The Issue Whether the Respondent should be discharged from her employment as a teacher with the Duval County public school system for professional incompetency as provided in Section 4(e) of the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act?
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, the Respondent was licensed by the State of Florida to teach in early childhood, biology, science, junior college and driver's education. The Respondent's license to teach is current, in full force and effect and valid through 1998. The Respondent received a bachelor's degree in biology and chemistry from Florida A & M University in 1970 and a master's degree in early childhood education from Antioch College in 1976. The Respondent has been employed as a teacher by the Petitioner since 1977. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the Respondent was employed as a tenured teacher with the Petitioner. Beginning with the 1977-78 school year, the Respondent was assigned to teach at Paxon Senior High School (hereinafter referred to as "Paxon"). The Respondent continued to teach at Paxon through and including the 1984-85 school year. Through the 1983-84 school year the Respondent received satisfactory evaluations of her performance as a teacher from the principal of Paxon. For the 1984-85 school year Mr. Frank Castellano was assigned as the principal of Paxon. This was Mr. Castellano's first year as principal of Paxon. During the 1984-85 school year, the Respondent was observed teaching by Mr. Castellano, Mr. William Jackson, the Vice-Principal of Paxon, and Dr. Jed R. Klein, the Director of Science and Environmental Studies of the Petitioner. On March 15, 1985, the Respondent was rated unsatisfactory on a Mini Evaluation Form by Mr. Castellano. This evaluation was based upon the observations of Mr. Castellano and the other individuals that had observed the Respondent listed in finding of fact 8. On April 26, 1985, the Respondent was again rated unsatisfactory by Mr. Castellano. The form used for this evaluation was a more detailed form which listed 36 factors. Mr. Castellano rated the Respondent "satisfactory" on 13 of the factors, "needs to improve" on 14 of the factors and "unsatisfactory" on 9 of the factors. The unsatisfactory factors were included in the general categories of classroom management and teaching effectiveness. Prior to evaluating the Respondent, Mr. Castellano reviewed the Respondent's previous evaluations back to 1980. Those evaluations do not note similar deficiencies to those noted by Mr. Castellano. The Respondent had had no problems with administration in the past. Although Mr. Castellano did not implement a specific program of remediation for the deficiencies he had observed in the Respondent's teaching performance, efforts were made to assist the Respondent in correcting noted deficiencies. The Respondent was provided with written summaries of the various observations and conferences were held between the Respondent and the individuals observing her. Following the unsatisfactory evaluations by Mr. Castellano, the Respondent was informed by Mr. Castellano that she had the right to transfer to another school for the 1985-86 school year. Mr. Castellano was required to inform the Respondent of this option pursuant to the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Tenure Act"). Mr. Castellano told the Petitioner that if she did not believe that she would be treated fairly at Paxon, she might want to transfer. Mr. Castellano did not, however, try to convince the Respondent that she should transfer. Mr. Castellano recognized that the decision could only be made by the Respondent and so advised her. Although the Respondent had been at Paxon for 7 years before Mr. Castellano arrived and did not want to leave, she made the decision to request a transfer. The Respondent's decision was based upon her conclusion that she would not receive fair treatment if she remained at Paxon. The Respondent was transferred to Ed White Senior High School (hereinafter referred to as "Ed White"), where she taught during the 1985-86 school year. The Respondent was given no choice as to what school she was transferred to. Such a choice is not mandated by the Tenure Act. Nor is it a policy of the Petitioner to give such a choice. Mr. James Jaxon, the Principal of Ed White, was aware of the Respondent's unsatisfactory evaluation by Mr. Castellano. Mr. Jaxon met with the Respondent on August 23, 1985, in a pre-planning conference. In a memorandum dated August 26, 1985, Mr. Jaxon memorialized the steps that Mr. Jaxon and the Respondent had agreed on August 23, 1985, would be followed to attempt to improve the Respondent's teaching performance. Mr. Jaxon did not request that the Respondent be transferred to Ed White and would not have hired her if she had applied for a position. Mr. Jaxon was not "out to get the Respondent" as suggested by this finding of fact being proposed by the Respondent. Mr. Jaxon attempted to assist the Respondent in improving her teaching skills and provided her with an opportunity to improve her performance. The Respondent was provided in-service training during the 1985-86 school year as required by Section 4(e)(3) of the Tenure Act. The primary source of the Respondent's in-service training was provided by Ms. Gloriden J. Norris. Ms. Norris is a Teacher Education Center Consultant. She is employed by the University of North Florida and not the Petitioner. Mr. Jaxon and Ms. Norris met with the Respondent on September 4, 1985. The Respondent was informed in a memorandum dated September 5, 1985, of the steps that would be followed in assisting the Respondent. During the 1985-86 school year, Ms. Norris observed the Respondent's class on 6 different occasions: September 19, 1985, October 7, 1985, November 26, 1985, December 4, 1985, January 21, 1986 and April 25, 1986. Ms. Norris also conducted approximately 8 to 10 conferences with the Respondent, gave her written materials to assist her in improving her teaching skills and talked to the Respondent on the telephone. In addition to Ms. Norris' observations, the Respondent was observed by Mr. Jaxon (October 13 and 22, 1985, February 3 and 13, 1986 and March 5, 1986), Mr. George Paugh, the Assistant Principal/Student Services at Ed White (September 3, 5 and 26, 1985) and Dr. Klein (March 18, 1986). Written comments concerning most of the observations of the Respondent during the 1985-86 school year were provided to the Respondent. Conferences were also held with the Respondent throughout the school year. The Respondent followed up on some of the suggestions Mr. Jaxon made to her concerning improving her teaching skills and she asked about an in- service workshop. The Respondent did not sufficiently implement recommendations for improvement made to her. Ms. Norris was not able to establish a rapport with the Respondent and therefore her ability to assist the Respondent was diminished. This lack of rapport was a result of the Respondent's attitude toward those who were attempting to assist her in improving her teaching abilities. The Respondent evidenced a belief that she was being treated unfairly and that she had no significant problems as a teacher. This attitude of defensiveness hampered the efforts of Ms. Norris and others to assist the Respondent. After January 21, 1986, Ms. Norris did not check to see if the Respondent had incorporated her suggestions as to the development of a lesson plan. On October 30, 1985, Mr. Jaxon rated the Respondent's performance as unsatisfactory. Mr. Jaxon also rated the Respondent's performance unsatisfactory on March 27, 1986. Respondent's deficiencies were in the areas of classroom management and teaching effectiveness. The following deficiencies concerning the Respondent's classroom management were observed during the school years in question: The Respondent was late to class or in starting class (according to Mr. Jackson, Mr. Castellano, Mr. Jaxon and Ms. Norris); Students were late to class (according to Mr. Jackson, Dr. Klein and Mr. Jaxon); The students were allowed to dismiss themselves (according to Dr. Klein and Ms. Norris); No roll was taken (according to Mr. Jaxon); On numerous occasions students were not paying attention -- they talked, combed their hair and put on makeup, read unrelated materials including magazines and paperback books, daydreamed and slept (according to Mr. Jackson, Mr. Castellano, Dr. Klein, Mr. Paugh and Mr. Jaxon); and Some students did not have their textbooks with them (according to Mr. Jaxon). The following deficiencies concerning the Respondent's teaching effectiveness were observed during the school years in question: The Respondent did not have her lesson plans with her in the classroom (according to Mr. Castellano) or were not followed (according to Dr. Klein); The Respondent failed to check to see if students understood directions (according to Ms. Norris); Only low order questions (those dealing with facts and knowledge) were asked. No high order questions (those requiring reasoning, justification, comparison or analysis) were asked (according to Ms. Norris); The Respondent allowed group responses to questions. She did not call on one student to answer a question. This resulted in incorrect responses not being corrected (according to all those who observed the Respondent); The Respondent did not give summaries or reviews to place lessons in perspective (according to Mr. Jaxon and Dr. Klein); Lag time or dead time was allowed at the end of the classes. This resulted in students having nothing meaningful to do (according to Mr. Paugh and Ms. Norris); and The Respondent was unable to justify grades she had given to some students who complained (according to Mr. Castellano and Mr. Jaxon). The Respondent timely prepared her lesson plans. On the occasions when she did not have her lesson plans in the classroom with her they had been prepared but she did not have them with her. She had turned them in as required on Friday for approval by the principal and they had not yet been returned. The plans were not always approved by the following Monday. The Respondent had been instructed, however, that if the plans had not been approved by the following Monday, the plans were to be picked up before class anyway. The lesson plans prepared by the Respondent were "good" according to Don Price, Dean of Boys of Paxon. Mr. Price so advised Mr. Castellano. Mr. Price also advised Mr. Castellano that the Respondent was a "good teacher." During the school years in question, the Respondent did not demonstrate the ability to plan and teach a meaningful lesson. Ms. Norris attempted to assist the Respondent in demonstrating this ability. Neither Mr. Jaxon nor Ms. Norris ever saw the Respondent teach a lesson in the manner suggested by Ms. Norris. Based upon Dr. Klein's observation of the Respondent during the 1985- 86 school year, the Respondent did not materially improve her abilities from the time he observed her during the 1984-85 school year. Dr. Klein did believe that the Respondent had improved her ability to discipline a little. During the 1984-85 school year, students were taken out of the Respondent's classes to equalize class loads. Except for slightly larger classes during the first part of the 1984-85 school year, there was nothing unusual about the size or makeup of the Respondent's classes. Because students must be scheduled to take certain courses in secondary schools as opposed to one teacher having the same group of students for the entire year, school administrators have less control over the size or composition of classes. During the 1985-86 school year the Respondent taught in an "open school." A large area was divided into several classrooms creating problems with noise and other distractions. These problems were not proved to be sufficient to account for the Respondent's deficiencies as a teacher. Other teachers are able to teach effectively in these circumstances. During the 1985-86 school year the Respondent was assigned to teach marine biology for the first time. The Respondent had never had any courses in marine biology. Marine biology is, however, a subject within the Respondent's areas of certification. The evidence did not prove that the additional effort required of the Respondent in teaching marine biology was the cause of the Respondent's deficiencies. During the 1984-85 and 1985-86 school years the Petitioner provided the Respondent with detailed statements concerning her deficiencies, as required by Section 4(e)(1) of the Act. Most of the 30 exhibits offered by the Petitioner are letters or memoranda written to the Respondent in an effort to inform the Respondent of her perceived deficiencies and to offer suggestions for improvement. The Respondent responded to most of these documents in writing. By certified letter dated May 16, 1986, Herb A. Sang, the Superintendent of Duval County Public Schools, brought charges against the Respondent seeking her discharge for professional incompetency during the 1984- 85 and 1985-86 school years. The Respondent was informed of her right to a hearing pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, as required by Section 4(e)(4) of the Tenure Act. The Respondent was given the right to a speedy and public hearing, she was informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against her, she was confronted with accusing witnesses, she was allowed to subpoena witnesses and documents and she had the assistance of counsel in compliance with Section 4(e)(5) of the Tenure Act. No definition of "professional incompetency" is provided in the Tenure Act.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be dismissed as a tenured teacher within the Duval County public school system, effective immediately. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of April, 1987, 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 10th day of April, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3564 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. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Paragraph numbers in the Recommended Order are referred to as "RO ." PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: Proposed Finding RO Number of Acceptance or of Fact Number Reason for Rejection RO 1 and 4. RO 4. 3 RO 9-10, 31 and 42. 4 RO 45. Conclusion of law. RO 10 and 31. 7 RO 32. 8 RO 33. 9 RO 20. 10 RO 21-22. RO 24 and 28. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not a proposed finding of fact. 14 RO 38. 15 RO 39. 16 RO 40. 17 RO 26 and 41. 18 RO 13, 15 and 17. 19 RO 43-44. 20 RO 44. RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1 RO 3. 2 RO 1-2. 3 RO 4. 4 RO 5. 5 RO 6. 6 RO 7. 7 RO 9-10. 8 RO 8. 9 RO 33. 10 RO 34. 11 RO 35. 12 Hereby accepted. 13 RO 11. 14 RO 12. 15 RO 13-14. 16 RO 11 and 15. 17 RO 15. 18 RO 16 and 18. 19 RO 23. 20 RO 24. 21 Irrelevant. 22 RO 24 and 26. 23 RO 29-30. 24 RO 25 and 35. 25 RO 36. 26 RO 19. 27 Mr. Jaxon did testify that he could find deficiencies in nearly any classroom teacher. He also testified thatit would be unusual for a large numberof teachers to suddenly become incompetent. 28 RO 37. Hereby accepted. The first sentence is hereby accepted. The second sentence is rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. 31-33 Irrelevant or not supported by the weight of the evidence. 34 RO 41. 35 RO 27. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Herb A. Sang, Superintendent School Board of Duval County 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Gary E. Eckstine, Esquire Assistant Counsel City of Jacksonville 1300 City Hall Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Phil J. Padovano, Esquire Post Office Box 873 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Orange County School Board (Petitioner) had just cause for termination of the employment of Michele O'Neill (Respondent).
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent was employed under a professional services contract by the Petitioner as a classroom teacher at Lakemont Elementary School, a unit of the Orange County Public School System. At all times material to this case, Dr. Susan Stephens was the principal of Lakemont Elementary School. The Petitioner has adopted a "Drug-Free Workplace" policy (the Policy) that in relevant part provides as follows: No employee shall use, possess, manufacture, distribute, or be under the influence of controlled substances or alcohol while on duty or on school board property, except when he/she is using a controlled substance in conformance with the instructions of a physician. The Policy provides for "Reasonable Suspicion testing" and provides that such tests may be performed "based on a belief that an employee is using or has used alcohol or drugs" in violation of the Policy, and further provides as follows: Reasonable suspicion testing must be based on specific, contemporaneous documented objective and articulable observations and circumstances which are consistent with the long and short term effects of alcohol or substance abuse; including, but not limited to, physical signs and symptoms, appearance, behavior, speech and/or odor on the person. Supervisors who have Reasonable Suspicion that an employee may be under the influence while on duty are required to immediately direct the employee to submit to testing as provided for by the board. Reasonable Suspicion shall be in accordance with training provided to managers, and will require confirmation by two trained managers. One of the two managers may include the supervisor, if trained. A refusal to submit to testing will result in a recommendation to terminate the employee. The Policy includes an "observation checklist" of characteristics indicative of potential alcohol or controlled substance use, which "includes, but is not limited to" slurred speech, confusion/disorientation, odor of alcohol on breath or person, rapid/continuous eye movement or an inability to focus, and improper job performance and/or violation of authority. Dr. Stephens has received training in "Reasonable Suspicion" observations. During the 2002-2003 school year, the Respondent was seriously injured in an automobile crash that required an extended absence from the classroom. She eventually returned to teaching about a year later, but continued to suffer the after- effects of the injuries, including an altered and uneven manner of walking. For the vast majority of the Respondent's employment with the Petitioner, her performance has been evaluated as "effective," and she was regarded as a good teacher. There is some evidence that, after the Respondent's post-accident return to teaching, there were concerns related to the Respondent's job performance. A letter from Dr. Stephens to the Respondent dated February 25, 2005, specifically addressed a number of issues, including collaboration with co-workers, anger management, and focusing on academic instruction during classroom time. Also subsequent to the Respondent's return to the classroom, a small number of parents whose children were being taught by the Respondent expressed various concerns about the education the students were receiving. For various reasons, some parents asked that their children be transferred to the classrooms of other teachers. Late in the school day on Friday, September 30, 2005, a parent contacted Dr. Stephens and reported that during a classroom meeting with the Respondent, the parent detected the odor of alcohol on the Respondent. The parent asked that the child be transferred to another teacher's classroom. Dr. Stephens attempted to locate the Respondent at that time, but the school day was finished and the Respondent had apparently left the campus. On Monday, October 3, 2005, Dr. Stephens came to the Respondent's classroom to discuss the requested transfer, and during the meeting, Dr. Stephens detected the odor of alcohol emanating from the Respondent. Dr. Stephens returned to her office and asked the school's assistant principal, Randall Hart, to go to the Respondent's classroom and talk to her. He did so and then returned to Dr. Stephens' office where he reported to her that the Respondent smelled of alcohol. Dr. Stephens contacted the Petitioner's Employee Relations department to inquire as to how to proceed, and was provided the names of several school board personnel who had received training in "Reasonable Suspicion" observations. From the names provided to Dr. Stephens, she contacted Dr. Suzanne Ackley, principal of Brookshire Elementary School in Winter Park, and asked her to come to Lakemont Elementary School and observe a teacher for indications of being under the influence. Dr. Ackley arrived shortly after being contacted by Dr. Stephens. Dr. Stephens and Dr. Ackley went to the Respondent's classroom and met with the Respondent. No students were present in the room at the time. Dr. Stephens identified Dr. Ackley as the principal of Brookshire Elementary. Dr. Ackley engaged the Respondent in a conversation about curriculum issues. During the meeting, Dr. Ackley detected the odor of alcohol emanating from the Respondent, and believed that the Respondent's speech sounded "slurred." After meeting the Respondent, Dr. Ackley and Dr. Stephens returned to the school office. Dr. Ackley told Dr. Stephens that she had detected the odor of alcohol while talking to the Respondent. Dr. Ackley then left the Lakemont campus. Shortly after Dr. Ackley departed, and in accordance with the Policy, Dr. Stephens informed the Respondent that there was concern related to possible alcohol use. Dr. Stephens ordered the Respondent to accompany her to a facility used by the school board for alcohol and controlled substance testing. Although the Respondent initially agreed to accompany Dr. Stephens to the facility and to submit to the test, within a few minutes, the Respondent changed her mind and refused to travel with the principal to the testing facility. The Respondent stated that she wanted to go home prior to going to the testing facility, ostensibly to retrieve some prescription medications that she wanted to take to the facility. The Respondent testified that she had not been using alcohol on October 3, 2005. She offered vague testimony about an immaterial personal matter, the import of which was that the Respondent went to an emergency room on October 1, 2005, where she received prescriptions for medications including Flexeril, a muscle relaxant. She asserted that she did not refuse to submit to the test, but that she merely wanted to drive herself home to retrieve the prescription medications prior to continuing on to the drug testing facility, to establish that the behaviors exhibited were related to the use of the medications prescribed at the hospital. The Respondent's testimony is not credible and is rejected. The Respondent offered the expert testimony of Dr. Rahn Shaw, who opined that the prescribed medications could have accounted for some of the Respondent's physical presentation on October 3, 2005; however, there is no evidence that use of the referenced medications could create an odor of alcohol on or about a person taking the medications. Dr. Stephens declined to permit the Respondent to go home before submitting to the test, and continued in attempting to convince the Respondent to accompany her to the testing facility. Dr. Stephens specifically and repeatedly advised the Respondent that failure to comply with the request would jeopardize the Respondent's employment status, but the Respondent refused to comply. The Respondent decided to leave the school grounds. She went to her car and began to drive the vehicle from the campus, but did not get far from her parking space. The Respondent was prevented from doing so by the school's D.A.R.E. officer, who arrived after being contacted by school personnel concerned about the Respondent's ability to operate the vehicle. The D.A.R.E. officer is also a uniformed police officer. The officer testified that she eventually persuaded the Respondent to exit the vehicle and escorted her to an office in the school where students, who were passing in the vicinity, would not see the Respondent. The officer further testified that Respondent smelled of alcohol at the time the officer intervened in the situation. The Respondent insisted that she was not under the influence of alcohol, and in response, the officer performed a gaze nystagmus test and a "finger-to-nose" test, after which the officer concluded that the Respondent was not capable of driving herself home. Several of the Petitioner's witnesses testified that they were concerned about the Respondent's ability to transport herself home in her personal vehicle. The refusal to permit the Respondent to transport herself to her home or to the testing facility was clearly reasonable based on the observations of the Respondent's behavior. It should also be noted that Dr. Shaw testified that persons using Flexeril "shouldn't be driving or operating machinery because it makes everybody I know drowsy and lethargic" and that "you could qualify for a DUI in this state by taking that medicine and driving most of the time." A cab was called, and the Respondent was taken home in the cab on October 3, 2005. Prior to leaving the campus, Dr. Stephens again attempted to convince the Respondent to submit to the testing and advised that the Respondent's employment was in jeopardy, but to no avail. Dr. Stephens had been in communication with the Employee Relations department during the incident, and had been told to direct the Respondent to contact the Employee Relations department on Tuesday, October 4th, if she chose not to comply with the testing directive. After determining that the Respondent would not comply with the directive and prior to the Petitioner's departure from the school grounds on October 3rd, Dr. Stephens instructed the Respondent to contact the Employee Relations department on the next day. The Respondent later returned to the school grounds and retrieved her vehicle. The Respondent failed to contact the Employee Relations department on October 4, 2005. At the close of that day, and after the Respondent had failed to make contact, Shonda Von Schriltz, senior manager for the Petitioner's Employee Relations department, sent two letters by express mail to the Respondent. The first letter gave notice of a meeting scheduled for October 10, 2005, to discuss the incident. The second letter advised that the Respondent would be placed on "Relief of Duty" with pay, and that the Respondent was required to remain available to school personnel during school hours while on the paid relief period. Attempts to deliver the letters apparently failed for reasons that are unclear. In any event, there was no communication between the Respondent and the Petitioner until October 13, 2005. On that date, a predetermination conference, which was arranged based on an October 12, 2005, request from a teacher's union representative, was held. During the meeting, at which Ms. Von Schriltz was present, the Respondent denied that she had used alcohol on October 3, 2005, or that she had been requested to submit to testing. She had no recollection of having been told anything by Dr. Stephens, and was unable to offer a rationale for leaving campus early on October 3rd. During the October 13th meeting, the Respondent was directed to maintain contact with the Employee Relations department, but after the meeting ended, there was no contact until November 8, 2005, when the Respondent answered one of several telephone calls that had been placed to her number by Ms. Von Schriltz. During the November 8th conversation, the Respondent had no recollection of Ms. Von Schriltz or of the October 13th meeting, and instructed Ms. Von Schriltz to contact the Respondent's legal counsel.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order terminating the employment of Michele O'Neill. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of June, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph Egan, Jr., Esquire Egan, Lev & Siwica, P.A. Post Office Box 2231 Orlando, Florida 32802-2231 Elizabeth F. Swanson, Esquire Egan, Lev and Siwica, P.A. Post Office Box 2231 Orlando, Florida 32802-2231 Brian F. Moes, Esquire Orange County School Board 445 West Amelia Street Post Office Box 271 Orlando, Florida 32802-0271 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Honorable John Winn Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Ronald Blocker, Superintendent Orange County School Board Post Office Box 271 Orlando, Florida 32802-0271
Findings Of Fact An Administrative Complaint was served on the Respondent in April, 1983. Herb A. Sang, Superintendent of Duval County County Schools, was responsible for those charges. In the complaint, it is alleged that Respondent is guilty of professional incompetency in fulfilling his duties as a teacher in the Duval County School System in the years 1979-80 and 1980-81. Respondent is a tenured teacher in the Duval County School System and had held that tenure at all times relevant to this inquiry. Respondent opposed these allegations, leading to the formal Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes hearing. Respondent, who has been employed in the school system since 1954, was transferred to Duncan U. Fletcher Senior High School in 1971. Lee remained at Fletcher High through the school year 1979-80. In that year, Lee taught 10th grade English. His performance in the classroom was observed by Dr. Andrew Knight, principal at Fletcher High School, and by other professionals in the school. These observations commenced in September 1979 and continued throughout the school year. By January 30, 1980, Dr. Knight had gained a sufficient impression of the performance of the Respondent to write and inform him of areas of deficiency. A copy of that letter of evaluation may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7, admitted into evidence. In addition to setting forth deficiencies, the letter suggests techniques that might be employed to correct the deficiencies. Relevant areas of concern involved classroom management, teaching effectiveness and classroom performance. Those observations as set out in the letter of evaluation and critique of the Respondent's performance are an accurate depiction of the performance. All these items set forth relate to teacher competency and this depiction of Respondent, coupled with similar observations which were testified to during the course of the hearing, demonstrate a lack of competency on the part of the Respondent in performing his teaching duties. The deficiencies set forth in the letter of evaluation were explained to the Respondent in person. Following the interim evaluation of January, 1980, the annual formal evaluation was made on March 12, 1980. A copy of that evaluation may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 9, admitted into evidence. As depicted in this document, Respondent was still perceived in March, 1980, as giving a poor performance as a teacher. This characterization of his performance, as found in the evaluation of March 12, 1980, is accurate and those observations, together with the observations of his performance as testified to in the hearing, point to the fact that the Respondent continued to be less than competent in his teaching. Throughout that school year, classroom management was the most obvious deficiency. In particular, students were sleeping and talking to each other and not paying attention, a problem not satisfactorily addressed by Lee. As a result, the learning experience was diminished. Moreover, this circumstance was made worse by the fact that Lee's perception of how to plan for instruction and his efforts at carrying out these plans were not structured in a fashion to hold the attention of his classes and promote the goals announced in the Duval County School course Curriculum for Tenth Grade Language Arts. See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 33. Based upon his unsatisfactory evaluation for the school year 1979-80, and in keeping with the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act, Respondent was transferred to Edward White High School in the school year 1980-81. The principal at that school was John E. Thombleson. Thombleson was aware of the unsatisfactory rating that Lee had received and undertook, during the course of Respondent's stay at White High School, to observe and assist Lee in trying to improve Lee's teaching. That improvement was not forthcoming. Lee continued to have problems related to classroom management and teacher effectiveness and he was not responsive to beneficial ideas of improvement offered by Thombleson related to in-service assistance. Ideas for improvement which were posed to the Respondent include those set forth in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 11, admitted into evidence which is a memorandum concerning a conference held with Respondent by Principal Thombleson. Other exhibits admitted pertaining to observations by Thombleson and other administrators at White are found to be accurate depictions of the atmosphere in Lee's classroom related to management and teaching effectiveness. Through October, 1980, visits to Respondent's classes revealed a lack of attention on the part of students, a lack of preparedness by the Respondent, a failure to proceed in a sequence which would be commensurate with the curriculum goals set for the classes, tardiness on the part of the Respondent and students, failure to provide lesson plans to the administration observer, failure to conform to the scheduled lesson plan for the day, and failure to provide continuity between the lesson of the day and the following day's assignment. These were problems that had been observed during Lee's 1979- 80 year at Fletcher. Consequently, the required interim evaluation of October 30, 1980, was not favorable to Lee. A copy of that formal evaluation may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 18, admitted into evidence and the observations set forth therein are found to be accurate. Lee was also provided with a memorandum on that date, a copy of which is Petitioner's Exhibit No. 19, admitted into evidence. This document suggested ways to improve classroom management, teaching effectiveness and classroom performance. Both the evaluation and memorandum of improvement were discussed with the Respondent and the matters of that conference are set forth in the memorandum of October 30, 1980, a copy of which is found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 20, admitted into evidence. On November 6, 1980, Respondent's grade book was evaluated and found to be deficient, a finding which is accepted. The grade book was not properly documented, among other shortcomings. Respondent, by correspondence of November 18, 1980, a copy of which is admitted as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 24, requested Principal Thombleson to give concrete examples of expectations of the Respondent in fulfilling his teaching responsibilities. This correspondence was replied to by memorandum of December 5, 1980, a copy of which is admitted as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 25, and contains a continuing explanation of ideas of improvement which had been previously suggested by Principal Thombleson. Lee's performance did not improve after this exchange and the final evaluation at White of March 12, 1981, was not positive. A copy of that evaluation may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 27, admitted into evidence and the evaluation's conclusions are accepted. Overall, in the year 1980-81, Respondent did not perform as a competent teacher while at Edward White. Respondent did not conclude the teaching year at Edward White in 1980- In the face of an attitude which Thombleson considered to be insubordinate and the Respondent's expressed desire to be transferred, Lee was reassigned to William Raines Senior High School in April, 1981. For the remainder of that academic year he served as a substitute teacher. It was not established in the course of the hearing what quality of performance Lee gave as a substitute teacher when assigned to Raines High School and it is therefore assumed that that performance was satisfactory. In the school year 1981-82, Respondent was assigned to Raines High School and acted primarily as a substitute teacher. He remained in the high school for that school year premised upon a settlement negotiation between the Respondent and the Duval County School Board pertaining to an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint which he had filed pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. For the school year 1981-82, the Duval County school administration decided that they would not afford a performance evaluation to the Respondent and none was given. There being no evidence to the contrary, it is assumed that Respondent fulfilled his role as substitute teacher adequately. In the school year 1982-83, Respondent was reassigned to Raines school and worked primarily in the media center program in a nonteaching capacity. Lee did a limited amount of substitute teaching in that year. Jimmie A. Johnson, Principal of Raines school found his work as a substitute teacher to be acceptable as set forth in the memorandum of March 23, 1983, a copy of which is admitted as Respondent's Exhibit B. No contrary position being offered on the question of the quality of performance in the limited role of substitute teacher during that school year, Respondent is found to have performed the role of substitute teacher in a satisfactory manner. Lee's performance as a substitute teacher in the years 1981-82 and 1982-83 while accepted as satisfactory does not overcome the established fact that in the school years 1979-80 and 1980-81, when performing the role of full- time tenured teacher in Duval County, he was not a competent teacher. This performance in the substitute role, while similar, is not sufficiently so to provide a quality of rehabilitation which would set aside the present perception that Respondent is not competent to fulfill the role as full-time classroom teacher in Duval County. This finding is supported by the observations of Dr. Jeffrey Weathers, a professional educator who specializes in teacher evaluations related to their classroom performance as to subject matter and general methodologies. Although some of the tasks which Weathers observed in the Respondent's classroom both at Fletcher and White did not pertain to active instruction, to the extent that other tasks observed called upon Respondent to teach, he was not doing so in an effective manner. As Dr. Weathers described, the vital link between activity and learning could not be found in Lee's classes. Weather's observations, together with those of other professionals at Fletcher and White, coupled with the Respondent's less than cooperative attitude, results in the finding that Respondent has not removed the stigma of his incompetence as a full-time classroom teacher through his teaching in the substitute role at Raines. Finally, while the quality of performance by those students at Fletcher and White who were taught by Lee and participated in the MLST minimum skills tests were similar to students of other teachers in the aggregate, this fact is not enough to set aside the impression of the Respondent's competence. As Dr. Curtis Randolph, who was assistant principal at Fletcher in 1979-80, correctly stated upon reflecting on Respondent's performance, Lee is not competent to teach in Duval County Schools.
The Issue Whether the employment of Petitioner, Cornelius B. Frankliln, was improperly terminated by Respondent, The School Board of Seminole County, in the summer of 1988.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, C.B. Franklin, began service with the School Board of Seminole County in the position of teacher in the 1951-52 academic year. In 1955, Petitioner was awarded a continuing contract of employment by Respondent in the position of teacher. Said continuing contract was in effect at all times relevant hereto. Petitioner was last employed by the School Board of Seminole County, Florida, as an Assistant Principal II at Sanford Middle School on an annual contract of employment, which terminated of June 10, 1989. During his employment at Sanford Middle School as an assistant principal from 1980 through 1988, Petitioner received satisfactory annual evaluations. In March, 1988, Owen McCarron, Assistant Superintendent, applied a "staffing formula" for each school in Seminole County. The staffing formula is not a school board rule but is a formula that the school board approves based upon student population to determine the number of teachers, secretaries, assistant principals, and others needed at each specific school. Mr. McCarron is responsible for the application of the formula. The application of the formula is not submitted to the school board for approval. Mr. McCarron made a mistake in the preparation of the staffing formula for 1988/89. The mistake made was that the number of assistant principals for Sanford Middle School would be reduced from two to one. Having been informed of a reduction, Dan Pelham, Principal, Sanford Middle School, determined that he would have to choose among the Assistant Principal II's employed and decided not to recommend the continued employment of Petitioner. Owen McCarron discovered the mistake and notified Dan Pelham, sometime in late March, 1989. However, Dan Pelham chose not to recommend the continued employment of Petitioner but rather to advertise the position as being vacant. When Mr. Pelham was notified the position was reinstated he considered it to be an "opportunity" to consider alternative persons for the position. Mr. Pelham's decision was based on Petitioner's performance as reflected by his annual evaluations and faculty input. Mr. Pelham held a conference with Petitioner on April 8, 1988, and Petitioner was advised that his contract as an assistant principal at Sanford Middle School would not be renewed for the school year 1988-89, because the School Board had reduced the number of assistant principal positions at Sanford Middle School from two (2) positions to one (1). Petitioner was offered a teaching position, under his continuing contract status, at Sanford Middle School as a peer counselor. The Respondent did not act to approve the reduction in positions, nor was the Respondent notified that Petitioner was not being recommended for reemployment. The School Board does not have a rule to govern how the decision is to be made upon a reduction in staff. At the time of the hearing and at all relevant times prior thereto, Petitioner held a valid Florida Department of Education certification in the teaching fields of health education, physical education and supervision and administration. On or about June 9, 1989, one day prior to the expiration of Petitioner's contract as Assistant Principal II, the Petitioner met with Dan Pelham and John Reichert, Director of Personnel. At that time, Petitioner was again advised by Mr. Pelham that he had not changed his decision not to renew Petitioner as an assistant principal, even though he had been advised that the position had been restored. The Petitioner was advised that he could apply for the vacant Assistant Principal II position but he would have to submit an application and a resume. The Petitioner responded that Dan Pelham was well aware of his qualifications, and that a copy of his resume was on file. At that time, Mr. Pelham offered Petitioner the peer counselor position, but salary was not discussed. Petitioner was given copies of documents containing the job information for the position of peer counselor. The position had not previously existed and had not been advertised. Petitioner was reassured that he had employment with the School Board as a teacher under his continuing contract status. At the same meeting, Mr. Reichert advised Petitioner to accept the teaching position, and at the same time apply for the assistant principal vacancy at Sanford Middle School. Petitioner applied for state retirement on June 27, 1988, and his retirement was accepted by the School Board of Seminole County thereafter, on July 13, 1988. Prior to the time Petitioner submitted his application for retirement, he was verbally offered a teaching position under his continuing contract status for the 1988-89 school year at Sanford Middle School. Petitioner is an experienced school administrator, holds a master's degree in [school] administration and supervision from Rollins College, in Winter Park, Florida. As a component of his master's degree requirement he had instruction in school law. Petitioner was aware that his employment as an assistant principal was on the basis of an annual contract of employment and that the position was not entitled to continuing contract status. Petitioner did not apply for the position of Assistant Principal II (secondary) at Sanford Middle School, after it was declared vacant and advertised (in the Spring of 1988), even though he was told that he would be considered for reappointment to the position if he did. Petitioner was aware that if he accepted the offered position of peer counselor his pay would resume in the Fall of 1988, along with all of the other teachers, and that he would be paid at the top of the teaching salary scale on the basis of his thirty (30) plus years of service. Petitioner did not respond, verbally or in writing, to the offered position of peer counselor subsequent to its offer and prior to his retirement. Mr. L. David Pelham, the principal of Sanford Middle School, was not obligated to reappoint Petitioner to the position of assistant principal, after June 10, 1988. However, Petitioner was entiled to a performance assessment prior to that date. Mr. Pelham recognized that Petitioner held continuing contract status and was entitled to be placed in a teaching position at Sanford Middle School for the 1988-89 school year and thereafter. Petitioner never discussed his decision to retire with Mr. Reichert or Mr. Pelham. Neither person had any communications with Petitioner after the June 9, 1988 meeting. Petitioner's annual contract of employment clearly put him on notice that neither he nor the school board owed the other any further contractual obligation after June 9, 1988 and that he had no expectancy of employment as an assistant principal after June 10, 1988.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the affirmative relief sought by the Petitioner should be DENIED. It is further RECOMMENDED that each party should bear their own costs and attorneys fees. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-2007 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Findings of Fact Paragraphs 1 (1st three sentences), 2, 3, 4 (1st sentence), 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 (except the last 2 sentences) - Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 4 (2d sentence), 9,12 - Rejected as against the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 11 (except sentence 2)-Rejected as subservient. Respondents Findings of Fact Paragraph 1 through 26 - Accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert E. Hughes Superintendent of Schools c/o Seminole County School Board 1211 Melonville Avenue Sanford, Florida 32771 John D. Carlson, Esquire Gatlin, Woods, Carlson & Cowdery 1709-D Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Ned N. Julian, Jr., Esquire Stenstrom, McIntosh, Julian, Colbert, Whigham & Simmons, P.A. Post Office Box 1330 Sanford, Florida 32772-1330 Sydney H. McKenzie General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this hearing, Respondent was a public school teacher licensed by the State of Florida to teach English language at the secondary school level, and her teaching certificate was current and in full effect. The Respondent, Queen Bruton, is employed by the Duval County School Board and holds tenure under the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act. On November 22, 1982, Respondent was sent a Notice of Proposed Dismissal by the School Board indicating the Board's intention to dismiss her as a teacher upon a charge of professional incompetency. The grounds for such conclusion include an indication that Respondent received unsatisfactory evaluations of her performance for the 1980-81 and 1981-82 school years. The Duval County Teacher Tenure Act (TTA), Chapter 21197, Laws of Florida (1941), as amended, permits the discharge of a teacher for, inter alia, professional incompetency as a teacher if certain conditions are met and procedures followed. All teachers in the Duval County public schools are evaluated whenever necessary, but at least once a year. Under the rating system in effect during the 1980-81 and 1981-82 school years, an unsatisfactory rating is awarded when an evaluation contains eight or more deduction points. Ratings are: (1) satisfactory, (2) needs improvement, and (3) unsatisfactory. On the rating form in use during the time in issue here, an unsatisfactory rating results in two deduction points in Items 1 through 27, and one deduction point in Items 28 through 36. An evaluation of "needs improvement" does not result in any deduction points. The School Board of Duval County has not, in any formal way, defined professional incompetence. The evaluation process is but one tool in the management of teacher employment. An unsatisfactory evaluation is not, therefore, conclusive of professional incompetence, but is one factor in that judgmental decision. The procedure used by the School Board in evaluating teacher performance was not adopted in conformity with the Administrative Procedure Act. At the time of adoption, the School Board was operating under teacher working conditions that had been implemented after extensive bargaining between the School Board and the teachers' union. These working conditions contained extensive provisions involving "teacher evaluation." When a contract was finally agreed upon between the School Board and the teachers' union, it contained provisions concerning teacher evaluation identical to those which were in effect under the working conditions previous to the implementation of the contract. These provisions, therefore, do not constitute rules "as defined in Section 120.52, Florida Statutes," but instead constitute guidelines for the evaluation of teacher performance arrived at not by decision of the School Board under conditions which require public hearing but jointly by agreement of the parties to the negotiations of the teacher contract between the School Board and the union, a collective bargaining agreement. Warren K. Kennedy was in Respondent's sophomore English class at Forrest Senior High School in Jacksonville during the 1980-81 school year. At one point during the school year, Kennedy saw a series of approximately 22 sexually explicit words or phrases written on the blackboard in Respondent's room. Kennedy copied these words and notified the principal, who went to Respondent's classroom and saw them himself. These words were placed on the board by someone other than Respondent, with her permission, and consisted of a part of an exercise in outlining. As such, Respondent claims the words themselves mean nothing, but words of that nature, including "orgasms, sexual intercourse, French tickler, blow job, condoms, dildo, masturbation, orgy," and the like serve no legitimate purpose in, and are not a legitimate part of, a sophomore English class. Respondent's classroom that year was chaotic. Students did little work, but instead talked openly and freely. Respondent sat quietly at her desk doing paperwork unless the noise got so great as to disturb other classes. Students felt free to walk out of class with impunity. Cursing was prevalent in class, and discipline was nonexistent. Defacing of school property occurred on at least one occasion with Respondent taking no corrective action. As a result, several students and the parents of other students requested their transfer from Respondent's class to another. Respondent was also unreliable in submitting grades and reports in a timely fashion. Observations of Respondent in the classroom environment by several different individuals revealed she did not insist her students come to class equipped with the proper supplies for effective writing or textbook activity. She rarely utilized visual aids pertinent to the matter being discussed. Classroom discussion with students did not generally involve a broad sampling of the class, but was focused on only a few class members. Her questions to the students were often vague and confusing to the students. Respondent's principal during that school year, Ronel J. Poppel, at whose request the above observations were made, himself observed Respondent in the classroom on several occasions. As a result of the input from those requested observations and of his own observations, he prepared an evaluation form on Respondent on March 15, 1981, which bore an overall rating of unsatisfactory and reflected that her performance was declining. This report, which reflected 7 of 36 items as unsatisfactory (12 total deduction points), had 20 other items rated as "needs improvement" and contained such written-in suggestions as "needs classroom management techniques, needs better standards of behavior, needs to have long-range planning from the beginning of the year, needs to show more enthusiasm for teaching--needs more variety in methods of teaching," and "should use better judgment in selection of topics." As a result of this evaluation, the observations of her principal and others, and the several counseling periods during which Respondent's deficiencies were pointed out to her along with suggestions for improvement, Respondent was put on notice of her failing performance and afforded the opportunity to take advantage of teacher education counseling (TEC) and, while she did enroll in at least one improvement course, failed to take full advantage of the available opportunities. Poppel's evaluation of Respondent as an incompetent teacher is based on: His personal observation; Evaluation by other professionals; Parent complaint follow-up; Her demonstrated lack of effective planning; Her lack of enforcement of school policies; Her lack of or inability to motivate students; Observed and reported chaotic classroom deportment; Her failure to keep proper records; and Her failure to leave lesson plans for substitutes. Notwithstanding the above, Respondent was well versed in the subject matter she was to teach and had the subjective background to be an excellent teacher. Her shortcomings, as described above, however, far outweighed the positive aspects of her credentials. Respondent was transferred for the 1981-82 school year to Fletcher High School in Jacksonville where she was placed under the supervision of Dr. Ragans, Principal, to teach English. Dr. Ragans spoke to Mr. Poppel, her former principal, about Respondent's weak areas so that he could develop plans to help her in those areas. In an effort to prepare Respondent for the coming year and to ensure she was fully aware of school policies and standards, Dr. Ragans held an extensive conference with Respondent to discuss her previous year's unsatisfactory rating and to make plans to remedy or remediate those areas. On August 25, 1981, he wrote a letter to Respondent in which he reiterated the items discussed previously. Review of this letter reveals there could be little doubt of what Dr. Ragans expected. Nonetheless, when he personally observed her in her classroom less than a month later, he found many of the same weaknesses previously identified, such as a noisy classroom environment, talking by students without being called on, Respondent appearing preoccupied with desk work, and inadequate lesson plans. In the observation report, he made numerous suggestions for improvement and offered Respondent the opportunity to a conference which she did not request. Prior to that observation, however, on September 8, 1981, Dr. Ragans and Respondent met with Dr. Jeff Weathers, TEC consultant for the School Board, in a full discussion of her professional shortcomings, at which meeting a suggestion was made that Respondent enroll in certain university-level courses in classroom management and motivation. Respondent was somewhat reluctant to take these courses because she felt they might interfere with her planning and her preparation for classes. Nonetheless, she did attend one class. Dr. Ragans had advised her he would arrange for substitute teachers for her so that she could take available classes. She was also invited to meet with master teachers in the school to seek assistance and to observe them, and she did in fact do so. In addition, a program was set up for her lesson plans to be reviewed by experts at the School Board. Respondent denies she ever submitted these plans, but according to Judith B. Silas, a resource teacher at School Board headquarters who reviewed Respondent's plans in December, 1981, her plans were confusing and lacking a consistent format: the dates on the plans reflect they were from an earlier series of years; objective numbers did not refer to the 1981 Curriculum Guide and did not cross-reference; and some included material had no relationship to plans or lessons. Ms. Silas's comments, forwarded to the school in February, 1982, were discussed with Respondent. A follow-up letter dated September 25, 1981, outlining the substance of the joint meeting with Dr. Weathers, was forwarded to Respondent. Shortly thereafter, on October 29, 1981, Dr. Ragans prepared a preliminary evaluation on Respondent rated overall as unsatisfactory in which 13 items were rated that way and 12 more rated as "needs to improve." On November 25, 1981, Respondent was provided with a lesson presentation checklist drawn by Dr. Weathers for her to use along with a notice of several night courses available to Respondent and a notice of a proposed observation of another teacher by Dr. Weathers and Respondent on December 14, 1981. After this observation, Dr. Weathers and Respondent discussed the positive aspects of that teacher's operation that Respondent could and should emulate. A new classroom observation of Respondent was set for January, 1982. In the interim, in January, 1982, Dr. Ragans received at least one parent request for a student to be transferred from Respondent's class because the classroom environment was noisy, unruly, and not conducive to learning. As a result of this letter and other parent contacts of a similar nature, Dr. Ragans had several informal discussions with Respondent during this period. On February 23, 1982, Respondent requested a conference with Dr. Ragans on her upcoming evaluation which was, she understood, to be unsatisfactory from a letter to her on February 5, 1982, from Dr. Ragans. This rating, conducted on February 2, 1982, but not signed by Dr. Ragans until March 3, 1982, was unsatisfactory, containing 14 items so marked and 13 marked "needs to improve." At the conference, held the same day as requested, Dr. Ragans advised Respondent he still felt she had marked deficiencies previously indicated regarding classroom control, authority, respect, lesson plans coordination, classroom planning, her failure to provide purposeful learning experiences, no student motivation, and her apparent inability to be understood by her students. Also cited to her were the continuing parent complaints and those of other teachers that their classrooms, used by her (she was a traveling teacher with no room of her own), had been damaged by her students. Much of this had previously been outlined in Dr. Ragans' February 2, 1982, letter indicating his intent to rate Respondent as unsatisfactory. Both Dr. Weathers and another school district supervisor, Dr. Henderson, observed Respondent in the classroom situation in late January or early February, 1982. Both individuals identified the same deficiencies as previously noted by so many others, and both made recommendations for improvement which were passed on, intact, to Respondent. In early March, 1982, Dr. Ragans advised Respondent in writing of his intent to evaluate her on March 15, 1982, to see if she had made any improvement. He did this because of Respondent's feeling that the previous evaluation had not given her enough time to work out improvements. This latest evaluation was also overall unsatisfactory. Two days later, on March 17, 1982, Respondent indicated in writing that she did not accept this evaluation. On April 30, 1982, Dr. Ragans again visited Respondent's classroom so that, if she had markedly improved, he could try to extend her contract or change her evaluation before the end of the school year. However, he could observe no appreciable change. Shortly after this visit, on May 3, he discussed with Respondent complaints he had received from several parents about warnings she had sent out on some students which inconsistently showed both satisfactory performance and danger of failing on the same form. She explained this as all students, including straight "A" students, who had not taken the MLST (test) were in danger of failing. Dr. Ragans felt this excuse was feeble and unjustified and demonstrated poor judgment on her part. All this was confirmed in a letter on May 17. A complaint from a parent of one of Respondent's students, received on June 11, 1982, initiated an audit of the grades given by Respondent during the school year. Results of this audit revealed at least 68 errors involving 46 students, including three students who received passing grades when they, in fact, had failed and should have been in summer school. A total of 13 student grades had to be changed, requiring a letter of notification and apology from the principal. Respondent did not deny the inconsistencies shown in the audit, but defended them on the basis of, in many cases, their being the result of her exercising her discretion and prerogative to award a grade different from that supported by recorded achievement if, in her opinion, other factors so dictated. In any case, the number of inconsistencies requiring a grade change was substantially higher than is normal. During the 1981-82 school year, Respondent had not been assigned a classroom of her own, but instead met and taught her classes in the rooms assigned to other teachers. This situation, while not unique to Respondent and one which several other teachers had as well, is nonetheless a definite handicap to any teacher. In an effort to alleviate the impact of this situation, all Respondent's rooms were scheduled as geographically close together as possible, and she was assigned only one subject to teach. Therefore, though she may have had several class periods which progressed at different speeds, the planning and preparation was similar and much less an arduous task than if she had different subjects to prepare for. In any case, there is little relationship between this and discipline and control in the classroom. Dr. Mary Henderson, Director of Language Arts/Reading for the Duval County School Board, observed Respondent in the classroom during both the 1980- 81 and 1981-82 school years at two different schools. Recognizing that Respondent has definite strengths in her knowledge of the subject matter to be taught and her recognition of and communication to the students of the relationship of their lessons to the test requirements, Dr. Henderson still felt Respondent was not a competent teacher. On both occasions, she found Respondent's lesson plans to be inadequate, her techniques in classroom management were deficient, she failed to make effective use of the students' time, and she failed to effectively motivate her students to participate in the classroom activities. Throughout all this period, according to both supervisors and others who observed her, Respondent always maintained a pleasant, calm, positive, and cooperative approach to all with whom she came into contact. At no time did she show hostility or resentment. Also, there was never a question as to her knowledge of the subject matter. Respondent possesses a bachelor's degree in English and a master's degree in administration and supervision. She has sufficient credit hours to qualify for a major in Spanish. She has also taken several in-service courses in such subjects as linguistics, methods of curriculum and instruction, British literature, and school administration. She is certified to teach English, Spanish, and typing. She has been a teacher in several Florida school systems for 29 years, of which the last 21 years were in various Jacksonville area schools. She is tenured. She was selected for summer school employment in 1980, while at Forrest High School, even though tenure does not ensure selection to teach summer school. During the 1980-81 school year, Respondent was caring for the aunt who raised her and who was suffering from terminal cancer. This required frequent travel back and forth to another part of the state, and in addition to being a physical burden, constituted a severe strain on her mental state. During that year, she started out teaching only twelfth grade classes, but as a result of a reduction in class sizes during the school year, she was given some additional tenth grade classes for which she had not prepared. Respondent feels her classroom discipline was not so unusual as to be remarkable. She feels she maintained classroom discipline as well as required and contested the allegations that she rarely referred students to the administration for additional discipline. She made all reasonable effort to improve her performance by enrolling in some of the courses recommended by Drs. Weathers and Ragans, but had to wait until the second semester because she did not get the information on the first semester courses until after they had started. The classes she took urged the use of listening and negotiating skills rather than the authoritative method in dealing with students. She tried to implement what she learned in her classrooms and feels she succeeded regardless of what the testimony shows. In addition, she took a course dealing with self- concept and self-confidence and applied for admission to Jacksonville University's master of arts program in an effort to upgrade her skills. Respondent admits that at the beginning of the 1981-82 school year, she was not using formal lesson plans. She had been asked by the administration for plans on a weekly basis and had jotted down ideas on paper. To formulate these ideas, she used prior years lesson plans, but did not turn any of these in. This does not track with Ms. Silas's testimony that the Respondent's plans she reviewed appeared to be from prior years. I find that prior years' plans were used by Respondent extensively and how these plans were transmitted to Ms. Silas for review is immaterial. Respondent, based on the above, while possessing the necessary technical qualifications to perform as a teacher, while possessing the appropriate knowledge of her subject matter, and while possessing the desire to impart that knowledge to her students, is nonetheless incompetent to conduct a class, maintain proper discipline, and generate adequate student motivation to accomplish these desired ends.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be removed from classroom teaching duties and be assigned some other function within the school system until such time, unless sooner released for other good cause, as she can retire with maximum benefits. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 1st day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary E. Eckstine, Esquire Chief Administrative Hearings Section City of Jacksonville 1300 City Hall Jacksonville, Florida 32202 William F. Kachergus, Esquire Maness & Kachergus 502 Florida Theatre Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Herb A. Sang Superintendent Duval County Public Schools 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Anna M. Brewer, holds Teaching Certificate Number 475518, issued by the Department of Education, State of Florida. Respondent is certified to teach in the area of elementary education, grades 1-6. From 1968 or 1969 until 1980, Respondent worked for the School Board as a teacher aide. As a teacher aide, she had approximately twelve years to view a wide variety of teaching strategies, methods, and teaching techniques in the approximately six different schools to which she had been assigned. While employed as a teacher's aide, Respondent attended Miami-Dade Junior Community College, North Campus, and studied Initial Elementary Education. She then completed Bachelor's Training at Nova University in 1979 and thereafter became employed as a classroom teacher with the Dade County School Board at the Elementary Level beginning in the 1980-1981 school year. Respondent has been employed as an elementary teacher by Petitioner School Board since the 1980-1981 school year. During all of that period, she has taught at Perrine Elementary School in Dade County, Florida. During all of the years Respondent taught, except for the first year, she had classes approximately half of a regular size class. This was because she has been teaching Title I/Chapter I classes. "Title I", renamed "Chapter I", classes refer to classes funded and mandated as part of the Education Consolidation Improvement Act which targets children who are deficient in certain areas and concentrates on bringing them into the mainstream of the education process by concentrated remediation in small, directed education classes. It is a "given" that many of these children are difficult to teach and to control. 1980-1981 SCHOOL YEAR On October 29, 1980 Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by her principal, Gloria H. Gray. Although rated overall acceptable she was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning and in assessment techniques. Although rated acceptable in techniques of instruction, Respondent was rated unacceptable in one subcategory thereof because the proliferation of students' questions concerning the work indicated to the observer that the Respondent did not give clear assignments and directions to allow ample time for completion of tasks. Respondent was next formally observed by Principal Gray on December 12, 1980. Although Respondent was rated overall acceptable, she was rated unacceptable in classroom management because Mrs. Gray found much off-task behavior on the part of students, and Respondent appeared not to notice it. Through no fault of her own, Respondent had a very difficult first year experience with many interruptions. She was the foreman of the Grand Jury and was absent every Wednesday. In addition, she had legitimate family and medical problems causing frequent absences. To the extent possible, principal Gray initiated and followed through on numerous attempts to remediate Respondent's deficiencies in teaching. Mrs. Gray also provided an aide for Respondent in order to be assured that the education of her students was not being sorely neglected. Respondent was in a large pod with two other teachers. They helped Respondent in putting work on the board clearly. They also helped her in getting and using instructional material. Although Mrs. Gray testified that she was, in the spring of 1981, of the opinion that there was a repeated failure on the part of Respondent to communicate with and relate to the students in her classroom to such an extent that they were deprived of a minimal educational experience, she nonetheless rated Respondent acceptable in all categories and gave Respondent an overall acceptable rating on her Annual Evaluation for the 1980-1981 school year. Mrs. Gray gave Respondent the benefit of the doubt because Respondent had improved her teaching skills during the year, she had a good attitude toward trying to improve, she took Mrs. Gray's recommendations and attempted to implement them, and Mrs. Gray expected further improvement from Respondent the following year. Mrs. Gray further recommended Respondent for re-employment as an annual contract teacher. 1981-1982 SCHOOL YEAR Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by her new principal Dr. Joan Hanley, on November 23, 1981. While Respondent was very devoted to self-improvement, she was nevertheless rated overall unacceptable and unacceptable in the category of preparation and planning because she did not have complete lesson plans for each of the following subjects she was responsible to teach: social studies, science, art, music, and physical education. Likewise, she did not have plans which could be used by a substitute in the event of her absence. Although she was rated acceptable in classroom management, Dr. Hanley offered suggestions for Respondent's improvement. It was not clear to Dr. Hanley whether Respondent's students were grouped for math. It is a standard instructional strategy to ascertain the ability levels of the students, group them accordingly, and plan separate instruction for the various groups. She also instructed Respondent to stand up and move between her groups of students in order to monitor the random activity that goes on. Respondent was formally observed in her classroom by Assistant Principal Ellen Supran on January 6, 1982. Although rated overall acceptable, Respondent was found unacceptable in one subcategory, techniques of instruction. This subcategory deals with the use of instructional strategies for teaching the subject matter. Her students were not grouped for math instruction and the subject matter was too difficult and too abstract for the students. Respondent was not getting feedback from them. During the remainder of the school year, Mrs. Supran assisted Respondent through informal visitations. On these occasions, Mrs. Supran was concerned about Respondent's lesson plans, her children being off-task, and the appropriateness of the tasks assigned to the students by Respondent. She spent time working with Respondent on lesson plans, materials, instructional strategies, grouping, and monitoring children's progress. Respondent had an accident during the 1981-1982 school year which resulted in extended sick leave. Dr. Hanley was unable to observe Respondent formally in the classroom for the remainder of that school year. Because Respondent was anxious to improve her teaching and because she had made a good start, Dr. Hanley felt that it was only fair to rate Respondent acceptable in all categories for her Annual Evaluation for the 1981-1982 school year. Therefore, for the school year 1981-1982, Respondent's second annual contract year, Respondent was found acceptable in all categories on her Annual Evaluation and was again recommended for employment. 1982-1983 SCHOOL YEAR Respondent's next formal observation was on November 23, 1982. Although rated overall acceptable, Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter, because the observer, Dr. Hanley, felt Respondent needed improvement in grammar, particularly verb usage. More specifically, Dr. Hanley observed poor grammar was utilized orally by Respondent in the course of teaching other subjects. Hers was a significant error because Respondent was teaching a resource class in compensatory education. This is a remedial class which addressed the reading, language arts, and mathematics needs of low- achieving students. In every type of class, it is necessary that a teacher set a good example in spoken English. Because elementary school children model the speech of their teacher, Respondent's grammatical errors, which were frequent and excessive, would impede the students' acquisition of appropriate language arts skills. In remedial classes, the effect is more pronounced and reinforces poor language arts skills because the children are already deficient in that area. Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by Dr. Hanley on December 7, 1982. Although rated overall acceptable, Respondent was again found unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she continued to make the same kinds of grammatical errors she had been observed making at the November 23, 1982 observation. The December 7, 1982 observation resulted in a prescription for remediation. Dr. Hanley suggested that Respondent record herself on a tape recorder so that she could become sensitized to verb forms. Respondent followed Dr. Hanley's advice and it helped on the subsequent observation, but she did not sustain the improvement as indicated below. Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by Dr. Hanley on February 10, 1983. She was rated overall acceptable and made only one grammatical error, saying "cent" sometimes instead of "cents." Note was made of excellent behavior modification. On Respondent's Annual Evaluation for the 1982-1983 school year, Dr. Hanley rated Respondent acceptable in all categories and recommended her for employment for the next school year as a continuing contract teacher. Respondent had achieved tenure. 1983-1984 SCHOOL YEAR Respondent was next formally observed in her classroom by Dr. Hanley on May 7, 1984. Although rated overall acceptable, she was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter and in a single subcategory of preparation and planning. She was rated unsatisfactory in the latter subcategory because her room was so cluttered that it was difficult to carry on her instruction. She was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she was again making the same grammatical errors she had made the year before. (See Finding of Fact No. 20 that improvement was not sustained). For example, the following statements were written on Respondent's chalk board: "Dorothy want to go back home", " . . . work that I have not finish." Dr. Hanley reminded Respondent that they had worked on the "ed" and "s" endings on verbs before. Nonetheless, Respondent was rated acceptable in all areas on her Annual Evaluation for 1983-1984 and was recommended for continued employment as a continuing contract teacher. 1984-1985 SCHOOL YEAR Through the 1983-1984 school year, the School Board utilized the standard evaluation system which was an undefined system that allowed observers maximum discretion, without any clear or consistent criteria. It was essentially geared toward making any end-of-the year employment decision. With the advent of the 1984-1985 school year, a new method of evaluating teachers was put into effect. Beginning with the 1984-1985 school year, Respondent's performance was assessed under a new form of evaluation which was thoroughly tested by the School Board and which was negotiated and agreed-to between the School Board and Respondent's union. This is the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS). TADS is a highly specific research-based clinical supervision system. State-of-the-art research has characterized certain teaching behaviors that are effective in a learning environment. TADS has grouped these into categories of assessment criteria. Required teaching behaviors are very precisely defined and there is very little room for discretionary interpretation by the observer. Ideally, the system is governed by decision rules which eliminate the potential of an arbitrary or capricious application of the criteria. The system is intended to further develop and upgrade teaching skills and assist the individual teacher to perform better. On the down side, TADS was characterized by the School Board's expert, Dr. Patrick Gray, as a clinical form of evaluation which primarily identifies teaching behavior which is simply acceptable, but it would not identify behavior of superior or excellent performance. (TR-II 47) Respondent's first formal classroom observation under TADS was on November 13, 1984. She was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because she only carried out a very small part of the lesson and because she did not follow the assessment item in her lesson plan. She was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she presented the information to the children inadequately. There was no background given to draw out the students' previous understanding; no introduction, reinforcement, and drill; and no form of assessment to ascertain what the children had learned when the lesson was completed. She was rated unacceptable in classroom management, because there was disorder a good part of the time and the class was not conducive to learning. Respondent and students arrived late. There were many delays during the class period. The cardboard coins utilized in the lesson on coin values became a great distraction and Respondent was unable to bring the coins into the lesson. She only got into the very introductory part of the lesson and rambled in her instruction. Respondent was not able to pull the students together into a group of attentive listeners. She was also rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she never fully instructed the students about her expectations regarding what they were to do at their desks. The coins became the major focus of the children's attention and they were tossing them and taking them from one another. Respondent was rated unacceptable in assessment techniques because there was no assessment of the teaching objectives. As a result, there would be no way to tie up a lesson or help a teacher plan subsequent lessons. In order to aid Respondent in improving her performance, Dr. Hanley prescribed help. Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent develop the skill of pacing her lessons so that she could complete the lesson within the allotted time; that Respondent seek help from Cynthia Muller, a PREP specialist, and that she also seek help from Dorothy Sissel, Chapter I Manager. Dr. Hanley also prescribed help in that she recommended that Respondent reorganize her room to make materials accessible for more efficiency. She recommended Mr. Holmberg, Assistant Principal, as a resource person. She also recommended that Respondent seek help from the Chapter I Specialist. Dr. Hanley recommended the Respondent seek help from Chapter I and PREP specialists because she felt that the on-the- spot classroom training by these very qualified people would be very helpful to Respondent. PREP stands for Florida Primary Education Program, a program mandated by the State of Florida pursuant to Section 230.2312, Florida Statutes. PREP mandates a diagnostic- prescriptive approach that enables each child to have an individualized program to permit development of that child's maximum potential and to achieve a level of competence by that child in basis skills. Pursuant to this approach, students are divided into three categories, with those developing at a normal level being taught with developmental teaching strategies, those having been identified as having potential learning problems, being taught with preventive teaching strategies, and those needing more challenging work, being taught with enrichment teaching strategies. The School Board has developed reading and math programs to comply with the statutory mandate. Respondent actually received help from Cynthia Muller, the PREP Specialist, in the areas of preparation and planning, classroom management and techniques of instruction. Mrs. Muller helped Respondent approximately on 9 to 10 occasions for a total of approximately 12 hours of assistance. She provided this assistance on November 7, 9, 26, 29 and December 4, 1984, and on February 7, May 28, June 6, and 11, 1985. In the course of her assistance, Mrs. Muller observed several problems with Respondent's teaching. There was a lot of off- task behavior. The children were jittery and walked around the classroom at will. They exhibited little motivation. Mrs. Muller found that much of the work was inappropriate for the students, above the level for which they were competent. That added to the off-task behavior. On November 26, 1984, Mrs. Muller did a demonstration lesson for Respondent showing her how the children could be motivated to stay in their seats and work quietly. She also demonstrated the use of the teacher manual in planning for the complete class period so that all of the children would receive their reading lessons within the prescribed timeframe. On another occasion, they also discussed the Total Math Program (TMP), Petitioner School Board's diagnostic-prescriptive program for math. TMP provides for pre- and post-testing of students and clustering students into particular groups. They discussed grouping students, assessing them, planning for them, and instructing them using a teacher's manual. Mrs. Muller also suggested a positive re-enforcement type of reward system. She also suggested that Respondent remove books and materials from the instructional area so that the class would have a clean place to work and place their books. Mrs. Muller also noticed misspelled words and improperly used words on the chalkboard e.g., "When he finish the book." Mrs. Muller's assistance, November 7, 1984 to June 11, 1985 overlaps several subsequent formal observations. Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by Dr. Hanley on December 7, 1984. Despite Mrs. Muller's assessment on November 7 and 11 that there was some improvement, Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning, classroom management, and techniques of instruction by Dr. Hanley on December 7, 1984. She was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because she had no assessment item in her lesson plan. Because Respondent told Dr. Hanley that she knew what was expected and she promised to do it in the future, Dr. Hanley did not make a further prescription in that area. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because her classroom was still very disorderly. Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent designate areas for specific subjects and tasks within her room. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because her lesson, again, was considered by Dr. Hanley to be a rambling one. Dr. Hanley found the lesson components not to be sequenced; Respondent did not accent the important points; Respondent was unaware of what her students were doing; she did not provide suggestions to her students for improving performance; she did not adjust her lesson when students were not understanding but went right on with what she was teaching rather than re-teach a concept. Dr. Hanley did not feel Respondent provided for closure of the lesson so as to help the children pick up the critical areas of the lesson and so as to be ready for the next lesson. Respondent continued to make grammatical and spelling errors, e.g., "...Santa Clause and other tradition." In order to help Respondent improve her performances Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent observe two fellow teachers whom Dr. Hanley felt had excellent techniques of instruction. A conference-for-the-record was scheduled for the Respondent in December, 1984, but due to Respondent's illness and impending surgery, it was rescheduled for February 13, 1985. A conference-for-the-record is an official meeting regarding a teacher's teaching performance. It is required so that the teacher is officially notified that her deficient performance has not been remediated. At the conference, administrators went over Respondent's classroom observations. Respondent was notified that if she was still under prescription at the time of her Annual Evaluation, she would not receive her annual teaching increment (pay raise). From February through May, 1985, Perrine Elementary School was visited at least once a week by the Chapter I Educational specialist, Tarja Geis. She helped most of the teachers each time she visited. Chapter I is a federally funded program which addresses reading and math deficiencies in children from low income areas. It uses a language experience approach. Ms. Geis' opportunities to observe Respondent were short and sporadic. Her observations were not "formal" observations. However, when Ms. Geis did observe Respondent in the classroom, she noticed Respondent's inattentiveness to some of the children's behavior. She suggested ways to Respondent to improve that, most of which were "boilerplate" suggestions. Ms. Geis also observed one of Respondent's lessons and did a demonstration lesson for her on May 22, 1985, in order to show Respondent the language experience approach used in the Chapter I program. Ms. Geis discussed and/or demonstrated techniques to improve class management, student behavior, student comprehension and student attitude. On March 15, 1985, Ms. Geis gave a workshop for Chapter I teachers. All teachers who would have been working that day would have been in attendance. It is probable that Respondent attended that workshop. She had missed an earlier one in February because of her absence. Respondent indicated at formal hearing that she was not aware that Tarja Geis was a resource person for her use, but her perception is illogical in that Ms. Geis is a Chapter I Educational Specialist and Respondent teaches in the category of Chapter I students. Respondent also testified that she was not given in-service learning experiences by Dr. Hanley and Mr. Holmberg when she requested them. The workshop given by Ms. Geis would seem to address this request, contrary to Respondent's assertion. Respondent concurs that she attended at least one such workshop. Respondent was next formally observed in her classroom by Dr. Hanley on March 21, 1985. By this time, Respondent had received help from Mrs. Muller and Ms. Geis. She may have also sought help from the two teachers at her school. By her own testimony, she sought assistance from Ms. Jackerson and by a course taught outside of the usual school day. She showed great improvement and was rated acceptable in every category. Respondent was next formally observed in her classroom on May 7, 1985, simultaneously by Dr. Hanley and the area director, Phyllis Cohen. Under TADS, this is an external or dual observation where two observers assess the same classroom performance. Its purpose is to assure objectivity and fairness. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because her lesson plans were not carried out. While Respondent attempted to work with one group, the other groups' lessons were not implemented. The students were not on task. The group at the listening station was not doing its work. The group doing independent reading did not open their books. At least half the students did not receive their directed reading lesson. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because her development of ideas and information was unclear and confusing. She would give insufficient definitions and did not reinforce with enough examples so that the students could understand the homework assignment. The lesson was not sequenced and Respondent was again using inaccurate language. The vocabulary words that the students were working on were not introduced to them and did not have any relationship to the lesson. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because her classroom was out of control and because of her problems in managing the transition time, getting and keeping students settled, and managing the different reading groups. Class started ten minutes late, and during transitions in the lesson, approximately twenty minutes were wasted. As the hour progressed, the noise crescendoed. Five to eight students were off-task at different times during the class. One student slapped another during the lesson. Respondent was not aware of the off-task behavior and did not redirect the students. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she did not introduce the lesson, provide opportunities for the students to practice, get feedback whether the students had obtained information, or provide reinforcement and follow-up. In other words the sequence was not appropriate. There was a lot of jumping around in the lesson. Respondent did not address the various learning styles of the students. Her communication was not precise enough for students to understand what she was trying to teach. She did not give the students feedback on their strengths and weaknesses. Although she used the teacher manual, she did not fill in between the questions with her own information. She asked the questions in a distorted manner. The students were unable to answer the questions and Respondent could not elaborate but went on to the next question. Her directions to the students were very poor, as were her explanations. She failed to rephrase explanations that were not understood. Her instructions to the listening station group were not specific enough. Her questions on the worksheet were not explained in a way that the students were able to proceed independently. They did not do the worksheet at all. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in assessment techniques because she did not assess what the students were learning at their levels. Material was presented at a low cognitive level. She did not seem to be able to ascertain whether the students were learning what she was teaching them. She did not walk around to determine what each group was doing. In order to help Respondent improve her teaching performance, Dr. Hanley recommended that she work with Mrs. Muller again on the execution of her lesson plans in order to facilitate a directed reading lesson for each of her reading groups. To help Respondent improve her teaching performance, Dr. Hanley recommended that she observe another Chapter I teacher during a reading lesson to hone in on the development of ideas and information in a sequential and meaningful manner. Two teachers were named as resources. To help Respondent with her classroom management, Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent work with Ms. Geis and the Assistant Principal to develop strategies for effective student management while beginning classes and during transition periods and that she work with an observer to sensitize herself to off-task, nonproductive activities on the part of students. It was also recommended that Respondent revamp her behavior modification plan to enhance student involvement. To help Respondent improve her techniques of instruction, Dr. Hanley recommended the Respondent again work with Ms. Geis and Mrs. Muller since she had improved after working with these two education specialists the prior year. Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent review the elements in a basal reading lesson, i.e., background, sequence, and closure. She also recommended that Respondent rehearse her reading lesson so that she would think ahead about the main points and key definitions. She recommended that Respondent work with the observers to sensitize herself to situations in which the students are confused, and that she develop strategies to improve clarification. Dr. Hanley was also available to Respondent as a resource. In order to help Respondent improve techniques of instruction, Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent have a person observe Respondent while she was teachings and help her on the spot when her students were not following the lesson. She suggested the Respondent develop assessment techniques which incorporated multilevel assessment activities. She also recommended that Respondent include development of summative assessment instruments in conjunction with these other activities. She recommended that Ms. Geis and the Assistant Principal be used as resources to help Respondent develop a sensitivity in identifying whether the students were on-track. On May 28, 19 85, Mrs. Muller discussed reading lessons with Respondent. She went over sequencing. She asked Respondent to rehearse her reading instruction. Mrs. Muller also gave Respondent a PREP teacher guide and a sample directed reading lesson. She referred her to a section on classroom organization and management. On June 6, 1985, Mrs. Muller was to visit Respondent's class and to observe a directed reading lesson. Respondent, however, was doing a different lesson. There was very little organization in the lesson. Mrs. Muller saw some improvement in the Respondent's teaching; however, considering the amount of time she had spent with the Respondent, she would have expected to have seen more progress. Although Respondent had demonstrated a willingness to receive suggestions for improvement and a willingness to work toward acceptable ratings, her Annual Evaluation for the 1984-1985 school year was unacceptable. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. Nonetheless, Respondent was recommended for continued employment for the next school year as a continuing contract teacher. It was Dr. Hanley's hope that Respondent would remediate herself during the next school year. Respondent remained on prescription and would not be entitled to her pay increment (raise) for the next school year while she was still on prescription. 1985-1986 SCHOOL YEAR On October 16 and 17, 1985, Respondent received more help from a fellow teacher, Joyce King. Ms. King discussed with Respondent the instructional processes of sequencing, interfacing subjects, and closure. Ms. King also demonstrated a reading lesson for Respondent. On October 22, 1985, Respondent received further help from another teacher, Doretha P. Thomas. Respondent observed Ms. Thomas during a developmental reading lesson in her class. Ms. Thomas also discussed with Respondent the amount of time used with the reading group, scheduling, and possible changes Respondent could make in her own planning. Respondent was next formally observed in her classroom by Dr. Hanley on October 30, 1985. The class was working on the Dade County required diagnostic-prescriptive reading curriculum known as RSVP. This curriculum contemplates that students are to be pretested and their deficiencies listed on individual profiles so that the teacher knows what specific skills to teach them. It is mandatory that the students' skills be profiled before the teacher attempts to work with them. Respondent had not completed the RSVP paperwork as of the date of this observation. I accept Respondent's testimony that she only had from October 18 until October 30, 1985 in which to complete these profiles; that she was under some disadvantage in preparing the profiles because of the administration's peremptory move of all her materials to a smaller classroom on Friday October 18; and that her observation rating was somewhat tainted by the temporary mess that resulted from the move. However, I find that the period involved would have been sufficient to complete at least the profiles if she had performed her tasks diligently in the intervening seven workdays. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in classroom management because the class was not well managed and the students were not working. After the midpoint of the period, three students did no work. In the last ten minutes of the periods, six students did no work. Many students completed worksheets during the first twenty minutes of the class and then colored pictures. These students of Respondent's were not re- directed by her. Respondent seemed to be unaware of the off-task behavior. In order to help Respondent with her classroom management, Dr. Hanley recommended the Respondent move among the students periodically. She also recommended the Respondent plan sufficient work for the instructional period and that she clarify to students what additional study and enrichment activities were available when work is completed. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she was not monitoring pupil performance. Students were doing work incorrectly on their worksheets, and Respondent did not circulate and catch the errors or clarify them. Therefore, incorrect material was being reinforced by the students in their work. Several of the students did not understand the follow- up worksheets. The students' confusion indicated that they were not being taught at their appropriate level. They were being taught on a hit or miss method since their profiles had not been completed. In order to help Respondent improve her techniques of instruction, Dr. Hanley recommended that she fulfill the requirements of RSVP by completing her profiles, grouping her children, and making a class profile chart. Dr. Hanley also recommended that the teacher aide assist Respondent with the pretesting. Dr. Hanley listed the area PREP specialist and herself to review grouping for instruction. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in assessment techniques because although she, as part of her school faculty, had been instructed every year as to the School Board requirements for maintaining student folders, her student folders were deficient. She had no papers dated after September 19, 1985 in them. In order to help Respondent improve her assessment techniques, Dr. Hanley clarified what was expected as far as classroom folders. Respondent must have at least one graded and dated paper per week in reading, math, and writing in each student's folder. Dr. Hanley listed herself and other classroom teachers as a resource for Respondent. Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by Assistant Principal, Herbert Holmberg. He rated her unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because she had grammatically incorrect information and statements on the chalkboard. Knowledge of subject matter was not exhibited as Respondent read verbatim from the teacher manual. She did not address various cognitive levels. In order to help Respondent improve her knowledge of subject matter, Mr. Holmberg recommended that Respondent prepare her material, information, and directions in advance and that her verbal and written usage be grammatically correct. He suggested more flexibility and elaboration during reading. He also suggested that the subject matter be presented at more than one level. As recommended resources, he listed the Principal, the Assistant Principal, and a peer teacher. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because she did not have a sequence in the lesson. The grammar on the board was incorrect. Her spelling was incorrect. There was no variety to her activities. There was no assessment of closure in the lesson. As resources for help, he recommended the Assistant Principal, the PREP specialist, and a peer teacher. Another conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent on December 9, 1985. Respondent's teaching performance was discussed. Dr, Hanley was hopeful the Respondent would be able to remediate her deficiencies; however, Respondent was put on notice that if she was not fully remediated by the close of the school year she would be recommended for termination for cause. Respondent was next formally observed by Charles Sherwood, Directors Basic Skills on December 13, 1985. She was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction and assessment techniques. Respondent testified that Dr. Sherwood orally indicated to her that her rating was satisfactory and created no problems but the business record of the school (P 30) shows that he rated her unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because all of the pupils received the same spelling lesson, despite the differences in their reading levels; and that he rated her unsatisfactory in assessment techniques because, although the school year was very close to being halfway over, Respondent still had not completed her PREP roster. Respondent was next formally and simultaneously observed in her classroom in another external observation on March 17, 1986, by Dr. Hanley and Mrs. Cohen, and she was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because there were a substantial number of errors in teaching the concept "1/2". The words "equal" and unequal" were not used, although they were key vocabulary words in the teacher's manual for the lesson. Respondent told the children that a whole with a line in it becomes one-half. She did not indicate that the line had to be in the middle of the whole in order for there to be halves. In order to help Respondent improve her knowledge of her subject matter, Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent use the teacher's manual for planning and delivering of instruction. It was requested the Respondent master the use of and use the words "equal" and "unequal" appropriately. She also recommended the Respondent use the area specialists, peer teachers, and the Assistant Principal as resources. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because the explanations of the concept of a whole, half, and fractions were not clear to the reviewer, and the reviewers felt the components necessary to address the key concepts were not effectively presented, thereby confusing she children, and an appropriate vocabulary was not used. They felt Respondent's lesson was again lacking in sequence. Additional resources and suggestions for improvement were prescribed to Respondent. Another conference-for-the-record was held with the Respondent on April 16, 1986. Some of Respondent's concerns regarding the TADS process were addressed. Respondent's improvement was discussed and Respondent was again notified that if she failed to be removed from prescription by the end of this second year of deficiency, recommendation of dismissal for cause would be made. Respondent was next formally and simultaneously observed in the classroom in another external observation by Dr. Hanley and Evelyn Evans, another area director. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because she made errors in subtracting. The errors which she made on the board were not corrected. She also made errors in the process itself. These errors were demonstrated on a chalkboard at formal hearing which was erased without being admitted in evidence, but the oral testimony and business records of this observation are sufficient to support this finding. Respondent did not correct student errors, used inappropriate terminology referred to the one's and ten's columns as the right column and left columns and thereby confused the children. Dr. Hanley found the deficiencies in this lesson very similar to the math lesson observed on March 17, 1986. Respondent was still using her own vocabulary. Despite the fact that most of the children in her class and certainly most of our society could understand Respondent's use of "take away" for "subtract" and use of similar colloquialisms, the School Board established the need for more precise and consistent language in teaching early math skills. Respondent did not show evidence of having mastered the subject matter. In order to help Respondent improve her knowledge of subject matter, Dr. Hanley again emphasized mastery of vocabulary and concepts in the teacher's manual and advised adhering closely to the recommended word usage and plan of instruction. Respondent was instructed not to use her own vocabulary and methods until she had total command of the material. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because of many errors. The lesson was not properly sequenced; the children did not have a basic understanding of subtracting without regrouping before beginning subtracting with regrouping; Respondent's use of her own vocabulary confused the children; Respondent did not clarify by rephrasing with different words, but rather, used the same vocabulary over again that the children had not understood the first time. Respondent blocked the chalkboard while she was demonstrating to the class, was inattentive to the need for a chair by one student, and required a reading level of the children in math for which they were not prepared. Respondent again demonstrated improper subject-verb agreement, e.g., "What is the numbers?" and dropping endings on verbs, e.g., "As time go on", "Three minus two leave one." In order to help Respondent improve her techniques of instruction, Dr. Hanley again recommended the Respondent work with another second grade teacher to understand and become proficient in following the sequence and the delivery of instructions to include introduction, background, and the other steps in sequencing. She was also instructed to master the vocabulary and instructional plans in the teacher's manual and to adhere to them while teaching. She was instructed to develop a method for re-teaching individual students who appeared not to understand the lesson. Another conference-for-the-record was held on June 6, 1986. Respondent's unacceptable teaching performance was reviewed. Respondent was advised that a recommendation for dismissal for cause would be made. Respondent was also given an end of the year prescription, as required by TADS. Although Respondent had improved her classroom management during the year, she was still unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction for the 1985-1986 school year. The two unacceptable categories are key categories in teaching. Improvement in these had either been slight or not at all, and Dr. Hanley had exhausted the school system's resources in attempting to assist Respondent. Respondent's testimony at formal hearing corroborates her supervisors' observations as to her failure to exhibit appropriate English grammar and usage with regard to subject-verb tenses. Gloria Jackerson, a retired teacher, testified on behalf of Respondent. Although this retired teacher of 21 years and a candid witness, she is Respondent's best friend. While this relationship may not have colored her favorable testimony, she admits that she has never observed Respondent teach in the classroom nor has she taught Chapter I students in Miami-Dade County under the present program. Therefore, her testimony with regard to Respondent's competency must be rejected. Evidence presented by several satisfied parents is all in Respondent's favors however, most had no training in classroom observation nor were they able to observe Respondent teaching in her classroom over any significant period of time. Their observations, therefore, were of minimal duration and purely subjective. No objective records showing whether their children were promoted or how their children progressed under Respondent's teaching were offered to substantiate their layman's viewpoint. With regard to the testimony of Robert Collins, a Learning Disability teacher in the Dade County School System, who requested that his child be placed in the Respondent's class and who had a brief opportunity to observe Mrs. Brewer in the classroom and who testified that her classes were well managed, his observation opportunities were so brief and so sporadic as to not outweigh the greater weight of the expert testimony of Petitioner's witnesses. The supportive evidence of Geraldine Townsend, another Perrine teachers is not helpful to Respondent in that this witness also had no truly meaningful observations of Respondent. The testimony of Mrs. Collins, a mother and also a teacher's aide, that some of the formal observers made Respondent's classes nervous and jittery is accepted, but this circumstance does not eliminate or seriously mitigate Respondent's responsibilities to teach effectively and to keep her students under control during observations. Respondent Brewer has worked hard to obtain her education and position. She is a deeply religious, compassionate, and caring individual. She has the type of supportive personality the young people of this society dearly need to know and relate to. She has good rapport with the young and communicates with them in loving and supportive ways. However, her personal qualifications and attributes do not outweigh the clear and convincing evidence of her incompetency as demonstrated by the foregoing Findings of Fact. On August 20, 1986, Petitioner School Board suspended Respondent, 55 years old, from employment, 2.20 years short of her attaining full retirement, and further initiated dismissal procedures.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner, School Board of Dade County, Florida, enter a Final Order sustaining the suspension, without pay, as of August 20, 1986, of Respondent, Anna M. Brewer, and dismissing Respondent Anna M. Brewer as a teacher in the Dade County Public Schools. That the Educational Practices Commission enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's Florida teaching certificate for five years or until she demonstrates competency pursuant to statute and ruled whichever occurs first. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of July, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 31st day of July, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOs. 86-3926, 87-0468 The following constitutes specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF). Petitioner School Board's PFOF Covered in FOF 1. Covered in FOF 2 and 3. Covered and corrected to reflect the record in FOF 5. Covered in FOF 6. Covered in FOF 7. 6-8. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary except as set out in FOF 11. Covered in FOF 8. Except to the extent it is subordinate and unnecessary, it is covered in FOF 9. Rejected as subordinate, unnecessary and cumulative. Partially addressed in FOF 11. Covered in FOF 10. Covered in FOF 11. Covered in FOF 12. Covered in FOF 13. 16-18. Covered in FOF 14. Covered in FOF 15. Covered in FOF 16. Covered in FOF 17. 22-23. Covered in FOF 18. Covered in FOF 19. Covered in FOF 20. Covered in FOF 21. Covered in FOF 22. Covered in FOF 23. Covered in FOF 24. Covered in FOF 25. Covered in FOF 26. Except to the extent it required expansion to fully conform to the record and except to the extent its proposals are subordinate and unnecessary, this proposal is covered in FOF 26. 33.-42. Covered in FOF 27-28. 43.-47. Except as contrary to the record for expression or subordinate, covered in FOF 29. Covered in FOF 30. Covered in FOF 31. Covered in FOF 32. Covered in FOF 33. Covered in FOF 34. Covered in FOF 35. Covered in F0F 36. Modified to more accurately reflect the record as a whole, in FOF 37. Modified to more accurately reflect the record as a whole, in FOF 38. Covered in FOF 39. Covered in FOF 41. Covered in FOF 42. , 62., 64., 66. and 68. are covered in FOF 43. , 63., 65., 67. and 69. are covered in FOF 44. 70.-73. Covered in FOF 45. Covered in FOF 46. Covered in FOF 47. Covered in FOF 48. Covered, expanded and modified so as to reflect the competent, substantial evidence of record as a whole in FOF 49. Covered in FOF 50. Covered in FOF 51. Covered in FOF 52. Covered in FOF 50 and 53. Covered in FOF 54. Covered in FOF 55. Covered in FOF 56. Covered in FOF 57. Covered in FOF 58. Covered in FOF 59. Covered in FOF 60. 89-91. Expanded and modified to reflect the competent, substantial evidence of record and to eliminate the subordinate and unnecessary in FOF 61. Covered in FOF 62. Except to the extent it is subordinate and unnecessary, covered in FOF 63 and 65. Covered in FOF 64. 95-96. Covered in FOF 65 except for cumulative and unnecessary material. Covered in FOF 66. Covered in FOF 67. Covered and expanded in FOF 68. Covered in FOF 69. Except to the extent it is subordinate and unnecessary or cumulative, covered in FOF 70. Covered in FOF 71. Covered in FOF 72. Covered in FOF 73. Rejected as cumulative. Covered in FOF 74. Rejected as cumulative. Covered and expanded in FOF 80. Petitioner Betty Castor's (EPC's) PFOF Since this petitioner adopted the PFOF of Petitioner School Board, the rulings are also the same. Respondent's PFOF Covered in FOF 1. Covered in FOF 2-3. Covered in FOF 4. There is no PFOF. Covered in FOF 7-13, most specifically in FOF 13. Covered in FOF 14-17, most specifically in FOF 17. Covered in FOF 18-22, most specifically in FOF 22. Covered in FOF 23-25, most specifically in FOF 25. 9-10. Covered in FOF 26. Rejected as not supported by the evidence. Rejected as not supported by the evidence and for the reasons discussed in FOF 75. Rejected as not supported by the evidence and for the reasons discussed in FOF 77. Rejected as not supported by the evidence and for the reasons discussed in FOF 76. Rejected as not supported by the evidence and for the reasons discussed in FOF 78. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard Britton, Superintendent School Board of Dade County 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Madeline P. Schere, Esquire Board Administration Building Suite 301 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 J. David Holders Esquire 211 South Gadsden Street Post Office Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 William DuFresne, Esquire 2929 Southwest Third Avenue Suite 1 Miami, Florida 33129 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 =================================================================
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 Tracy Tashanna Jackson is a 13-year-old, and Tammy Terrell Jackson is a 12-year-old, who were, until February 7, 1979, assigned respectively to the eighth and seventh grades at Miami Edison Middle School in Miami, Florida. On February 7, 1979, an incident occurred at Miami Edison Middle School which resulted in both students being reassigned to Jan Mann Opportunity School North. At the time of this incident, the two students had been attending Miami Edison Middle School for only approximately one month. On February 6, 1979, one day prior to the incident which gave rise to this proceeding, the students were threatened by another student who allegedly was a member of a group of students popularly known as the "Graveyard Gang." Upon receiving the throat, the students went to the office of the Assistant Principal and advised him that they expected trouble from these other students. The Assistant Principal essentially advised the students to attempt to avoid any confrontation. However, on the afternoon of February 6, 1979, while Tammy and Tracy Jackson were on their way home from school, they encountered the students who had threatened them, and a fight ensued. After the fight, Tracy and Tammy Jackson were advised by the other students that the fight would continue the next day at school, that these other students would have knives, and that Tracy and Tammy Jackson should come prepared. When Tracy and Tammy Jackson and their brother stepped off the city bus in the vicinity of Miami Edison Middle School the next morning, they were met by a large group of other students. Apparently, some member of this group struck Tracy and Tammy Jackson's brother, at which point Tracy and Tammy Jackson first displayed knives which they had brought with them from home. According to the testimony of Tracy and Tammy Jackson, which is not controverted, this was the first and only time that they had attended school armed with knives. The entire group of students apparently began milling around but proceeded generally in the direction of the main school building. At this point, Freddie Robinson, the Assistant Principal at Miami Edison Middle School, noticed the crowd of students, and proceeded into the crowd on the assumption that a fight was occurring. Upon being advised that Tracy and Tammy Jackson were armed with knives, Mr. Robinson managed to direct the students into the main school building, down the hall and into the Counselor's office. At all times during those movements, the Assistant Principal and the students were surrounded by a milling group of hostile students apparently intent on prolonging the confrontation. According to the Assistant Principal, at no time did either of the students display their knives in a threatening or offensive manner, but were instead attempting to defend themselves against attack. At some point in this process, the Assistant Principal was joined by George Thomas, a teacher at the school, who attempted to assist Mr. Robinson in disarming the girls. Mr. Thomas managed to remove the knife from the possession of Tammy Jackson without incident, but when Mr. Robinson grabbed the arm of Tracy Jackson, that student, in attempting to break free, inflicted what appears to have been a minor wound to Mr. Robinson's forearm. Mr. Robinson testified, without contradiction, that it appeared to him that the student did not intentionally stab him, but inflicted the wound accidently in the process of attempting to break free from his hold. On February 22, 1979, both Tammy and Tracy Jackson were reassigned from Miami Edison Middle School to Jan Mann Opportunity School North as a result of this incident. There is nothing in the record to indicate the procedures by which this assignment was accomplished. It is, however, clear that the students never attended Jan Mann Opportunity School North, but were instead held out of school by their mother. As a result, February 7, 1979, was the last day on which these students attended school during the 1978-79 school year. The incident which occurred on February 7, 1979, was the only incident of disruptive behavior in which Tracy and Tammy Jackson have been involved while enrolled in the Dade County Public Schools. The other students involved in the fight with them, however, had been suspended from school on several occasions for fighting and disrupting classes. There is no evidence in the record in this cause concerning Tracy and Tammy Jackson' grades from which any determination could be made that they have been unsuccessful in the normal school environment. Likewise, the record is devoid of any testimony regarding their lack of attendance in the regular school program. Although the students did not attend Jan Mann Opportunity School North after having been assigned to that facility, there appears no evidence of record concerning the programs available at that institution in which the students would have been enrolled had they chosen to attend. In addition, although there exists some testimony concerning a very commendable Dade County School Board policy against the possession of knives on campus at any school in Dade County, no such written policy was offered into evidence at this proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Dade County School Board reassigning the students, Tammy Terrell Jackson and Tracy Tashanna Jackson, to the regular school program in the Dade County School System. Recommended this 17th day of July, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mrs. Jerry D. Jackson 2340 NW 73rd Terrace, #12 Miami, Florida 33147 Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Esquire 3000 Executive Building, Suite 300 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Mr. Ludwig J. Gross Executive Director Division of Student Services Dade County Public Schools 5975 East 7th Avenue Hialeah, Florida 33013 Phyllis O. Douglas, Esquire Dade County Public Schools Administrative Office Lindsey Hopkins Building 1410 NE 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Michael Neimand, Esquire 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami Florida, 33137 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY CASE NOS. 79-709, 79-710 MRS. JERRY D. JACKSON, on behalf of minor child, TAMMY TERRELL JACKSON, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 79-709 THE SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, Respondent. / MRS. JERRY D. JACKSON, on behalf of minor child, TRACY TASHANNA JACKSON, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 79-710 THE SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, Respondent. / ORDER OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY FLORIDA THIS CAUSE came on for hearing before The School Board of Dade County, Florida at its regular meeting on August 22, 1979, upon the Hearing Officer's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended order, recommending that Tammy Terrell Jackson and Tracy Tashanna Jackson be reassigned to the regular school program in the Dade County school system. IT IS THEREUPON ORDERED by The School Board of Dade County, Florida that the Hearing Officer's findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommended order are adopted with the following modifications: 1. The Hearing Officer's Conclusions of Law are modified by deleting paragraph 7 and substituting the following therefor: 7. F.A.C. Section 6A-1.994 provides: "6A-1.994 Educational alternative programs. Definition. Educational alternative programs are programs designed to meet the needs of students who are disruptive, dis- interested, or unsuccessful in a normal school environment. The educational alter- native may occur either within the school system or in another agency authorized by the school board. Criteria for eligibility. A student may be eligible for an educational alternative program if the student meets one (1) or more of the criteria prescribed below as deter- mined by grades, achievement test scores, referrals for suspension or other discipli- nary action, and rate of absences. (a) Disruptive. A student who: Displays persistent behavior which inter- feres with the student's own learning or the educational process of others and requires attention and assistance beyond that which the traditional program can provide; or Displays consistent behavior resulting in frequent conflicts of a disruptive nature while the student is under the jurisdiction of the school either in or out of the class- room; or Displays disruptive behavior which severely threatens the general welfare of the student or other members of the school population." (emphasis supplied) 8. The petitioners have both displayed "dis- ruptive behavior which severely threatens the general welfare of the student or other members of the school population." Meeting this criteria is sufficient grounds for placement in an educational alternative program. Accordingly, they are properly, and in their own best interests, assigned to Jan Mann Opportunity School North. There is no evidence that this assignment is punitive rather than positive in nature. 2. The Hearing Officer's recommendation is, therefore, rejected, and the assignment of Tammy Terrell Jackson and Tracy Tashanna Jackson to Jan Mann Opportunity School North is affirmed. DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of August, 1979. THE SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA By: Phyllis Miller, Chairman
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Lee County School Board (School Board), has established "just cause" to terminate the Respondent, Patricia Slade (Ms. Slade), as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Slade is a teacher at Lehigh Acres Elementary School and has worked for the Lee County School District since August 19, 1997. As a teacher, Ms. Slade is an instructional employee and her employment is governed, in part, by the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the Teachers Association of Lee County (TALC). The School Board is charged with the operation of the free public education in Lee County, Florida, and has the authority to terminate or suspend instructional employees. See § 1012.22(1)(f). The record shows by preponderance of the evidence that Ms. Slade has fallen asleep in her classroom during the school day on several instances and on one occasion left her classroom unattended. The record shows that for school year 2010-2011, Ms. Slade was a teacher for pre-kindergarten children, who are four-years-old. The School Board witnesses credibly testified that they had observed Ms. Slade asleep in the classroom on different dates. Ms. Sanchez, a grandmother of one of the students in Ms. Slade's classroom and school volunteer, credibly testified that she had observed Ms. Slade asleep three or four times during the school year. In one instance, Ms. Sanchez observed Ms. Slade asleep during the children's naptime for a period of approximately 30 minutes. Ms. Sanchez's testimony was corroborated by the credible testimony of Ms. Hicks, a former teacher and two teacher aides, Ms. Serrano and Ms. Kinney. Ms. Hicks credibly testified that she observed Ms. Slade on three occasions. Ms. Hicks described one of the occasions when she walked into Ms. Slade's classroom during the afternoon and found her asleep on the floor. Similarly, Ms. Serrano credibly testified that sometime in January 2011, during the students' naptime, Ms. Kinney had come to her classroom and asked Ms. Serrano to watch Ms. Slade's class while Ms. Kinney left to use the restroom. Upon entering Ms. Slade's classroom, Ms. Serrano found Ms. Slade asleep on the floor. Ms. Serrano credibly testified that she woke Ms. Slade up, because Ms. Serrano had to go back to her own classroom. Finally, Ms. Kinney, who was Ms. Slade's teacher aide, credibly testified that Ms. Slade had fallen asleep once before the winter break and more frequently after the winter break. In a written statement provided by Ms. Kinney to the school, Ms. Kinney indicated by February 2011, Ms. Slade was falling asleep in the classroom "once a week to every other week." During one of Ms. Slade's midday naps after the winter break, Ms. Kinney took a picture with a cell phone of Ms. Slade sleeping on the floor. The photograph, which was admitted into evidence, clearly shows Ms. Slade asleep on the floor of the classroom with the students asleep on their mats around her. The record also shows that on February 15, 2011, Ms. Slade fell asleep in the classroom. Mr. Dworzanski, assistant principal for the school, credibly testified that he went to Ms. Slade's classroom after being called by Ms. Kinney, because Ms. Slade was asleep. Mr. Dworzanski credibly testified that he found Ms. Slade "sitting underneath where the smart board was propped up against the wall and she was asleep." Mr. Dworzanski further testified that Ms. Slade was difficult to wake and that she was incoherent when she was finally aroused. Based on her incoherence, Ms. Slade was taken to the school nurse and paramedics were called. After this February 15, 2011, incident, Ms. Slade did not return to the class. Ms. Slade offered that she had "passed out" on the February 15, 2011, incident as the result of acute bronchitis. While Ms. Slade testified that she had acute bronchitis, her testimony was not credible for showing that her diagnosis of acute bronchitis was the cause for her being asleep or in an unconscious state on February 15, 2011. Therefore, the undersigned finds that there was no competent evidence to explain why Ms. Slade slept during the school day. Mr. Dworzanski credibly explained that a teacher is not permitted to sleep during the pre-kindergarten student's naptime, because the teacher must monitor the students and keep them safe. Apparently, not all four-year-old students sleep during naptime and the teacher needs to keep an eye on the students. Next, the record supports the finding that on one instance Ms. Slade left her class unattended. Ms. Kinney credibly testified that on one occasion Ms. Kinney went to the cafeteria to retrieve the school lunches. Upon returning to the classroom, Ms. Kinney did not see Ms. Slade in the classroom. Further, there was no adult supervision in the classroom when Ms. Kinney entered the class with the lunches. When asked by Ms. Kinney, the students informed her that Ms. Slade had gone to the bathroom. Ms. Slade returned "several minutes" after Ms. Kinney had returned to the classroom. Ms. Slade does not have any prior disciplinary record with the school, and was an effective teacher when she had been observed teaching.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Lee County School Board enter a final order terminating the employment of Patricia Slade, as a teacher. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of November, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S THOMAS P. CRAPPS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of November, 2011.
