.291, Florida Statutes and has been considered. Upon that evidence, together with all other credible evidence adduced at formal hearing, Respondent was accountable for her actions. Respondent has never qualified for and has never been characterized as a teacher under continuing contract.
Recommendation It is recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing Respondent from employment with the Dade County School Board and denying any claims for back pay. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of June, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 1985.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent, Cynthia A. Foy (Respondent), committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint; whether the alleged conduct constitutes violations of Subsection 1012.795(1)(b), (c), (f), and (i), Florida Statutes (2003),1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e) and (5)(d); and, if so, what penalty, if any, should be imposed on Respondent's teaching certificate.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent, Cynthia Foy, holds Florida Educator's Certificate No. 468641, covering the areas of early childhood education, elementary education, and English to speakers of other languages, which is valid through June 30, 2007. Respondent had been employed with the Hillsborough County School Board 17 years as of the 2002-2003 school term. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was employed as a first-grade teacher at Colson Elementary School (Colson) in the Hillsborough County School District (School District). Respondent worked as a teacher at Colson for about five years, beginning the 1998-1999 school year. During her employment in the School District, including her employment at Colson, Respondent never had any disciplinary action taken against her. From 1986 through 1996, Respondent consistently received satisfactory ratings on her annual teacher evaluations, except for one school year when she had three deaths in her family, including the sudden death of her father and of her 38-year-old brother. Respondent's Absences Respondent was absent from work 22 days during the 1998-1999 school year, her first year at Colson. Some of the absences were related to Respondent's health issues. However, most of Respondent's absences were related to her mother's illness. During the 1998-1999 school year, Respondent's mother was confined to a nursing home and had become very ill and frail. Due to her mother's failing health, Respondent wanted to be with her mother, to watch and take care of her. Also, even though Respondent's mother was in a nursing home, Respondent was responsible for taking her mother to her own doctors to make sure she got the proper care. During the 1999-2000 school year, Respondent was absent from work 13.5 days. Respondent's mother died during that school year. As a result, Respondent missed 13.5 days to deal with matters related to her mother's death. During the 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 school years, Respondent was absent from school for 19.45 and 16 days, respectively. These absences were because of Respondent's own health issues. During these school years, Respondent was under an extreme amount of stress due to what she perceived to be a hostile work environment at school. Mary Clark, principal of Colson, was concerned about Respondent's absences and specifically noted this concern on all of Respondent's evaluations, which are at issue in this proceeding. The reasons for Respondent's absences were not disputed, and there is no assertion that the absences were unauthorized. However, Mrs. Clark believed that Respondent's absences resulted in the lack of continuity of instruction and negatively impacted the learning of students in Respondent's first-grade classes. Mrs. Clark testified that because of their concern about their children's progress, some parents requested that their children be transferred from Respondent's class to another first-grade class. Records of such requests and actual transfers were not presented at hearing. However, Mrs. Clark recalled that at least one student had been transferred from Respondent's class. Whether the only reason for the transfer was Respondent's absences is unclear. Notwithstanding Mrs. Clark's concern and belief that Respondent's absences had a negative impact on the students in her class, no basis for this concern was established. To the contrary, during Respondent's tenure at Colson, her students consistently performed well academically as reflected by their scores on the Stanford Achievement Test, a nationally normed test. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the Stanford Achievement Test was used by the School District to assess first-grade students' achievement in the areas of mathematics and reading. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the test was administered to first-grade students at Colson in March or April of each school year. In March 2000, there were four first-grade classes at Colson. Of those four classes, Respondent's students made the highest scores in both the reading section and the math section of the Stanford Achievement Test. The results of the Stanford Achievement Test administered in April 2001, reflect that of the four first-grade classes, the students in Respondent's class made significantly higher scores in both reading and mathematics than the students in the other three first-grade classes. As of April 2002, Colson had six first-grade classes. Of the six first-grade classes, Respondent's class ranked first on the reading section and second on the mathematics section of the Stanford Achievement Test. Respondent's Annual Performance Evaluations The School District utilizes the Classroom Certificated Instructional Effectiveness Evaluation Form (Evaluation Form), which has been approved by the Hillsborough County School Board (School Board) as the instrument by which its teachers are evaluated. Typically, tenured teachers with professional service contracts are evaluated annually, but if the tenured teacher is experiencing difficulties in the classroom, the school administrator may evaluate the teacher more than once a year. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the Evaluation Form consisted of the following categories in which teachers are evaluated: Category I, Planning and Preparation, which includes six subsections or areas; Category II, Professional Behaviors, which includes 12 areas; Category III, Techniques of Instruction, which includes 15 areas; Category IV, Classroom Management, which includes seven areas; and Category V, Instructional Effectiveness, which includes one area. The Evaluation Form requires that the teacher's performance in each area be rated as "satisfactory," "needs improvement," or "unsatisfactory." The highest possible rating is "satisfactory," and the lowest rating is "unsatisfactory." In addition to the areas under the various categories in which teachers are rated, the evaluation requires that the teacher be given an "overall rating" of "satisfactory" or "unsatisfactory." As principal of Colson, one of Mrs. Clark's responsibilities was to supervise and evaluate the teachers at the school. Consistent with that responsibility, Mrs. Clark supervised and evaluated Respondent. Mrs. Clark evaluated Respondent once in the 1998-1999, 1999-2000, and 2000-2001 school years, usually in April. During the 2001-2002 school year, Mrs. Clark evaluated Respondent twice, in December 2001 and in March 2002. Mrs. Clark decided to evaluate Respondent twice in the 2001-2002 school year. Given Respondent's status as a tenured teacher and Mrs. Clark's "concerns over the years with her performance," by evaluating Respondent in the fall, Mrs. Clark would be able to give Respondent notice of the areas in which she still needed to improve. During the period between the fall evaluation and the spring evaluation, Respondent would have an opportunity to work to improve in those areas.2/ The ratings assigned to Respondent's performance on each of the Evaluation Forms are based on data that is collected by Mrs. Clark through her observations and while "walking into [the] classroom on a regular basis." The Administrative Complaint alleged that Respondent's evaluations for the 1998-1999 through the 2001-2002 school years indicated that she needed to improve in specified areas under the following categories: Category II, Professional Behavior; Category III, Techniques of Instruction; and Category IV, Classroom Management.3/ Although Respondent worked at Colson during the 2002-2003 School year, there is no evidence that she was evaluated that year as required by law. If an evaluation was completed for that school year, the Administrative Complaint does not allege that the evaluation indicated any areas in which Respondent needed to improve. Professional Behavior The Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent received several evaluations from 1999 through 2002 that indicated she needed to improve in the following areas under the Professional Behavior category: 1) observes confidentiality related to students; 2) works cooperatively and supportively with school staff; and 3) responds reasonably to and acting appropriately to constructive criticism. With regard to the first area of concern, "observes confidentiality related to students," none of Respondent’s evaluations for the relevant time period, 1998-1999, 1999-2000, 2000-2001, and 2001-2002 school years, indicated that she needed to improve in that area. In fact, contrary to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, all five of Respondent's evaluations for that time period indicate that her performance in that area was rated as "satisfactory." The second area under Professional Behaviors in which it is alleged that Respondent's evaluations indicated she needed to improve is "works cooperatively and supportively with school staff." Respondent's evaluations for her first three school years at Colson--1998-1999, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001--reflect that her performance in the area, "works cooperatively with school staff," was "satisfactory." However, after receiving "satisfactory" ratings in this area for three consecutive years, for the first time, Respondent's evaluation for the 2001-2002 school year indicated that Respondent needed to improve in this area.4/ The evaluations gave no reason for the "needs improvement" rating in the area, "works cooperatively with school staff," on Respondent's December 2001 and April 2002 evaluations. Although no specific basis for the rating is given on the evaluation, it is noted that these evaluations coincide with the area supervisor's observations. The third area under the Professional Behavior category in which it is alleged that Respondent received several evaluations that indicated she needed to improve is the area, "responds reasonably to and acts appropriately upon constructive criticism." Contrary to this allegation, none of Respondent's evaluations indicated that she needed to improve in this area. Rather, Respondent's performance in the area, "responds reasonably to and acts appropriately upon constructive criticism," was rated as "satisfactory" on all five of the evaluations she received during the relevant time period. Techniques of Instruction The Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent received several evaluations that indicated she needed to improve in the following areas under the Technique of Instruction category: (1) uses instructional time efficiently; presents subject matter effectively; and (3) uses praise appropriately. Respondent's evaluations for the 1998-1999, 2000-2001, and 2001-2002 school years indicated that Respondent needed to improve in the area, "uses instructional time efficiently." As a possible rationale for the rating assigned in the 1998-1999 evaluation, Mrs. Clark wrote on the evaluation, "I am concerned about the slow pace of her lesson as well as the pacing through reading." The evaluations for the 2000-2001 and the 2001-2002 school years gave no rationale for the "needs improvement" rating in the area, "uses instructional time efficiently." Additionally, there is no indication that Mrs. Clark told Respondent the basis of the rating or offered any recommendations as to how Respondent could improve in this area. Upon Respondent's receiving the December 2001 and the March 2002 evaluations, she requested, in writing, a detailed written explanation of the basis for each of the "needs improvement" ratings, which included the area, "uses instructional time efficiently." There is no evidence that Mrs. Clark ever provided the requested explanation. Additionally, the evidence does not establish a basis for the "needs improvement" rating in this area. The next area at issue under the Techniques of Instruction category is, "presents subject matter effectively." Respondent's evaluations for the 1999-2000 and the 2000-2001 school years indicate that Respondent needed to improve in this area. However, neither the evaluation, nor any evidence at the hearing, offered or established a basis for this rating. On Respondent's evaluations for the 1998-1999 school year, and most recently for the 2001-2002 school year, her performance in the area, "presents subject matter effectively," was rated as "satisfactory." Clearly, the "satisfactory" ratings on the December 2001 and March 2002 evaluations, which were for the 2001-2002 school year, marked an improvement over Respondent's ratings in that category for the immediate prior two school years. Finally, it is alleged that the third area under the Techniques of Instruction category in which Respondent's evaluations indicated she needed to improve is, "uses praise appropriately." Respondent's evaluation for 1998-1999, her first year at Colson, indicated that she needed to improve in this area. The next three school years, however, Respondent's performance in this area improved to "satisfactory," as reflected by the four evaluations for the 1999-2000, 2000-2001, and 2001-2002 school years. Classroom Management Under the category, Classroom Management, it is alleged that Respondent's evaluations indicated that she needed to improve in the area, "enhances and maintains students' self- esteem." On Respondent's evaluations for the 1998-1999 and the 1999-2000 school years, her first two years at Colson, Respondent's performance in the area, "enhances and maintains students' self-esteem," was rated "satisfactory." Respondent's evaluation for the 2000-2001 school year indicated that her performance in the area, "enhances and maintains students' self-esteem," was unsatisfactory. It is specifically found that the Administrative Complaint makes no allegations regarding the "unsatisfactory" rating. Accordingly, except for limited purposes, issues related to that rating will not be addressed. Respondent's performance in the area, "enhancing and maintaining students' self-esteem," improved in the 2001-2002 school year from "unsatisfactory" to "needs improvement," as reflected in both her December 2001 and April 2002 evaluations. Instructional Effectiveness The Administrative Complaint does not allege that Respondent's evaluations reflect that she needs to improve in the Instructional Effectiveness category. However, in order to present a more complete picture of Respondent's performance, as rated on her evaluations, this category and Respondent's ratings thereunder are considered. The Instructional Effectiveness category includes only one area, "promotes academic learning which results in improved student performance."5/ This area is concerned with and assesses whether actual learning is taking place as a result of the teacher's instruction. 39. For the 1998-1999, 1999-2000, 2000-2001, and 2001-2002 school years, Respondent's performance in the area, "promotes academic learning which results in improved student performance," is rated as "satisfactory." Overall Rating Category Respondent's "overall rating" in all five of her evaluations for the 1998-1999, 1999-2000, 2000-2001, and 2001- 2002 was "satisfactory." 6/ Transfer of Student to Respondent's Class (January 2001) In January 2001, a student, F.R., was transferred to Respondent's class from another first grade class because of his behavioral problems. When such a transfer takes place, the teacher to whom the student is being transferred is given prior notice that the student is being assigned to her class. In this instance, that was not done. Respondent was not informed in advance that F.R. was being transferred to her class. On the first day the students returned to school from winter break, F.R. just "showed up" in Respondent's class. Later, Respondent was told that the child was transferred to her class because he was having peer conflict problems, and, as a result, he was acting out. Respondent was told that the student’s acting out behavior included such things as spitting on children, stabbing children with forks, knocking things off the children's desks, and having outbursts. Respondent thought this was a new chance for the child, and she attempted to make the new class assignment work. For example, rather than isolate the child, as his former teacher had recommended, Respondent assigned F.R. to a seat between two very well-behaved little girls, who she knew would never say anything mean to him. Despite Respondent's efforts to work with F.R., he exhibited lashing out and angry behaviors. Due to F.R.'s exhibiting lashing out behavior, Respondent was concerned for the safety of the other students in the class. In January or early February 2001, Respondent shared her concern with Mrs. Clark and asked that F.R. be removed from her class. Mrs. Clark responded that F.R. was just a little boy and said, "Let's see how he does." No offers for assistance were made, and Respondent felt that her request was simply ignored. Later, in January or early February 2001, as Respondent's class lined up and walked to the lunchroom, F.R. deliberately "high stepped and slid on the heels" of the child in front of him. When Respondent asked F.R. to stop, he just laughed, looked at Respondent, and repeated the behavior. Respondent told F.R. to stand out on the side of the line and walk with her. At first he complied, but then he started to get back in the line. Respondent then told F.R., "You're walking with me." After F.R. ignored Respondent, she took his hand so that he could walk with her. F.R. then yanked and pulled Respondent's fingers back, kicked Respondent "really hard" in the upper ankle, and "took off running." Respondent reported the incident to Mrs. Clark and the vice-principal and completed an incident report, reporting her injury and indicating her belief that F.R.'s behavior described in paragraph 44 constituted an assault/battery. After the incident, Respondent again asked Mrs. Clark to transfer F.R. from her class. Mrs. Clark never responded to Respondent's request. In fact, Mrs. Clark never talked to Respondent about the incident. Some time after the February 21, 2001, observation discussed below, there was a second incident where F.R. was physically aggressive toward Respondent. F.R. ran out of the lunchroom to return to the classroom to get the check he had forgotten. Concerned about his past behavior of destroying and "messing up" the other children's belongings, Respondent went to get F.R. Before Respondent could get to the classroom, F.R. had gotten the check and was running back to the lunchroom and toward Respondent. Respondent stuck her arm out to stop him and he continued running around her. Once in the lunchroom, Respondent "pulled" or "grabbed" the check from F.R.'s hand and asked the aides in the lunchroom to call Mrs. Clark. F.R. then seemed to explode, and he began punching Respondent with his fists and biting her. By the time the assistant principal got to the lunchroom, four students had pulled F.R. off Respondent, and Respondent was holding F.R.'s hand. When the vice-principal arrived, she did not discuss the incident with Respondent, but began screaming and told Respondent, "Go, get out of here, leave!" Following the lunchroom incident, Respondent filed another assault report and, for the third time, asked Mrs. Clark to transfer F.R. from her class. After there was no response to her verbal request, a union representative advised Respondent to make the request in writing. Initially, Mrs. Clark denied the request because it was not on the proper form, but once Respondent made the request on the appropriate form, F.R. was transferred from her class. Prior to the requests related to F.R., Respondent has never requested that a student be transferred from her class. Observations of Area Supervisor Ms. Daryl Saunders, an area supervisor for the School District, went to Respondent's classroom on five different occasions between February 21, 2001, and March 21, 2002, twice during the 2000-2001 school year, and three times during the 2001-2002 school year, to conduct observations. On a visit in February 2002, Ms. Saunders did not conduct an observation. With the exception of the first visit to Respondent's classroom, all of Ms. Saunders' visits were for the purpose of observing Respondent. Of the four times Ms. Saunders went to observe Respondent, she actually conducted observations three times. First Observation (February 21, 2001) Ms. Saunders' first visit to Respondent's classroom was on February 21, 2001. At the request of Mrs. Clark, Ms. Saunders went to Respondent's classroom to observe a student, F.R., who had been displaying inappropriate behavior in class and is described above.7/ During the time Ms. Saunders observed F.R., he did not have any outbursts, engage in any physically aggressive behavior, or display any disruptive or inappropriate behaviors. Ms. Saunders noted that the student delayed starting his assignment and took breaks between work, but did not bother any other student. Based on her observation of F.R. and the manner in which Respondent communicated with him, Ms. Saunders wrote in the summary letter to Mrs. Clark, "I believe F.R. is trying to survive in a room where he feels he is not valued." While Ms. Saunders was observing F.R., she also observed Respondent teaching and interacting with the students. Ms. Saunders was particularly concerned with Respondent's frequent verbal reprimands that were audible to the entire class. During the observation, Ms. Saunders also noticed that Respondent seemed to be easily frustrated and that when communicating with students, her voice vacillated between a friendly tone to an aggressive tone. Ms. Saunders expressed this and other concerns, not relevant to this proceeding, to Mrs. Clark in a letter dated February 22, 2001. According to the letter, a verbal reprimand to a particular student in front of the entire class is "damaging to [a] student's self-esteem." Ms. Saunders further noted that "considering the environment, I was surprised there were no behavioral issues while I was present." In the February 22, 2001, letter to Mrs. Clark, Ms. Saunders recommended that "we provide [Respondent] with some assistance so that the classroom environment is more conducive for instruction and learning." As a means of supporting Respondent in this effort, Ms. Saunders recommended that Mrs. Clark "have [Respondent] take two courses through the staff development office." The two classes that Ms. Saunders recommended were Cooperative Discipline and Effective Teaching Strategies. Finally, Ms. Saunders' letter stated, "the Language Arts Frameworks document should be reviewed with [Respondent]." There is no indication that Mrs. Clark discussed these recommendations. Second Observation (May 7, 2001) At Mrs. Clark's request, Ms. Saunders visited Respondent's classroom on May 7, 2001, to observe Respondent's teaching practices. This was about two weeks after Respondent received her evaluation for the 2000-2001 school year, which had rated her performance as unsatisfactory in the area of "enhancing and maintaining student's self-esteem." Pursuant to an earlier suggestion by Ms. Saunders, Respondent allowed herself to be videotaped in order that she could better critique her own behavior in the classroom. To implement this recommendation, the school's media specialist was in the classroom to set up the video equipment on the day of Ms. Saunders' observation. Soon after Ms. Saunders arrived, the media specialist asked Respondent if she should put the tape in the video recorder. Respondent answered, "Please, I don't want to be accused of using three minutes of my time up." Ms. Saunders believed that Respondent's tone of voice was "unprofessional" and that the comment was directed at her. During the May 7, 2001, observation, a student who was speaking to other students in a group had her back to them. Respondent's voice "became aggravated" as she told the student to turn around. Respondent placed her hands on the student's shoulders and physically turned her, but did not do so forcibly. During the May 7, 2001, observation, Ms. Saunders noted improvement in Respondent's communication with her students. In her written summary of the observation dated May 16, 2001, Ms. Saunders wrote: Based on that first encounter [February 21, 2001], I would say my greatest concern was how you communicated with both students and adults. However, this time your demeanor in front of the children was quite different than when I last observed in your classroom. I believe having the video camera present helped to keep you focused on appropriate communication with the children. I was pleased to hear more of a pleasant tone. Ms. Saunders' summary also stated that she counted four times when Respondent appeared to become frustrated and her tone of voice changed to a negative one. Ms. Saunders' summary of the May 7, 2001, observation included the following recommendations: One way to support and assist you regarding classroom environment, instruction and planning would be to have someone review with you, the six domains from the Florida Performance Measurement System. This information is based on research and would be beneficial to again cover. In addition, I recommend that you attend training provided by the elementary education department specifically in the area of writing. Enrollment can be done on-line. . . . There are many courses offered this summer. The Language Arts Frameworks document should also be reviewed. This will provide information about our district's curriculum and the writer's workshop model. Other staff development offerings related to classroom management are offered periodically through the staff development office. I suggest you take one of their courses to assist you with classroom management. You can register on line any time. . . . In the May 16, 2001, summary, Ms. Saunders notified Respondent that she planned to observe Respondent's classroom again soon. Additionally, Ms. Saunders indicated that she expected to see "appropriate and timely instruction and activities based on student need and planned from grade level expectations." Third Observation (December 6, 2001) Ms. Saunders conducted the third observation on December 6, 2001, seven months after the previous observation. Ms. Saunders summarized her observations in a letter dated December 17, 2001. In the letter, Ms. Saunders advised Respondent, for the first time, that the December 6, 2001, observation was part of a plan to assist Respondent with teaching practices. On December 6, 2001, Ms. Saunders arrived at Respondent's classroom at 8:30 a.m. and stayed until 9:10 a.m., when the children left the room for an activity. During the 40-minute observation, Ms. Saunders heard Respondent communicating with students and observed her conducting a review of telling time. Ms. Saunders was complimentary of Respondent's review of telling time. In the written summary to Respondent, Ms. Saunders wrote: You try hard to provide ways for students to remember abstract concepts. You use pneumonic devices, short stories, rhymes and other ways to assist with memorization. By calling the numbers bases and relating the time to the name of the base they passed, students more accurately read time when the short hand falls somewhere between two numbers. This seemed quite effective. Ms. Saunders observed an incident which she perceived to be negative. There was a student who was off task. Respondent directed her attention to the student and asked the student, "Would your mother [or family] be proud of you?" Ms. Saunders believed that when Respondent made this statement, her voice "sounded with disapproval." Ms. Saunders suggested that in the situation described in paragraph 66, Respondent should have "encouraged" proper behavior by asking the student a question that would have him participate so that he becomes on task rather than off task. In another situation, Ms. Saunders observed Respondent interact appropriately and effectively with a student she was reprimanding. In that case, Respondent asked the student, "What time is it?" Before that student could answer, another student shouted out the answer. Recalling Respondent's positive response in that situation, Ms. Saunders stated the following in the December 17, 2001, summary: A boy shouted out the answer and you began to reprimand him. You began to speak, stopped yourself, and continued with this carefully crafted sentence. "Tell me the rule about calling out." It was nice to see you stop yourself in mid-stream, rethink a way to correct this misconduct while still preserving the child's dignity. Based on the December 6, 2001, observation, Ms. Saunders had two areas of concern, only one of which is relevant in this case. That area relates to Respondent's "appropriate use of instructional time." Ms. Saunders' concern is stated in the summary as follows: In my opinion, a second area of concern relates to planning and appropriate use of instructional time. I entered your room at 8:30 and the instructional day begins at 8:00 a.m. Instruction in your room did not begin until 8:44 and the fifteen minutes suggested for calendar math was stretched to 21 minutes. I suggest you utilize time more wisely by beginning calendar math immediately after announcements. Then spend the rest of the morning on shared, guided and independent reading when youngsters are fresh and ready to learn. Beginning instruction nearly 45 minutes after the day begins will allow you to cover all the curriculum. Although the "instructional day," to the extent that term refers to Respondent's teaching a lesson to the class, did not begin at 8:00 a.m., or soon thereafter, there was a reasonable explanation for the delay. First, three students were assigned to Respondent's class that day because their regular teacher was absent. Prior to beginning instruction, Respondent met with those students, asked them their names, assigned them desks, and explained her classroom management system. Respondent's classroom management system involved giving each student a certain number of clothes pins at the beginning of the day. During the school day, the students could lose and/or earn clothes pins, depending on their conduct. The second reason for the delay in beginning the instructional day was that several students in Respondent's class had been allowed to go to the media center to "Santa's Book Fair." As Ms. Saunders noted in her written summary, several of Respondent's students did not return to the classroom from the book fair until 8:36 a.m. In light of the foregoing circumstances, it was reasonable that Respondent did not begin the "instructional day" at 8:00 a.m., or immediately after announcements were made. Admittedly, Ms. Saunders did not know what, if any, instructions or directions Respondent gave to students prior to 8:30 a.m. However, when Ms. Saunders entered Respondent's classroom, the students were actively engaged in various activities. For example, one student was working on math worksheets. Another student was at the computer taking an Accelerated Reading test. Respondent was working with the student at the computer. In addition to Ms. Saunders' concern that the instructional day did not begin until 8:44 a.m., she believed that Respondent spent too much time teaching the "calendar math" activity. Respondent began the activity at 8:44 a.m., and completed it at 9:05 a.m. Even though Ms. Saunders complimented Respondent on her presentation of the activity, as discussed in paragraph 65, she criticized Respondent for spending too much time teaching or reviewing the lesson. According to Ms. Saunders, the "suggested" time for "calendar math" was 15 minutes, but Respondent "stretched" the activity to 21 minutes, which was six minutes longer than the "suggested" time. Ms. Saunders offered no explanation of why or how Respondent's extending the calendar math activity by six minutes was not an "appropriate use of instructional time." At 9:10, a.m., five minutes after the calendar math lesson, Respondent's students had to leave the classroom to attend a health presentation. The five minutes between the end of "calendar math" and when the children left the classroom for the health presentation, allowed time for the children to return to their seats and for Respondent to pass out name tags to the students and have them line up before leaving the room. Ms. Saunders offered no suggestions as to a more appropriate or acceptable way Respondent could or should have used the extra six minutes that Respondent used teaching the calendar math activity. Ms. Saunders summarized the December 6, 2001, observation and made recommendations in a letter dated December 17, 2001. Based on Ms. Saunders' concerns about Respondent's teaching practices, Ms. Saunders recommended that Respondent "have someone review with [her] the six domains from the Florida Performance Measurement System." Also, she recommended that Respondent take training provided by the elementary education department and a classroom management course, both of which were offered "periodically" through the staff development office. Attempted Observation (February 2001) On an unspecified day in February 2002, Ms. Saunders went to Respondent's classroom to conduct her fourth observation. After Ms. Saunders entered the classroom, Respondent told her that she had no notice of the observation. Ms. Saunders then advised Respondent that Mrs. Clark knew that Ms. Saunders would be observing Respondent's class that day, but that "neither of us [Saunders nor Clark] chose to make you [Respondent] aware of the visitation." Respondent espoused the view that she should have received notice of the observation. Ms. Saunders disputed Respondent's view that she should have been given notice and indicated that the observation was part of the assistance plan laid out in May 2001. Respondent replied that an assistance plan could only last 90 days and, thus, this observation could not be part of any such plan. Ms. Saunders then asserted that she could do an observation any time as part of her normal duties. Respondent disagreed and requested that Ms. Saunders provide her with a written explanation of the reason why Ms. Saunders was visiting the class, the instrument she would be using, what she would be observing, and how long she would be staying. As the verbal interchange proceeded, Ms. Saunders thought that Respondent's voice became more aggressive and that she was also getting upset. Because Respondent's students were in the classroom, Ms. Saunders decided to leave the classroom and return at another time. Although students were in the classroom during the verbal exchange concerning whether Ms. Saunders' visit was authorized, there is no evidence that the students heard the conversation. Fourth Observation (March 21, 2002) On March 21, 2002, Ms. Saunders conducted an observation in Respondent's classroom. Upon Ms. Saunders' entering the room, Respondent advised her that she had no notice that Ms. Saunders was coming to her class. Respondent also told Ms. Saunders that the students were taking a school-wide writing assessment. Ms. Saunders acknowledged that, but still indicated that she would be seated and conduct an observation. Respondent then approached Ms. Saunders and asked why she was in the class, what instrument she was using, and what she was observing. Ms. Saunders reiterated her prior position that she was there as part of the assistance plan and that she would be taking anecdotal notes. Respondent then asserted her earlier position, that an assistance plan was only for 90 days. Consistent with Ms. Saunders' previous recommendation that Respondent tape herself in class as a way to critique herself, Respondent told Ms. Saunders and the class that she was turning on the tape recorder. Ms. Saunders began the observation at or about 8:58 a.m., and ended it at 9:16 a.m. In all, the observation lasted only about 18 minutes. During most of that time, Respondent's students were completing a school-wide writing assessment. As students finished the writing assessment, Respondent gave them books to read silently, while the other children continued to work on the writing assessment. Ms. Saunders summarized the March 21, 2002, observation in a letter dated April 18, 2002. Due to the duration of the observation, 18 minutes, and the fact that the students were taking a writing assessment, Ms. Saunders reported only a few specific observations. None of those observations concerned or were related to Respondent's teaching techniques or classroom management.8/ In the April 18, 2002, letter, Ms. Saunders summarized the March 21, 2002, observation and made conclusions. In the letter, Ms. Saunders stated she continued to see the "same behaviors" from Respondent. She further stated, Each time I visit your classroom I continue to see the same behaviors from you. Though discussion has occurred regarding ineffective practices, visitation were made to a number of other classrooms at Yates Elementary, suggestions regarding inservice courses have been made, yet your practices have not changed. I continue to see an emphasis on students being silent unless called upon. I continue to hear you speak gruffly to students. I continue to see you punish students for very minor infractions like wiggling or whispering. I continue to see you isolate students from the group. I continue to see you go over concepts, like vocabulary orally in order for students to memorize things rotely. I continue to see calendar math exceed the 15 minutes it is intended to occupy of the mathematics instructional time. I continue to see only one student engaged at a time. It was the intention of the assistance plan to have you reevaluate some of your ineffective practices and work to make some changes. I have yet to witness any of that nor do I think you are even trying to make strides toward improvement. Despite her recitation of areas in which Respondent still needed to improve, Ms. Saunders offered no recommendations in the April 18, 2002, summary letter to assist Respondent. However, Ms. Saunders stated that she "plan[ned] to make an unannounced observation in [Respondent's] class again soon," but she never did. The conclusions in Ms. Saunders' April 18, 2002, letter are inconsistent with some of her earlier observations discussed in paragraphs 59, 65, and 68 above. Moreover, there was no connection between the conclusion Ms. Saunders articulated in the summary letter and what she observed on March 21, 2002. Area Supervisor's Criticism of Respondent's Reprimand Method Ms. Saunders was critical of the way Respondent reprimanded students. During Ms. Saunders' observations, Respondent sometimes would call the name of the child who was being reprimanded and tell him what he should or should not be doing. At the hearing, Ms. Saunders testified to maintain order in the classroom, Respondent should have used "public praise" and "private criticism." Notwithstanding this position, Ms. Saunders admitted that this method or principle is not an established policy and procedure of the School District. While Ms. Saunders testified that the "public praise, private criticism" principle is simply an "educational belief that many people subscribe to," she acknowledged that other models exist. There was no evidence presented at the hearing that Ms. Saunders ever specifically discussed the "public praise, private criticism" philosophy that she believed Respondent should have used in the classroom. Observations of the School Principal Mrs. Clark frequently observed Respondent in the classroom as part of her routine of visiting all the classrooms at Colson. During her observation of Respondent, Mrs. Clark saw and heard Respondent sometimes use a "harsh desist" in reprimanding students. According to Mrs. Clark, the term "harsh desist" means "harshly reprimanding a child to stop doing something." Mrs. Clark described an example of a "harsh desist" by Respondent's saying, "Shhhh" to the class in a loud way, and talking to children in a way that was "derogatory." Mrs. Clark believed that the children were impacted by the way Respondent spoke to them. She based this belief on the expressions she saw on some of the children's faces. Mrs. Clark testified, "In some instances, they [the students] would cringe." Mrs. Clark testified that she talked to Respondent about her "harsh desist," but Respondent did not change this classroom management method. These discussions were not documented, and no reference to this issue was ever noted on Respondent's evaluations. The record fails to establish when or how often Mrs. Clark observed Respondent engaging in a "harsh desist," to whom any particular "harsh desist" was directed, and if and how the "harsh desist" affected the student. Mrs. Clark testified that she observed situations in which she observed Respondent talk to students in a derogatory manner. In one instance, the student referred to in paragraph 41 above, who had been transferred to Respondent's class because of behavioral problems he was having in another class, left Respondent's classroom without permission and was returned to the room by Mrs. Clark. The student told Mrs. Clark that he had left the room to look for a pencil or scissors. Mrs. Clark asked Respondent if the student could borrow one from another student or if she would give him the tool that he needed. Respondent said she would not give him the particular tool. Respondent continued, "He breaks them all the time. He doesn't deserve them." Although students were in the classroom when Respondent made the comments, there is no evidence that they heard the comments. The other incident in which Mrs. Clark described Respondent as using derogatory language when talking to a student involved T.B., a student in her class. On an unspecified date, Respondent was walking down the hallway with her students, taking them to the buses. Respondent was holding T.B. by his arm, presumably for misbehaving. At the time, Mrs. Clark was in the hallway, but some distance away. When Respondent saw Mrs. Clark in the hallway, she told T.B., "If you don't behave, you're going to get a referral to that lady over there," pointing to Mrs. Clark. Mrs. Clark testified that there is nothing wrong with reminding a child that he could have to go the principal's office if he or she misbehaves, "if it [is] handled in the appropriate way." The clear implication was that the manner in which Respondent handled the situation described in paragraph 98 was inappropriate. However, no evidence was presented to establish the appropriate way to remind the student that his behavior needs to improve and that there are consequences for misbehavior. Recommendations of Mrs. Clark Respondent's 2000-2001 evaluation indicated that her performance in the area, "enhances and maintains students' self-esteem," was unsatisfactory. To address this rating, Mrs. Clark issued a letter to Respondent which made two recommendations to assist Respondent in improving in this area. The letter is referred to on the evaluation and was given to Respondent on or about April 24, 2001, the day she received the 2000-2001 evaluation.9/ The first recommendation was that Respondent attend a Cooperative Discipline Workshop that was offered by the School District or "something similar to that that was offered by the district." The other recommendation was that Respondent go and observe behavior management in classrooms at other schools. No specifics were given as to who would schedule the time, place, and number of observations. With regard to the classroom management course, no information was provided as to what, if any, approval would be needed prior to taking the course. In neither instance was a time specified that Respondent would have to complete the observations and/or the classroom management course. During Respondent's tenure at Colson, the only written recommendations she received from Mrs. Clark were the two made in the letter issued to Respondent. As reflected on the 2000-2001 evaluation, Mrs. Clark issued the letter to address the "unsatisfactory" rating Respondent received in that evaluation. In such a case, a tenured teacher who receives an "unsatisfactory" rating, a letter and/or form of assistance is required to be provided pursuant to Section 1012.34(3)(d), Florida Statutes. Respondent's Efforts to Comply With Assistance Plans and/or Recommendations In an effort to comply with Mrs. Clark's recommendation that she observe other classes, Respondent asked several teachers on her first-grade team, including one who was nationally-certified, if she could observe them. Some of these teachers had been held out by Mrs. Clark as using behavioral models that were ones that Respondent might use in her class. All of the teachers agreed to allow Respondent to observe their classes, but Mrs. Clark denied Respondent's request to observe any of the teachers at Colson. Eventually, someone, likely Ms. Saunders or Mrs. Clark, scheduled an observation for Respondent at Yates Elementary School (Yates). On an unknown date between May 7, 2001, and December 6, 2001, Respondent went to Yates to observe several first-grade classes pursuant to Mrs. Clark's April 24, 2001, recommendation. Ms. Saunders accompanied Respondent to the class for the observations. As Respondent and Ms. Saunders went to observe in the various classrooms, it appeared to Respondent that the teachers in those classrooms had no prior knowledge of the observations. During the observations at Yates, Ms. Saunders directed Respondent to write down anything positive she saw regarding classroom management, as well as anything she found pedagogically unsound.10/ Ms. Saunders referenced and discussed Respondent's observations at Yates in the summary letter dated December 17, 2001. In that letter, Ms. Saunders recalled the following: During the visit to Yates, we witnessed some wonderful classroom strategies and we also saw some things that perhaps would not be helpful. I know, based on our conversation, that you saw some things that you might like to try implementing. I hope that you will continue to reflect on that day and try some of the things you think might work well in your room. Ms. Saunders also noted in the December 17, 2001, letter that at the time of the visit to Yates, she asked Respondent to write a plan that included trying or applying some of the classroom management strategies that they witnessed. Respondent complied with this directive as reflected in Ms. Saunders' letter in which she stated, "A copy of that plan was to be given to Mrs. Clark[,] and I am aware that you submitted something to her." As requested by Ms. Saunders, Respondent submitted a classroom management plan to Mrs. Clark based on what she observed at Yates that she could implement in her classroom. However, there is nothing in the record to indicate whether Respondent's plan was ever reviewed or critiqued by either Mrs. Clark or Ms. Saunders. After Mrs. Clark recommended that Respondent take a classroom management course, she attempted to do so, but was unsuccessful. Respondent's initial failure to take the classroom management course after the April 2001 evaluation, was based on a misunderstanding, miscommunication, and/or no communication between Mrs. Clark and Respondent. Later, Respondent's efforts to take a classroom management course were thwarted by Mrs. Clark. The misunderstanding, miscommunication, and/or lack of communication between Mrs. Clark and Respondent is evident. Almost eight months after Mrs. Clark initially recommended that Respondent take a classroom management course, she wrote in the "comment section" of Respondent's December 19, 2001, evaluation that she was "not sure" if Respondent had taken the course. In response, Respondent wrote on the same evaluation, "It was my understanding that a workshop would be scheduled for me during the school year." Mrs. Clark testified that Respondent had "repeatedly kept asking" for which workshop Mrs. Clark had signed her up. Based on the apparent misunderstanding discussed in paragraph 109, Respondent selected at least two different classroom management courses. She then requested Mrs. Clark's consent, because the course required payment of a fee and a substitute teacher for the time Respondent would be attending the course. Both courses were approved by the Hillsborough County School Board. Although in the 2001-2002 school year, Respondent made several requests to take a management course, Mrs. Clark denied all the requests, indicating that no money was available. In one case, a person from the School District office called Respondent and told her that no money was available for her to attend the courses she had requested. The payment for one of the courses was about $135.00 and required that a substitute teacher be hired to cover Respondent's class on the day of the course. Having been unsuccessful in obtaining permission or approval to attend two School Board-approved courses, on September 20, 2002, Respondent wrote an e-mail letter to Mrs. Clark regarding Respondent's efforts to take a classroom/behavior management course. In the e-mail, Respondent indicated that she had looked to take the recommended course on a professional study day (when students are not present), but had not found any such course being offered. In light of Mrs. Clark's and/or the School District's failure to approve a course for Respondent to take, Respondent requested that Mrs. Clark provide Respondent with the name of the classroom/behavior management course that Mrs. Clark wanted her to take and the date and time of such course. There is no evidence that Mrs. Clark ever responded to Respondent's September 20, 2002, e-mail or ever provided Respondent with the name of a classroom management course to attend. Moreover, no evidence was presented that the School District actually offered the recommended classroom management course during the relevant time period. Despite the recommendation that Respondent take the classroom/behavior management course, she was not provided with the assistance and in-service opportunity to help correct or improve the noted performance deficiency. Nonetheless, through her own effort, she increased her performance area, "enhances and maintains students' self-esteem," from "unsatisfactory" in the 2000-2001 school year to "needs improvement." Incidents Involving Respondent and School Principal and Staff First Incident (January/February 2001) In January or February 2001, during the lunch break, Vicki Davis, one of the other first-grade teachers, was sitting near Respondent and noticed that Respondent was writing in a notebook. Ms. Davis then asked Respondent, "What are you doing? Writing about kids or something?" Respondent did not elaborate, but told Ms. Davis that it was a behavior book. Ms. Davis was concerned because she saw her name in the book, but beyond that, she could not say what was in the book. Exactly what Respondent was writing in the "behavior book," is unknown, but this incident occurred soon after the student referred to in paragraph 41 was transferred from Ms. Davis' class to Respondent's class. Respondent implied that she was writing down observations about the child. Even though the precise contents of the "behavior book" were not clearly visible, Ms. Davis felt uncomfortable when she saw what she believed to be her name in the "behavior book." Second Incident (July 2001) In July 2001, when school was not in session, Respondent telephoned the school and asked Mrs. Clark to provide her with a report that Ms. Saunders had prepared. Before leaving the school, Mrs. Clark advised Jennifer Connolly, her secretary, that Respondent was coming to get the report and told Ms. Connolly to put the report in Respondent's mailbox. When Respondent arrived at Colson, she checked her mailbox, but did not see the report that she had come to retrieve. At the time, no one was in the front office area so Respondent went into Mrs. Clark's office and looked on her desk for the document. While Respondent was in Mrs. Clark's office looking through papers in an effort to locate Ms. Saunders' report, Ms. Connolly saw Respondent and asked why she was in the office. After Respondent explained that she was looking for Mrs. Saunders' report, Ms. Connolly told Respondent the report was in Respondent's mailbox and to leave Mrs. Clark's office. Ms. Connolly left the office and walked down the hall. After Ms. Connolly left Mrs. Clark's office, Respondent turned out the light in Mrs. Clark's office and closed the door to the office as she exited. By the time Respondent got to her mailbox, Mrs. Saunders' report was on top of the stack of mail in Respondent's mailbox. After being informed about Respondent's going into her office, Mrs. Clark contacted the School District's Professional Standards Office. An investigation was conducted and based on the findings, a letter was issued to Respondent. It is unknown if the letter was a warning, reprimand, or other type of communication since the letter was not offered as evidence at this proceeding. There is no indication that Respondent was doing anything in Mrs. Clark's office other than looking for the report that she came to the school to retrieve; the report that Mrs. Clark had expected her to pick up. Nonetheless, Respondent's decision to go into the principal's office, without permission, reflected poor judgment on her part. This, however, was an isolated incident and is not indicative of Respondent's usual judgment. Except for this incident, Respondent's record indicates that she usually exercised good judgment as shown by her evaluations for the relevant time period. For example, for the three school terms immediately prior to the July 2001 incident, Respondent's performance in the area related to a teacher's judgment under the Professional Behavior category, "demonstrates logical thinking and makes practical decisions," was rated as "satisfactory."11/ The only evaluation that indicated Respondent "needed to improve" in that area was the December 2001 evaluation, the first evaluation she received after the July 2001 office incident. However, in Respondent's very next evaluation dated April 24, 2002, her performance in the area, "demonstrates logical thinking and makes practical decisions," was rated as "satisfactory." Third Incident (2001-2002 School Term) In or about the 2001-2002 school year, Respondent brought a tape recorder to a team meeting. When Ms. Davis, one of the team members, saw the tape recorder, she felt uncomfortable and told Respondent to turn off the tape recorder.12/ Ms. Davis knew that "something was going on between [Respondent] and Mrs. Clark" and seemed to suspect that Respondent's bringing the tape recorder into the meeting was somehow related to that. However, Ms. Davis did not want to be a part of that and told Respondent, "This [meeting] is not about anything. We're working together as a team." Respondent immediately complied with Ms. Davis' request and turned off the tape recorder. After that one incident, Respondent never again brought a tape recorder to a team meeting. Fourth Incident (February 25, 2003) On or about February 25, 2003, as part of her usual routine of visiting classrooms, Mrs. Clark went to Respondent's classroom, entering from the back door. At the time, Respondent was sitting with two students, working with them. When Respondent saw Mrs. Clark, she got up from her seat and walked over to where Mrs. Clark was standing. Respondent then asked Mrs. Clark, "Did you leave right after us?" Mrs. Clark correctly understood, and Respondent confirmed that the question referred to Respondent's grievance hearing that was held the previous day and attended by Respondent and her attorney, as well as Mrs. Clark and the area supervisor. Respondent apparently thought Mrs. Clark indicated that she had left immediately after the grievance hearing. Respondent challenged Mrs. Clark and indicated that Respondent and her attorney had waited outside for Mrs. Clark for 15 minutes. Respondent then moved closer to Mrs. Clark and whispered in her ear. Mrs. Clark understood Respondent to say, "You're a liar. You're devious. There is a God. I'm not through with you yet." Respondent denied that she made these statements. Given the conflicting testimony of Mrs. Clark and Respondent, both of whom appeared to be credible witnesses, there is no clear and convincing evidence that Respondent made the statements. Nonetheless, it is found that Mrs. Clark understood and believed that the statements in paragraph 130 were the ones Respondent whispered to her. Mrs. Clark responded to Respondent's statements in a voice that was not a whisper by asking, "You're not through with me yet?" According to Mrs. Clark, during this incident, she repeatedly kept turning to Respondent and kept telling her, "If you have something to say to me, we can meet in my office." There were children in Respondent's classroom during the incident described in paragraph 130, but Mrs. Clark's credible testimony was that the children could not hear Respondent's comments. Mrs. Clark described the comments Respondent whispered in her ear as "quite upsetting." While Mrs. Clark might have been upset, her conduct clearly indicated that she did not feel threatened by Respondent's comments. After the exchange between Respondent described in paragraphs 130 and 131, Mrs. Clark stayed in Respondent's classroom to continue her visit and look at the children's work. In fact, Mrs. Clark took time to talk to a student in the class who she believed was not working. Later, she asked the children about a large crayon that was on the floor. At some point during the visit, Respondent noticed that Mrs. Clark was holding something in one of her hands, both of which were behind her back. Believing that the object in Mrs. Clark's hand was a tape recorder, Respondent grabbed Mrs. Clark's hand and splayed it open in an attempt to completely display the object. As Respondent grabbed Mrs. Clark's hand, she asked Mrs. Clark if she had a tape recorder and if she were recording Respondent. Mrs. Clark stated that the object she was holding was a two-way radio. Even though the object Mrs. Clark was holding was a two-way radio, Respondent did not believe Mrs. Clark's explanation. After or as Respondent grabbed Mrs. Clark's hand, Mrs. Clark told Respondent, "Get your hands off me! Get away from me!" Respondent believed Mrs. Clark was going to strike her so she moved back, away from Mrs. Clark. Undoubtedly, Respondent's conduct, described in paragraph 134, grabbing her supervisor's hand, was inappropriate, unprofessional, and disrespectful. However, based on the record, this was clearly an isolated incident. Moreover, this conduct does not constitute any of the statutory or rule violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Mrs. Clark then left Respondent's classroom and continued visiting other classrooms. After completing her routine classroom visits, Mrs. Clark called the School District office to report the February 25, 2002, incident in Respondent's classroom. Respondent also called the School District office to report the incident. In addition to calling the School District Office, Respondent called a friend who was a retired teacher and reported that she believed Mrs. Clark had tried to record her and asked for advice on what she should do if Mrs. Clark returned to her room. The following day, an investigator with the School District went to the school to investigate the matter. School District Request for Fitness for Duty Evaluation By letter dated April 30, 2003, the School District referred Respondent to Dr. James Edgar, M.D., a psychiatrist, for an evaluation. In the referral letter, Linda Kipley, the general manager of the School District's Professional Standards Office, stated that the referral was due to the School District's "concerns for a pattern of personal and professional behavior which has negatively impacted her capability and competence to perform the duties and responsibilities of teaching." Ms. Kipley's letter went on to say, "After reviewing our most recent investigative report, there is a question if she is fit for her teaching responsibilities and to teach minor children." Also, Ms. Kipley requested that Dr. Edgar provide a written report of his assessment of Respondent's "capability to make sound professional judgments and her capability to safely instruct children." Opinion of James Edgar, M.D. Dr. James Edgar, who was qualified as an expert in the field of psychiatry, conducted an independent medical (psychiatric) evaluation of Respondent. Based on information provided to Dr. Edgar by School District staff, there were questions raised about Respondent's ability to safely instruct minor children and about her general mental health status. Along with the request for the evaluation, the School District provided Dr. Edgar with copies of all of Respondent's evaluations since she was employed by the School District and the February 22, May 16, and December 17, 2001, letters/reports from Ms. Saunders. For some reason, Ms. Saunders' last report dated April 18, 2002, and discussed in paragraphs 85 and 86, was not provided to Dr. Edgar. Dr. Edgar found that Respondent had normal motor activity and normal facial expressions; that she was polite and her appearance was neat; and that she was calm although anxious (which Dr. Edgar indicated was a natural reaction under the circumstances of an evaluation being ordered by her employer). He also found that Respondent's intelligence was normal, her memory was intact, her senses were good, her affect was appropriate, and there was no evidence of hallucinations. Notwithstanding the foregoing conclusions, in the "summary and recommendation" section of his report, Dr. Edgar opined, I do not feel [Respondent] is currently capable of safely instructing young children." As the basis for this conclusion, Dr. Edgar stated that when Respondent is stressed by routine events, such as constructive criticism, her ability to keep things orderly and controlled is impaired and she becomes anxious and depressed. He further stated that the combination of Respondent's "major depression and pre-existing personality disorder interfere with the usual psychological functions (i.e. judgment and problem solving ability, emotional stability, ability to conform to societal standards of behavior, interpersonal skills, integrity, responsibility, ability to cope with stressful situations, and decision making in a crisis). In the "summary and recommendation" section of Dr. Edgar's written report, he prefaces the above-quoted opinion by stating, "This summary is provisional because I have not had an opportunity to review medical records or mental health records." At the end of the report, Dr. Edgar states that "I may amend my report after reviewing the previously mentioned records." As of the date of this proceeding, Dr. Edgar had not yet reviewed any of Respondent's medical records and mental health records, although Respondent advised him that she was being treated for depression by a psychiatrist and was in counseling with a licensed mental health professional. Contrary to the School District's concern for Respondent's "competence to perform the duties and responsibilities of teaching," Dr. Edgar testified that his report made no finding that Respondent was incompetent to teach. Opinion of Gerald Mussenden, Ph.D. Dr. Gerald Mussenden was qualified as an expert in the area of psychology. On September 5 and 12, 2003, Dr. Mussenden conducted a comprehensive evaluation of Respondent to determine her overall mental functioning (i.e., whether she was mentally stable, well adjusted, and/or if she is a threat to herself or others). As part of the evaluation, Dr. Mussenden administered, among other instruments, the Child Abuse Potential Inventory, which has been developed and standardized since 1982. The Child Abuse Potential Inventory is valid in terms of content validity, construct validity, and predictive validity and is a tool used by psychologists who do testing specializing in abuse propensities. Based on the results of the Child Abuse Potential Inventory, Dr. Mussenden concluded that Respondent had no child abuse potential characteristics and was not a danger to children. Moreover, Dr. Mussenden opined that Respondent was emotionally stable, had good skills by which to relate and interact with others, and had no problems or difficulties that would endanger others around her. Dr. Mussenden's evaluation report accurately notes that at the time of the evaluation, Respondent was under the treatment of a psychiatrist and in counseling with a licensed mental health counselor. Dr. Mussenden's opinion is that this course of treatment contributed to Respondent's mental health status at the time of the evaluation. In his report, Dr. Mussenden states, "Due to their success [the psychiatrist and mental health counselor], [Respondent] is relatively well adjusted and without signs of mental difficulties." Dr. Mussenden's credible testimony was that a person can suffer from depression and still be competent to handle one's duties as a teacher. When Respondent was evaluated by Dr. Mussenden, she was taking medication for depression. The purpose of such medication is to help people suffering from depression become well-adjusted. The fact that there was no evidence that Respondent was suffering from depression during the September 2003 evaluation indicates that the medication she was taking was effective in that it masked any depression that may have been present. Dr. Mussenden saw Respondent within 60 days of the hearing and based on that visit, he did not change his opinion that Respondent posed no risk of harm to children.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered that finds Respondent not guilty of the charges alleged in the Administrative Complaint and dismisses the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of April, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 12th day of April, 2006.
The Issue The issues in this case are: (1) Whether Petitioner's allegations regarding Respondent schoolteacher's purported performance deficiencies are, in fact, true, thereby justifying Petitioner's placing Respondent on statutory performance probation; (2) If the first question is answered in the affirmative, then, Whether Respondent satisfactorily corrected the specified performance deficiencies within the 90-day probation period prescribed by Section 1012.34(3)(d), Florida Statutes; and (3) Whether Respondent's employment should be continued or terminated.
Findings Of Fact Material Historical Facts At all times material to this case, Respondent Samuel K. Young ("Young") was a teacher in the Palm Beach County School District ("District"). From 1993 until July 2003, when Respondent Palm Beach County School Board ("Board") suspended him without pay, Young taught English at the Alexander W. Dreyfoos, Jr. School of the Arts ("Dreyfoos"), a magnet high school for students interested in an arts-centered education. In August or early September of 2001, shortly after the beginning of the 2001-02 school year, one of the Assistant Principals at Dreyfoos, Tanya Daniel, began routinely to observe Young, on an "informal" basis, while he was teaching his classes. These unscheduled, informal observations were triggered by students' complaints, of which Ms. Daniel, as Young's immediate supervisor, had been the recipient or been made aware. As time passed, the informal observations became increasingly formal. On October 25, 2001, Ms. Daniel conducted a formal evaluation of Young, using the Summative Observation Instrument, which is a tool that was developed for the Florida Department of Education's Florida Performance Measurement System. Another Assistant Principal, Leo Barrett, also started formally observing Young's classes. By early December 2001, Ms. Daniel had come to the conclusion that Young was not performing his teaching responsibilities in a satisfactory manner. Specifically, Ms. Daniel believed that Young was deficient in the areas of classroom management; presentation and organization; planning; student assessment; obedience to policies and procedures; and maintenance of the learning environment. Two points are especially notable about Ms. Daniel's negative assessment of Young. First, she placed considerable reliance on student feedback. Indeed, Ms. Daniel invited and encouraged Young's students to report to her on how he was doing in the classroom. Second, she did not rely upon student performance as measured, in accordance with Section 1008.22, Florida Statutes, by state and/or local assessments. On January 8, 2002, as a result of Ms. Daniel's evaluation, the Principal of Dreyfoos, Ellen Van Arsdale, placed Young on school-level performance probation pursuant to the procedures spelled out in the Classroom Teacher Assessment System (CTAS) Evaluation Handbook (the "CTAS"). (Under the Collective Bargaining Agreement Between the District and the Palm Beach County Classroom Teachers Association, effective July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2005 (the "Union Contract"), the District is required to conduct formal evaluations of teachers "in keeping with" the 1999 CTAS.) The CTAS provides that a teacher whose performance is found deficient must be afforded at least 30 calendar days to improve his performance to a satisfactory level. During that time, the teacher must be given "school-site assistance" to help him correct the identified performance deficiencies. Accordingly, a 30-day School-Site Assistance Plan was developed for Young and put into effect on January 8, 2002. The school-level performance probation that began in January 2002 constituted a new phase in the evaluation process. The purpose of the first phase, which lasted about three months (from September through December 2001), purportedly was to determine whether Young's performance was satisfactory or not. Thus, the first-phase evaluators should not have assumed at the outset that Young's performance was satisfactory or unsatisfactory. In contrast, during the second phase, the evaluators worked from the initial premise that Young's performance was, in fact, unsatisfactory, in the several areas noted by Ms. Daniel. The focus, therefore, was on whether Young was improving sufficiently to correct deficiencies that were assumed to exist. Throughout the school-level probationary period, a number of evaluators reviewed Young's performance. Ms. Van Arsdale conducted several evaluations, and Mr. Barrett performed at least one. Another was conducted by Dr. Lisa Troute, a Curriculum Specialist with the District. Others, too, were involved. None of the evaluators questioned the conclusion, which was based largely on Ms. Daniel's opinions, that Young's performance actually was deficient. Ms. Daniel did not observe Young's classroom performance during this second phase, evidently in consequence of Young's having voiced some concerns about her impartiality. Ms. Daniel remained an important participant in the process, however, and she continued actively to solicit students' opinions about Young's competence. On February 20, 2002, she interviewed at least three of Young's students, making handwritten notes (which are in evidence) to memorialize their respective assessments. Ms. Daniel asked one student to rate Young's performance on a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being "poor" and 10 being "great"; the student gave Young a 3.5. There is no evidence that Ms. Daniel elicited the opinions of a random, representative sample of Young's students——or instead, for example, polled only the known malcontents. There is also no persuasive evidence that Ms. Daniel ever did anything but accept the students' mostly unfavorable opinions uncritically. What the evidence does establish is that Ms. Daniel put great weight on the students' opinions——so much so that the students she spoke with effectively became Young's evaluators themselves. The school-level probationary period was extended well beyond 30 days, and ended up lasting until the end of the 2001- 02 school year. By letter dated May 17, 2002, Ms. Van Arsdale informed the Superintendent that Young's performance remained unsatisfactory after 91 days of school-site assistance. Specifically, it was Ms. Van Arsdale's opinion that Young's performance was deficient in the following six areas, each of which is a designated "indicator" of competence under the CTAS: Management of Student Conduct; Presentation of Subject Matter; Learning Environment; Planning; Assessment; and Policies/Procedures/Ethics. Ms. Van Arsdale asked the Superintendent to place Young on statutory performance probation for 90 days, pursuant to Sections 231.29 and 231.36, Florida Statutes (2001). The assessment procedure used to evaluate Young during the school-level probation was not primarily based on the performance of students as measured by state and/or local assessments administered annually as specified in Section 1008.22, Florida Statutes. In fact, the evaluators placed no meaningful weight on student performance, so measured. Nevertheless, the Superintendent acceded to Ms. Van Arsdale's request. By letter dated May 20, 2002, the Superintendent notified Young that he would be placed on performance probation for 90 calendar days. The statutory performance probation——a distinct, third phase of the evaluation process——commenced in August 2002, at the beginning of the 2002-03 school year. On August 22, 2002, Young was given a Professional Development Plan, which called for the provision of assistance, as well as ongoing evaluations, through November 2002, when a final evaluation would be issued passing judgment on whether he had——or had not——corrected the alleged performance deficiencies. The statutory performance probation unfolded largely as had the school-level performance probation. Young was, again, observed and critiqued by a number of evaluators. Of the written evaluations in evidence, the most balanced is a report dated September 22, 2002, which Dr. Troute prepared concerning her observation of Young on September 10, 2002. Based on this contemporaneous report, the undersigned is persuaded that Dr. Trout then believed Young was a "satisfactory" teacher who could, with additional effort, be a "good" teacher. Others were less charitable, however, including Ms. Van Arsdale, who prepared Young's final evaluation based on her November 5, 2002, observation of his class. On the CTAS's evaluation form, Ms. Van Arsdale gave Young a rating of "concern" on five separate "indicators" of competence: Management of Student Conduct; Presentation of Subject Matter; Learning Environment; Planning; and Assessment. This resulted in an overall evaluation of "unsatisfactory." The assessment procedure used to evaluate Young while he was on statutory performance probation was not primarily based on the performance of students as measured by state and/or local assessments administered annually as specified in Section 1008.22, Florida Statutes. Indeed, once again, the evaluators placed no meaningful weight on student performance, so measured. By letter dated November 6, 2002, Ms. Van Arsdale notified the Superintendent that, in her opinion, Young had failed to correct performance deficiencies and therefore should be fired. The Superintendent agreed, and by letter dated November 14, 2002, informed Young that he would recommend to the Board that Young's employment be terminated. The Board later accepted the Superintendent's recommendation, and Young was suspended without pay, effective on or about July 16, 2003, pending his discharge. The CTAS A. Teachers who are evaluated under the CTAS are rated on 15 categories of qualities or abilities, which are referred to collectively as "indicators." Each indicator, such as, e.g., Management of Student Conduct, is best understood not as a single ability, but rather as a label for a skill-set, that is, a collection of qualities, abilities, or skills. The indicators are divided into two classes called "performance areas." The performance areas are: "A. Teaching and Learning" and "B. Professional Responsibilities." There are eight indicators under Teaching and Learning and seven under Professional Responsibilities. The CTAS uses a two-point rating scale. The only grades used for scoring a teacher on the 15 indicators are "acceptable" and "concern." The section of the CTAS's evaluation form where the grades are recorded is reproduced below, with the ratings from Ms. Van Arsdale's final evaluation of Young, dated November 6, 2002, added to show how the form is used in practice: A. TEACHING AND LEARNING ACCEPTABLE CONCERN 1. Management of Student Conduct X 2. Human Development and Learning X 3. Presentation of Subject Matter X 4. Communication X 5. Knowledge of Subject Matter X 6. Learning and Environment X 7. Planning X 8. Assessment X B. PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES ACCEPTABLE CONCERN 9. Technology X 10. Record Keeping X 11. Continuous Improvement X 12. Working Relationships with Coworkers X 13. Working Relationships with Parents X 14. Policies/Procedures/Ethics X 15. Duties as Assigned by the School Administration X The teacher's overall evaluation rating of "satisfactory" or "unsatisfactory" depends entirely upon the combination of ratings awarded on the 15 indicators. The following combinations require an overall evaluation of "unsatisfactory": NUMBER OF CONCERNS SECTION A SECTION B 3 0 2 1 1 3 0 4 As can be seen, the indicators under Section A carry greater relative weight in the overall evaluation than those under Section B. Because Young received five "concerns" on his final evaluation, the CTAS dictated that he be given an overall "unsatisfactory" rating. In rating the various indicators, evaluators are supposed to consider numerous "performance criteria." The CTAS defines the "performance criteria" as "examples of descriptors which define the indicators." To be more precise, the performance criteria are specific behaviors, acts, and practices that the teacher should be performing as an outward manifestation of the teacher's command or mastery of the respective skill-sets known as indicators. Various performance criteria are set out in the CTAS as "bullet points" under each of the indicators. The first bullet point under the first indicator (Management of Student Conduct), for example, is: "[The teacher] specifies and explains rules of conduct and provides for practice of rules when appropriate." For each of the indicators, the CTAS further provides a set of "data collection sources." The CTAS defines the term "data collection sources" as "examples of multiple data sources used to determine a rating of 'acceptable' or 'concern.'" In other words, the data collection sources are lists of "evidence" that can be examined to determine whether, and perhaps how well, the teacher is performing the prescribed performance criteria. For example, the data collection sources for the indicator Planning are: observation reports; lesson plans; conference notes; assessment data; instructional materials; and written reports. B. As we have seen already, the CTAS defines the terms "satisfactory" and "unsatisfactory" in a completely objective fashion. It does so by specifying the rating combinations that will result in an overall evaluation of "unsatisfactory." Thus, anyone who knows the number of "concerns" that a teacher has received in Sections A and B can apply the formula and assign the overall grade; this ministerial function requires neither discretion nor judgment. What does demand discretion and judgment is rating the teacher's command or mastery of the respective indicators as either "concern" or "acceptable." This rating function requires that qualitative determinations be made at two distinct levels. First, for every indicator (skill-set), the evaluator must decide how well the teacher is executing each of the several subsidiary performance criteria (behaviors). Then, based on how well the teacher is executing the subsidiary performance criteria (behaviors), the evaluator must render a judgment as to how well the teacher is doing with regard to the indicator (skill-set) that comprises those performance criteria. At both stages of the analysis, to arrive consistently at fair conclusions——that is, to obtain similar results with respect to similarly performing teachers most of the time——requires (a) that there be uniform standards to guide evaluators in making the requisite judgment calls and (b) that the same standards always be applied, to all teachers in all evaluations. Thus, it is important to know what standards, if any, the CTAS prescribes. To begin, some negative findings are in order. First, the indicators are not standards upon which to make a judgment. They are, rather, the qualities to be judged, using appropriate standards of decision. Second, the performance criteria are likewise not standards. They define or prescribe the relevant facts to which, jointly and severally, standards should be applied, so as to make a judgment regarding one indicator or another.1 To illustrate, the fact that a teacher is observed "reinforc[ing] appropriate social behavior" tells us nothing about how well he does this, much less about how well he has mastered Management of Student Conduct, which indicator comprises the referenced performance criterion. Rather, to make a qualitative judgment regarding the teacher's performance of this practice requires some test, some basis, for distinguishing between good and bad performances. Similarly, the ultimate fact that the teacher acceptably "reinforces appropriate social behavior" tells us relatively little, presumably, about whether the teacher's mastery of the indicator Management of Student Conduct is acceptable or not, for there are eleven other performance criteria to be considered also in respect of this particular indicator. To make a qualitative judgment regarding whether the teacher has demonstrated an acceptable command of the skill-set known as Management of Student Conduct requires some sort of standard, some yardstick for measuring the relative importance of the teacher's demonstrated expertise (or lack thereof)——as determined by the evaluator——in the execution of the various performance criteria. The only "standards" that the evidence in this case persuasively establishes are the terms "acceptable" and "concern." Superficially, these terms seem to possess some degree of objective content. On reflection, however, it should be seen that they do not, a point which will be examined in greater detail below. The undersigned, moreover, has searched the CTAS and the record in vain for an adequate definition of these terms. As far as the proof in this case goes, these terms are criteria without content, and as such can be used as cover for almost any decision an evaluator might want to make. C. It is desirable at this point to elaborate on why the terms "concern" and "acceptable," by themselves, are not standards that evaluators (or administrative law judges or courts) can consistently and fairly apply to teachers across- the-board. As a starting point, envisage a spectrum comprising every conceivable level or degree of teacher talent, ranging from, in the abstract, "worst imaginable" (or "perfectly awful") to "best imaginable" (or "perfectly excellent"). It makes no difference, for present purposes, how exactly "worst" and "best" might be defined. Rather, it is sufficient to say of the "worst" teacher, in regard to any imaginable attribute, that "none could be worse." Conversely, it need only be said of the "best" teacher, in regard to any imaginable attribute, that "none could be better." As should be obvious, these "worst" and "best" teachers are constructs that serve to define the terminal points at either end of the "talent-level spectrum" we are calling to mind. This talent-level spectrum can be depicted with a simple drawing, as follows: Worst ? ? Best It can now be observed that all teachers, everywhere, must fall somewhere on this talent-level spectrum, between the two poles as we have defined them. Of course, the precise point at which any given teacher should be placed on the spectrum, at any given time,2 is a matter about which reasonable people, in every instance, could disagree. But that is presently of no consequence. Turning next to the facts of this case, the question is posed: Where, on this spectrum of talent, should the mark separating "concern" from "acceptable" be placed? Given their ordinary meanings, the words themselves provide no guidance in this regard. Either of the following, for example, is consistent with the plain meaning of "concern" and "acceptable": Worst ? ? ? Best Concern Acceptable Worst ? ? ? Best Concern Acceptable It does not matter how the mark-point in either example might be defined. What matters is the relationship between the mark and the respective poles. As the mark moves closer to the "worst" terminal, the "concern" band becomes narrower, leaving more teachers on the "acceptable" side. Conversely, moving the mark towards the "best" terminal narrows the "acceptable" band, consigning more teachers to the "concern" category. In the instant case, there is no persuasive evidence on which the undersigned can base a finding as to where the mark should be placed. As a result, the undersigned cannot make de novo findings regarding whether Young's execution of the performance criteria was "acceptable" or not, or whether, ultimately, his command of the indicators in dispute was of "concern," as the Board has alleged. To do that, the undersigned would need to apply standards of his own devising. Whatever merit such standards might have, they would not be the standards used to judge other teachers, and hence it would be unfair to apply them to Young. Moreover, there is no persuasive evidence in this case as to where the several evaluators placed the mark when they assessed Young's performance.3 The undersigned therefore cannot find that the evaluators all used the same standards——cannot even infer that they did. Consequently, assuming it were proper to do so, the undersigned could not review whether the evaluators acted fairly and appropriately vis-à-vis Young or whether they reached a "correct" (i.e. legally sustainable) judgment regarding his teaching performance.4 Student Performance The 1999 CTAS that was used in evaluating Young had been developed in 1998 and approved by then-Commissioner Tom Gallagher in January 1999. By letter dated January 25, 1999, Commissioner Gallagher informed the District that its CTAS had received "Full Approval." The Commissioner further instructed the District: [I]t will not be necessary for you to resubmit the [CTAS] unless there are statutory changes which affect the requirements for district instructional performance appraisal systems or unless you substantively revise your system for other reasons. In the very next legislative session following this letter, the legislature substantially amended the statute governing the procedures and criteria for the assessment of instructional personnel, which at the time was Section 231.29, Florida Statutes (1999).5 See Ch. 99-398, § 57, Laws of Florida. These statutory changes, which will be examined more closely in the Conclusions of Law below, took effect on June 21, 1999. Id. at § 78. The thrust of the relevant amendment was to require that, in evaluating teacher performance, primary emphasis be placed on student performance, as measured by "state assessments" and "local assessments." These latter two terms were defined, at the time, in Section 229.57, Florida Statutes (2000). Section 229.57 was subsequently transferred to Section 1008.22, Florida Statutes (2003). The District never amended the CTAS to reflect the statutory changes. Not surprisingly, therefore, the CTAS puts little or no particular emphasis on student performance6 and makes no specific references (that the undersigned can locate) to state and local assessments within the statute's contemplation.7 Consequently, as was mentioned several times above, none of the assessment procedures used during Young's protracted evaluation was primarily based on student performance as measured by state and/or local assessments administered annually as specified in Section 1008.22, Florida Statues (2003). Equally if not more important, however, is the lack of persuasive (indeed any) evidence in the record regarding the performance of Young's students as measured by state and/or local assessments. Because of this, it is impossible for the undersigned to make de novo findings based primarily on student performance as to either (a) whether Young's execution of the performance criteria was "acceptable" or not, or (b) whether, ultimately, his command of the indicators in dispute was of "concern," as the Board has alleged.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order: (a) exonerating Young of all charges brought against him in this proceeding; (b) providing that Young be immediately reinstated to the position from which he was suspended without pay; and (c) awarding Young back salary, plus benefits, that accrued during the suspension period, together with interest thereon at the statutory rate. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of March, 2004.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed against her, and, if so, whether her employment with Petitioner should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been employed by Petitioner as a teacher for 16 1/2 years. She holds a Florida teaching certificate in the areas of specific learning disabilities and educable mental retardation. Throughout her employment by Petitioner, she has been assigned to teach exceptional student education classes. For the 1995-96 school year, she was assigned to teach a varying exceptionalities class at Winston Park Elementary School. At that school, the principal and the assistant principal have a practice of visiting every classroom every day whenever possible. The visits usually consist of a general walk-through. As a result of his visits to Respondent's classroom, Assistant Principal Polakoff, an experienced varying exceptionalities teacher, became concerned about the lack of discipline in Respondent's classroom. Respondent made a large number of referrals of students to the administrators for disciplinary action. Polakoff discussed his concerns with Respondent. In late September or early October, the administration at Winston Park Elementary School requested Rene Miscio, an Exceptional Education Program Specialist from the area office to come and assist Respondent. Miscio identified concerns with Respondent's classroom performance and gave Respondent suggestions for improving her areas of deficiency. Miscio took Respondent to a different school so Respondent could observe that teacher. Respondent later advised her administrators that she was implementing the suggestions made by Miscio. On November 2, 1995, Respondent referred a student to the office. Assistant Principal Polakoff went to Respondent's classroom and observed for 30 to 40 minutes. He wrote detailed notes while he was in Respondent's classroom and later discussed his observations with Principal Smith. They determined that Respondent's performance was deficient in three areas: behavior management, classroom management, and lesson presentation. By letter dated November 2, Assistant Principal Polakoff advised Respondent that she was moved from the development phase to the documentation phase of the Instructional Personnel Assessment System (hereinafter "IPAS") because deficiencies had been identified. In the documentation phase strategies are formulated for remediating the identified deficiencies. The goal is to provide the teacher with strategies to become successful in helping students learn. Principal Smith and Assistant Principal Polakoff worked with Respondent in writing a Performance Development Plan. Such a Plan envisions ongoing contact between the administrators and the teacher to address the teacher's deficiencies over the course of a defined time period. Respondent was given a February 29, 1996, deadline for remediating her deficiencies. Assistant Principal Polakoff began working with Respondent to develop behavior plans for specific students because of his background in exceptional student education. The administrators also assigned the exceptional student education specialist at Winston Park to observe and assist Respondent to overcome her areas of deficiency. Principal Smith also assigned Carolyn Koesten, another special education teacher at Winston Park, to "model" in Respondent's classroom from November 27 through December 7, 1995. Koesten had "modeled" before. "Modeling" means that an experienced teacher teaches another teacher's class in order to demonstrate to that teacher classroom management skills, behavior skills, and academic skills. Principal Smith instructed Koesten to establish a classroom management system, to establish a behavior management system, and to teach the students. When Koesten took over Respondent's classroom, Respondent was on leave. Koesten assessed Respondent's class when she started her modeling. Respondent's lesson plans were sketchy, and no routine had been established in Respondent's classroom. Koesten conducted a class meeting to develop a schedule for daily activities. She, together with the students, set up a behavior management system, establishing the rules of conduct, consequences, and rewards. She experienced no problems with Respondent's students once they had established rules for that classroom. "Running reading records" was a school-wide system being implemented that year to help measure a student's progress in reading. Respondent had no running reading records when Koesten began modeling in Respondent's class. Koesten set up running reading records for Respondent's class, established a reading program using those records, and began using spelling words from the reading program. She also set up learning centers within the classroom so students who had finished an activity could begin other work rather than beginning to misbehave. Respondent did not have any learning centers in her classroom. Respondent returned to school on December 6. Koesten met with her in the morning to explain the changes which had been implemented. Respondent then spent the day observing Koesten teaching Respondent's class. At the end of the day, she again met with Koesten to discuss the reading program and learning centers which Koesten had established. On the next day, Respondent took over the class, and Koesten observed her teaching. During the time that Koesten was in charge of Respondent's class, the class ran smoothly with the classroom management system and the behavior management system she had put in place. The students liked the systems because they had participated in developing them. Neither the number of students in the class nor the mix of students presented Koesten with any problem. During the morning of February 13, 1996, Assistant Principal Polakoff received a referral on one of Respondent's students for whom they had just recently developed an individual behavior plan. He told Principal Smith about the referral, and Smith went into Respondent's classroom. Smith determined that Respondent had ignored the individual behavior plan which they had developed for that student. Principal Smith summoned Respondent to his office that afternoon to meet with him and Assistant Principal Polakoff so he could give her feedback on what he had observed regarding the deficiencies in her performance that still existed. When she arrived, Smith asked her to describe her behavior management plan, and she did. Smith then advised her that she was not following that plan when he was in her classroom. She told him she was not able to follow her behavior management plan because the children were misbehaving. Smith also told her she had not followed the individual behavior plan for the student whom she had referred that morning. Respondent became very loud, angry, and agitated while Smith was trying to discuss her failure to follow the behavior plans. She alternated between being very angry and calming herself. When she calmed herself, she sat down. When she became angry, she got up and leaned on Smith's desk and leaned toward him. Smith kept trying to focus on how Respondent could improve her classroom performance but Respondent would not discuss that subject. She began attacking Smith verbally. She told him he reminded her of her parents. She told him he was a terrible person and a terrible father. She told him she hated him and that everyone hated him. She told him she would not talk to him but would only talk to Assistant Principal Polakoff. Polakoff told Respondent she needed to talk with Smith because Smith was her boss. Smith remained very calm and "matter of fact." He did nothing to cause Respondent to become agitated. He continued to try to focus on what was needed in order for Respondent to correct her deficiencies. At the end of the conference, Respondent told Smith that he was treating her "shitty". Smith calmly responded that at that point her teaching was "shitty" and that it was "a joke". Also at the end of the conference which had lasted for an hour or more, Respondent told Smith that she was "going to get him". Smith asked her what she meant by that, and Respondent told him that he was just going to have to wait to find out, that he would not know when or where she was going to get him, but that she would. The meeting ended when Respondent walked out of Smith's office. Polakoff was so uneasy about Respondent's threats that he followed her when she left the building and locked the building behind her so she could not return. Smith was concerned for his safety, Respondent's safety, and the safety of the other employees due to Respondent's threats and her agitation level. Just a few weeks before, a Broward County employee had killed his co-workers. Smith was concerned regarding Respondent's emotional stability and whether she should be in a classroom. Principal Smith telephoned his supervisor, Area Superintendent Dr. Daly, and told her what had transpired. She gave him an oral reprimand for using the word "shitty" and told him to call Director of Professional Standards Ronald Wright. Wright also orally reprimanded Smith for using that word and told him to send Respondent a memo asking her to clarify what she meant by her statements that she was going "to get" Smith and that he would not know when or where. Wright also explained to Smith the procedures for requesting that an employee undergo a psychiatric and/or psychological evaluation to determine fitness to remain in the classroom. Principal Smith wrote such a memo to Respondent the following day. Two days later, Respondent replied in writing and stayed out of school for the next several days saying she was too depressed to function. Her written explanation is not accurate, does not reflect the tone of her voice or her anger, and is not believable. On February 14, 1996, Principal Smith initiated the procedure for requiring Respondent to undergo psychological and/or psychiatric testing. He also re-assigned her so that she would assist in the school's media center and not return to her classroom until completion of the psychiatric evaluation. While Respondent was assigned to the media center, she was very disruptive. She kept trying to involve students and parents in her anger toward Principal Smith. On Friday, March 1, Respondent initiated a conversation with Josetta Royal Campbell who was in the media center. Although Campbell was a fellow teacher, she had no personal relationship with Respondent. Respondent asked Campbell if she had been evaluated by Principal Smith, and Campbell replied that she had been. Respondent asked if Campbell had heard that Respondent had received a bad evaluation, and Campbell replied that she had not. Respondent followed her to Campbell's classroom. Inside Campbell's classroom, Respondent became very excited and loud and was easily heard by the custodian cleaning the classroom. Respondent told Campbell that she and Smith had a big argument, that Smith was "out to get" her, and that she was going to kill him. Respondent said she thought Polakoff was her friend but he was a "backstabber" and that Koesten was also "out to get" her. She told Campbell that she was "going to get them all", that Smith had ruined her life, and that "everybody involved would pay for it". She also said that she could not return to her classroom until after she had undergone psychological testing but that since she had been under psychological treatment for ten years, she could pass the test with "flying colors". Over the weekend Campbell thought about what Respondent had said. She was concerned about the threats Respondent had made toward Principal Smith and the others. She took Respondent's threats seriously. On Monday she wrote a letter to Principal Smith telling him what had happened. On March 6, Principal Smith re-assigned Respondent to temporary duty with pay in her own home. Respondent selected a psychiatrist from a list given to her by the Director of Petitioner's Instructional Staffing Department. She selected Dr. Fernando Mata and was evaluated by him on March 7, 1996. After seeing Respondent on that date, he recommended that she undergo psychological testing. Respondent was given a list of psychologists to choose from, and she selected Dr. Jack Singer. He evaluated her on March 22, conducting a personal interview and administering the Minnesota Multi-Phasic Personality Inventory II, the Thematic Apperception Test, and the Holtzman Inkblot Technique. Dr. Singer concluded that Respondent is unstable and unpredictable. He opined that Respondent cannot safely handle a classroom full of children at this time. Upon review of Dr. Singer's report, Dr. Mata issued a supplemental report agreeing with Singer's opinions and concluding that Respondent "should not be returned to a classroom setting at this time". A conference was held with Respondent, her union representative, Petitioner's Director of Personnel, Petitioner's Director of Professional Standards, and Petitioner's Director of Instructional Staffing to discuss with Respondent the options available to her under Petitioner's policies and the union contract due to the medical report determining that Respondent was not fit to teach at that time. Respondent was advised that she could elect: (1) family/medical leave of up to 12 weeks; (2) disability leave for up to two years; or (3) a personal leave of absence. The financial impacts of each type of leave were explained to Respondent. Respondent declined all leave options. By letter dated May 15, 1996, Petitioner's Director of Professional Standards wrote to Respondent asking her to confirm that she still declined all leave options. By letter dated May 22, 1996, Petitioner's Director of Professional Standards again wrote to Respondent confirming that they had spoken on May 20 and that Respondent still declined all leave options and that Respondent understood that her refusal to take any type of leave would force Petitioner to terminate her employment. Petitioner does not second-guess medical opinions. When Respondent declined all leave options, Petitioner had no choice but to initiate termination of Respondent's employment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED THAT a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint and dismissing her from her employment with Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this day of November, 1997, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day of November, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Eugene K. Pettis, Esquire Haliczer, Pettis & White, P.A. 101 Northeast Third Avenue Sixth Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Francisco M. Negron, Jr., Esquire Tom Young, Esquire FEA/United 118 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1700 Dr. Frank R. Petruzielo, Superintendent Broward County School Board 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-3125
The Issue Whether respondent's teaching contract should be renewed for school year 1995-96.
Findings Of Fact Based on all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background In this proceeding, petitioner, Suwannee County School Board (Board), seeks to terminate respondent, Lallah P. Singh, a teacher, on the ground his classroom performance in school years 1993-94 and 1994-95 was unsatisfactory. In doing so, petitioner relies upon Section 231.36(3)(e), Florida Statutes, which authorizes a school board to terminate an employee with a professional services contract (PSC) when that employee has an unsatisfactory performance rating for two consecutive years. This proceeding represents the first occasion on which the Board has utilized the statute for a PSC teacher. Respondent, who has been employed in the Suwannee County school system since December 1977, is certified as a teacher in the areas of biology and mathematics for grades 6-12. A native of India, he holds the equivalent degree of a doctor in veterinary medicine from a university in that country. He has also obtained a master's degree in veterinary science in this country and is certified as an education specialist in mathematics. Until school year 1993-94, respondent was employed in a variety of positions, including a regular classroom teacher (1977-86), a home study teacher (1987-89), and an alternate education teacher (1990-92). During school year 1993-94, respondent was assigned to the Branford Pre K-12 School in Branford, Florida where he taught the in-school suspension (ISS) class. That class is made up of high school level students suspended from their regular classes for disciplinary reasons. The assignment required that respondent maintain discipline and assist students with work assigned by their regular teachers. Based on observations conducted by his principal during the school year, respondent received an unsatisfactory evaluation for his classroom performance. He was notified of these deficiencies in writing and was told that such deficiencies must be corrected by the end of the following school year, or else he would face possible non-renewal of his contract. For school year 1994-95, respondent was reassigned to an ISS classroom four periods per day but was also required to teach a general science class one period per day. During that year, respondent was observed by his principal in the general science class on four occasions to determine if the deficiencies noted in the prior year had been remediated. While most of the earlier deficiencies were eventually corrected, respondent was still unsatisfactory in one performance area noted in the prior year, as well as two other areas, and his performance was accordingly deemed to be unsatisfactory. On May 15, 1995, he was notified that his contract would not be renewed. By letter dated May 19, 1995, respondent requested a hearing to contest the Board's action. Although Section 231.36(3)(e)4.b., Florida Statutes, requires that the hearing be scheduled within 45 days of receipt of the written appeal, the parties have waived this requirement by requesting hearing dates beyond that timeframe. As clarified by his counsel, respondent generally contends the Board erred in the termination process by (a) providing him untimely and insufficient notice, (b) performing an inadequate evaluation, and (c) offering him inadequate assistance to correct his deficiencies. He asks for reinstatement of his professional services contract, as well as back pay. Events Leading up to School Year 1993-94 Around 1982, the legislature amended Section 231.36(3), Florida Statutes, to create a professional services contract under which teachers could be employed. Prior to that time, teachers not on annual contract status were employed under what was known as a continuing contract. Both a PSC and a continuing contract are considered a form of tenure for public school employees. After the new law became effective, teachers employed under a continuing contract were given the option to convert to a PSC. The advantage to a PSC is that if a teacher is cited for unsatisfactory performance in a given year, he or she has the following year in which to remediate those deficiencies. If the deficiencies are not remediated in the second year, a school board can change the teacher to annual contract status and decline to renew the teacher's contract. This procedure contrasts with the continuing contract process which, after an unsatisfactory rating is given but is not remediated by the teacher, allows a school board to change the teacher to annual contract status and not renew the contract at the end of any given year. In school year 1991-92, respondent was still employed under a continuing contract. When he received an unsatisfactory evaluation, and was threatened with the possibility of being changed to an annual contract and not renewed, he consulted with a teacher's union field representative, Richard E. Layer, on his procedural and substantive rights. During their discussions, the two talked about whether respondent should remain on a continuing contract or switch to a PSC. According to Layer, he explained to respondent "how the statute (governing a PSC) worked," advised him that a PSC offered more job security than a continuing contract, and recommended respondent switch to a PSC since this would give him two years in which to correct any deficiencies that might occur in the future. Layer added that after their conversation, respondent "knew exactly what the (PSC) provided." Based on Layer's advice, in April 1992 respondent requested that he be converted to a PSC. This was done for school year 1992-93, and he remained in that status until his contract was terminated in May 1995. The Evaluation Process Generally When evaluating classroom performance in both school years 1993-94 and 1994-95, the Board used standard evaluation forms developed by representatives of the Board and teacher's union. The evaluation, which must be performed at least once a year for teachers having a PSC, is conducted by the teacher's immediate supervisor, who in this case was the school principal, Melvin McMullen. McMullen had assumed that position during the latter part of school year 1992-93, had received special training for conducting evaluations, and was required to perform evaluations for over fifty teachers in both school years 1993-94 and 1994-95. The evaluation process for a teacher on a PSC consists of at least one classroom evaluation during a given school year. The results of the first evaluation are recorded by the evaluator on an assessment form. Within five days after the observation, a principal-teacher conference must be held for the purpose of reviewing the outcome of the observation. At that meeting, the teacher must sign the form, which includes a written admonition that "(f)ailure to correct the area(s) marked unacceptable may lead to your dismissal or non- renewal." Subsequent evaluations during the year, if any, are also recorded by the evaluator on an assessment form. For all evaluations, the teacher is given an acceptable ("A") or unacceptable ("U") rating for each evaluated area. Although the assessment forms used herein changed in some minor respects from school year 1993-94 to school year 1994-95, their substance was essentially the same. Each assessment form for a classroom teacher contains six overall performance standards, including planning, teaching procedures, classroom managment, presentation and knowledge of subject matter, assessment techniques and personal characteristics and professional responsibilities. Under the performance standards are found a total of twelve "indicators." Finally, within the indicators are found a "checklist of observable teaching behaviors," consisting of twenty-seven behaviors, each requiring a rating of "U" or "A." If any teaching behavior is given a "U," the indicator likewise requires a rating of "U." If an indicator is marked "U," the performance standard is also scored unacceptable. A total score is then assigned to the teacher, with one point given for each indicator with an "A," and the highest score being twelve. Anything less than a twelve is considered unsatisfactory and, if not corrected, may result in the teacher's dismissal. If the first observation of a PSC teacher results in an unsuccessful rating in any area, a "level-one" assistance plan is instituted by the principal, which consists of a principal-teacher conference to discuss the deficient areas, suggestions on how to correct the deficiencies, and a timeframe to correct the substandard performance. If insufficient progress has been made by the end of the timeframe, at the option of the assessor, the level-one assistance process can be repeated or a "level-two" assistance plan can begin. The latter level of assistance generally mirrors the assistance given during level-one but the assessor must also notify the superintendent that level-two has been initiated. If the deficiencies are still not corrected by the end of the school year, the superintendent is notified, and the teacher is again placed on notice that he must correct those deficiencies during the following school year or suffer the risk of being reverted to an annual contract status and not being renewed. Finally, during the subsequent school year, the same observations are conducted, and level-one and two assistance plans are implemented if deficiencies are observed. If remediation does not occur by the end of the second school year, the superintendent has the authority to recommend that the school board decline to renew the teacher's contract. School year 1993-94 Respondent was first evaluated by principal McMullen on February 23, 1994. He received a total credit of 10 out of 12 possible points. For the indicators "Recognizes and provides for individual differences" and "Demonstrates effective classroom facilitation and control," respondent received a "U." A conference was held by McMullen and respondent the same day, at which time respondent was given a form entitled "Related Work Performance Form (Appraisal III)." It contained not only an explanation of unacceptable areas and recommended procedure for correction, but also a notation that respondent had "2 weeks from today to demonstrate acceptable teacher corrective action." On March 14, 1994, respondent was again evaluated by principal McMullen. Although McMullen noted that "improvement" had occurred since the earlier evaluation, respondent received a credit of 11 out of 12 points. Indeed, he was still deficient in the area of "Demonstrates effective classroom facilitation and control." At a conference held the same day, respondent was given an explanation of his unacceptable area, a recommended procedure for correction, and the following timeframe for improvement: "2 weeks approximately from 3/14/94.". On March 15, 1994, respondent was given a lengthy list of resource materials available for use in correcting his deficiencies, including videos, journals and publications. In addition, he was given written instructions for use of the materials. Based on the unsatisfactory performance rating, principal McMullen sent the following letter to respondent on March 25, 1994: This letter is to notify you that you have demonstrated unsatisfactory performance on the Final Observation/Assessment Form (Appraisal I), with deficiencies noted in the folowing areas: Classroom Management Number 2: Maintains rules of conduct Number 3: Maintains instructional momentum These deficiencies must be corrected by April 1, 1995. I am requesting that your employ-ment be continued an additional year in order to provide you assistance. If you wish to discuss this matter with me further, please schedule an appointment through Mrs. Cannon. I look forward in continuing to work with you on classroom management issues. Respondent acknowledged receiving a copy of the letter the same day. On March 31, 1994, principal McMullen wrote the following letter to superintendent Blaylock: Dr. Lallah Singh has been notified of unsatis- factory performance on the Final Assessment Form with deficiencies noted in the following areas: Classroom Management Number 2: Maintains rules of conduct Number 3: Maintains instructional momentum I request that his employment be followed for an additional year to allow the opportunity to correct these deficiencies by April 1, 1995. Whether respondent received a copy of this letter is not of record. Although the March 14, 1994 evaluation was ostensibly used for personnel decisions that year, on May 6, 1994, a third formal assessment of respondent's classroom performance was conducted by principal McMullen. On that date, he received a credit of 11 out of 12 points. Even so, respondent was still deficient in "Classroom Management" and the related indicator based on unacceptable ratings given for the following observable teaching behaviors: "Maintains rules of conduct" and "Maintains instructional momentum." Thus, no matter whether the March or May evaluation was used, at the end of the first school year in question, respondent's only noted deficiency continued to be for classroom management and the related indicator, "Demonstrates effective classroom facilitation and control." On May 10, 1994, respondent and principal McMullen met to discuss respondent's latest assessment. Although McMullen noted that respondent had made "progress in meeting recommended procedures to help correct areas of concern," he noted that his level of improvement was "still not acceptable" and that respondent must continue the earlier suggestions for improving his performance. The two agreed to meet during the next school year's pre-planning period to discuss a plan of improvement for that year. This was embodied in a letter sent by McMullen to respondent on May 11, 1994. Sometime after receiving this notification, respondent contacted his local teacher's union representative, Willie Veal, Jr., for advice and assistance. On April 21, 1994, acting on the superintendent's recommendation, the Board reemployed respondent for the following year and placed him in a status known as "Professional Services Contract continuation (2nd year)," which is the Board's terminology for the "subsequent year" described in section 231.36(3)(e). Respondent did not receive a copy of this action. On June 7, 1994, however, respondent received a letter from the superintendent advising that the Board had approved him for a PSC for school year 1994-95. School year 1994-95 On August 19, 1994, respondent, union representative Veal, and principal McMullen met to discuss respondent's teaching status for the 1994-95 school year. At that meeting, respondent learned he would be reassigned to ISS but would also be required to teach general science one period per day. Although respondent says general science was not his strongest suit, which was mathematics, it was a subject within his certified area of biology. He also understood that his contract was subject to being non-renewed if he did not correct his deficiencies during the school year. This was confirmed by witness Veal. The following letter was given to respondent on August 29, 1994, to memorialize the substance of the meeting: Thank you for meeting with me while Mr. Veal had a moment last Friday (August 19th., 1994) to generally discuss plans for teaching improvement for the 1994-95 school year. As we discussed, I believe the opportunity to teach a General Science class and Mr. Brown spending two periods a days (sic) with I.S.S. students (doing Drop-Out Prevention counseling) will be two positive techniques to aid improvement as noted on the Appraisal II Form from last year. You and I will meet again soon, to review matters particular to unacceptable areas noted on the May 6th., 1994 Observation/ Assessment. We will then outline other suggestions, techniques and/or personnel that might assist this teacher improve- ment process. On November 15, 1994, respondent was sent the following letter by principal McMullen: As we discussed at our 8/25/94 (sic) meeting, and briefly the other day, we need to meet this coming week to discuss items noted on the Appraisal II Form. We will review the items which were unacceptable on the 5/6/94 Observation/Assessment Form. Can a meeting between you and I be set up for Tuesday afternoon, about 2:30 in your room? Please let me know. Pursuant to this letter, a meeting was held on November 20, 1994. During the meeting, principal McMullen further discussed respondent's deficient areas in the prior year and suggested ways to improve them. He also recommended that informal observations be made in an effort to prepare respondent for his formal observations during the following months. While respondent contends this assistance was begun too late in the school year to be of any meaningful value, it was rendered more than four months before the final evaluation on March 29, 1995. Then, too, respondent's most persistent problem continued to be in the area of classroom management, for which assistance to remedy that problem had been offered throughout the previous year. On December 12, 1994, principal McMullen conducted the first of four observations of respondent's performance in his general science classroom. That classroom, rather than the ISS class, was chosen out of fairness to respondent in order to assess him in a controlled classroom environment. On that day, respondent received a score of 7 out of 12 possible points. More specifically, he received an unacceptable rating for the following indicators: "Uses instructional materials effectively," "Displays skills in making assignments," "Recognizes and provides for individual differences," "Demonstrates effective classroom facilitation and control," and "Presents subject matter effectively." The following day, or December 13, 1994, petitioner was placed in the level-two assistance process. He was given a detailed explanation of unacceptable areas of performance observed at the December 12 evaluation and a lengthy list of suggestions on how to correct each of those deficiencies. Late on the morning of the same day, or December 13, 1994, principal McMullen walked by the building in which respondent taught and "noticed (him) sleeping at (his) desk" with his shoes off and leaning back in his chair. There were four students in his classroom at the time. Respondent was given a letter confirming this incident and told that if he had a medical reason which caused him to sleep to provide the principal with a doctor's note by December 16, 1994. Respondent provided a letter from his doctor the following day in which the physician listed four medications being taken by respondent, none of which would cause him to sleep. However, the physician noted that respondent "occasionally" took an over the counter cough syrup "that may cause drowsiness." Whether respondent was taking a cough syrup that day is not of record. This incident is relevant to the charge that respondent did not properly manage his classroom. On January 24, 1995, principal McMullen again performed an assessment of respondent's classroom performance. On this occasion, respondent received a score of 10 out of a possible 12 points. He received unacceptable ratings for the following indicators: "Demonstrates effective classroom facilitation and control" and "Presents subject matter effectively." On January 27, 1995, and pursuant to the level-two assistance program, respondent was again given a written, detailed explanation of his unacceptable areas and a list of recommended procedures for correction. He was told that he would be reevaluated on or about February 17, 1995. Finally, respondent was given the following written notice: Failure to satisfactorily correct all area(s) of unacceptable performance within the expected timeframe may result in returning the teacher holding a CC/PSC contract to annual contract status. If area(s) of unacc- eptable performance are not satisfactorily corrected during the second year, the teacher may be recommended for non-renewal. On February 21, 1995, another classroom observation was conducted by principal McMullen. That day, respondent received a score of 10 out of 12 possible points. Respondent again received unacceptable ratings for the following indicators: "Demonstrates effective classroom facilitation and control" and "Presents subject matter effectively." At a conference the same date, respondent was advised in writing that the following administrative assistance would be rendered: "Arrange conference time with fellow teachers/administrators, help secure resource materials and arrange for time to visit (illegible), etc." Respondent was also told that "(b)y April 5th (approximately six weeks), 1995 all observed/assessed areas should be scored acceptable." In addition, respondent was given a more detailed explanation of his unacceptable areas and recommended procedures for correction of those areas. On March 13, 1995, principal McMullen acknowledged receipt of certain corrective measures which respondent proposed to use at his next observation. These corrective measures were considered by principal McMullen at the next observation. A final observation of respondent occurred on March 29, 1995. Respondent received three unacceptable ratings which resulted in a score of 9 out of 12 points. On that occasion, he received unacceptable ratings for the following indicators: "Uses appropriate motivating techniques," "Demonstrates effective classroom facilitation and control," and "Presents subject matter effectively." The second noted indicator, "Demonstrates effective classroom facilitiation and control," was the same indicator for which respondent had received an unacceptable rating the prior year. On March 30, 1995, principal McMullen sent the following letter to respondent: This letter refers to our meeting today on your 3/29/95 Observation/Evaluation. Having gone over that with you, I wanted to highlight the fact that you still have three areas deficient in evaluation of your classroom teaching. These areas are noted on your evaluation form. Instructional recommendations are due to the Superintendent April 1, 1995. Due to this being the second year in the process to correct noted deficiencies and those continue, I have no choice but to recommend non-renewal at that time. Respondent acknowledged receiving a copy of the letter the same date. On March 31, 1995, principal McMullen notified the superintendent by letter that he could not recommend respondent for the 1995-96 school year term given his failure to correct the deficiencies. The superintendent accordingly recommended to the school board on April 21, 1995, that respondent not be rehired for the following school year. The recommendation was accepted by the school board at its April 25, 1995 meeting. On May 15, 1995, the superintendent advised respondent by letter that his contract was not being renewed for the following school year. This notice prompted respondent to request a formal hearing to contest the school board's proposed action. Was There Adequate Notice, Evaluation and Assistance? Notice Respondent contends that the school board erred by giving him inadequate and untimely notice of its actions. At the same time, respondent asserts that he was unaware of the consequences of the unsatisfactory performance ratings in school year 1993-94. He claims that, before the middle of school year 1994-95, no one ever specifically told him that his employment status was in jeopardy if his deficiences were not corrected by the following school year. Respondent's contention that he was unaware of the consequences of the 1993-94 unsatisfactory rating is not deemed to be credible. As early as 1992, respondent was given an explanation on how section 231.36(3)(e) "worked" by a field representative of the teacher's union, and according to the representative, "knew exactly what the law provided." Based on that advice, he switched from a continuing contract to a PSC since he had been told that this would give him two years to correct deficiencies before his employment could be terminated. Beginning in the summer of 1994, he was also represented by the president of the Suwannee County teacher's union, Willie Veal, Jr. At a meeting with Veal and principal McMullen in August 1994, respondent was told that he must correct his deficiencies before the end of the school year or face non- renewal. In addition, respondent had been through a similar evaluation process several years earlier. In 1992, he received an unsatisfactory performance rating and was told that unless the deficiencies were corrected, his contract might be terminated. In that case, however, the deficiencies were corrected, and he retained his tenure under a PSC. Finally, each of the many assessment forms that respondent signed during this process specifically noted that his "(f)ailure to correct the area(s) marked unacceptable may lead to (his) dismissal or non-renewal." Therefore, the totality of the evidence belies respondent's contention that he did not understand that this could happen. Statutory requirements The school board did not strictly follow all requirements of the law in terminating respondent. For example, the law requires that the superintendent provide the teacher in writing "no later than 6 weeks prior to the end of the postschool conference school period, of performance deficiencies which may result in termination of employment, if not corrected during the subsequent year of employment." In this case, respondent received this notice from his principal, rather than the superintendent. However, such notice was sufficient to inform respondent of the gravity of the situation. In the subsequent year, or school year 1994-95, the same notice must again be provided to the employee "no later than 6 weeks prior to the close of the postschool conference period." In this case, the notice was given by the superintendent, but this occurred less than "6 weeks prior to the postschool conference period." Although several errors in procedure occurred during the termination process, they were not so serious as to impair the fairness of this proceeding, or to cause prejudice to respondent in the defense of this case. Therefore, the errors in procedure are deemed to be harmless. Evaluation and Assistance The statute also calls for the employee to be "provided assistance and inservice training opportunities to help correct the noted performance deficiencies." However, the specific type of assistance and opportunties to be afforded a teacher is not statutorily defined. Respondent contends that such assistance and opportunities were never provided. Beginning with his first evaluation in February 1994, respondent was given assistance in the form of specific suggestions on how to correct the deficiencies. Also, numerous principal-teacher conferences were held to discuss the observation findings. After the March 14, 1994 evaluation, respondent was given a lengthy list of videos, journals and publications to use in an effort to correct his deficiencies. He was also given written instructions for the use of the materials. At the beginning of school year 1994-95, respondent had a pre-school meeting with both his principal and union representative concerning this matter. He also met with the principal on November 20, 1994, and the two discussed "other suggestions, techniques and/or personnel that might assist (his) teacher improvement process." Following an evaluation on December 12, 1994, respondent was given a detailed explanation of unacceptable areas of performance and a lengthy list of suggestions on how to correct those deficiencies. After another evaluation on February 21, 1995, respondent was again given advice on how to correct his deficiencies before the next evaluation. Although respondent says he took this advice to heart, and did all of the things suggested by his principal, he was still unable to obtain an acceptable rating. The Board, however, cannot be faulted for respondent's continued inability to correct the cited deficiencies. Through his expert, respondent contended that the evaluation and assistance process was not adequate. In reaching this conclusion, the expert relied upon her experience in the States of Georgia and Texas, as well as Dade and Seminole Counties, Florida. She did not, however, have any teacher remediation experience in small, rural counties such as Suwannee. The expert pointed out that a peer teacher did not assist the principal in performing the evaluations and making subsequent recommendations on how to correct the deficiencies. But there is no requirement that more than one person conduct the evaluation, and respondent (and his union representative) did not request that someone other than principal McMullen perform the observation. The expert further contended the Board should have assigned a peer teacher to assist respondent throughout this process. She also recommended that the Board send him to various seminars relating to his deficient areas. Again, however, there is no statutory requirement that a school board provide this type of assistance, especially when other forms of assistance and opportunities being given the teacher are adequate. Finally, the criticism that the Board did not adequately formalize its planned assistance measures into a written document is deemed to be unavailing. Because the assistance and opportunties provided respondent were adequate, the Board met its statutory obligation to provide "assistance and inservice training opportunities to help correct the noted performance deficiencies." Summary After being evaluated in a fair and impartial manner, and receiving timely and adequate notice of his deficiencies, as well as adequate assistance and opportunities to correct those flaws, respondent did not remediate a noted performance standard and related indicator during two consecutive school years. Therefore, the Board could properly change respondent's contract status from PSC to annual at the end of school year 1994-95 and decline to renew his contract.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order terminating respondent from employment by not renewing his 1995-96 contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of January, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-2988 Respondent: 1-3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in findings of fact 2 and 3. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 9-12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. Rejected as being unnecessary. 15-17. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. 18-19. Rejected as being unnecessary. 20-21. Partially accepted in finding of fact 44. 22-35. Partially accepted in findings of fact 13-20. 36-56. Partially accepted in findings of fact 21-34. 57-67. Partially accepted in findings of fact 40-46. 68-71. Partially accepted in findings of fact 35-37. 72-73. Partially accepted in finding of fact 39. Note - Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary for a resolution of the issues, not supported by the more credible evidence, cumulative, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Victor Africano, Esquire P. O. Box 1450 Live Oak, Florida 32060-1450 Sally C. Gertz, Esquire 118 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1700 Charles F. Blaylock, Jr. Superintendent Suwannee County School Board 224 West Parshley Street Live Oak, Florida 32060-2396 Honorable Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent violated Section 231.28(1)(i), Florida Statutes, and Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a) and 6(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code, and if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is licensed to teach emotionally handicapped children in the elementary schools of Florida. She holds Florida teaching certificate number 696889 which is valid through June 30, 1998. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by the Volusia County School Board as a teacher of emotionally handicapped children in a self-contained classroom at New Smyrna Middle School. Prior to November 13, 1995, Respondent had no prior disciplinary history. The 1995-96 school year was Respondent's first year as a teacher at New Smyrna Middle School. Her previous teaching experience consisted of serving as a resource teacher. In that circumstance the students went to Respondent's class for a portion of the school day for instruction in certain academic areas. In August of 1995, Respondent requested a conference with the assistant principal, Sue Wolter. One of the items that Respondent wanted to discuss was the procedure she should follow in case a student had a weapon in the classroom. Ms. Wolter instructed Respondent that she should press the buzzer in the classroom three times. When the office staff receives this signal, they know there is a severe problem in the classroom. When a teacher presses the buzzer a light turns on beside the room number. Ms. Wolter also told Respondent that she could use the school intercom and say "Code 3" to alert the office about an emergency situation without letting the class know that she was calling for help. Lastly, Ms. Wolter advised Respondent to send her teaching assistant to the office for assistance. Respondent used these methods to summon help to her classroom on numerous occasions prior to the incident at issue here. In November of 1995, Respondent's class consisted of 12 sixth-grade students. The students' chronological ages varied from 11-to-14 years of age. Respondent's class consisted of students with "varying exceptionalities." Many of the students were dually diagnosed as having psychological and emotional disorders as well as mental retardation. The students' I.Q.'s were exceptionally low. Respondent's students were impulsive, volatile, and often exhibited poor judgment. They had difficulty at times distinguishing between right and wrong. Therefore, it was essential for Respondent to exercise appropriate classroom control at all times. Respondent had a difficult time maintaining discipline in the class. Students were frequently out of their seats or leaving the classroom without permission. Due to the chaotic classroom environment, several different teaching assistants were assigned to Respondent's classroom prior to November 13, 1995. On November 13, 1995, Ms. Linda Baker was Respondent's teaching assistant. Respondent and Ms. Baker did not have a successful working relationship. Ms. Baker felt that Respondent was a poor classroom disciplinarian. Ms. Baker also resented what she perceived as Respondent's condescending attitude. Respondent, on the other hand, resented Ms. Baker's admitted refusal to follow instructions which, at times, amounted to blatant insubordination. As a result of their communication problems, Respondent often wrote notes to Ms. Baker setting forth her classroom duties instead of speaking to her directly. Lavagus Brown, Michael Binder, and Klara Mills were students in Respondent's classroom on the morning of November 13, 1995. Klara Mills was the only girl in the class. As class began that morning, Lavagus Brown told Respondent that Klara had something in her bag that the teacher should know about. Next, Michael Binder told Respondent that Klara had a knife in her bag. Ms. Baker was sitting in the back of the room. She also heard from the children that Klara had a knife. Respondent wrote a note to Ms. Baker and took it to her in the back of the classroom. Respondent asked Ms. Baker to take the note to the office and get an administrator. Respondent did not reveal the contents of the note or explain to Ms. Baker why it was necessary for an administrator to come to the classroom immediately. Ms. Baker took the note and left the classroom. She returned later without an administrator. When questioned by Respondent, Ms. Baker told Respondent that she had delivered the note to the office. Respondent still did not discuss the seriousness of the situation with Ms. Baker. Respondent asked Klara to get her things together so that they could go to the office. Klara took her backpack purse and left the room with Respondent. She did not take her bookbag with her. Ms. Baker stayed in the classroom with the remaining students. She began taking the boys down the hall to the restroom. In order to get to the main office, Respondent and Klara had to walk out of one building, down the main walkway past a second building, and into the second entrance of a third building. Respondent did not attempt to retrieve Klara's backpack purse during the walk through the campus. When Respondent and Klara arrived at the office, Jasmine Gutierrez, a teacher's aide, was waiting in the outer office to see Ms. Wolter, who was in her office with the door partially closed. Cheryl Tucker, one of two secretaries, was also in the outer office. Ms. Tucker was busy answering the phone and writing passes for students. While she was waiting for Ms. Wolter, Ms. Jasmine Gutierrez helped Ms. Tucker write passes for students so they could go to class. Respondent and Klara stood in a corner of the office where they had an argument. Klara denied that she had a knife, claiming that she only had a toy in her bookbag, which was still in the classroom. Klara wanted to go back to the classroom. Respondent wanted Klara to give an object to Respondent or someone that Klara trusted. Respondent asked Ms. Tucker if Ms. Wolter was in the office. Ms. Tucker responded in the negative. Respondent then asked Ms. Tucker to watch Klara while she looked for an administrator. Respondent did not see anyone in Ms. Wolter's office through the partially opened door. Respondent walked toward the office workroom to check her mailbox. Klara was still in the office when Respondent walked back toward the office and around a corner to go to the clinic. Respondent thought that Ms. Wolter might be in the clinic helping the nurse. Unable to locate Ms. Wolter in the clinic, Respondent returned to the office. Ms. Tucker was no longer in the outer office. Ms. Debra Gutierrez, the main secretary, was at her desk next to the office door which was slowly closing. Klara was not in the office. Learning that Klara had returned to class, Respondent left the office without telling anyone in the office that Klara possibly had a knife in her possession. Respondent caught up with Klara before she re-entered the classroom. Respondent told Klara to go to her desk and gather all of her things, including her backpack purse and bookbag, because they needed to return to the office. When Respondent entered the classroom, Ms. Baker was sitting at her place in the back of the room. Respondent immediately began to deal with a student who was in the time-out room, screaming and yelling. Respondent attempted to calm the student down. The time-out room is a small closet with a desk where students can go when they want to work undisturbed. Respondent also used the room for students who were behaving inappropriately and needed time to cool off before returning to class. At times, Respondent would put herself in the time-out room when she felt she was losing patience with the children. While Respondent was in the time-out room with the other student, Ms. Baker took Klara to the restroom. In the hallway, Ms. Baker asked Klara if she had a knife. Klara denied having a knife. As Ms. Baker and Klara entered the classroom, other students began asking Klara about her knife. Klara did not respond to their comments. When Ms. Baker and Klara came back into the classroom, Respondent was standing in the doorway of the time-out room with the door partially closed. From that vantage point, Respondent could talk to the student who was upset and watch Klara who was sitting at her desk. Ms. Baker sat at her place in the back of the room for a few minutes. Then she went to the office where she located Elaine Haskins and Lenny Carr, campus advisors, advising them that Klara possibly had a weapon in the classroom. Ms. Haskins used her walkie-talkie to advise Ms. Wolter that she and Mr. Carr were proceeding with Ms. Baker to Respondent's room because there was a problem. When Ms. Haskins, Mr. Carr, and Ms. Baker arrived at Respondent's classroom, Klara was working quietly at her desk. Ms. Haskins entered the room and told Klara to get all of her things and accompany her to the office. Mr. Carr and Ms. Baker stayed in the hall. At this time, Respondent was still in the time-out room with the other student. Ms. Haskins walked to the time-out room and knocked on the partially-open door. Ms. Haskins advised Respondent that she was taking Klara to the office. Respondent did not advise Ms. Haskins that Klara possibly had a knife. Mr. Carr escorted Ms. Haskins and Klara back to the office. On the way, Ms. Haskins radioed Ms. Wolter to tell her that they were taking Klara to the office. Ms. Haskins told Ms. Wolter that Klara possibly had a weapon in her bag. The school resource officer met the campus advisors and Klara in Ms. Wolter's office. Klara admitted to Ms. Wolter that she had a knife in her bookbag. As Klara emptied her bag on Ms. Wolter's desk, she took out a large hunting knife. The knife was approximately eight and three-quarter inches in length when the retractable blade was extended. The blade alone was four inches long. Subsequently, Ms. Haskins went back to Respondent's classroom to tell her that Klara would not be coming back to class. There is no persuasive evidence of the following admissions by Respondent: (a) to Ms. Haskins that she knew Klara had a knife and "just hadn't responded on that" and (b) to Ms. Baker that she (Respondent) was too busy to handle the situation with Klara and the knife. About one week after the incident involving Klara, Respondent and Ms. Baker had a major disagreement. Ms. Baker was removed as the teaching assistant in Respondent's classroom. Respondent knew from the beginning that she had a potentially dangerous situation in her classroom. The potential for violence created an extremely unsafe environment for all the children involved, including Klara. The Volusia County School District's Student Code of Conduct states that possession of a weapon is a major offense which requires a recommendation of expulsion. Pending a decision on expulsion, a student will be suspended and lose all extracurricular privileges. Respondent was familiar with the Student Code of Conduct. However, the Volusia County School District has no written policy explaining the proper procedure a teacher should follow in searching a student when confronted with actual knowledge or a reasonable suspicion that the student has possession of a concealed weapon.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order suspending Petitioner's teaching certificate for two weeks and imposing two years of probation. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of September, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of September, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Ron Weaver, Esquire Ron Weaver and Associates, P.A. Post Office Box 10825 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-2865 Paul Kwilecki, Esquire 433 Silver Beach Avenue, Suite 104 Daytona Beach, Florida 32176 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Department of Education 224-E Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick, Esquire Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry Whitmore, Program Director Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner, Dr. Eric J. Smith, as Commissioner of Education, against the Respondent, Deana Brown, are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent held a Florida Educator's Certificate No. 801038, covering the areas of elementary education, English for speakers of other languages (ESOL), and varying exceptionalities, valid through June 30, 2013. The Respondent was first employed by the Polk County School District (District) as an exceptional student education (ESE) teacher in 1998. She transferred to Spook Hill Elementary School (SHES), a unit of the District, at the beginning of the 2003-2004 school year. At the beginning of the 2005-2006 school year, the Respondent was assigned by SHES Principal Matthew Burkett (Mr. Burkett) to teach in the pre-kindergarten (Pre-K) ESE class. Students in the classroom were three to five years of age and exhibited disabilities ranging from autism to being educable mentally handicapped. This was the Respondent's first experience teaching in the Pre-K ESE classroom. The Respondent's classroom was a portable structure, surrounded by a fence, with a ramp leading from the classroom door into a playground area. There was a restroom in the portable classroom building. The classroom was staffed by the Respondent and a paraprofessional. Mr. Burkett testified that he became concerned with the Respondent's classroom performance based on contacts with parents of students in the classroom. Mr. Burkett identified the concerns as "sleeping, being on the cell phone, those types of things." Mr. Burkett apparently made an effort to observe the Respondent based on such concerns, and his observations resulted in disciplinary actions. On January 19, 2007, Mr. Burkett issued a verbal warning to the Respondent regarding the issue of sleeping in the classroom and confirmed the verbal warning by letter dated January 22, 2007. The letter noted that the Respondent explained that she had been modeling behavior for the children during naptime. The letter advised that the Respondent's sleeping at naptime was not appropriate, that she should not lie down on the floor with her students, and that any issue "that jeopardizes the health and safety of the students will result in further disciplinary action." At 12:45 p.m. on February 2, 2007, Mr. Burkett returned to the Respondent's classroom to talk to the Respondent. He found the classroom dark and quiet, with the students, some of whom were asleep, lying on the floor. The Respondent was not asleep but was lying on the floor. Mr. Burkett reminded the Respondent that she had been directed to refrain from lying on the floor with students, and, on February 8, 2007, he issued a written reprimand to the Respondent for disregarding the directive. On February 9, 2007, Mr. Burkett issued a "letter of concern," wherein he referenced issues discussed during conferences with the Respondent on February 2, 5, and 8, 2007. The letter noted the presence in the classroom of the Respondent's niece, an unapproved volunteer, and stated that the girl was prohibited from being in the classroom until the niece applied for and receive approval to be a volunteer. The letter noted the presence of an adult male in the classroom, an air-conditioning technician employed by the county, with whom the Respondent was planning a class reunion. The letter directed the Respondent to refrain from conducting personal business in the classroom. The letter noted the Respondent's frequent use of a telephone earpiece and her cell phone on personal business during school hours. The letter indicated the Respondent had explained that the calls were to the parents of her students and were school related, that the Respondent had been instructed not to wear the earpiece, and that the Respondent had subsequently been observed using her cell phone and earpiece. The letter directed the Respondent to discontinue having her cell phone "on your person during the school day from 7:30 am to 3:15 pm." The letter noted concern that the Respondent was not "engaged" with her students and that the Respondent had claimed to have been "busy" at times a parent had observed the classroom. The letter directed the Respondent to assign "busy" tasks to her paraprofessional so that the Respondent could remain engaged with her students. The letter noted another discussion regarding napping and advised the Respondent that students were to nap for only one hour, rather than from 12:45 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. The letter noted the Respondent had not been supervising her students during playground time and had stayed inside to clean the classroom. The letter stated that the custodian was responsible for cleaning the room and would do so. The letter noted that various educational items hanging from the classroom ceiling were a violation of the fire code and needed to be removed. The letter noted that the Respondent had chosen to allow parents to drop students off at school prior to 7:15 a.m. The Respondent testified that she did so to accommodate parents whose schedules were difficult. The letter advised the Respondent that students were not to be dropped off at school prior to 7:15 a.m. and that the principal would intervene with parents if necessary. Also on February 9, 2007, Mr. Burkett issued a verbal warning to the Respondent for leaving the school campus during working hours on February 7, 2007, without obtaining prior approval from the school administration. He documented the verbal warning by separate letter dated September 9, 2007, wherein he noted that the SHES assistant principal had been required "to assist with the safety and supervision of your students" during the unapproved absence. The letter noted that the Respondent had explained she left school to take her niece to work. The letter advised that further incidence of leaving the school grounds during working hours without approval would result in further disciplinary action. On March 1, 2007, Mr. Burkett observed the paraprofessional in the playground, sitting on a swing set, holding a child, and yelling at other students who were running on the ramp. Both the portable door and the fence gate were "wide open." Mr. Burkett returned the students to the classroom where he observed other students playing in the teacher's chair while the Respondent talked on her personal cell phone, unaware that Mr. Burkett had entered the room. On March 6, 2007, Mr. Burkett issued a written reprimand for the Respondent's continued use of her personal cell phone during school hours. The Respondent asserted that she was talking to the parent of a student who had called a few seconds prior to Mr. Burkett's entrance into the classroom (despite his directive of February 9, 2007, prohibiting her possession of her personal cell phone on campus during school hours). By letter dated March 14, 2007, the District superintendant issued a letter suspending the Respondent without pay for one day (March 22, 2007) based on the events of March 1, 2007. On March 19, 2007, the Respondent became engaged in an altercation with her niece, who was again on the SHES campus during school hours. During the altercation, the Respondent argued with her niece and slapped her niece on the face. When the niece left the campus, the Respondent got into her personal vehicle and followed her niece. The Respondent failed to follow SHES procedure when she left the campus during school hours. By letter dated April 18, 2007, the District superintendant issued a letter suspending the Respondent without pay for one day (April 25, 2007) based on the events of March 19, 2007. By letter dated May 8, 2007, Mr. Burkett referenced the creation on March 8, 2007, of a Professional Development Plan (PDP) to "address the learning environment" in the Respondent's classroom. Among the performance deficiencies identified in the PDP and noted in the letter was the failure to circulate around the classroom during activities, engaging and interacting with students, rather than sitting at the teacher's desk. Additional deficiencies included a failure to comply with the students' Individual Education Plans (IEPs), posting a daily classroom schedule, and classroom safety issues. On August 31, 2007, the Respondent strapped a misbehaving student into a 24-inch tall high chair and then left the classroom to use a laminating machine and a non-classroom restroom. The paraprofessional remained in the room with the students. The student's IEP did not allow for use of a high chair as a restraining or "time-out" device. Mr. Burkett entered the classroom approximately ten minutes after the Respondent left and observed that both the high chair and the student had fallen over. The student was not injured. The Respondent returned to the classroom about five minutes after Mr. Burkett entered the room and explained where she had been. By letter dated September 10, 2007, the District superintendant issued a letter suspending the Respondent without pay for five days (September 17 through 21, 2007) based on the Respondent's disciplinary history and the events of August 31, 2007. Prior to the suspension period, the dates of suspension were amended to September 20, 21, and 14 through 16, 2007. On January 17, 2008, the Respondent again left the SHES campus prior to the conclusion of her working hours without obtaining approval from school officials. At approximately 2:30 p.m., on that date, a Pre-K student failed to appear at the designated time and location for bus transportation from the school to home. Mr. Burkett attempted to locate the Respondent to resolve concerns about the student's location and determined that the Respondent was not present on campus. After the Respondent was eventually located, she told school officials that she placed the student on a different bus on that date and then left the campus. She had not advised anyone at the school of the alternative transportation arrangements prior to her unapproved departure from campus. After confirming that the child was indeed on the other bus, his regular bus departed late from the school campus. By letter dated January 30, 2008, the District superintendant issued a letter suspending the Respondent without pay for five days (February 6 through 12, 2008) based on the Respondent's disciplinary history and the events of January 17, 2008. On February 21, 2008, an assistant principal at SHES went into the Respondent's classroom for an informal observation. The Respondent was seated at her computer when the assistant principal entered the room. After looking around the room, the assistant principal believed that not all of the Respondent's students were present in the room. The assistant principal took a head count, determined that one child was missing from the classroom, and inquired of the Respondent as to the location of the missing student. The child was subsequently found, unharmed, in the portable classroom bathroom. The Respondent had been unaware of the missing child prior to the assistant principal's observation that the child was not present and had no idea of the child's location. By letter dated March 3, 2008, the District superintendant issued a letter immediately suspending the Respondent with pay and stating that the superintendant would recommend to the Polk County School Board that the Respondent's employment be terminated. The grounds for the proposed termination included the Respondent's "continuing pattern of violating school and district policies" and a "pattern of failing to properly supervise students under your care." The Respondent's employment with the District ended after an unsuccessful administrative challenge to the proposed termination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order imposing a two-year suspension of the Respondent's teaching certificate followed by a three-year probationary period, including such terms and conditions, including appropriate additional educational requirements, as the Education Practices Commission may choose to impose. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of September, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 14th day of September, 2011.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Gloria E. Walker, holds Teaching Certificate No. 294140, issued by the Department of Education, State of Florida. Respondent is certified to teach in the area of music education. Respondent has been employed as a Music Teacher by Petitioner, School Board of Dade County since 1970. From 1973 until 1986, Respondent taught music at Dunbar Elementary School in the Dade County School District. During the 1970-71 through 1977-78 school years, Respondent received either unacceptable or marginally acceptable scores for five of the seven years on her annual evaluations. (Petitioner's Exhibits 29). During the 1973-79 school year, the School Board altered its evaluations System for instructional Personnel. During the 78-79 through 83-84 school years, Respondent's annual evaluations were rated as acceptable. However, during the school years 1981- 82 through 83-84, school and district Personnel made comments concerning Respondent's need to improve her performance and development in certain areas. (TR 298). Commencing with the 1973 school year, Respondent received assistance from Charles Buckwalter, music specialist for elementary schools for the Dade County School District. Respondent was initially contacted by Mr. Buckwalter that year because of concerns the school's Principal expressed regarding Respondent's lack of classroom management. During that year, Mr. Buckwalter visited and provided assistance to Respondent approximately seven (7) times. Mr. Buckwalter's assistance to Respondent continued during the following three (3) years. During the 1981-82 school year, Mr. Buckwalter assisted Respondent on more than four occasions during which time he attempted to demonstrate lessons concerning management techniques and the use of new materials; objectives of instruction and on January 26, 1982, Buckwalter, along with Dr. Howard Doolin supervisor of music for Dade County, visited Respondent so that Dr. Doolin could observe Buckwalter's assistance to Respondent. On April 26, 1982, Respondent and Mr. Buckwalter met for approximately three and one half hours. Buckwalter visited several of Respondent classes and demonstrated the use of certain new materials. As a part of that visit, he observed Respondent's teaching and noted that Respondent abandoned the new materials and returned to teaching the old curriculum. On November 11, 1982, Mr. Buckwalter spent approximately three hours with Respondent in which time he visited two classes and had a conference with Respondent concerning the new curriculum for level 1 students. On November 18, 1982, Mr. Buckwalter made a follow-up visit concerning Respondent's lesson plans and objectives. Additionally, he demonstrated a lesson to one of Respondent's classes. On or about November 29, 1982, Respondent was formally observed by assistant principal, H. Elizabeth Tynes. Ms. Tynes has a wealth of experience lasting more than thirty years in both Hillsborough and Dade Counties. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of classroom management, teacher/student relationship and in a subcategory of assessment techniques. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7). Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of classroom management based on a large number of disruptive students in her music class and Respondent's inability to control the students' behavior through either verbal or nonverbal strategies. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in the area of teacher/student relationship based on her failure to demonstrate consistency as concerns student behavior, failing to praise good behavior and reprimand students for disruptive conduct. On another occasion, assistant principal Tynes listened to a musical program Respondent's students were giving over the intercom system. Ms. Tynes rated the program a "total disaster". Ms. Tynes and the principal were "ashamed" of what they heard from Respondent's music class. Respondent demonstrated skills preparation for the program as observed by Ms. Tynes. On May 19, 1983, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Katherine Dinkin, who was then principal of Dunbar Elementary School. Following the observation, Respondent was evaluated unacceptable in areas of classroom management, teacher/student relationship, and techniques of instruction. (Petitioner's Exhibit 17). Principal Dinkins observed that Respondent's students were not on task, the classroom was chaotic and the students only responded to directives of the Principal, as a Person of authority. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instructions based on Ms. Dinkin's observation that students were being taught at levels beyond their ability; class openings and closings were not done appropriately and Respondent failed to develop a plan for the individual needs, interests and abilities of students. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the category of teacher/student relationships based on her failure to demonstrate warmth toward the students and her inability to command respect. During this period in 1983, principal Dinkins prescribed help for Respondent as concerns observing and working with other teachers for guidance. On April 12, 1984, Respondent was again formally observed by principal Dinkins and rated unacceptable in classroom management and techniques of instructions. (Petitioner's Exhibit 21). Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of classroom management based on her demonstrated inability to keep students on task or to develop strategies to control their behavior. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of techniques of instructions based on an inadequately prepared lesson plan and an inability to deliver the instructional components to students. Principal Dinkins observed that the material Respondent attempted to teach was too complicated for the students and she failed to Properly sequence her instructions. Principal Dinkins, who was tendered and received as an expert in the areas of teacher observation and assessment, was unable to observe any continuum of improvement by Respondent over the extended period of Principal Dinkins' supervision. Principal Dinkins opined that Respondent deprived her students of the minimal educational experience in music. During the 1983-84 school year, Respondent again received help from Mr. Buckwalter. As part of this help, Mr. Buckwalter organized small study groups in order to improve instructions throughout the music education department. These groups met on September 28, October 19, November 9 and 30, 1983. Respondent was asked to become part of the study group. The study group was Particularly concerned with focusing on the scope and sequence of curriculum, students' achievement and implementation of certain aspects of the curriculum, particularly as concern level 1 and 2 students. On or about August 30, 1983, Mr. Buckwalter spent the day with Respondent and a new music teacher, Ronald Gold. On or about September 27, 1983, Mr. Buckwalter visited Respondent for approximately 3 and 1/2 hours in which time he visited three of her classes and again attempted to discuss some work with Respondent concerning student management techniques including the use of a seating chart. On or about October 18, 1983, Mr. Buckwalter visited Respondent approximately four hours during which time he visited several classes and observed her using ideas gleaned from the study group. On or about November 7, 1983, Mr. Buckwalter again visited with Respondent for approximately four hours. After the conference, he taught classes with her and implemented the use of instruments to enrich the class lesson as well as the implementation and use of progress charts. On or about December 9, 1983, Mr. Buckwalter visited with Respondent for approximately 3 hours. At this time, Mr. Buckwalter expressed concern in that Respondent was not clearly understanding the intent of the school board curriculum. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of classroom management, techniques of instructions, teacher/students relationships, assessment techniques and professional responsibility during her annual evaluation for the 1984-85 school year. On or about October 29, 1984, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by assistant principal, Edwardo Martinez. Although Respondent was rated acceptable, this class was not a typical situation but rather a rehearsal of a specific program. On other occasions, assistant principal Martinez had opportunities to walk by Respondent's classroom. He often noted loud noises emanating from her classroom. During these instances, he would enter the room and immediately settle the students down. On March 26, 1985, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Maybelline Truesdell, Principal of Dunbar Elementary. Based on this formal observation, Respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of classroom management, instructional techniques and teacher/student relationships. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). As a result of the unacceptable evaluation, Respondent was given a prescription form suggesting methods in which she could improve areas in which she was rated unacceptable. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). Respondent was rated unacceptable in the category of classroom management based on her inability to retain the students attention; her failure to open and close classes appropriately and her general observation of students being off task. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of instructional techniques based on the observation that she did not interact verbally with students; students were inappropriately excluded from participating in discussions of the lesson and Respondent did not use instructional methods/materials which were appropriate for the students' learning levels. (TR pages 30-35). Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of student/teacher relationships based on her improper focusing on a small number of students; inappropriately criticizing a student assistant in the presence of other students, and a failure to use sufficient positive interaction to maintain class control. On may 3, 1985, Respondent was again formally observed by Maybelline Truesdell and rated unacceptable in the areas of classroom management; instructional techniques; student/teacher relationships and assessment techniques. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of classroom management as she failed to properly discipline students; failed to maintain classroom control and students were off task. In the area of techniques of instruction, Respondent received an unacceptable rating in one category which remained unremediated pursuant to a prior prescription issued by Ms. Truesdell. Respondent was again rated unacceptable in the area of teacher/student relationship based on her inability to display any of the indicators considered necessary to become acceptable and her continued rejection of students who volunteered or attempted to participate; her failure to involve the entire class by focusing her attention on a small number of students to the exclusion of others and her failure to appropriately address students by their name rather than "you." (TR 39-41). Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of assessment techniques based on her failure to follow county and state guidelines for assessing students. Specifically, Respondent failed to provide substantial evidence of (documentation) to justify grades assigned to students and her grade books did not indicate if or when she was giving formal quizzes or tests. In addition, there was no letter grade or numerical indication in Respondent's grade books to gauge academic progress. Additionally, there was insufficient documentation in the student folders to back-up student progress or to otherwise substantiate the grades assigned to students. During the 1984-85 school year, Mr. Buckwalter returned to Dunbar Elementary to again assist Respondent. On September 6, 1984, Mr. Buckwalter visited Respondent for approximately three hours during which time he visited a class; co-taught a class and attempted to assist Respondent concerning improvement in areas of student behavior and management. On November 2, 1984, Mr. Buckwalter visited one of Respondent's classes. He thereafter visited Respondent on March 22, 1985 at which time he spent approximately two hours in her classroom. He taught five classes to demonstrate strategies of progressing students from one level to another. He thereafter conferred with Respondent concerning the need to reflect a positive attitude toward students.. On March 29, 1985, Mr. Buckwalter again visited Respondent. Respondent was then using materials suggested by Mr. Buckwalter although she utilized them in a "rote" manner and included too many concepts within a single lesson. On April 18, 1985, Mr. Buckwalter returned to observe Respondent. The students were going over materials that had been taught in past years and the new curriculum was not being taught. On May 23, 1985, Mr. Buckwalter spent four hours with Respondent. They concentrated on the development of lesson plans; planned activities concerning class objectives and stressed the need to remain-on one concept until it was understood by a majority of the class. Respondent's evaluation for the 1985-86 school year was unacceptable in the areas of subject matter knowledge instructional techniques; teacher/student relationships; assessment techniques and Professional responsibility. On October 10, 1985, Respondent was formally observed by assistant principal William J. Kinney. Respondent was rated acceptable in the area of assessment techniques. Mr. Kinney offered certain suggestions to Respondent including the fact that the lesson taught would be more beneficial by more student participation. Respondent was advised of a need to immediately cure problems respecting students who were observed hitting bells with pencils and pens and the need to immediately address problems when students were observed off task. During the school year, Mr. Kinney made numerous informal visits to Respondent's classroom at which times he observed loud noises coming from Respondent's classes, chanting, fighting, furniture pushed into the walls, student misbehavior and other indications that Respondent's classroom management was ineffective. On December 3, 1985, Respondent was officially observed by principal Truesdell and was rated unacceptable in the areas of instructional and assessment techniques. (Petitioner's Exhibit 6). Respondent was made aware of her continuing problems and was provided with an acknowledged receipt of a summary of the conference-for-the-record dated Thursday, December 12, 1985. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7). Additionally, Respondent was given specific instructions in the form of a prescription concerning her grade book and instructed to strictly follow the conduct prescribed. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7). In the opinion of principal Truesdell (received as an expert in the area of teacher assessment teacher evaluation, teacher observation in the role of school principal) Respondent was unacceptable for further employment by the school district, was continuing to demonstrate ineffective classroom management, instructional techniques, assessment techniques and had done so for such an extended period of time that improvement appeared unlikely. Additionally, Ms. Truesdell considered that Respondent was unable to make sufficient competent analysis of students' individual needs and potential in the classroom; failed to ensure and promote the accomplishment of tasks to the proper selection and use of appropriate techniques; failed to establish routine and procedures for the use of materials and physical movements of students in her class; failed to employ the appropriate techniques to correct inappropriate student behavior; failed to demonstrate competence in evaluating learning and goal achievement by her students and failed to demonstrate appropriate interpersonal skills required of a teacher to maintain discipline and effectively teach in a classroom environment. On February 7, 1986, Respondent was officially observed in her class by Marilyn Von Seggern, music supervisor for Dade County and by Ms. McCalla, assistant principal at Dunbar, under the provision of the TADS program. (Petitioner's Exhibit 23). Following that observation, Respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of subject matter knowledge, instructional techniques, assessment techniques and teacher/student relationships. In the Professional opinion of Marilyn Von Seggern, received herein as an expert in the areas of music education, teacher observation and assessment, Respondent was depriving students of the minimum educational experience and had serious problems concerning her ability to communicate and relate to students respecting the music curriculum. On January 16, 1986, Respondent was formally observed in her classroom by Dunbar's assistant principal Carolyn Louise McCalla, and was rated unacceptable in the areas of classroom management, techniques of instruction and assessment techniques. (Petitioner's Exhibit 24). Based on Mr. Buckwalter's repeated observation of Respondent's classroom and teaching techniques, Mr. Buckwalter opined that Respondent's students were not receiving the minimum education required by the Dade County School System as concerns the curriculum for music. As example, on one occasion Mr. Buckwalter observed Respondent presenting an organized lesson to students which was quite successful and upon his return approximately five minutes later, Mr. Buckwalter observed that Respondent was not teaching the new successful lesson but had instead reverted back to an old lesson and her students were observed inattentive and generally off task. (TR pages 250-254). On March 26, 1986, Respondent was having difficulty maintaining her students' attention to the point that the students were out of control. While Respondent was attempting to stop a certain student from chanting and beating on the desk, Respondent tried to restrain the student and in so doing, Respondent broke her watch band and scratched the student on her face. The student required hospitalization and although the injury was deemed an accident, Respondent's lack of classroom control and management played a major part in causing the incident. Pursuant to a request by the School Board, Respondent, on April 30, 1986, was evaluated by psychiatrist, Gail D. Wainger. Dr. Wainger took a medical history from Respondent which included Respondent's revelation of previous psychiatrist treatment. Dr. Wainger observed that Respondent had a very flattened, blunted affect with little emotional expression. She related that this was a sign of a patient who was recovering from a major psychiatric episode. Additionally, Respondent showed difficulty recalling recent events. Dr. Wainger diagnosed Respondent as having chronic residual schizophrenia with a possible personality disorder including impulsive and avoidance features. Dr. Wainger opined that a person with such diagnosis would have difficulty being an authority figure and that this would be especially Problematic for students who needed positive reinforcement. On April 28, 1986, Respondent attended a conference-for-the-record with the school board's administrative staff. A past history of performance and evaluations was reviewed. Additionally, the investigative report concerning the injury of the student which occurred March 26, 1986 was also reviewed. Respondent was informed that the matter would be referred to the School Board for possible disciplinary action. (Petitioner's Exhibit 31). On May 21, 1986, the School Board took action to suspend Respondent's employment and initiated the instant dismissal proceeding against her. (Petitioner's Exhibit 32). For the 1985-86 school year, Respondent's annual evaluation indicated that she was rated unacceptable in five of seven categories and was not recommended for re-employment. (Petitioner's Exhibit 13).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner, School Board of Dade County, enter a Final Order sustaining the suspension, without pay, of Respondent, Gloria E. Walker and dismissing Respondent, Gloria E. Walker as a teacher in the Dade County Public Schools. That the Petitioner, Ralph D. Turlington, as Commissioner of Education, entered a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of incompetency and incapacity. It is further Recommended that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's Florida Teacher's Certificate No. 294140, issued by the Department of Education, State of Florida, for a period of three years based on incompetence and incapacity. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of February, 1987.
The Issue Respondent is charged in a five-count Administrative Complaint with violations of Subsection 231.2615(1)(c), Florida Statutes (gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude); Subsection 231.2615(1)(f), Florida Statutes (personal conduct which seriously reduces her effectiveness as an employee of the school board); Subsection 231.2615(1)(i), Florida Statutes (violation of the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida as prescribed by the State Board of Education); Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code (failure to make a reasonable effort to protect a student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental health and/or physical safety), and Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code (intentionally exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement).
Findings Of Fact Respondent has continuously held Florida Educator's Certificate 734274, covering the area of English, since 1996. It is valid through June 30, 2006. Respondent was first employed by the Holmes County School District in November 2000 and served as a language arts teacher for seventh and eighth grades at Poplar Springs School for the remainder of the 2000-2001 School Year. During the 2000-2001 School Year, Respondent disciplined students in her seventh and eighth grade language arts (English) classes as more specifically described below. All instances of Respondent's discipline were employed in response to male students talking inappropriately or "cutting up" in her classroom so as to detract from the educational process. On one occasion, Respondent placed two pieces of masking tape over the mouth of student C.R. because he was talking in class. C.R. had the tape over his mouth for the remainder of the class period (approximately fifteen to twenty minutes). A science teacher saw C.R. in the hall, en route to his next class, and told him to take the tape off his mouth. Respondent placed masking tape over the mouth of student J.F. when he laughed out loud after being warned not to continue talking in class. J.F. had the tape over his mouth for approximately twenty minutes, until the bell rang to go to his next class. Respondent directed student T.J. to place tape on his own mouth after he had talked in class. The tape remained on his mouth until the end of the class period, or for approximately fifteen minutes. Respondent placed tape over the mouth of student W.W. because he was talking in class. W.W. had the tape over his mouth for the remainder of the class period, which ended approximately thirty minutes later. W.W. experienced difficulty breathing with the tape over his mouth, because he had a cold at the time and was having trouble breathing through his nose. Respondent placed masking tape over the mouth of student C.B. for talking in class. The tape remained on his mouth until the end of the class period, or approximately thirty minutes. All of the foregoing five students admitted that Respondent had warned them at least once not to continue talking, before she resorted to taping their mouths, but each of these students also was embarrassed as a result of sitting through the remainder of the class, surrounded by other students, while their mouths were taped. Also during the 2000-2001 School Year, Respondent required student C.R. to leave her classroom, stand outside in the hallway with his back against the wall, arms extended, palms up, and hold a stack of three or four heavy dictionaries for approximately fifteen minutes. This method of punishment caused C.R. to experience physical distress in his back. Respondent also required student J.C. to leave her classroom, stand outside in the hallway with his back against the wall, arms extended, palms up, and hold a stack of seven or eight heavy dictionaries, stacked to his chin, for approximately twenty minutes. This method of punishment caused J.C. to experience physical distress. His knees were buckling, and he was slumping against the wall. Respondent initially required student L.C. to leave her classroom, stand outside in the hallway with his back against the wall, arms extended, palms up, and hold a stack of twelve dictionaries. However, because the books were stacked almost two feet higher than L.C.'s head, Respondent removed four of them from his arms. L.C. was then required to hold the remaining eight dictionaries for approximately fifteen to twenty minutes. Respondent also required student J.H. to leave her classroom, stand outside in the hallway with his back against the wall, arms extended, palms up, and hold a stack of six or seven heavy dictionaries stacked up to his eyes, for approximately twenty minutes. Respondent required student E.M., who had talked out of turn early in the class period, to leave her classroom, stand outside in the hallway with his back against the wall, arms extended, palms up, and hold a stack of six or seven heavy dictionaries for approximately ten to fifteen minutes. At one point during this ordeal, Respondent came out of the classroom and felt E.M.'s forehead to see if he were sweating. When she found that he was not sweating, she returned to her classroom, leaving E.M. outside, still holding the dictionaries. Most students who testified indicated they were disciplined toward the end of a class period, and accordingly, their discipline was automatically ended by the change of classes' bell. However, the foregoing incident, when E.M. was disciplined with books, suggests that Respondent's theory concerning that type of discipline was that once a misbehaving student began to sweat, he had experienced enough punishment. A teacher saw E.M. in the hallway and went to fetch the Principal, Jerry Dixon. Mr. Dixon observed E.M. to be "in a strain," tired, and drooping. When Mr. Dixon discovered what was going on, he told E.M. to go back into Respondent's classroom and take the books with him. Each of the five students disciplined with books was embarrassed by the process, and the posture of holding the dictionaries caused most of them discomfort. After the incident with E.M., Mr. Dixon counseled with Respondent. He advised her that disciplining students as E.M. had been disciplined with the dictionaries was unacceptable and that if she felt future situations were bad enough to warrant punishment, she should send the misbehaving child to his office for him to administer appropriate discipline. In early April 2001, Respondent approached student T.W. at his desk, got down "in his face," and told him that if he did not behave, she would paddle him as hard as she had paddled student C.R., and that was "pretty damn hard." C.R. testified that Respondent had, in fact, actually paddled him, but apparently he was not intimidated or concerned over the paddling. Also, T.W. was not intimidated by Respondent's threat, because he smiled and laughed. However, T.W. was so concerned about Respondent's use of profanity that he approached Principal Dixon in the cafeteria that day and asked the principal if it were "right" for a teacher to curse at a student. Subsequently, in the principal's office, T.W. explained to Mr. Dixon the situation concerning Respondent's use of profanity. Principal Dixon also then learned for the first time that Respondent had been taping her students' mouths as a form of discipline. Mr. Dixon investigated further by talking with other students who verified all or some of T.W.'s account. Mr. Dixon testified that he also believed the incident of Respondent disciplining J.C. with dictionaries in the hallway (see Finding of Fact 11) had occurred after he had told Respondent not to use that procedure. On April 5, 2001, Mr. Dixon met with Respondent to discuss the allegations. In their meeting, Respondent admitted placing tape over students' mouths. She also admitted cursing at T.W. She told Mr. Dixon she had been mad and upset at the time. On April 10, 2001, Mr. Dixon issued Respondent a letter of reprimand for her conduct. In this letter he reminded her that he had, at the time of E.M.'s discipline, told her she was supposed to send students to the office for discipline, not undertake it herself. On June 6, 2001, Mr. Dixon notified Respondent that he would not recommend her reappointment for the 2001-2002 School Year. His decision to not recommend Respondent's appointment was based, at least in part, upon Respondent's admitted inappropriate discipline and use of profanity. There is no evidence Respondent's disciplinary method of causing students to hold heavy books while excluded from the classroom learning environment was effective in improving their behavior in the classroom. There is no evidence this disciplinary methodology was sanctioned by the School District, Principal Dixon, or any recognized educational text. Indeed, it was not sanctioned, and it is certain that the boys being disciplined were not being taught any curriculum while they were in the hallway. There is no evidence Respondent's method of taping her students' mouths shut and deliberately embarrassing them in the classroom before their peers was effective in teaching them to be quiet in class. There also is no evidence that this disciplinary methodology was sanctioned by the School District, the principal, or any recognized educational text. Indeed, the evidence is contrary. The disciplinary methods employed by Respondent were not approved or condoned by the Holmes County School Board or by the Poplar Springs School Administration. Her methods were inappropriate. Her inappropriate discipline and use of profanity with her Middle School students exposed them to unnecessary embarrassment and disparagement at a time in their development when they were particularly emotionally vulnerable. Her methods of discipline and use of profanity with her Middle School students seriously reduced her effectiveness as an employee of the Holmes County School Board. Respondent failed to take reasonable efforts to protect her students from conditions harmful to learning and/or to their mental health and/or physical safety by employing these inappropriate methods of discipline.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order which: Finds Respondent guilty of violating Subsections 231.2615(1)(f)and (i) and Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e), Florida Administrative Code; Suspends Respondent's Educator's Certificate for a period of one year; Requires that, as a condition precedent to Respondent's re-employment as an educator in Florida following the suspension, Respondent submit to a psychological evaluation by a qualified provider as required by the Recovery Network Program; Requires that Respondent follow the recommended course of treatment, if any, resulting from her evaluation and that she provide written verification to the Department of her successful completion of the evaluation and/or treatment; and Provides that if Respondent is reemployed as an educator in Florida, she be placed on three years' probation, upon such terms as the Education Practices Commission deems appropriate, including but not limited to successful completion of a college level course in the area of classroom management. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of November, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 12th day of November, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda Crawford Post Office Box 573 Ashford, Alabama 36312-0573 J. David Holder, Esquire 24357 U.S. Highway 331, South Santa Rosa Beach, Florida 32459 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
