The Issue Whether the Board refused to re-employ Ms. Smith as a teacher's aide for the 1985-1986 school year in retaliation for a Complaint that she filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations in January, 1983?
Findings Of Fact Ms. Smith is a graduate of a high school in the Gadsden County School system. Ms. Smith successfully completed a business education course at Gadsden Vo-Tech after receiving her high school diploma. Ms. Smith was rated qualified to work as a teacher's aide in the Gadsden County School system by the Central Administration office in 1982 and in 1984. Ms. Smith was employed as a teacher's aide at Gretna Elementary School (hereinafter referred to as "Gretna") during the 1982-1983 school year. She began her employment at Gretna in October, 1982. Ms. Smith's immediate supervisor at Gretna during the first month of her employment was the Principal, Mr. Witt Campbell. Mr. Campbell left Gretna in November, 1982. For the remainder of the 1982-1983 school year, Ms. Smith's immediate supervisor was Rosa Barkley, who replaced Mr. Witt as Principal. Ms. Smith was pregnant during the 1982-1983 school year. On January 24, 1983, Ms. Smith became ill because of her pregnancy and had to go to the hospital. Ms. Smith did not return to Gretna during the remainder of the school year. On March 14, 1983, Ms. Barkley went to visit with Ms. Smith at her home. Ms. Smith told Ms. Barkley that she would return to work approximately two weeks after her baby was born. This meant that Ms. Smith would return after the start of the 1983-1984 school year. Ms. Barkley helped Ms. Smith request a leave of absence. This leave of absence was approved by the Board on March 29, 1983. In March, 1983, Ms. Barkley gave Ms. Smith a satisfactory rating on a Gadsden County Non-instructional Personnel Assessment form which was filed with the Board. Ms. Barkley gave Ms. Smith the benefit of the doubt in completing this form because Ms. Smith had been under Ms. Barkley's supervision only from November, 1982 to January, 1983. Ms. Barkley also recommended to the Superintendent that Ms. Smith be re-employed for the 1983-1984 school year. By letter dated June 17, 1983, Ms. Barkley asked the Superintendent to terminate Ms. Smith. Ms. Barkley made this request because she wanted to have an aide that would start the school year in August, 1983 and not in November, 1983, when Ms. Smith planned to return. Ms. Barkley indicated in the letter that Ms. Smith had been absent because of her pregnancy. The Superintendent, Mr. Bishop, decided to grant Ms. Barkley's request. The decision to terminate Ms. Smith was made by the Board and not by Ms. Barkley. Although the Superintendent generally relies heavily on the recommendation of a principal, the decision to terminate Ms. Smith was that of the Board. The Board, based upon the information it was provided, should have told Ms. Barkley, that a leave of absence, and not termination, was the proper remedy to Ms. Barkley's problem. By letter dated July 27, 1983, Ms. Smith was terminated by the Board. Ms. Smith filed a Complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations on January 19, 1984, alleging sex discrimination against Ms. Barkley. Upon the filing of the Complaint the Board investigated and decided that Ms. Smith should be rehired. The Board realized that it had caused the problem and not Ms. Barkley. Ms. Smith was offered the first teacher's aide position available. The position was at Chattahoochee Elementary School (hereinafter referred to as "Chattahoochee"). Ms. Smith accepted the position and began work at Chattahoochee in March, 1984. Ms. Smith worked with fourth grade Chapter 1 children (children who have been disadvantaged with regard to their educational opportunities). Ms. Martha Downs was her teacher. While at Chattahoochee, Ms. Smith had difficulty performing her duties as a teacher's aide. Her primary area of deficiency was in math. Mr. Corbin Scott, the Principal at Chattahoochee, attempted to help Ms. Smith by having Ms. Ella Ponder, a helping teacher, assist her. Although it was alleged that Ms. Smith was required to take a Criteria Reference Test normally taken by fourth graders, the evidence failed to support this allegation. Based upon Ms. Smith's poor performance, Mr. Corbin did not recommend that Ms. Smith be returned to Chattahoochee for the next school year. Although Ms. Smith admitted that she has some problems with math she failed to accept the fact that she was not adequately performing her duties as a teacher's aide. Instead, she believed that Mr. Corbin expected her to "teach" and that he was unfair when he did not recommend her continued employment at Chattahoochee for the next school year. Ms. Smith believed that the Complaint that she filed in January, 1984, affected the way that she was treated at Chattahoochee. This unfounded belief affected Ms. Smith's attitude while at Chattahoochee and later. The Board decided that the period of time that Ms. Smith was employed at Chattahoochee (March, 1984 to June, 1984) was too short. Therefore, in an effort to be fair with Ms. Smith and to settle the dispute with Ms. Smith, the Board decided to place Ms. Smith in another teacher's aide position for the 1984- 1985 school year. During the Summer of 1984, Ms. Smith and the Board settled the Complaint which Ms. Smith had filed in January, 1984. Pursuant to this settlement, Ms. Smith dismissed her Complaint for back-pay and her re-employment at Gretna. Ms. Smith was employed at Gretna during the 1984- 1985 school year as a teacher's aide pursuant to the settlement. Ms. Barkley, Ms. Smith's immediate supervisor at Gretna, was not consulted before the Board decided to return Ms. Smith to Gretna. Principals of schools are not consulted by the Board before employees are assigned to their schools. Although Ms. Smith agreed to return to Gretna as part of the settlement of her Complaint against the Board, she believed that Ms. Barkley would not treat her properly. This belief, which was unfounded, affected Ms. Smith's attitude toward Ms. Barkley and her job during the 1984-1985 school year. Ms. Smith was assigned to assist two teachers for most of the 1984- 1985 school year at Gretna: Ms. Corine D. Palmer and Ms. Charlotte Price. Neither Ms. Palmer nor Ms. Price talked to Ms. Smith about problems which they perceived in Ms. Smith's performance. Ms. Price's attitude was that she was there to teach students and, therefore, she did not want to be bothered with Ms. Smith. Ms. Palmer's attitude was to work around Ms. Smith; she gave up trying to use Ms. Smith effectively because of Ms. Smith's lack of effort. Both ladies essentially stuck their heads in the sand and ignored the problem since neither of them were responsible for evaluating Ms. Smith. Employees at Gretna were required to sign in and sign out on a sheet provided for them at the administrative office of the school. During the school year Ms. Smith was late arriving at school a total of fifteen times. Most of those times she was late more than a few minutes. She was late seven times during 1984 and eight times in 1985. At least three other teachers' aides (Inez Morris, Ida Miller and Mary Wright) were late to school more often than Ms. Smith. While Ms. Smith received an unsatisfactory rating for punctuality for the school year, the other three aides received a satisfactory rating. Many of the times that the other three aides were late, they were late only a few minutes. When they were late more than a few minutes, they notified Ms. Barkley or someone else at Gretna that they would be late, and indicated why. Ms. Smith, on the other hand, did not always notify Ms. Barkley or anyone else that she would be late, or indicate why she was late until she was asked. During the first week of the 1984-1985 school year (August 20-24, 1984), Ms. Smith was late three times. Ms. Smith rode to school with another employee who was late getting to school. On August 27, 1984, Ms. Barkley discussed Ms. Smith's lateness with her and gave her a letter indicating that she was expected to be at school at 8:05 a.m. Ms. Smith was late once during each of the next three weeks. She corrected the problem, however, by arranging to ride with someone else. After the week of September 10-14, 1984, Ms. Smith was late only one other time during 1984. During 1985, Ms. Smith was late at least once a week during seven of the eleven weeks ending March 15, 1985. In addition to being late reporting to school, Ms. Smith was late going to her assigned classroom after arriving at school and after lunch. Ms. Smith was required to be in her morning class no later than 8:15 a.m. Her lateness was reported by Ms. Palmer and Ms. Price and was also noted by Ms. Barkley. Ms. Smith was in the employee lounge on many occasions when she should have been in a class. On October 15, 1984, Ms. Barkley spoke with all of the aides about being in the lounge in the morning when they should be in their classes. Despite Ms. Barkley's comments, that afternoon Ms. Smith was in the lounge when she should not have been, and she continued to be late to her assigned classroom in the mornings. Ms. Palmer and Ms. Price told Ms. Barkley that Ms. Smith was late to class. Both of them tended to do without her and to avoid any effort to try to correct the problem. On February 15, 1985, Ms. Barkley gave Ms. Smith a letter that indicated that Ms. Smith was in the lounge when she was not supposed to be. A similar letter was given to Ida Miller and Dorothy Smith. Ms. Miller and Ms. Dorothy Smith corrected the problem. Ms. Smith did not. Ms. Barkley rated Ms. Smith's attendance as "unsatisfactory". This rating was not based upon the number of days that she was absent. It was based upon the number of times that Ms. Smith was not in her assigned classroom. Ms. Barkley kept a notebook in which she noted the dates of some events involving employees' actions. She has kept these notes since she became a principal. Most of the notes concerning Ms. Smith did not give the reason for absences or lateness. Ms. Smith did not, however, always report the reason for her lateness. Most of the observations involved lateness and absences. The notes concerning Ms. Smith were provided to the Board because she was requested to provide any documentation concerning Ms. Smith. She did not know where her other notes were. Ms. Barkley noted the conference she had with Ms. Smith on August 27, 1984. In this note, she referred to Ms. Smith as "Ms. Attitude." This notation and a later notation that Ms. Smith was in the lounge one day "chomping" show a lack of judgment by Ms. Barkley in the manner that Ms. Barkley referred to Ms. Smith. This lack of judgment is not sufficient, however, to prove that Ms. Barkley terminated Ms. Smith at the end of the 1984-1985 school year in retaliation for the Complaint filed by Ms. Smith in 1983. Ms. Barkley's explanation for these notations is rejected. Ms. Barkley talked to teachers and other aides about Ms. Smith. Ms. Barkley did not, however, limit her inquiries to Ms. Smith. Ms. Barkley was responsible for the supervision of all of the employees at Gretna. She was very active in managing her school. She observed her employees in the halls of the school, in the lounge and in the classroom. She did not single out Ms. Smith. Ms. Barkley asked teachers and other aides about all employees and she checked up on all her employees. Ms. Smith was observed in class by Ms. Barkley. Ms. Smith was seen giving wrong answers and performing sloppy work. When Ms. Barkley talked to Ms. Smith about some of her problems, Ms. Smith's attitude was defensive. She did not believe that she had any problems and believed that Ms. Barkley was being unfair to her. She therefore did not indicate that she agreed with Ms. Barkley or that she would make any efforts to correct her problems when Ms. Barkley spoke to her about her problems. Ms. Price indicated that Ms. Smith had evidenced a poor attitude about her performance with her also. On March 15, 1985, Ms. Barkley met with Ms. Smith and informed her that she would not be recommended for employment during the 1985-1986 school year. Ms. Barkley sent a letter to the Board dated March 15, 1985, recommending that Ms. Smith not be re-employed during the 1985-1986 school year. Ms. Barkley also rated Ms. Smith "unsatisfactory" on five characteristics listed on a Gadsden County Non-instructional Personnel Assessment form dated March 8, 1985. This form was signed by Ms. Smith on March 15, 1985. Ms. Smith was given an unsatisfactory rating for utilization of time, compliance with school and district policies, attendance, punctuality and leadership. This evaluation was similar to the evaluation given Ms. Smith by Mr. Corbin. Ms. Barkley, Ms. Price and Ms. Palmer were given a Personal Reference Form for Teacher Aide Applicants by Ms. Smith. Ms. Smith told Ms. Price and Ms. Palmer that the forms were going to be used by her to apply for a job outside of its school system. Although both teachers had misgivings about Ms. Smith's ability and did not want her back as a teacher's aide, they both liked her personally and wanted to help her find a job. They also wanted to avoid any conflict with Ms. Smith. Therefore, even though they should have known better, they completed the forms giving Ms. Smith affair rating and indicating that they would employ her as a teacher's aide. Ms. Barkley completed the form given to her by Ms. Smith on April 30, 1985. She gave her a poor rating and indicated that she would not employ her as a teacher's aide. Ms. Barkley had completed a Gadsden County Non-instructional Personnel Assessment form when Ms. Smith left Gretna in 1983. Ms. Barkley gave Ms. Smith a favorable evaluation. She did so, however, because Ms. Smith had only worked at Gretna during the 1982-1983 school year for approximately four months and Ms. Barkley had only been there during three of those months. Therefore, Ms. Barkley did not believe it would be fair to give Ms. Smith an unfavorable evaluation. The Board did not refuse to re-employ Ms. Smith for the 1985-1986 school year in retaliation for any dispute between Ms. Smith and Ms. Barkley or any other person. Ms. Smith was not re-employed because she lacked the necessary job skills to work as a teacher's aide and had failed to perform adequately. On or about July 15, 1985, Ms. Smith filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations alleging that the Board had discriminated against her on the basis of retaliation. The Executive Director of the Florida Commission on Human Relations issued a "Determination: No Cause" on May 12, 1987. Ms. Smith filed a Petition for Rehearing. On or about July 13, 1987, the Executive Director entered a "Redetermination: No Cause." Ms. Smith filed a Petition for Relief. The Florida Commission on Human Relations forwarded the Petition the Division of Administrative Hearings by order dated August 18, 1987.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Ms. Smith's Petition for Relief be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 9th day of March, 1988. APPENDIX The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 2. 3 Irrelevant. 4-5 3. 6-7 22. 8 4. 9 23. 10 5. 11 12. The date of termination was July 27, 1983. 12 10. 13-14 13. 15 20-22. 16 10. 17 8. 18 9. 19 22. 20 23. 21 11. The evidence failed to prove that the Board acted solely on the recommendation of Ms. Barkley. 22 25. 23 26. 24 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 25-26 27. 27 28. 28 While Ms. Smith may have corrected the "ride problem" she continued to be late during the 1984-1985 school year. 29-31 27. 32-33 33. 34-36 Although these proposed findings of fact are correct they are irrelevant. 37 41. 38-39 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 40 Irrelevant and not supported by the weight of the evidence. 41 35. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Irrelevant. 44 35. 45-46 36. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Although it is true that Ms. Smith did improve her punctuality arriving at Gretna during 1984 she failed to continue to arrive on time during the rest of the school year. See 28. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 45. 2 21. 3 10 and 11. 4 14. 5 16. 6 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 16. 7 16-18. 8 20 and 22. 9-10 37. 11 41. 12 42. 13 28 and 33. 14 28-29 and 33. 15 45. COPIES FURNISHED TO: EDWARD J. GRUNEWALD, ESQUIRE LEGAL SERVICES OF NORTH FLORIDA, INC. 400 NORTH MADISON STREET QUINCY, FLORIDA 32351 CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON, ESQUIRE 211 EAST JEFFERSON STREET QUINCY, FLORIDA 32351 DONALD A. GRIFFIN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 325 JOHN KNOX ROAD BUILDING F, SUITE 240 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1925 DANA BAIRD GENERAL COUNSEL 325 JOHN KNOX ROAD BUILDING F, SUITE 240 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1925
The Issue Whether just cause exists to sustain Respondent’s dismissal from employment with the Miami-Dade County School Board.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a duly-constituted district school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within Miami-Dade County, Florida. Article IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const. In 2010, Whitley started working for the School Board as a school security monitor. During the 2016-2017 school year, Whitley was assigned to Thomas Jefferson Middle School (“Thomas Jefferson”) as a security monitor. He remains employed in that role at Thomas Jefferson presently. Whitley’s job duties and responsibilities include, but are not limited to, maintaining the safety of the children, ensuring the children make it to class on time, assisting with any problems that may be going on in the school, and monitoring the security cameras. At all times relevant to the proceeding, Respondent has been employed by the School Board pursuant to a continuing contract. The incident giving rise to this proceeding occurred on February 6, 2017. On February 6, 2017, Whitley was patrolling his assigned hall and noticed that M.G., a 13-year-old sixth grader, was out of class and sitting at Respondent’s desk in the hallway. Whitley requested that M.G. get out of the chair, and M.G. refused to get out of the desk. According to M.G., after M.G. refused, Whitley flipped the desk while he was seated, which caused M.G. to fall and hit his head on the floor. There is conflicting evidence as to what happened when Whitley approached the desk (“incident”). At hearing, M.G. credibly testified that he reported the incident to Principal Robin Atkins the same day and that he also got an ice pack for his head. Almost a month later, the Office of Professional Standards opened an investigation regarding the incident. Afterward, Respondent was notified that M.G. accused him of flipping the desk that he was sitting in and causing him to hit his head as a result. In 2017, law enforcement interviewed Respondent. The matter was ultimately turned over to the School Board's General Investigative Unit (“GIU”). The investigation took approximately two years to conclude. Even though Thomas Jefferson maintained security footage and recorded videos of the hallway where the incident occurred, no video footage existed for anyone to review regarding the incident. Based on its investigation, on or about May 30, 2019, GIU determined that there was probable cause to support the allegation that Respondent had violated School Board Policy 4210, Standards of Ethical Conduct; 4210.01, Code of Ethics; and 4213, Student Supervision and Welfare. Respondent learned about the determination soon thereafter. After summer break, when Respondent returned to work, on or about August 27, 2019, Carlos Diaz, the district director of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards conducted a conference-for-the-record (“CFR”) meeting to discuss the pending allegations from the GIU case. Respondent was present at the CFR with his union representative. Following the CFR, the Disciplinary Review Team (“DRT”) met. DRT considered Respondent’s repeated and similar conduct for inappropriate contact with students and Respondent’s prior directives in its decision to discipline Respondent. DRT recommended that Respondent be terminated. The recommendation was adopted by the School Board. Prior Disciplinary History During his employment with the School Board, Whitley has been disciplined twice regarding inappropriate touching of students prior to the incident. The School Board kept a record of Respondent’s discipline in Whitley’s personnel file. On or about April 16, 2013, Whitley received a written reprimand after an investigation concluded that he shoved and touched a student’s shoulder repeatedly. Whitley’s reprimand directed Respondent to “[r]efrain from any physical touching of students.” In November 2013, Whitley was suspended for 12 workdays without pay after an investigation concluded that Respondent inappropriately picked up and dropped a student to the ground. The CFR memorandum regarding Respondent’s November 2013 occurrence directed Whitley to: “adhere to School Board Policies 4210, Standards of Ethical Conduct; 4210.01, Code of Ethics; and 4213, Student Supervision and Welfare”; “refrain from inappropriate communications with students”; and “refrain from inappropriate physical contact with students.” Hearing At the final hearing, M.G. provided persuasive credible testimony regarding the incident. He testified that he was sitting in Whitley’s chair in the hall. M.G. also admitted that he refused to move and told Respondent “no” when told to move. Whitley testified that M.G. “jumped” out of the chair. The undersigned does not credit Whitley’s testimony based on his contradictory statements about the incident, which diminish the trustworthiness of his testimony.1 Findings of Ultimate Fact Accordingly, the undersigned finds that M.G.’s credible testimony established that Whitley initiated contact with M.G., grabbed the desk to lean in, and flipped M.G., who was seated, out of the desk. As a result of Whitley’s actions, M.G. landed in a manner where his “hand hit the ground,” head hit the concrete floor, and, by doing so, jeopardized M.G.’s health, safety, and welfare.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order: finding Respondent in violation of rules 6A-5.056(2) and (4), 6A-10.081, and School Board Policies 4210, 4210.01, and 4213 as charged; and upholding Respondent's termination from employment for just cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of October, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. MCKINNEY 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 29th day of October, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher J. La Piano, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132 (eServed) Branden M. Vicari, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761 (eServed) Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Respondent, Joy Deal (Respondent or Ms. Deal), committed misconduct as alleged by the School Board of Sarasota County (School Board), and, if so, whether the School Board had just cause to terminate her employment.
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Personnel Petitioner is responsible for operating the public schools in the Sarasota County School District, including Sarasota High School (Sarasota High). The School Board is responsible for hiring, firing, and overseeing both instructional employees and non-instructional employees within Sarasota County, Florida. Respondent has been an employee the School Board for 22 years. She has worked as an administrative secretary, but relevant to these proceedings, Ms. Deal was employed at Sarasota High as an SSP-5 Attendance Clerk (Attendance Clerk).5 David Jones (Principal Jones) is Sarasota High's principal and has been employed by the School Board since 2005. He previously served as a math teacher, assistant principal, middle school principal, and principal of another high school. He became the principal at Sarasota High at the start of the 2016/2017 school year, replacing Jeffrey Hradek (Principal Hradek). Sarasota High's administrative team was made up of Principal Jones and numerous assistant principals. Both Ryan Chase and Becky Moyer served as assistant principals under Principal Jones during the 2016/2017, 2017/2018, and 2018/2019 school years. Principal Jones, Assistant Principal Chase, and Assistant Principal Moyer all supervised Respondent during these years at different times. Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) There is a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the School Board and the Sarasota Classified, Teachers Association (SC/TA). Ms. Deal is a member of the SC/TA and subject to the CBA. Article XXI of the CBA (Disciplinary Actions) provides for progressive discipline, with termination of employment as the last step of the disciplinary process: Scope of Article This article covers actions involving oral and written warning, written reprimands, suspensions, demotions, dismissals, or reductions in grade or pay with prejudice. 5 "SSP-5" means Salary Schedule P-5. Disciplinary action may not be taken against an employee except for just cause, and this must be substantiated by sufficient evidence which supports the recommended disciplinary action. All facts pertaining to a disciplinary action shall be developed as promptly as possible. Actions under this Article shall be promptly initiated after all the facts have been made known to the official responsible for taking the actions. * * * An employee whom disciplinary action is to be taken may appeal through the grievance procedure that proposal. An employee against whom action is to be taken under this Article shall have the right to review all of the information relied upon to support the proposed action and shall be given a copy upon request. The Union shall be provided with a copy of all correspondence that is related to the action of the employee the Union is representing. The employee and his/her representative shall be afforded reasonable amount of time to prepare and present appropriate responses to the proposed actions under this article, through Step One of the Grievance Process. This amount of time is to be mutually agreed upon by the parties. * * * Previous charges or actions that have been brought forth by the administration may be cited against employee if these previous acts are reasonably related to the existing charge. All previous charges or actions must have been shared with the employee. Progressive Discipline The discipline, dismissal, demotion, and suspension of any employee shall be for just cause. Where just cause warrants such action(s), an employee may be demoted, suspended, or dismissed upon recommendation of the immediate supervisor to the Superintendent of Schools. Except in cases that constitute a real immediate danger to the district or [sic] the other flagrant violation, progressive discipline shall be administered as follows: Verbal reprimand (written notation placed in site file). Written reprimand filed in personnel and site files. Suspension with or without pay. Dismissal. Sarasota High's administration utilized meetings known as "Weingarten hearings" to make factual findings that would determine whether discipline was warranted for an employee. Employees were provided notice of the allegations against them and allowed to bring counsel or union representation to the hearing.6 Ms. Deal's Job Description As her job title implies, Ms. Deal was responsible for maintaining attendance data and monitoring the comings and goings of students throughout the school day. Ms. Deal's job duties were listed in Board Policy 6.42, Job Description 11 for Attendance Clerk, and include: 6 Article XXI sets forth what is commonly referred to as "Weingarten" rights. See In NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251 (1975)(holding unionized employee has right to notice and union representation, in instances where member reasonably believes investigatory meetings, conferences, or interviews may result in disciplinary action). Communicate daily with a variety of parents and staff. Assist office staff with answering the telephone and greeting parents. * * * Provide a safe and secure workplace. Model and maintain high ethical standards. * * * (15) Maintain confidentiality regarding school matters. * * * Respond to inquiries and concerns in a timely manner. Follow all School Board policies, rules and regulations. Exhibit interpersonal skills to work as an effective team member. Demonstrate support for the School District and its goals and priorities. Perform other incidental tasks consistent with the goals and objectives of this position. As an Attendance Clerk, Ms. Deal had constant interactions with students and parents when they checked in or out of school. She was privy to the students' personal information because she was the school employee with whom parents would interact if they were picking or dropping off a child (outside of normal school start and stop times) for personal or medical reasons. The attendance desk, Ms. Deal's workspace, was in Sarasota High's front office. The front office also houses the school clinic and the office of the At-Risk Coordinator, Keri Gartland. To enter either the clinic or Ms. Gartland's office, staff and students would have to go through the front office. The clinic also has a sliding glass window looking into the front office. The front office had an "outside door" which was open to the public, and a "campus door" to the school grounds. Anyone coming to school after the start of the school day would have to come in the front office through the outside door, stop at the attendance desk to sign in, and go through the campus door to get to class. Students leaving the school before normal exiting times were required to stop by the attendance desk to sign out of school, or have their parent sign them out. Employment History School administrators utilized memorandums of instruction (MOI) as a non-disciplinary means of working with employees to improve job performance. Although MOIs are not disciplinary in nature, they are intended to be corrective tools to focus an employee's attention on certain guidelines and acceptable standards of conduct in response to performance or behavioral issues. Principal Hradek supervised Ms. Deal from 2003 through 2016. During this period, Ms. Deal received non-disciplinary MOIs from Principal Hradek and assistant principals outlining the need to improve her level of cooperation while working with others, stop gossiping, be more tactful, be more courteous to parents and students, be more patient with and respectful of others, and accept guidance from others regarding these issues. On August 25, 2010, Ms. Deal was issued an MOI with regard to ethical deficiencies. The MOI focused on the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida (the Principles) which, as explained below, require employees to take reasonable precautions to distinguish between personal views and those of the School Board, not intentionally distort or misrepresent facts concerning an educational matter in direct or indirect public expression, and not make malicious or intentionally false statements about another employee. In her 2010 evaluation, Ms. Deal was rated "Effective," " Needs Improvement," and " Not Effective." Specifically, the evaluation indicated that Respondent needed improvement accepting constructive criticism and that she needed to increase her ability to accept guidance. The evaluation also stated Ms. Deal was ineffective in the areas of "Cooperation" and "Personal Relationships." Ms. Deal was again reminded to "increase her level of cooperation working with others [and] decrease gossip." Regarding her personal relationships, she was told to "increase tact, courtesy to parents and students, patience and respect for others." At some point during his tenure, Principal Hradek relieved Ms. Deal of her attendance duties and moved her out of the front office into Building Ms. Deal's duties in this new area were to provide secretarial support to the assistant principals, the school resource officer, and the Exceptional Student Education (ESE) liaison. Neither Principal Hradek nor the School Board changed Respondent's SSP-5 Attendance Clerk designation, even though she was no longer performing the duties of that job. In this new role, Respondent had less contact with parents and students. Principal Hradek explained: I think in the role of an attendance clerk with all the public interaction that [Ms. Deal] had with families and various staff it was – that was her flaw. She wanted to talk about things other than her job responsibilities or elicit her opinions. So, moving her over to Building 14, she did a very good job with the special needs students. Ms. Deal had no disciplinary issues or MOIs for a number of years. Then, on August 20, 2015, Principal Hradek issued an MOI to Ms. Deal for having loud outbursts and making profane statements in front of students and staff while contesting new parking procedures. Respondent was again reminded of her ethical obligations and the Principles. When Principal Jones replaced Principal Hradek, Principal Jones made the decision to move Ms. Deal back to the attendance desk in the front office to perform the duties she was designated to do as Attendance Clerk. Shortly after resuming her position as Attendance Clerk, Respondent received an MOI from Principal Jones addressing numerous issues including: her failure to take consistent breaks throughout the day; her use and volume of musical devices during school hours; her verbal communications with colleagues, parents, and students; her failure to bring her concerns to administration instead of voicing them to others; and her need to collaborate with and receive approval from an administrator prior to changing office procedures and protocols. Respondent was reminded again to adhere to acceptable ethical standards and the Principles. On December 1, 2016, Principal Jones received a complaint from a parent complaining Ms. Deal had made an inappropriate comment to his or her child. The student, who suffers from a medical condition, was attempting to address school absences with Ms. Deal. Ms. Deal made rude, embarrassing, and inappropriate comments to the student, her brother, and two other students who were in the front office. The parent's complaint was corroborated by another student. Around the same time, the school administration received another complaint from a different parent regarding inappropriate comments to her child made by Ms. Deal regarding the child's illness. Ms. Deal questioned whether the student should be able to leave the school, and whether the student should be able to obtain work from his or her teachers. On February 1, 2017, as a result of these incidents and after following the proper procedures under the CBA, Assistant Principal Moyer issued Ms. Deal a verbal reprimand for unprofessional behavior. Respondent did not grieve this action. On September 25, 2017, the administration was informed that Respondent had made inappropriate statements regarding a student suffering a seizure to a parent who was signing out another student from school. On September 26, 2017, Respondent was involved in an incident in which she allegedly discussed and laughed at a student's medical issue with a teacher in the student's presence. Ms. Deal refused to allow the student to contact her parents to request a change of clothes needed due to a menstruation accident. Ms. Deal then demanded the student's parent call Ms. Deal even though the student informed Respondent that her parent did not speak English. Ms. Deal allegedly told the student that she did not care if her parents spoke Chinese or Spanish. She then proceeded to discuss the student's medical condition in front of another parent. After an investigation and following the procedures in the CBA, on October 5, 2017, Assistant Principal Chase issued a written reprimand to Ms. Deal for unprofessional behavior in connection with the September 25 and 26 incidents. Respondent did not grieve this action. On August 7, 2018, the administration received two reports from staff regarding inappropriate behavior by Ms. Deal during the distribution of locker assignments. Ms. Deal was frustrated with her computer and was disrespectful to fellow staff members. Ms. Deal also complained to students and parents about the computer and process for assigning lockers, and eventually left school early that day. After an investigation and following the procedures in the CBA, on September 18, 2018, Principal Jones recommended Ms. Deal be suspended for three days without pay for unprofessional behavior. Ms. Deal grieved the suspension. As a result, the suspension was reduced to two days. Ms. Deal did not further grieve or appeal the suspension. At the final hearing, Ms. Deal sought to relitigate the facts underlying these previous disciplinary actions and argued she accepted the discipline based on the faulty advice of her union representative. Ms. Deal presented no evidence contradicting the circumstances regarding these incidents and chose not to testify on her behalf. Even if she had presented such evidence, the time for appealing these previous steps of progressive discipline has passed. November 2, 2018 On November 2, 2018, Ms. Deal had an incident with a student, Johneshia Burks, in the front office (the Incident). The School Board presented no testimony from anyone who was in the front office at the time the Incident started. According to Ms. Deal's PRO, Ms. Burks entered the attendance office, told Ms. Deal that she was there to see Ms. Gartland, and asked Ms. Deal where Ms. Gartland was. Ms. Deal claims she replied, "she did not keep Ms. Gartland's schedule." (Resp. PRO, p.5, ¶8). In her PRO, Ms. Deal also claims she asked Ms. Burks for a hall pass, at which point, Ms. Burks got upset and started verbally attacking Ms. Deal. Ms. Deal also claims Ms. Burks became physically aggressive. (Resp. PRO, p.5, ¶8). Ms. Deal, however, did not testify and offered no credible evidence of the Incident. Although other evidence establishes they were both yelling, there is no evidence that Ms. Burks was physically aggressive or started the argument. Regardless, Denise Masi, the school's security aide and a former New York City police officer, testified as to what she witnessed that day. The undersigned finds Ms. Masi's testimony is unbiased, credible, and convincing; her testimony also is corroborated by various witness statements in the investigative file. Sometime between 11:00 a.m. and noon, Ms. Deal called Ms. Masi for assistance in the front office on the school-issued radio. Ms. Masi arrived at the front office entering from the campus door. She observed Ms. Burks on the side of the door yelling at Ms. Deal, and Ms. Deal behind her desk yelling at Ms. Burks. Although she did not understand what they were yelling about, she heard Ms. Deal yell "you can't stay in here. She has to go." Ms. Masi also observed that there were parents in the office. She also noticed the clinic nurse and assistant looked frightened behind the clinic's glass sliding window, which was closed. Ms. Masi tried to de-escalate the situation by asking Ms. Deal to "keep quiet" and stop yelling. Ms. Deal did not comply. Ms. Masi testified that Ms. Deal was not making it easy to calm everyone down. Realizing Ms. Deal was not going to stop yelling, Ms. Masi removed Ms. Burks from the front office. Ms. Masi assessed that Ms. Burks was waiting to see Ms. Gartland and remained with Ms. Burks. While in a breezeway between the front office and the administrative office, they encountered Ms. Gartland. Ms. Gartland returned to her office through the front office with Ms. Burks without incident. Ms. Masi then went back into the front office to check on the nurse and assistant. The nurse and assistant told Ms. Masi that, in response to hearing the yelling, they suggested to Ms. Deal that she call security and then they closed the glass window into the front office. During Ms. Masi's return to the front office, she observed Ms. Deal was still agitated and kept repeating that she was not Ms. Gartland's secretary. Ms. Masi was interviewed separately by Principal Jones and by Assistant Principal Chase regarding the Incident. Assistant Principal Chase also interviewed Ms. Burks, who gave him a written statement. Based on his conversations with Ms. Burks he learned that Ms. Gartland had requested Ms. Burks to come to her office but Ms. Gartland was not there when Ms. Burks arrived. Ms. Burks claimed Ms. Deal started yelling when she asked her about Ms. Gartland's whereabouts. As part of their investigation, both Principal Jones and Assistant Principal Chase reviewed a video of the Incident. The video had no audio. This video was not retained and was not offered into evidence at the final hearing. The undersigned finds that the testimony regarding what was in the video is not helpful in determining what happened between Ms. Deal and Ms. Burks. Ms. Deal did not testify. Instead, she offered the testimony of Madison Byrd (her daughter and a Sarasota High student), in an attempt to establish that Ms. Deal's actions during the Incident were justified and appropriate. Ms. Byrd claimed she was in the front office during the Incident. According to Ms. Byrd, Ms. Burks was the only person yelling and her mother did not say anything to Ms. Burks. Ms. Byrd admitted she walked into the front office "in the middle of the situation." She also heard the nurse ask Ms. Deal to call security. Ms. Byrd's testimony was subject to bias because of her familial and financial ties to Respondent. Ms. Byrd also indicated she disliked Ms. Burks because of something that happened in middle school. The undersigned finds, to the extent Ms. Byrd's testimony was inconsistent with Ms. Masi's testimony, Ms. Masi's testimony is more reliable and corroborated by other evidence. On November 15, 2018, Principal Jones met with Ms. Deal in a Weingarten meeting to address the Incident. During this meeting, Respondent took no personal responsibility, attempted to lay blame upon Ms. Burks, and denied yelling. Similarly, at the final hearing, Ms. Deal presented no evidence that she accepted some responsibility or that her behavior was appropriate and justified under the circumstances. On November 30, 2018, Principal Jones recommended termination of Respondent's employment based upon Ms. Deal's past disciplinary history for unprofessional conduct in the workplace and the Incident. At the final hearing, Ms. Deal attempted to impeach the School Board's witnesses by asking them if the administration told them to "keep an eye" on her or give written statements against her. There was no evidence anyone was asked to fabricate information about Ms. Deal. It is clear from the testimony and evidence at the hearing that Ms. Deal and Ms. Burks were involved in a shouting match in the front office that could be heard by other parents and staff. Regardless of who started the argument, Ms. Deal was the adult in the room. More importantly, as an Attendance Clerk, Ms. Deal was required to act professionally and according to School Board rules and regulations. Instead, she took no steps to de- escalate the situation, and refused to regain her composure even after being asked by Ms. Masi to do so.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED the School Board of Sarasota County terminate Joy Deal's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of February, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: S HETAL DESAI Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of February, 2021. Joy L. Deal 4503 Hale Street Sarasota, Florida 34233 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Robert K. Robinson, Esquire Rob Robinson Attorney, P.A. Suite 400 500 South Washington Boulevard Sarasota, Florida 34236 Dr. Brennan Asplen, III, Superintendent Sarasota County School Board 1960 Landings Boulevard Sarasota, FL 34231-3365
Findings Of Fact Mr. Johnny Collins is the Superintendent of the Holmes County School District and has been at all times pertinent hereto. In April of 1981 Superintendent Collins first nominated the Petitioner, Myron Hudson, to be placed in the principalship at Ponce de Leon High School. The School Board rejected the nomination on July 20, 1981. One of the reasons for rejection of the initial nomination for the 1981-82 school year was the Petitioner's lack of a Rank II certificate, as well as an obligation felt by the Board to give the position to another person. The Petitioner took no legal action then, but the Superintendent, Mr. Collins, requested a hearing regarding rejection of his recommendation by the School Board, the School Board denied the request and the cause went to the First District Court of Appeal. The Board's denial of the Superintendent's request for hearing was affirmed per curiam in Collins v. The Holmes County District School Board, Case No. AH-169 (July 1, 1982). A temporary restraining order was issued by the Circuit Court in and for Holmes County restraining Superintendent Collins from interfering with Mr. Gerald Commander's exercise of his duties as Principal of Ponce de Leon High School, Mr. Commander being the School Board's choice for the position after it rejected the initial 1981 recommendation of Mr. Hudson for the job. Along with the rejection of Mr. Hudson's initial recommendation for the principalship for the 1981-82 school year, two other School Board employees, Ms. Saunders and Ms. Carroll, were also rejected. Those matters ultimately came before the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal hearing and those petitioners obtained a favorable recommendation by the Hearing Officers presiding. The School Board adopted the Hearing Officers' recommendations that those two persons be hired in the positions for which Superintendent Collins had recommended them, this in spite of the presence of the restraining order related to all three cases. In any event, the Petitioner, Mr. Hudson, during the interim after his initial rejection, obtained a master's degree and a Rank III teaching certificate, which he possessed before the second recommendation which is the sole subject of thee instant proceeding. In April 1982 Superintendent Collins again recommended Mr. Hudson for the position of principalship of Ponce de Leon High School. By letter the Board rejected the recommendation on April 21, 1982, advising the Petitioner as the reason for that action that: "A. The Superintendent is under restraining order which prohibits him from interfering with Gerald Commander as Principal of Ponce de Leon High School. There is still pending litigation concerning the Superintendent's nomination of you and the Board's rejection of same for the 1981-82 school term. The board has a continuing contract with Gerald Commander as a principal, and as such the board is obligated to place Mr. Commander in a principal's position within the Holmes County School System." The Board, then acting upon its own motion, ordered the subject position filled by Mr. Gerald Commander, the former School Superintendent whom Mr. Collins had defeated in the election. The Petitioner, Myron Hudson, then requested a formal administrative hearing contending that the Board did not have "good cause" to reject Superintendent Collins' nomination. No question was raised concerning Mr. Hudson's qualifications to hold the position for which he was recommended. He is a ten-year classroom veteran who has held a continuing contract of employment as a teacher in the Holmes County School District since 1976. At 30 years of age, he is well above the minimum age required to hold a principalship and his academic qualifications meet or exceed the statutory requirements for a principal's position. Mr. Hudson earned an AA degree from the Chipola Junior College in 1970, a BSA degree from the University of Florida in 1973, and an MA degree from Troy State University in December of 1981. After obtaining his master's degree, the Petitioner applied for and was granted a Rank III teaching certificate by the Florida Board of Education. All these qualifications were earned prior to the principalship recommendation for the 1982-83 school year which has become the subject of this proceeding. There is no dispute that the Petitioner meets the statutory qualifications for the position. There has been no evidence to indicate that he is possessed of other than a favorable moral character, and he enjoys an excellent reputation as a teacher. No reasons other than those quoted above were given in the official communication by the School Board to the Petitioner as reasons for the rejection of his nomination, nor were any other reasons relied upon by the Board at the hearing. Recommendations for employment with the Holmes County District School Board are recommended to be filled, and are filled, on a year-to-year basis. The recommendations are made by the Superintendent in April of each year for the positions which must be filled in the fall of the school year. Unrefuted testimony by witnesses for the Petitioner and Respondent establishes that the restraining order, as well as the "litigation" referred to in the written reasons for the Petitioner's rejection, was related to the issue raised by Superintendent Collins' first nomination of Petitioner Hudson, which occurred in April 1981. The restraining order and court proceedings do not relate to the subject matter of the current dispute which is the sole subject of this proceeding, that is, the April 1982 recommendation of Petitioner Hudson for the principalship for the 1982-83 school year. There is no dispute that other cases involving Petitioners Saunders and Carroll (DOAH Cause Nos. 81-2013 and 81-2190) also were in4olved in and subject to the same restraining order entered by the Circuit Judge. Both of those cases have gone to recommended order by the Hearing Officers presiding, both petitioners received favorable recommendations, and the School Board adopted the recommended orders and hired the two petitioners without apparent concern for the restraining order. Both Petitioners Saunders and Carroll in those cases were named parties to the restraining order which the Board relied upon in part as "cause" in this proceeding. Mr. Gerald Commander was hired by the School Board for the principalship of Ponce de Leon High School. Mr. Commander holds a continuing contract dating back to 1962, which is specifically a continuing contract as a principal. Mr. Commander did not, however, work continuously as a principal under that contract. When he was defeated by Mr. Collins in the 1980 election for the position of School Superintendent, he drafted a memorandum after the election and while he was still filling his unexpired term, recommending himself for an administrative position in the County School Board office. The Board accepted his recommendation and hired Mr. Commander in an administrative position in the county office starting in January 1981 until the end of that school year. During that period of time, several principalships came open, but Mr. Commander did not express an interest in any of them. He did not seek a principalship position until July of 1981 when he sought the position at Ponce de Leon High School for which Petitioner Hudson had been recommended in April 1981. In July 1981 the Board rejected the recommendation for Petitioner Hudson. Although it has been the Board's position in this proceeding that if the recommendation of Superintendent Collins had been accepted, that there would be no position in which to place Mr. Commander, it has been established by the evidence that, indeed, the Board had a vacant principalship in the School District after the Petitioner was rejected for the principalship, which it filled, although it did not place Mr. Commander in that position.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of counsel, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Holmes County accept the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools of that county to place Myron Hudson in the position of Principal of Ponce de Leon High School. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of August, 1982, at Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 13th day of August, 1982.
Findings Of Fact A review of Exhibit 1, the personnel record of Respondent, discloses that Respondent has been employed by the Pinellas County School Board since 1959; that he has taught science at various junior high schools and middle schools from 1958 to present; that deficiencies in maintaining discipline in his classes, judgment, maturity, and planning have been noted on his evaluation reports throughout that period; his evaluation reports have generally been below average; after extending his probationary period he was granted continuing contract status in 1971; and his evaluations have been unsatisfactory for the last three years. All of the witnesses called by Petitioner have been associated with Respondent in the school system and all considered his performance as a classroom teacher unsatisfactory. Specific incidents observed by the witnesses which led to their evaluation an characterization of Respondent include: Children in Respondents classroom intentionally hyperventilating and passing out while Respondent was in the room presumably continuing his instruction. Children in Respondent's classes more disorderly, rowdy, and noisy than in any other class. Noises from Respondent's classes of sufficient volume to disturb adjacent classes. Respondent continuing his reading of a lesson in a voice that could be heard only a few feet away while the students in other parts of the classroom talked, fought, played games and otherwise ignored Respondent. No rational grading system adopted or used by Respondent. This resulted in numerous complaints from both students and their parents respecting the grades assigned. In this respect more complaints were registered against Respondent's grades that any other teacher. Respondent often sent children to the principal for minor disciplinary problems while he ignored much more serous misconduct. Lack of coherence in Respondent's instruction in jumping from one subject to another with no plan and no continuity. Children in Respondents class recognized his inability to control the class and evinced lack of respect for Respondent. Despite numerous counselling sessions and help, Respondent never produced adequate lesson plans for his classes. Lack of plans led to less continuity in the lessons and a lower teaching level. A combination of lack of discipline, lack of proper planning and inconsistent reaction to the students in his class led to the inevitable conclusion that the students in Respondent's classes were not learning those things he was supposed to teach them. On one or more occasions Respondent disobeyed the orders of his principal to come to his office to discuss problems. respondent refused to be counselled without a union representative present. Following nearly three years of counselling, guidance and attempts to assist Respondent to improve his effectiveness at Fitzgerald Middle School, the school authorities apparently determined that Respondent should be terminated and requested an evaluation of Respondent by a Professional Practices Council Evaluator. Respondent was advised some two weeks before his arrival that an evaluator would come to observe Respondent conduct his classes and that the evaluator would submit a report following the observation. Pursuant thereto the evaluator spent February 27, 28, and March 1, 1979 observing Respondent conduct his classes. His report of this evaluation comprises Exhibit 11. In this report Respondent was evaluated as unsatisfactory in the following duties expected of a teacher: Grade record book from which students grades are taken was improperly kept and contained insufficient information to make a rational determination of the grade actually earned by each student. Respondent made no distinction among his diverse students and consequently gave them all the same assignments. Respondents lack of control over the classroom was so inadequate that an incredible amount of cheating was going on. Answers to questions were exchanged orally between students during tests and this was ignored by Respondent. As a result there was no incentive for learning and little, if any, learning took place in Respondents classes. Classroom management and discipline was practically non-existent. As stated in Exhibit 11: "Mr. Barlow cannot discipline his students well enough to get their cooperation to carry out what would otherwise be an almost acceptable (1.e. needing some definite improvement) program. Thereafter the evaluator submitted three pages of specific incidents occurring in Respondent's classes on February 27, and three more pages of incidents which generally support the conclusion that in such an atmosphere either teaching or learning is, for all intents and purposes, impossible. Planning of lessons by Respondent, both short and long-term, was so inadequate that these plans across school year 1978-79 were described to "violate, more than follow, those guidelines" [established for lesson plans]. Instead of having self-confidence and self-sufficiency in exercising authority Respondent "radiates insecurity in the classroom". Following these unsatisfactory reports the evaluator concludes that Respondent's students are being deprived of a vital part of their education. This conclusion is supported by the testimony of all other witnesses. Even those witnesses who testified on behalf of Respondent acknowledged that Respondent did not maintain order and discipline in his classes. Even those witnesses who testified on behalf of Respondent acknowledged that Respondent did not maintain order and discipline in his classes. Testifying in his own behalf Respondent did not deny that his classes were disorderly and unruly, or that the incident of the children in his class hyperventilating and passing out occurred. He contends that if he had more administrative help he could operate effectively in a classroom. His problems at Fitzgerald Middle School he blames largely on the Assistant Principal in charge of the seventh grade teachers, who, while frequently visiting Respondent's classes, undermined him. Other than Respondent's testimony no credible evidence was submitted that the Assistant Principal was doing anything other than trying to help Respondent improve his performance.
The Issue The issue for determination in this case is whether Respondent should be discharged from her employment as a teacher in the Duval County Public School System for professional incompetency pursuant to Section 4(e) of the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act (Chapter 21197, Laws of Florida, as amended)
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, the Respondent, Jewel Jones, was a tenured public school teacher licensed by the State of Florida in elementary education and exceptional education, and is currently a certified teacher in the fields of elementary and exceptional education. She has been employed by the Duval County School Board for 28 years (T 467- 468). For seven years, she taught educable mentally retarded students and for eighteen years taught elementary education (T 468-469). Prior to the 1984-85 school year, Ms. Jones taught elementary education at Beauclerc Elementary School for twelve years (T 469). Until the 1984-85 school year she had received satisfactory performance evaluations for each of her years of employment (T 470, Res. Ex. 3). Respondent received unsatisfactory evaluations from two different principals at two different schools for the 1984-85 and 1985-86 school years. At the end of the 1983-84 school year, Ms. Jones transferred to a school closer to where her mother lived because her mother, who was an alcoholic, had health problems (T 146,472). Ms. Jones requested and ultimately received a transfer to the Hyde Park Elementary School where she was employed for the 1984-85 school year (T 475). During the summer of 1984, Ms. Jones experienced a number of personal family problems. On July 25, 1984, her son was arrested and charged with sexual battery. This same son had been previously charged and convicted of the same offense and had served over six years in prison. The son was tried in December 1984 and acquitted of the charge, but returned to jail for violation of his parole (T 476-478). In addition, Ms. Jones' daughter had dropped out of college and started writing a series of bad checks. Ms. Jones was concerned about the welfare of her family (T 479, 145-146). In January 1985 Ms. Jones sought the aid of a board certified psychiatrist and neurologist, Dr. John Stamm (T 144), who treated Respondent between January 23, 1985 and July 15, 1985 (T 144-149), while Respondent was at Timucuan Elementary School. Ms. Jones reported to Dr. Stamm that she had been depressed for about six months prior to seeing him and that she was having crying spells and difficulty sleeping (T 146). Dr. Stamm's diagnosis was that Respondent had suffered "a major depressive episode," which he treated with medication and psychotherapy, and which he felt was situationally related to the problems Respondent's mother, daughter, and son were having (T 149,150). As part of his treatment, Dr. Stamm prescribed "a significant amount of antidepressant medication" for Respondent (T 157). Dr. Stamm testified that Respondent's significant depression would have had an adverse impact on her work performance (T 160, 163) and could have been detected by some of the students in her class leading to a sense of unease or concern on their part (T 161). Dr. Stamm stated that most frequently depressive episodes are time limited, but that he was unable to determine whether the Respondent's condition was time limited or permanent (T 150). The principal at Hyde Park Elementary School during the 1984-85 school year was Virginia K. Greene. Greene observed the Respondent's work during the 1984-85 school year. Respondent was unable to maintain discipline, keep the children on task, and present her lessons in an organized fashion. Respondent jumped from one subject to another, losing the interest and the attention of the students in the process (T 82-83). Respondent's relationship and rapport with parents of the children in her class was poor. Respondent was absent from school on a total of 31 occasions during the 1984-85 school year, was tardy on numerous other occasions, and on various occasions failed to notify the school so that proper substitute teachers could be arranged (T 71-73). Ms. Greene attempted to secure assistance for Respondent from the School Board's teaching cadre. The teaching cadre assists teachers in their techniques. Respondent refused this assistance. Respondent never explained her family problems to Greene, nor gave Greene any reason why a teacher with her background was having problems. In accordance with the collective bargaining agreement and the documentation requirements of the School Board, Ms. Jones received an official notice of deficiencies (Pet. Ex. 4, Res. Ex. 1, Para. A-5) and had a conference with Greene regarding the notice. Although Jones' performance had improved, it was not enough to justify a satisfactory performance evaluation (T 504-508). On March 15, 1985, Ms. Greene gave Ms. Jones an unsatisfactory rating on her annual evaluation form. Ms. Jones received a total of nine reduction points on her evaluation form (Pet. Ex. 7, Res. Ex. 1, Para. A-1), one more than the maximum of eight which is considered unsatisfactory. Ms. Jones received eight of the nine reduction points in four areas under classroom management. Ms. Greene was an experienced teacher and principal and qualified to assess the Respondent's work. In Ms. Greene's opinion, the Respondent was not a competent teacher during the year based upon Greene's observations and those of the teaching cadre reporting to Greene. Greene's evaluation reflected her assessment of the Respondent's performance. In Greene's opinion, the students in Respondent's class did not have a successful year during the 1984-85 school year. The teacher evaluation form provides 36 factors or areas of teacher competency which are to be evaluated. No guidelines are provided to the evaluators on performance indicators to be used to evaluate each area of competency (T 140). Ms. Greene had a set of predetermined indicators based upon her experience that she used to evaluate all teachers. Some of the indicators Greene used to determine competency in classroom management were common to more than one of the six areas assessed under management. Structured observation forms are provided for the evaluation of beginning teachers. The forms for beginning teachers are more objective than the ones used for tenured teachers (T 399-400). Ms. Greene testified that in the 1984-85 school year, she used the same evaluation system for all the teachers whom she rated (T 186). Of the 28 teachers evaluated by Ms. Greene, only Ms. Jones received a less than satisfactory or a "needs improvement" rating in any of the 36 rated factors (T 180-185). Following the conclusion of the 1984-85 school year, Respondent was given the opportunity to transfer to a new school as required by Section 4(e)(2) of the Tenure Act. Respondent availed herself of that opportunity and transferred to Timucuan Elementary School, where she was employed during the 1985-86 school year. Jane Sharpe Condon was the principal at Timucuan Elementary School at the beginning of the 1985-86 school year. Ms. Condon reviewed Ms. Jones' personnel file and was aware that Ms. Jones was classified as a less than satisfactory (LTS) teacher. Ms. Condon counseled with Respondent, concentrating on the areas of indicated weakness (T 243, 244, 288). In addition, Condon counseled Respondent about avoiding derogatory remarks about students and the school, and the importance of maintaining professional relationships with parents and with school staff (T 244-248). Condon prepared a plan for Respondent to improve her classroom management. Ms. Condon followed the Board's instruction of documenting and establishing a record of Ms. Jones' performance, compiling a large number of documents regarding Ms. Jones' performance (T 275-276; Res. Ex. 1, 1a-4, b-2, b- 3, b-5; Pet. Ex. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24). During the 1985-86 school year, Ms. Condon evaluated Ms. Jones two times as required, once in October 1985 and again in March 1986, and rated Ms. Jones unsatisfactory (Res. Ex. 23, 24). Ms. Condon arranged for Betty John Miller, the school's reading resource teacher, and Marilyn Russell, a member of the Duval County School Board teaching cadre, to provide assistance for Respondent during the 1985-86 school year (T 248-249). Ms. Condon observed Respondent's classes. Respondent's class completely ignored Respondent's instructions. Respondent failed to maintain the students' attention. The Respondent "overdwelled" in her lesson presentation. The Respondent interrupted her teaching on numerous occasions to threaten disciplinary action against unruly students, but she failed to follow through when students continued their disruptive behavior (T 257-258). Betty John Miller, the reading resource teacher at Timucuan Elementary School during the 1985-86 school year, worked with the Respondent and observed her class in order to assist Respondent in improving her teaching technique. Respondent was unable to conduct a reading group with part of her class and keep the remainder of the class on task with their given assignments. Although Respondent listened to Miller's suggestions, she did not follow through in implementing them (T 306-307). Marilyn Diane Russell, a member of the Duval County School Board teaching cadre, observed the Respondent's teaching during the 1985-86 school year. Respondent had difficulty in communicating orally with her students and too frequently repeated instructions to the children (T 341). Respondent was unable to organize a lesson with a review, introduction and development of new material, practice activities, follow-up and another review (T 347). Respondent made excessive use of questions which require the simple recitation of facts. In the latter part of January or the early part of February, 1986, Russell was transferred to another position and ceased working with Respondent. Another member of the teaching cadre, Barbara Vandervort, began working with Respondent (T 357). Ms. Vandervort consulted with Ms. Russell, reviewed Respondent's file, and consulted with Ms. Condon to assure that there would be no break in the efforts to assist Respondent. (T 407-412). Ms. Vandervort worked with Respondent on numerous occasions in an effort to improve Respondent's behavior management and to eliminate her use of repeated reprimands in an attempt to keep order in the classroom (T 413-414). The deficiencies identified by Ms. Condon were still present during the latter part of the 1985-86 school year (T 417-418) when Vandervort observed Respondent's work. Ms. Vandervort saw student throw rubber bands at Respondent, who told the student to take a seat in the back of the room. When the student failed to do so, Respondent took no further disciplinary action (T 416). Ms. Vandervort observed that Respondent was unable to put all of the elements of a proper lesson development together at one time or to teach a complete lesson (T 416-417). Ms. Vandervort, Ms. Russell, and Ms. Miller reported their observations to Ms. Condon. Based upon these reports and her own observations, Ms. Condon evaluated Respondent's performance as below standard for the 1985-86 school year although there was some slight improvement noted from time to time (T 270-271). Condon did not consider Respondent competent as a teacher during the 1985-86 school year (T 271-272). The general memorandum on Evaluation of Instruction Personnel (Res. Ex. 1) was the only written instruction Ms. Condon received to assist her in compiling teacher evaluations (T 276-277). Respondent stated that her personal and psychiatric problems interfered with her performance during the 1984-85 school year and that she did not have a good year (T 539 & 540). Respondent admitted that it would have been better to have taken leave in order to work out her personal problems rather than continue to teach (T 541). Respondent admitted that she "probably did have problems" at the beginning of the 1985-86 school year, but that she felt she improved enough during the course of the year to be rated as satisfactory (T 547). Donna Darby, Respondent's principal at Beauclerc Elementary School during the 1983-84 school year, testified that Respondent's performance declined markedly during the latter part of 1983-84. Ms. Darby also testified that she discussed this problem with Respondent and indicated to Respondent that if her performance did not improve during the 1984-85 school year, Ms. Darby would request "additional support help" for Respondent (T 458-459). Respondent testified that she did not remember any conversations with Ms. Darby concerning her performance during the latter part of the 1983-84 school year (T 471-472). Numerous letters or memoranda were written to Respondent by various persons in an effort to point out her deficiencies and to offer suggestions for improvement. Her principals provided Respondent with clear and detailed statements of Respondent's deficiencies throughout 1984-85 and 1985-86. The School Board provided Respondent with limited in-service training during the 1985-86 school year in addition to the assistance of the teaching cadre. Respondent was afforded a public hearing, was informed of the nature and cause of the accusations, has confronted the accusing witnesses, was allowed to subpoena witnesses and papers, and secured the assistance of counsel. Neither the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act nor Duval County School Board has formally defined the term "professional incompetency;" however, the term is not specialized and is capable of general proof. At the start of the 1984-85 school year, the Respondent had a number of children with disciplinary problems (T 485); however, the children with disciplinary problems were evenly distributed among the four other third grade classes, as were the better students (T 70). During the first few months of 1984-85, Ms. Greene transferred four students from Ms. Jones' class (Pet. Ex. 3). The transfers were made primarily because of parent complaints to her (T 63-64) about Ms. Jones'. Ms. Greene did not have a cipal/teacher/parent conference with Ms. Jones to discuss the problems (T 493-495). During the entire school year, neither Ms. Russell nor Ms. Vandervort gave a demonstration class for Ms. Jones (T 524). The only help given by Ms. Russell and Ms. Vandervort other than critiques after their observations was a handwriting kit and two booklets (T 528-529, Res. Ex. 4, 5). The procedures utilized by the School Board are designed to document its decision to discharge a teacher as much as the procedures are intended to assist the teacher to improve his or her performance. No competent evidence was presented that the evaluation procedure used by the Duval County School Board is invalid. All of the Respondent's principals were teachers of significant experience, as well as having been principals for a number of years, and were qualified to evaluate the Respondent's performance. The acute depression from which Respondent suffered during the 1984-85 school year degraded her performance of her duties; however, her uncontroverted testimony was that she could now perform her duties. The data on class performance by students in Respondent's classes based on Jt. Exh. A, B, C & D reveals the following: At Hyde Park Elementary School, the grades of Respondent's class on the Standford Achievement Test were: Class Reading Math Rm. 13 53.88 55.64 Rm. 15 (Jones) 55.52 49.74 Rm. 16 60.23 50.42 Rm. 18 54.04 52.04 At Timucuan Elementary School the grades of the Respondent's class on the Standford Achievement Test were: Class Reading Math Rm. 18 1/ 62.00 54.52 Rm. 19 (Jones) 44.55 49.41 Rm. 20 43.52 47.19 Rm. 22 43.62 46.73 Rm. 24 2/ 72.23 81.73 At Hyde Park Elementary School the scores on the Essential Skills Test reflected Respondent's class had the next to the highest math performance and the lowest scores in reading, the opposite of the indications of the Standford Achievement Test. At Timucuan Elementary School the scores on the Essential Skills Test reflected the reading scores of the Respondent's students rose 6/10's, and her class was next to the worst class (Rm. 20) whose score fell from 80 to 74.6. The math scores of her class were the lowest. Again, these results are contrary to the Standford Achievement Test. The data above is counter to the opinion of the principals at both schools that Respondent's students suffered significantly in their learning. The Respondent's classes were average on the Standford Achievement Test which is indicative of a successful year.
Recommendation In the absence of the degree of proof required and mindful that the Respondent has been employed as a school teacher in Florida for over 25 years and that no action should be taken by the School Board which would have a chilling effect upon employees seeking professional help with mental and emotional problems, it is RECOMMENDED that: The complaint against Respondent be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of February, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 26th day of February, 1988.
The Issue Whether or not Respondent should be assigned to J.R.E. Lee Opportunity School. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURE Petitioner presented the oral testimony of Anya Cooper and Aaron Brumm and had admitted Exhibits P-1 (two pages of subpoena), P-2 (case management form 676566), P-3 (composite of Student Observation 1/12/87), P-4 (Composite Student Case Management Referral Forms), P-5 (Second Report for School Year 1986-1987), P-6 (Composite of Student Academic and Behavioral Reports), and P-7 (Individualized Education Program, IEP). Respondent presented the oral testimony of Fred Sage and had admitted R-1 (Computer printout), R-2 (Computer printout), R-3 (Child Study Team Conference Notes), and R-4 (composite of report card with progress notes of Grace Baptist Academy). Joint Exhibit A (Multi- Disciplinary Team Report) was also admitted. Due to the failure of Bonnie Edison to respond to a validly served subpoena, the parties stipulated to the taking and filing of her deposition by Petitioner subsequent to July 21, 1987. Respondent's father's August 22, 1987, letter has been treated as a Motion to Strike or Amend the Edison deposition, and the Edison deposition with attached exhibits has been admitted as amended by the Order of September 10, 1987. Petitioner filed a "Memorandum of Law on Jurisdiction, Substantial Interest, and Case or Controversy," and Respondent filed a letter styled, "Request for Ruling." These documents are addressed the Appendix to this Recommended Order, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent's parents were notified by a letter dated January 30, 1987, that Respondent had been administratively assigned to the Dade County School Board's alternative education program at J.R.E. Lee Opportunity School. Being previously aware that the recommendation for administrative assignment had been made, Respondent's parents had formally withdrawn Respondent from the public school effective January 29, 1987, and timely petitioned for formal administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. Respondent's parents are currently complying with State law by continuing their son in a private educational facility, however Respondent's substantial interest entitling him to a formal hearing continues to exist in that the parents desire their son to be enrolled in the regular program of the Dade County public school system and in that they propose to re-enroll him in that system if they prevail in these proceedings. At all times prior to his withdrawal from public school, Respondent was enrolled at Cutler Ridge Junior High School, located in Dade County, Florida. He attended summer school in the summer of 1986, and was 13 years old and in the seventh grade for the regular 1986-1987 school year. During the regular 1986-1987 school year, Anya Cooper was Respondent's mathematics teacher. In her class, Respondent performed his basic skill work below grade level. She described his conduct in her class as very "fidgety, constantly moving around, bothering other students, and talking and kicking purses." However, she also described the foregoing behavior as all done "in fun" and described Respondent's usual responses to admonishment as being, "Okay, Okay." Apparently she interpreted these responses to her correction as being in the nature of back-talk but admitted that following a smart retort, Respondent usually would not say more beyond "Okay" and often complied with her requests. Beginning September 22, 1986, Ms. Cooper kept a daily record of negative behaviors of Respondent. That day, Respondent was extremely talkative and refused to participate in boardwork. He also lied, saying a paper without a name on it which had received a grade of "B" was his own paper when, in fact, it had been submitted by someone else. When confronted with his lie, Respondent admitted the lie immediately. On September 24, he was too talkative and changed his seat. On September 26, he talked during a test and refused twice to take the test before actually taking it. On September 30, he chewed gum and was required to remove it. On an occasion in early October, he talked back to Ms. Cooper and was instructed not to talk in class anymore. On October 22, he threw a piece of staple which hit another student. Ms. Cooper counselled with Respondent about the danger of throwing staples, but Respondent interrupted her and refused to work. On October 23, Respondent kicked a female student, and on October 28, he put his foot on her arm. Ms. Cooper put him out of her class. There is no evidence that any student was ever injured. On October 27, Respondent refused to work and talked during the entire class period. Later that month, he threw a pen into the trash can, creating a loud noise and distraction. Nonetheless, despite the number of these incidents, Ms. Cooper only referred Respondent for discipline by the school administration one time. During summer school the previous summer, the Respondent had been referred by the coach to Assistant Principal Brumm for running around the cafeteria. Respondent was reprimanded and warned without being assigned to indoor or outdoor suspension. On July 22, 1986, also during summer school, Respondent had been referred to the office for disruptive and non-attentive behavior in one class. Assistant Principal Brumm sent Respondent home for one-half day as a disciplinary measure. By October 6, 1986, Respondent was in the Student-At-Risk-Program (SARP). This program assembles a special group of teachers within the school who are able to deal particularly effectively with disciplinary problems. The student members of the program are assigned their own counsellor and attend classes of much smaller size than do those students in the academic mainstream. The target goal of SARP is to identify students at risk for dropping out of school and modify their behavior so as to retain them in the school system. The testimony of Bonnie Edison, Respondent's seventh grade SARP life science teacher for the regular 1986-1987 school year, was submitted by after- filed deposition. Ms. Edison did not routinely refer Respondent to the administration for his discipline problems, nor did she involve the SARP counsellor. She addressed Respondent's disruptive behavior solely with SARP behavior modification techniques. In Ms. Edison's class, Respondent was "off task" and disruptive seventy to eighty percent of the time unless Ms. Edison addressed him on a one-to-one basis, or unless she included him in a group of no more than three students. Despite measurably high ability, Respondent's work effort was below standard ninety percent of the time. He consistently failed to bring proper materials to class but admitted he should do so. Ms. Edison counselled with Respondent a few minutes daily and occasionally for longer periods, sometimes with temporary success, but never with lasting success. Her greatest concern was that Respondent's need for one-on-one attention deprived her of teaching time and limited her time for other students. She also was concerned because, in their conversations, Respondent could name no rewards or goals she could integrate into her program at school. Nonetheless, noting that Respondent related better to plants than to people, and recognizing his very superior ability with horticulture, Ms. Edison involved him in independent study with plants as a reward. She also devised a reward system based upon Respondent's interest in wrestling as a contact sport, and upon his affection and respect for the wrestling coach who had previously referred Respondent for discipline. This coach helped Respondent study for his second grading period exam in Ms. Edison's class, and Respondent earned an "A" on this final exam. Between September 1986 and the end of January 1987, Respondent had a total of seven referrals to the school administration, although some referrals covered several incidents. The constant theme of the referrals of Respondent to the administration was that Respondent had the ability to learn, but insufficient self-discipline to allow him to learn. Respondent had been assigned to six days of CSI (indoor suspension) and one day of outdoor suspension. In the first grading period of the regular 1986-1987 school year, Respondent earned two F's, one D, two C's and one B. By January 29, 1987, in the second grading period, Respondent had earned two F's, two D's and two C's. In the second grading period, he had only been absent 2 or 3 times in each class except for math, in which he had 8 absences. There is no evidence that any teacher or administrator viewed these absences as excessive. On January 20, 1987, a teacher referred Respondent for disrupting other students in CSI by making squeaking sounds. Thereafter, a Child Study Team was convened. Each of Respondent' a teachers participated in a conference with Respondent's mother on January 28, 1987. The consensus of the team and teachers was that Respondent needed extremely close supervision. Each teacher consulted with Respondent's mother on this occasion. Although there is evidence of some parental contact due to previous disciplinary problems, it appears that January 28, 1987, when the alternative education program was being actively explored, was the first time the parents were made aware of the serious penalties attendant upon Respondent's grades, behavior, and absences. The probable explanation for the lack of prior communication is that Respondent never gave contact slips/reports to his parents, but it is also clear that there was little or no administrative follow-up on the written material sent home and that the parents also resented and reacted hostilely to two oral contacts by the administration. Mr. Brumm opined that all disciplinary and counselling techniques at his disposal had been tried but had proven ineffectual. It was Respondent's parents' position that the school had failed to adequately communicate with them concerning their son's disinterested and disruptive behavior; had failed to involve them early enough in disciplinary and academic correction of their son; and had failed to use corporal punishment to discipline Respondent. To buttress their assertion that the school had failed to adequately communicate with them, the parents asserted that since certain disciplinary reports/referrals had not been committed to writing or consigned to the computer prior to the administrative school assignment (January 30, 1987) or prior to the formal withdrawal of their son from the Dade County School System (January 29, 1987), there was little or no credibility in any of the disciplinary reports/referrals admitted in evidence and particularly no credibility in those reports/referrals dated February 6, 1987, and later. The failure of teachers and administrators to timely commit to writing the reports does not diminish the credibility of the oral testimony on the same facts by the teachers and Mr. Brumm. It does, however, render less credible the administration's assertion that adequate communication was made with the parents simultaneously with the alleged disciplinary actions. The parents' assertion that the school failed to use corporal punishment as an accepted disciplinary technique is ill-founded. The administration's failure to employ corporal punishment was consistent with established policy, and not demonstrated to be unreasonable. Respondent's exhibits of report cards and progress reports from the private school which he entered subsequent to withdrawal from the Dade County Public School System are irrelevant to the statutory issues discussed in the conclusions of law. They are also virtually unintelligible without any "key" by which they may be interpreted.
Findings Of Fact At all times material, Respondent Raimundo Manuel Dante was enrolled as a student at W. R. Thomas Junior High School in Dade County, Florida. During the course of two periods of enrollment at W. R. Thomas Junior High School, Respondent has had numerous disciplinary referrals. On one occasion, Respondent was recommended for assignment to the Dade County opportunity school program, but his mother withdrew him before the formal proceedings could be resolved. He was transferred back to W. R. Thomas Junior High primarily due to failing grades at a private school. During summer school for 1984, Respondent was tardy on six occasions. He earned three "D" grades and one "C" grade out of four academic subjects. He was absent three days in the "C" course, mathematics, and four days in each of the other courses, including homeroom. Because of the short timeframe for summer school (July 9, 1984 through August 17, 1984), the Respondent's absences and tardies are excessive. During the regular 1984-1985 school year, Respondent was assigned to the eighth grade. His absences span a minimum of eleven to a maximum of thirty- nine in various classes during the final grading period alone. This is clearly excessive and not conducive to any learning activity. His final grades were failing in all classes except "vocational basic," in which he obtained a "D." On December 12, 1984, Mrs. Gomez referred Respondent to Mr. Helip, who as assistant principal has primary responsibility for discipline at W. R. Thomas Junior High School. The referral was not only for disruptive behavior on that date, but was a culmination of a number of occasions when Respondent had behaved similarly. The nature of Respondent's disruptive behavior on December 12, 1984, involved coming to the front of the room without permission and "answering back" disrespectfully to Mrs. Gomez when she did not grant him permission to leave the room to conduct business he should have handled prior to the beginning of class. This was repetitive of similar behavior which had gone on the previous day and which had not resulted in a student management referral at that time. On December 12, Mrs. Gomez also gave Respondent a detention assignment for social talking which was disrupting the class and he uttered a disruptive and insulting retort in Spanish to the effect that nothing would happen to him if he did not comply with the detention assignment. Mrs. Gomez, who speaks and understands Spanish, then considered all Respondent's past misbehavior in the referral of December 12, including his consistent failure to come to her class equipped with appropriate books, paper and writing implements. On April 26, 1985, Mrs. Gomez referred Respondent to Mr. Helip due to his ten tardies in the last two-week period, for kissing girls while sitting atop his desk, and for wandering about the room, talking, and being off task on April 26 and on several prior occasions. Respondent's remarks, when reprimanded orally by Mrs. Gomez, were interpreted by her as disrespectful and threatening. All counseling with the parents in the 1984-1985 school year appear to have dead-ended. During the regular 1985-1986 school year, Respondent was assigned to the ninth grade. His absence record was less than the previous school year but still varied from four to eight days' absence during the final grading period, depending upon which class was involved. This is also excessive and not conducive to any formal learning experience. His final grades were four failures and one "C" out of the courses attempted. During the 1986 summer session, Respondent was absent five days, which was again excessive in view of the summer session's abbreviated timeframe (July 7 through August 15, 1986). Out of two ninth grade subjects attempted, Respondent failed one and got a "D" in the other. On September 16, 1986, in the course of the regular 1986-1987 school year, Mrs. Robbie referred Respondent for discipline due to his yawning, talking, and back talk to her which disrupted her class. Mrs. Robbie had referred Respondent a number of times in the previous year. He failed her class in that school year, and, therefore, on September 16, 1986, Mr. Helip reassigned him to another English teacher without taking any punitive action against him. During the first grading period of the regular 1986-1987 school year, Respondent had been absent eleven days before the occurrence of the incident which precipitated his administrative assignment to the Dade County opportunity school system. At that time, he had failing grades in every one of the six subjects attempted. At the end of the first grading period, Respondent's conduct grades were all failing. The incident which precipitated administrative assignment of Respondent to the opportunity program involved Ernie Ortiz, a 17-year old ninth grader. Upon leaving the school grounds at the close of a school day in October 1986, Ortiz was "tailed" by a slow-cruising brown Camaro automobile with at least four young men in it. Ortiz saw Respondent in the car. A B-B gun was fired from the car at Ortiz who was on the sidewalk. Ortiz was hit by the B-B shot fired from the car and was subsequently treated at a hospital. The next day, Ortiz saw the same car at school and reported the incident to Mr. Helip. Although Ortiz was never able to say whether Respondent was driving or who shot him, the school resource officer found a pellet gun and pellets, a knife, and a roach clip in the car identified by Ortiz, and Respondent admitted to Mr. Helip that the gun was his. Mr. Helip recommended expulsion of Respondent because he believed a weapons charge had been made against Respondent. Instead, based upon all the circumstances, the school board made an opportunity school placement. There is no competent substantial evidence to show that any criminal charge was made against Respondent. In the past, counseling, corporal punishment, and outdoor suspensions have been tried with regard to Respondent but to no avail. The regular Dade County school program resources have been exhausted as regards Respondent.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is, RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County enter its Final Order affirming the assignment of Respondent to the school system's opportunity school program at Douglas MacArthur Senior High School-South. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 13th day of March, 1987, at 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 13th day of March, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard Britton, Superintendent School Board of Dade County 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Phyllis O. Douglas Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Frank R. Harder, Esquire Twin Oaks Building, Suite 100 2780 Galloway Road Miami, Florida 33165 Mr. and Mrs. Raimundo Dante 1095 S.W. 134th Court Miami, Florida 33184
