Findings Of Fact During the 1983-84 school year, Respondent was an eighth grade student at North Miami Junior High School. Due to academic deficiencies, she would be required to repeat the eighth grade if she remains in the regular program. Petitioner related some 12 incidents of disruptive or rebellious behavior by Respondent over the past two academic years which resulted in disciplinary action. She was also disciplined on at least two occasions for repeated tardiness and unexcused absences. Petitioner has made reasonable efforts to assist Respondent in adjusting to regular junior high school. She was transferred from one class due to disagreements with her teacher and she has received counseling on at least four occasions regarding her behavior problems. Respondent's year-end grades are unsatisfactory in mathematics and language arts, which are both remedial courses. She is thus experiencing serious academic as well as behavior difficulties.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order assigning Celia Lela Benjamin to its opportunity school. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of September, 1983, at Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER 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 5th day of September, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Valentine, Esquire 3000 Executive Plaza 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Mrs. Maebelle Bolden Abner 2396 North West 73rd Terrace Miami, Florida 33147 Daniella S. Levine, squire Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc. 149 West Plaza, Suite 210 7900 North West 27 Avenue Miami, Florida 33147 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools School Board of Dade County Lindsey Hopkins Building 1410 North East 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issues in these cases are whether Petitioner, Osceola County School Board (School Board or Petitioner), has just cause to terminate Respondents Mona Sagar and Kristie Gilmore from their employment contracts.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is duly constituted and charged with the responsibility and authority to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Osceola County, Florida. Art. IX, Fla. Const.; ch. 1012, Fla. Stat. The School Board has the authority to discipline employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. Sagar and Ms. Gilmore were employed by the School District. Ms. Sagar has been in the education field for years. She attended “teachers college” in Trinidad and taught school there for ten years. She was hired as a paraprofessional (para) by the School District in 2011. Ms. Sagar was assigned to an autistic classroom at Discovery Intermediate School (Discovery) and later switched to an “intellectually disabled mild” (InD mild) classroom. She has not been subject to any prior disciplinary action. At the start of the 2013-2014 school year, Ms. Sagar was the para assigned to the “intellectually disabled severe” (InD severe) class. The InD severe class had a teacher and two paras,7/ and was composed of children who were mainly confined to wheelchairs or who needed special assistance to walk. Ms. Sagar completed the crisis prevention intervention (CPI) class, a class that instructs personnel on how to physically and verbally restrain, redirect, and prompt a child who is misbehaving. Ms. Gilmore became a para in exceptional student education (ESE) in 2005. She arrived at Discovery in August 2005. Ms. Gilmore worked with students with varying educational needs including: emotional behavior disorder (EBD); autism; InD mild; intellectually disabled moderate (InD moderate); intellectually disabled profound (InD profound); and regular educational students.8/ Ms. Gilmore had completed the CPI training twice before, but she was not re-certified at the start of the 2013-2014 school year. She has not been subject to any prior disciplinary action. Discovery had six self-contained ESE classrooms for the 2013-2014 school year. There were two autistic classrooms, one InD mild classroom, one InD moderate classroom, one InD severe classroom, and one EBD classroom. All six classrooms are located on the first floor of one of Discovery’s buildings, in close proximity to the office of the dean of students. Student safety is of paramount concern for School District employees. As such, every EBD classroom has a land-line telephone and a walkie-talkie for use to request assistance, to notify the appropriate office of a student’s unscheduled exit from the classroom and to provide other information. The telephone is primarily a school-based phone that has its own five-digit internal extension number.9/ In the event a walkie-talkie is not available, a teacher or para may use the telephone to communicate with other school personnel. The walkie-talkies are limited to the self-contained classrooms, guidance counselors, deans, school resource officer, administrators, principal’s secretary, academic coaches, athletic coaches, and maintenance staff. The walkie-talkies are on one channel or frequency, and when used, everyone who has a walkie- talkie can hear the conversation. Discipline referrals may be written by any adult at Discovery for any infraction in the student code of conduct. The referral form reflects the student’s name, identification number, the classroom, school, grade level, date of birth, race, sex, homeroom teacher, incident date and time, location of the incident, the problem or explanation of the problem, the action taken by the adult prior to the referral, the signature of the referring adult, and the date signed. The bottom of the referral form was for “administrative use only,” and reflects what if any action was taken. Ms. Gilmore, as the para in the EBD self- contained classroom, authored numerous discipline referrals for student J.G. During the 2013 summer, Ms. Chowdhary was notified that she would be re-assigned to Discovery’s EBD self-contained classroom for the 2013-2014 school year. Ms. Chowdhary did not want this assignment; however, Ms. Chowdhary contacted Ms. Gilmore and asked if she (Ms. Gilmore) would consent to be Ms. Chowdhary’s para in her EBD self-contained classroom. This request was based on their positive working relationship during the 2012-2013 school year in an autistic classroom. Ms. Gilmore agreed, the school administration concurred, and Ms. Gilmore was assigned to Ms. Chowdhary’s EBD self-contained classroom. At the beginning of the 2013-2014 school year there were ten male students in Ms. Chowdhary’s EBD self-contained classroom. This classroom had a walkie-talkie and telephone. Each student had an individual educational plan (IEP), a different EBD, and a medical condition. On the first day of school, each student was given a welcome packet that contained an emergency contact sheet and a health care report form. The parents are requested (but not required) to complete as much of the information as they wish, and return it to the classroom. Ms. Gilmore read the responses “thoroughly” regarding the medical conditions of students J.G. and J.C., as provided by their respective parents or guardians. In early December 2013, Ms. Gilmore was re-assigned to an InD moderate classroom as an accommodation for her pregnancy. Ms. Chowdhary requested a male para to replace Ms. Gilmore. Based on the support staff already engaged by Discovery, Ms. Sagar was transferred to work in Ms. Chowdhary’s self- contained classroom. Ms. Sagar observed and worked with Ms. Gilmore on two separate days for several hours prior to the actual transfer in mid-December. Approximately two weeks before the Christmas break, a female student, J.T., arrived in the EBD self-contained classroom. J.T. was taller and heavier than either Ms. Chowdhary or Ms. Sagar. J.T.’s language was loud and predominantly profanity-laced. J.T. did not complete her classroom assignments, and she did not follow the classroom rules regarding the use of her cellphone.10/ On January 9, 2014, Ms. Gilmore learned that Ms. Chowdhary was absent from school. Ms. Gilmore volunteered to be the substitute teacher in Ms. Chowdhary’s classroom.11/ In the early afternoon of January 9, two male students engaged in a physical altercation (Altercation No. 1) in the EBD self-contained classroom. J.T. took out her cellphone and recorded Altercation No. 1 (Petitioner’s Exhibit 6, Respondents’ Exhibit 21). That recording showed one student, J.G., standing over and taunting another student, J.C. J.G. called J.C. a “taco.” J.C. responded that J.G. should call J.C. “Taco Bell,” and added that J.G. was the dark meat in his taco. J.G. took J.C.’s remark to be a racist comment. J.C.12/ was crumpled on the floor behind a desk where J.G. grabbed J.C. by his warm-up jacket collar/shirt. J.G. pulled J.C. up by the collar/shirt and pushed J.C. into a chair at a computer cubby and small space near a wall. J.G. kept one hand on J.C. while pinning J.C. to the small space. J.G. continued to taunt J.C. and is heard to say: Next comment I’m gonna stomp on your [J.C.’s] heart, and I know you got a condition to where I stomp on it, you dead, and I don’t give a f . So you can’t keep making a racist joke. Ms. Gilmore and Ms. Sagar were both present and observed Altercation No. 1. Ms. Gilmore was sitting at the teacher’s desk in the front of the room when Altercation No. 1 started. When J.G. “dumped [J.C.] out of the chair,” [to start the altercation], [Ms. Gilmore] told J.G. to “knock it off,” and when J.G. had J.C. on the floor, she [Ms. Gilmore] “told him to quit.” Ms. Gilmore testified that she didn’t call for help because “It was over.” Her testimony is not credible because the recording shows that J.G. then pulled J.C. up to a standing position, and continued to taunt him. Further, Respondents’ Exhibit 16 is a discipline referral that Ms. Gilmore authored on January 9, the day of the altercations. Ms. Gilmore documented in this discipline referral the following “PROBLEM – EXPLAIN:” During Science class, 5th period, [J.G.] was talking about how he fights and got into an altercation with another student. Words were exchanged and [J.G.] didn’t like what the student [J.C.] said so he [J.G.] flipped him [J.C.] out of his chair, kicked him [J.C.] a couple times and threatened to kill the other student [J.C.] by stomping on his [J.C.’s] heart. Ms. Sagar was seated at a desk assisting another student, J.M., when Altercation No. 1 started. Ms. Sagar did not hear any loud shouting or threats at the beginning of Altercation No. 1, but it escalated to the point where she was “alarmed.” Ms. Sagar admitted that she got up to leave the room, then decided not to do so, telling herself: “I shouldn’t leave the class at this time.” The reason she did not leave the classroom was because the altercation “wasn’t settled like down, down, down. It still had like the talking and everybody, so I turned around and came back to my seat.” Ms. Sagar did not move to intervene or call for help. Neither Ms. Gilmore nor Ms. Sagar moved to intervene in Altercation No. 1, and neither used the walkie-talkie or the telephone to call for assistance or to alert the administration of the volatile situation. A few minutes later another altercation (Altercation No. 2) took place in the EBD self-contained classroom. J.T. also recorded Altercation No. 2 (Petitioner’s Exhibit 8) on her cellphone. J.G. was again taunting J.C. J.G. dared J.C. to “take a swing” at J.G. J.C. did not swing at J.G. J.G. proceeded to talk to the class about J.C. and other classmates. J.C. then expressed his desire to die because his life “sucks,” his father was dead, and his step-father didn’t love him. J.C. violently kicked/pushed a chair several feet away from himself, began to cry, stated that he’d be “happy if you [J.G.] kill me,” violently overturned a desk, and walked out of the EBD self- contained classroom. Again, Ms. Gilmore and Ms. Sagar were present in the EBD self-contained classroom, and observed Altercation No. 2. During Altercation No. 2, Ms. Gilmore was at the front of the class at the teacher’s desk. Ms. Gilmore confirmed that J.C. “flipped a desk and walked out of class.” Ms. Gilmore testified she “opened the door, . . . and put myself at the doorway to get the rest of the kids out of the class if I had to get them out.” Ms. Gilmore is briefly partially seen in the recording, and she is heard asking J.C. to pick up the desk before he left the classroom. J.C. did not pick up the desk. The recording shows Ms. Sagar seated at a work table with J.M. At one point Ms. Sagar rises from her seat, walks to a counter with a microwave, stays at the counter for a short time, returns to her seat, and then eats something while Altercation No. 2 is on-going. Neither Ms. Gilmore nor Ms. Sagar used the walkie- talkie or telephone to obtain assistance or alert the administration of the continuing volatile situation. J.C. went to the dean of students (Ms. Rice’s) office after he walked out of the EBD self-contained classroom. Once there, he screamed at Ms. Rice about the events that had just taken place in his classroom. Ms. Rice observed J.C. to be distraught and angry. Based on J.C.’s comments, Ms. Rice understood that a recording of the classroom events was made. Ms. Rice requested the principal to obtain the recording. Between when J.C. left the EBD self-contained classroom and when the principal arrived at the EBD self-contained classroom to retrieve the recording, yet another altercation, Altercation No. 3, occurred. J.T. started recording Altercation No. 3 (Petitioner’s Exhibit 10) on her cellphone. Student W.F. held a chair over his head and threatened to throw it at another student, D.S. The other students in the classroom can be heard urging W.F. to throw it, but W.F. did not. J.G. can be seen standing behind D.S., and heard to say he’ll “make sure it hit[s] you [D.S.].” When it became apparent that W.F. was not going to throw the chair, J.T. handed her phone to W.F., who continued to record the action, and J.T. threw the chair. J.T. testified that she did not intend to hurt D.S., but she was not “play acting.” Ms. Gilmore testified she did not remember much of Altercation No. 3. She thought she might have been writing a referral at her desk, and did not call for help because the altercation was over so quickly. Again, Ms. Gilmore and Ms. Sagar were present in the classroom, observed Altercation No. 3, and did nothing to radio or call for assistance or alert the administration of the volatile situation. There is no credible evidence that any of the altercations were pretend fights, or that they were staged for the benefit of the other students. Ms. Gilmore’s contention, that the altercations were staged, is not credible. This EBD self-contained classroom is a challenging class, one that should be closely monitored and adequately staffed to ensure learning can occur, and safety maintained. Respondents never attempted to gain control of the classroom or students. They never called for help or removed the other students from the area. Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of evidence that Petitioner has just cause to terminate the employment of Ms. Gilmore and Ms. Sagar.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Osceola County School Board, enter a final order finding that just cause exists for terminating the employment of Ms. Sagar and Ms. Gilmore. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of June, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of June, 2015.
The Issue Whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent’s employment as a teacher, for alleged violations of various School Board rules and policies, as outlined in the Superintendent’s letter to Respondent, dated June 15, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the School Board of Sarasota County, the entity responsible for operating, monitoring, staffing, and maintaining the public schools within Sarasota County, in accordance with Part II, Chapter 1001, Florida Statutes (2009). The School is a middle school operated by Petitioner. Petitioner employed Respondent, Brian Berry, as a teacher at the School for several years. Respondent taught students with ESE designation. Respondent is an “instructional employee” under the Instructional Bargaining Unit Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Sarasota Classified/Teachers Association (“Union”), and Petitioner (July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2009, for the 2008-2009 year)(the “Collective Bargaining Agreement”). Article XXV of the Collective Bargaining Agreement governs disciplinary actions against teachers, including Respondent. The Collective Bargaining Agreement requires there to be just cause for any discipline. Normally, the following progressive discipline steps are administered: (1) verbal reprimand; (2) written reprimand; (3) suspension and, (4) termination. Following progressive discipline is not required “in cases that constitute a real immediate danger to the district or other flagrant violations.” During the 2008-2009 school year, Respondent’s classroom was one of four classrooms arranged in a quadrant fashion around a center internal office that connects the four classrooms to each other. Respondent’s room was in the southwest quadrant. Holmes had the room in the northwest quadrant. Brooks had the room in the southeast quadrant. Like Respondent, Holmes and Brooks taught ESE students. Brooks and Respondent shared a paraprofessional, Collins. Bazenas became the School’s principal in April 2006, and has been its principal since that time. Before resorting to the progressive discipline system, School administration routinely counsel employees on an informal basis when there is a concern. Generally, the counseling occurs as a conversation between the administrator and instructor. This informal counseling is non-punitive. Administrators also use Memorandums of Instruction to clarify expectations. A Memorandum of Instruction is also non-punitive in nature; however, failing to abide by the expectation contained in a Memorandum of Instruction could warrant discipline. Respondent’s prior disciplinary history includes: Verbal Reprimand, dated December 17, 2007, for failing to monitor students. Verbal Reprimand, dated January 19, 2009, for failing to submit student attendance on 39 occasions during the 2008- 2009 school year through January 6, 2009. Written Reprimand, dated January 20, 2009, for failing to follow three separate Memorandums of Instruction concerning posting student attendance and for failing to report student attendance on January 7, 2009. Individual Education Plans During the 2008-2009 school year, Respondent was the case manager responsible for drafting Individual Education Plans (“IEPs”) for several of his students. Under federal law, IEPs must be updated at least once each year. Failing to update an IEP by the time the prior IEP becomes out of date means such IEP is out of compliance. This jeopardizes ESE funding, which comes from state and federal sources. During the 2008-2009 school year, there was an ESE liaison (Cindy Lowery) at the School who routinely and timely reminded case managers, including Respondent, of their IEP responsibilities, important deadlines, and steps necessary to be taken by the case manager. At the beginning of the school year, Lowery explained the procedures to case managers, including Respondent. Respondent received numerous reminders prior to the expiration of each IEP for which he was responsible. The expectations relating to IEP completion were clear and known to case managers, including Respondent, at all relevant times. At all times during the 2008-2009 school year prior to his being placed on administrative leave on March 17, 2009, Respondent had the ability to complete in a timely manner each IEP for which he was responsible. He also had access to all materials and assistance necessary to timely complete each of the IEPs. During school year 2008-2009, Respondent was the case manager and responsible for the IEPs of students A.M. (due 11/27/08; completed 12/1/08); J.G. (due 1/17/09; completed 2/25/09); U.S. (due 1/17/09; completed 2/25/09); J.C. (due 2/20/09; completed 2/25/09); N.C. (due 3/3/09; not completed prior to date Respondent was placed on administrative leave on March 17, 2009); B.B. (due 3/11/09; not completed prior to date Respondent was placed on administrative leave on March 17, 2009). Reporting Attendance Teachers are required to take classroom attendance each period and timely post that attendance into the School’s computer program that tracks attendance. This expectation is contained in the School’s staff handbook, which is developed and reviewed annually by a shared-decision making team, composed of administrators, teachers, and community members. Reporting attendance each period is a safety and security matter. Reporting attendance also assists with accountability for funding purposes. During the 2008-2009 school year prior to being placed on administrative leave on March 17, 2009, Respondent failed to report attendance in at least one period on: August 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 29; September 3, 4, 9 - 12, 15, 16, 22, 26, 30; October 1, 3, 7 - 9, 15, 16, 22, 23, 28, 29; November 6, 7, 12, 18, 20, 21, 25; December 4, 5, 10; January 6, 7; February 19, 24; and March 3, 4, 10, 13, and 16. In all but six of those dates, Respondent failed to report attendance for multiple periods. On October 20, 2008, November 24, 2008, and January 7, 2009, administrators at the School provided Respondent with Memorandums of Instruction reminding Respondent of the need to submit attendance electronically each period. FCAT Proctoring On March 10 and 11, 2009, the FCAT was administered at the School. Respondent was assigned to proctor students who were permitted testing accommodations. Some permitted accommodations included extended testing time and having proctors read questions. Testing of these students occurred in the School’s media center. Another ESE teacher, Aisha Holmes, was also assigned to proctor similar students. Proctors were instructed that they needed to sign-in and sign-out upon entering and leaving the media center; that they could not engage in personal reading; and that they needed to actively supervise the students at all times. A preponderance of evidence supports the finding that Respondent engaged in the following activities contrary to his duties as proctor: Over the two-day proctoring session, Respondent failed to sign-in and sign-out every time that he took a break. Respondent engaged in personal reading and other non-proctoring activities when he was required to be actively proctoring the FCAT. Respondent stood over student S.L.’s shoulder for a time period exceeding two minutes. While Respondent contends that he was trying to determine if S.L. had finished, S.L. had not finished. Respondent’s actions were intimidating to S.L. On the second testing day, Respondent fell asleep on a couch in the media center for a period of time when he should have been actively proctoring. Respondent snored, causing a disturbance to the students engaged in testing activities. While the length of time Respondent slept was in dispute, the evidence demonstrates that it was considerably longer than a brief moment as advanced by Respondent. On the second day of testing, a student spilled juice on that student’s reference sheet. Respondent placed the reference sheet in the microwave but did not monitor the drying process. The microwave scorched the reference sheet, resulting in a burnt smell invading the testing area and causing another disturbance to the students engaged in testing activities. Use of Video with No Learning Objective in Place In February 2009, Respondent showed the movie “Happy Feet” to his class. He concedes that he had no learning objective in mind in showing this video. Although Respondent explained that in his opinion, no learning could be accomplished that day due to the death of a co-teacher’s fiancé, Respondent conceded that he requested no assistance in addressing this situation despite such assistance being available to him. Lesson Plans Teachers are required to prepare lesson plans at least one week in advance. Teachers are also required to have the lesson plan on their desk and available for review. The lesson plan expectations are contained in the School’s staff handbook. The lesson plans are the guiding document for instruction, which requires teachers to give forethought as to the content of their lessons. It is used by teachers to focus their lessons, by administrators to ensure content aligns with teaching objectives, and by substitutes in the absence of the teacher. It is undisputed that the School’s administration repeatedly counseled Respondent to create and have lesson plans available. Respondent failed to have lesson plans completed and available for the week of October 6, November 17, and December 15, 2008, and January 5, January 20 and February 2, 2009. February 3, 2009 Weingarten Hearing On February 3, 2009, Bazenas and Respondent met in a formal, noticed meeting to discuss Respondent’s failure to complete IEPs for Students J.G. and U.S. That meeting also addressed Respondent’s continued failure to comply with school policy on maintaining lesson plans. It is undisputed that Respondent failed to timely complete the IEPs for students J.G. and U.S., and that he failed to comply with the lesson plan requirement. March 16, 2009 Weingarten Hearing On the afternoon of Monday, March 16, 2009, Bazenas and Respondent and others met in a formal, noticed meeting to discuss: (1) Respondent’s failure to complete IEPs for students N.C. and B.B. prior to their IEPs becoming out of compliance; (2) the FCAT proctoring matters; (3) use of the video “Happy Feet” with no learning objective; (4) continued failure to comply with the lesson plan expectation; (5) tardiness on March 9, and March 10, 2009; and (6) use of the girls’ restroom.1 It is undisputed that Respondent failed to complete the IEPs for students N.C. and B.B. in a timely manner, and that he used the video “Happy Feet” with no learning objective in place. During the meeting, Bazenas presented Respondent with the summary of Holmes’ observations of Respondent’s conduct while proctoring the FCAT. Respondent conceded that he was inattentive at times during FCAT proctoring and did fall asleep for some period of time during the FCAT, although he disputes it was for 45 minutes. March 17, 2009, Confrontation On the morning of Tuesday, March 17, 2009, Respondent entered Holmes’ classroom to “discuss” Holmes’ summary of her observations of Respondent during the FCAT. A student, whom Holmes was tutoring, was present in Holmes’ room at the time. Holmes was uncomfortable with Respondent’s insistence on discussing the FCAT matter at that time in front of the student. Holmes advised Respondent that she would talk to him later. Respondent, however, persisted in continuing his challenge to Holmes’ FCAT proctoring observations in front of the student. At that point, Bazenas entered Holmes’s room. Bazenas observed that the situation was “tense” and that Holmes was backed into a corner of the room. Bazenas also observed that the student that was present looked very uncomfortable. At that point, Bazenas, in a reasonable voice, requested that Respondent return to his own classroom to supervise his students. Respondent immediately became upset and began yelling at Bazenas, telling Bazenas not to interrupt him. Respondent approached him and pointed his finger in Bazenas’ face. At that time, Collins was in Brooks’ room. Collins heard shouting coming from the direction of Holmes’ room. Collins proceeded into the center office of the quad. She observed Respondent shouting at Bazenas that he was a “liar” and that Respondent would see Bazenas “in court.” Collins did not hear Bazenas raise his voice. Collins was fearful of Respondent; she had never seen Respondent act in that way. She also testified that Bazenas looked fearful of Respondent. Respondent then proceeded into his classroom and Bazenas followed Respondent into the classroom. He put himself between Respondent and his students, permitting Collins to remove the students from Respondent’s classroom, taking them into Brooks’ classroom. Respondent continued with his emotional outburst during this time. When Bazenas requested that Respondent leave campus immediately, Respondent threatened Bazenas. Bazenas subjectively believed that Respondent’s agitated behavior and his statement to be a threat of violence. Respondent also directed inappropriate comments to his students about Bazenas during his outburst. As Collins brought Respondent’s students into Brooks’ classroom, Collins was shaking and looked very fearful. After all of Respondent’s students were in Brooks’ classroom, Brooks locked the doors. Locking the doors is an unusual occurrence; however, Respondent did leave campus voluntarily. Respondent was immediately placed on administrative leave. Shortly thereafter, a police officer went to Respondent’s house to advise Respondent to stay away from campus. Respondent complied with the request. Respondent’s outburst on March 17, 2009, constituted a real and immediate threat to the School administration, teachers and students and was a flagrant violation of school policies and the State Principles of Professional Conduct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Sarasota County School Board enter a final order terminating the employment of Respondent from the date Respondent was placed on unpaid leave of absence. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of January, 2010.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a ninth grade student at North Dade Junior High School. She was born August 22, 1968. Respondent's behavior during the 1983-84 school year has been unsatisfactory and she is no longer responsive to the supervision of school officials. She was counseled or suspended on three occasions for excessive talking in class. She rejected an assignment to a special assistance classroom (C.S.I.) and refused to serve one suspension. She has cut classes and left school without permission on several occasions. A school-parent conference held December 7, 1983, produced no improvement in Respondent's disruptive behavior.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order assigning Rose Marie Farrell to its opportunity school. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of June, 1984, at Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER 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 19th day of June, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Valentine, Esquire 3000 Executive Plaza 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Mrs. Mary Farrell 2970 Northwest 153 Terrace Opa Locka, Florida 33054 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and if so, what penalties should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the head of the state agency responsible for certifying and regulating public school teachers in the State of Florida. At all times relevant to these proceedings, Respondent has been licensed in the fields of elementary education and exceptional student education. Her Florida education certificate number is 840291. Her certificate expires on June 30, 2010. Respondent was employed by the Bradford County School District from 1994 to 1996, from 1998 to 2001, and finally from 2004 to 2007. She has worked as a substitute teacher, a parent specialist, and a teacher of varying exceptionalities. At the time of the events alleged in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was the principal and teacher at Believer's School of Learning (Believer's School) in Bradford County School District. Believer's School was a charter school, for grades K-3, meant to give alternatives to traditional public school. Charter schools fulfill various purposes such as improving student learning and increasing learning opportunities. With respect to the Believer's School, a special emphasis was placed on low- performing students and reading. An "exceptional student" is defined by Section 1003.01(3)(a), Florida Statutes, as: ny student who has been determined eligible for a special program in accordance with rules of the State Board of Education. The term includes students who are gifted and students with disabilities who have an intellectual disability; autism spectrum disorder; a speech impairment; a language impairment; an orthopedic impairment; an other health impairment; traumatic brain injury; a visual impairment; an emotional or behavioral disability; or a specific learning disability, including, but not limited to, dyslexia, dyscalculia, or developmental aphasia; students who are deaf or hard of hearing or dual sensory impaired; students who are hospitalized or homebound; children with developmental delays ages birth through 5 years, or children, ages birth through 2 years, with established conditions that are identified in State Board of Education rules pursuant to s. 1003.21(1)(e). Respondent had Exceptional Student Education (ESE) students in her school. Believer’s School was required to follow federal and state guidelines with respect to ESE students. Those requirements include keeping complete, current and accurate records with respect to exceptional education students. These recordkeeping requirements are required by federal and state law and are necessary for the school system of Bradford County, of which Believer's School was a part, to remain eligible for federal and state funds allocated to pay costs associated with educating exceptional students. In accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A- 6.03028(3), Respondent was required to prepare an Individual Education Plan (IEP) for each ESE student attending Believer's school. Rule 6A-6.03028(3) states: (3) IEP Requirements. An IEP or individual family support plan (IFSP) must be developed, reviewed, and revised for each eligible student or child with a disability served by a school district, or other state agency that provides special education and related services either directly, by contract, or through other arrangements, in accordance with this rule. Parents are partners with schools and school district personnel in developing, reviewing, and revising the IEP for their student. An IEP is necessary to evaluate the student's educational level, to establish short and long-term educational objectives, to develop alternative ways to accomplish those objectives, and to record the progress of the plan and establish a means for review of the student's educational progress. The proper preparation and maintenance of an IEP is a basic responsibility of the Respondent for exceptional education students at Believer's School. An improperly prepared IEP is potentially harmful to the learning of an ESE student because services and accommodations must be listed on the student's IEP before they can be provided. IEP’s are created by an IEP Team during a meeting involving the parties as set out in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-6.03028(3)(c) as follows: (c) IEP Team participants. The IEP Team, with a reasonable number of participants, shall include: The parents of the student; Not less than one (1) regular education teacher of a student with a disability... Not less than one (1) special education teacher of the student, or where appropriate, not less than one special education provider of the student; A representative of the school district who is qualified to provide or supervise the provision of specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of students with disabilities, is knowledgeable about the general curriculum, and is knowledgeable about the availability of resources of the school district. . . An individual who can interpret the instructional implications of evaluation results who may be a member of the IEP Team as described in subparagraphs (3)(c)3., or (3)(c)4., of this rule;. . . Upon completion, the IEP is signed by the regular education teacher, the ESE teacher, the local education agency (LEA), and the parent or guardian of the student. The LEA is ultimately responsible for what goes into the IEP. If something is in the IEP it is because the LEA determined that it was feasible to carry out. The ESE teacher examines the psycho-educational reports and the specialized needs of the student. He or she often provides strategies to the regular education teacher to use with the ESE student. The regular education teacher is the most familiar with the curriculum being used for the student’s grade level. He or she provides insight as to how that curriculum can be adapted for the ESE student. Members of the IEP Team for an ESE student are supposed to be teachers and individuals associated with the student’s current grade level and involved in the student's education, in order to provide accurate curriculum and services for the student. The IEP Team is supposed to review the child’s test scores or have access to the child, know about the curriculum being used, and what types of accommodations an ESE student of the particular grade level would need. By signing the IEP, the individual team members are stating they met to discuss the ESE student, to develop goals and objectives and services for the student, and that they will follow up on making sure those goals and objectives are met. IEP's are updated on an annual basis. The annual IEP conference is mandatory, and failure to provide such a conference is a violation of federal, state, and School Board rules and policies. Failure to hold such a conference deprives the parents of the exceptional student any meaningful participation in determining the student's educational goals and may deprive the child of the assistance to which he or she is entitled. It also jeopardizes continued state and federal funding of the School Board's exceptional education program. Respondent was instructed, as were other teachers of exceptional students in the school district, that every IEP must be reviewed at least once a year through an annual IEP conference. Respondent was trained in how to prepare IEPs by the Bradford County School District on July 19, 20, and 21, 2005. Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-6.03028(3)(b) requires that the school notify parents of an ESE student that an IEP meeting is scheduled prior to the IEP Team Meeting taking place. This notification is more than a formality; it is meant to insure meaningful participation by parents or guardians in the IEP process. Rule 6A-6.03028(3)(b) states as follows: (b) Parental participation in meetings. Each school district shall establish procedures that provide the opportunity for one or both of the student’s parents to participate in meetings and decisions concerning the IEP for the student. Parents of each student with a disability must be members of any group that makes decisions on the educational placement of their student. Procedures to ensure participation in meetings shall include the following: Notifying parents of the meeting early enough to ensure that they will have an opportunity to attend; and Scheduling the meeting at a mutually agreed on time and place. A written notice of the meeting must be provided to the parents and must indicate the purpose, time, and location of the meeting, and who, by title or position, will be attending. . . . * * * A meeting may be conducted without a parent in attendance if the school district is unable to obtain the attendance of the parents. In this case, the district must have a record of its attempts to arrange a mutually agreed on time and place, such as: Detailed records of telephone calls made or attempted and the results of those calls; Copies of correspondence sent to the parents and any responses received; and Detailed records of visits made to the parents’ home or place of employment and the results of those visits. To comply with Rule 6A-6.03028(3)(b), it is Bradford County School District’s policy to send out a Parent Notification Form 10 days prior to an IEP team meeting. A few days after the first notification was sent, a second notification is sent to the parent. After the two written notifications are sent, a phone call is made to the parent of the ESE student. Student S.B. began school in the Bradford County School District when she was in pre-K. She was identified as a student with developmental disabilities. In 2005, she was living in Richmond, Virginia, and found to be eligible for exceptional education services as a student with a developmental disability. Upon return to Florida, S.B. was enrolled in Southside Elementary on March 17, 2005. In May 2005, an IEP team met, determined that S.B. was a student with specific learning disabilities, and developed an IEP outlining the services required for S.B. Without those services, S.B. would not receive a free appropriate public education as contemplated under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), or Florida law regarding the provision of exceptional education. IEPs for exceptional education students are required to be completed every year before the prior year’s IEP expires. S.B.’s next IEP was due on May 17, 2006. On February 13, 2006, S.B. enrolled in Respondent’s charter school, Believer's School of Learning, approximately three months before S.B.’s next IEP was due. There was apparently some delay in providing S.B.'s May 2005 IEP to Respondent, but the length of the delay is unclear. In order for a school district to receive the extra funding for its ESE students all the ESE students’ IEP’s must be current by "FTE week." FTE week is when the schools determine a final head count of all the students that are in attendance. The FTE week for Bradford County School District in 2006 was October 13, 2006. All the ESE students within the school district had to have their IEPs in by that date or the schools would not receive the extra funding associated with that student. If S.B.’s IEP was not turned in before October 13, 2006, Believer's School would have only received its normal funding only instead of the additional ESE funding. As of the last week of September 2006, Respondent had not completed the IEP for S.B. In late September, Respondent called Verdell Long, and asked for some assistance in preparing an IEP for a third grader. On September 28, 2006, Respondent met with Verdell Long, at Bradford County High School, during Ms. Long’s lunch break, for assistance with preparing an IEP for a third grader at her charter school. Verdell Long was a high school teacher at Bradford County High School who had worked with ESE students, with a focus on mental retardation from grades K-12. She had assisted Respondent with IEPs in the past. She understood that she was assisting with a “sample” IEP to be used as a model. However, it was Respondent’s intention to use the product created as an IEP for the student S.B. The day of the meeting Verdell Long’s computer was not working so she could not access the IEPs she had on file. She asked another high school teacher, Dr. Vivian Haynes to assist in the meeting. Dr. Haynes was an ESE teacher at Bradford County High School in September 2006. She was very experienced with preparing and writing IEPs, having just completed a doctoral dissertation which included copies of third and fifth grade IEPs. Dr. Haynes had not previously met Respondent. Dr. Haynes brought several blank “dummy” IEPs with her to the meeting in order to have examples to show Respondent. The IEP prepared at the meeting included the various components of an IEP, such as the measurable goals and objectives for a third grader, but did not include the demographic information on any student. The document prepared at the meeting did not have a student’s name or test scores on it anywhere. Respondent did not bring the student S.B. or her test scores with her to the meeting. However, neither Ms. Long nor Dr. Haynes expected to see individualized information because they did not understand that an IEP for an actual child was being prepared. Verdell Long signed the IEP as the ESE teacher, Dr. Vivian Haynes signed as the LEA, and Respondent signed as the regular education teacher. Neither Verdell Long nor Dr. Vivian Haynes was contracted with Believer's School by the Bradford County School District to provide services as an LEA representative or an ESE teacher. Both Verdell Long and Dr. Vivian Haynes believed the purpose of the meeting was to construct a model IEP in order to assist Respondent with properly preparing an IEP for an ESE student. Neither expected the document created at their meeting to be submitted as an actual IEP for S.B., or any other student, and neither considered the meeting to be an IEP team meeting. Neither Verdell Long nor Dr. Vivian Haynes was shown a Parent Notification Form indicating that their meeting was to be an IEP team meeting. Neither would have signed the IEP if they had seen such a form because they did not believe that an IEP team meeting was being conducted. After the meeting on September 28, 2006, Respondent took the IEP form prepared with the help of Ms. Long and Dr. Haynes, and inserted information specific to S.B. She then submitted the form as S.B.’s IEP and turned in to the Bradford County School District. Submitted with the IEP form was a document which purported to be the Notification of Meeting Form for the IEP team meeting. Only one notification is referenced. The form was dated September 15, 2006, and identified Dr. Vivian Haynes and Verdell Long as participants in the meeting, notwithstanding Respondent's acknowledgement that she did not meet Dr. Haynes until September 28, 2006, and did not know until that time that Dr. Haynes would be participating in the meeting. The form also indicated that the IEP meeting would take place at the Believer's School, as opposed to the Bradford County High School, where the meeting between Respondent, Ms. Long and Dr. Haynes took place. There is no other indication of other attempts of notification. The signature line reserved for a parent or legal guardian is signed by a Rudolph Williams and dated September 29, 2006, the day after the meeting took place. Respondent claims that Mr. Williams is S.B.'s stepfather. However, there is nothing in the Bradford County School District's records to indicate that Mr. Williams is a parent or legal guardian of S.B., and school district officials were not aware of anyone by that name living in the home. By her own admission, Respondent did not keep "official records" for any of her students, including ESE students. She was not particularly concerned with who signed the IEP, because she apparently considered it to be simply a matter of paperwork to be filed with the School District. In her view, the person responsible for ensuring that a child is receiving the appropriate education is her teacher, regardless of the directives in the IEP. She felt that some of the things identified as required simply could not be done at a school her size. She did not consider the role of the LEA and the ESE teacher on the IEP to be all that important. To her, the real responsibility for the child's education lay with the teacher who worked with her on a daily basis. S.B. was later withdrawn from Believer's School and now attends Starke Elementary School. Believer's School has since closed and is no longer operating as a charter school.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Respondent to be guilty of the violations alleged in Counts Two through Seven and dismissing Count One of the Administrative Complaint; imposing a fine of $500; suspending her certificate for one year and placing Respondent on probation for a period of three years. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of October, 2009.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, St. Lucie County School Board (Petitioner or School Board) has just cause to discipline Wendy Portillo's employment based on the conduct alleged in the “Statement of Charges and Petition for One Year Suspension Without Pay and Return to Annual Contract” and the appropriate penalties, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in St. Lucie County, Florida. Petitioner has entered into individual contracts and collective bargaining agreements with the teachers it employs and has adopted rules and policies that control the activities of its teaching professionals. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was a teacher employed by Petitioner pursuant to a professional services contract and assigned to teach kindergarten at Morningside. On May 21, 2008, Respondent was teaching kindergarten in her classroom at Morningside. The door to Respondent’s classroom is across a hall from the door of the school office. Typically, kindergarten students are five or six years old. Student 1, a male, was one of 17 students in Respondent’s class on May 21, 2008. Student 1 was assigned to Respondent’s class in January 2008. Shortly after his placement in her class, Respondent asked Mr. Graff to help her with Student 1 because of Student 1’s behavior. Mr. Graff works in Morningside’s fourth grade alpha class. The alpha program is designed to identify and assist at-risk third grade students who are having difficulties at home or at school. Mr. Graff has the assistance of a full- time counselor and a full-time paraprofessional. Mr. Graff agreed to help with Student 1 as needed. Student 1 came to Mr. Graff’s classroom on approximately 12 occasions between January and May 21, 2008. In mid-February 2008, Respondent requested a Child Study Team for Student 1, which is the first step in determining whether a student meets the eligibility requirements for services from Petitioner’s Exceptional Student Education (ESE) program. This development is part of an on-going process.3 The Child Study Team, of which Respondent was a member, developed strategies designed to redirect Student 1’s behavior. One of the strategies was a reward system utilizing tokens. On May 21, 2008, Respondent’s kindergarten class began at 8:20 a.m. At 9:00 a.m. Respondent’s kindergarten class, including Student 1, went to a performance by the fifth grade that ended at approximately 9:45 a.m. The students returned to Respondent’s classroom at approximately 10:00 a.m. At approximately 10:30 a.m., while she was teaching her class, Respondent observed that Student 1 was off-task and was being disruptive to the other students by flipping crayons at his classmates and crawling under a table. Student 1 pushed up on the table, where other students were trying to work. Respondent attempted to redirect Student 1, but she could not do so. Respondent summoned Officer Black (the school resource officer) to come to her room. Officer Black assisted in getting Student 1 out from under a table and took him to the office. After Officer Black had escorted Student 1 to the school office, Ms. Gascoigne (the assistant principal) counseled Student 1 as to appropriate versus inappropriate behavior. Student 1 told Ms. Gascoigne that he realized what he had done was wrong and that he wanted to say to Respondent that he was sorry. After keeping Student 1 in the office for approximately 15 minutes, Ms. Gascoigne sent Student 1 back to Respondent’s classroom. There was a dispute in the record as to whether Respondent sent a written referral to the office when Officer Black escorted Student 1 to the office at approximately 10:30 a.m. The office did receive a written referral from Respondent on May 21, 2008, pertaining to Student 1’s misbehavior. The inference was that pursuant to School Board Policy 5.33, which pertains to removal of students from a classroom as opposed to a disciplinary referral of a student for misbehaving in class, the office personnel should have detained Student 1 for a longer period of time than 15 minutes if Respondent had sent a written referral with him. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that School Board Policy 5.33 is inapplicable due to Student 1’s level of disruption. Moreover, the greater weight of the evidence established that Ms. Gasciogne did not receive the written referral until the afternoon of May 21, 2008, after the occurrence of the events at issue in this proceeding. When she had Officer Black take Student 1 to the office at approximately 10:30 a.m. on May 21, 2008, Respondent did not ask Ms. Gascoigne or anyone else in the office to detain Student 1 for a particular length of time. When Student 1 returned to her classroom, Respondent was in a meeting area where the students were gathered for group instruction. Respondent asked Student 1 why he had returned to the classroom. Student 1 responded to the effect that Ms. Gascoigne had sent him back. Referring to herself and to the other students in her class, Respondent responded to the effect that, “I don’t know if we are ready to have you back at this time.” After making that statement, Respondent directed Student 1 to join her in front of his classmates. Respondent asked Student 1 why he had done the things he had done earlier that morning. Student 1 shrugged his shoulders. Respondent told Student 1 that shrugging his shoulders was not an answer and that he should use his words. Three or four students began saying things about how Student 1 had behaved. Respondent asked Student 1 to listen to his classmates and asked him how what they were saying made him feel. Referring to herself and to the other students, Respondent stated that she did not think we are ready for you to come back at this time. Respondent then announced that she was going to poll the class as to whether Student 1 could rejoin them. Respondent explained to the class that a poll was like taking a vote. Respondent asked each of Student 1’s classmates to verbally vote yes or no whether Student 1 should remain in the classroom and gave each student the opportunity to explain his or her vote. Respondent tallied the votes on the chalk board. The final vote was 14 for removing Student 1 and two for allowing him to remain.4 Respondent thereafter sent Student 1 back to the office. Respondent made the ultimate decision to exclude Student 1 from her classroom, but in making that decision she considered the votes that had been cast by Student 1’s classmates. The reward system utilizing tokens was in place for Student 1 on May 21, 2008. There was insufficient evidence to establish that Respondent utilized the reward system or any other strategy, including the use of Mr. Graff’s class, that had been developed for Student 1 before sending him to the office on the first occasion or before removing him from her class after the classmates had cast their votes and made statements about his behavior. When Student 1’s mother came to pick Student 1 up from school on the evening of May 21, 2008, she told Respondent that she had embarrassed her son and that he was disabled and autistic. Respondent apologized to Student 1’s mother. Student 1 was with his mother when she made the quoted statement to Respondent and when Respondent apologized. When asked by his mother how he felt, Student 1 said he felt sad. Except for her conduct on the May 21, 2008, incident described above, Respondent has had a positive 12-year career as a teacher at Morningside. Respondent testified that at no time did she intend to harm, embarrass, or do anything negative to the student. Respondent further testified that she did not, at the time think she was hurting anyone. She believed that she could show all of her students that there are consequences to actions and to show that actions may affect others. Respondent testified, credibly, that early childhood education is her “passion” (as she termed it at Transcript, Volume III, page 275, beginning on line 11). Petitioner’s investigative report reflects (beginning on page 13 of Petitioner’s Exhibit B) the following: There is no evidence that Ms. Portillo’s conduct was malicious or intended to cause harm or embarrassment to Student 1. However, there is a question as to whether Ms. Portillo exercised the best professional judgment during the incident under investigation. . . . Immediately following the incident of May 21, 2008, Petitioner prohibited Respondent from returning to Morningside. Petitioner assigned Respondent to the School Board office with pay while Petitioner investigated the matter. On November 14, 2008, Mr. Lannon made his recommendation to the School Board. The recommendation was that Petitioner suspend Respondent for a period of one year dating from the School Board’s final order and that her contract be changed from a Professional Services Contract to an Annual Contract. At its meeting of November 14, 2008, the School Board suspended without pay Respondent’s employment for a period of one year and voted to change her contract from a Professional Services Contract to an Annual Contract should she return to employment with the School Board.5 The greater weight of the credible evidence overwhelmingly established that Respondent’s conduct on May 21, 2008, described above is properly characterized as misconduct as that term is generally understood. As will be discussed below, Petitioner established that Respondent’s conduct on May 21, 2008, violated the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida and the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, thereby violating the provisions of subsection (xxix) of School Board Rule 6.301(3)(b), as alleged in paragraph 18 of the Petition. Petitioner established that Respondent’s misconduct on May 21, 2008, violated subsection (xxxi) of School Board Rule 6.301(3)(b) as alleged in paragraph 18 of the Petition by exposing Student 1 and the other students in her class to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. Petitioner established that Respondent utilized an inappropriate method of discipline in removing Student 1 from her class after the class vote, thereby violating subsection (xxxvii) of School Board Rule 6.301(3)(b), as alleged in paragraph 18 of the Petition. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent was abusive or discourteous in violation of subsection (ix) of School Board Rule 6.301(3)(b) as alleged in paragraph 18 of the Petition. Mr. Lannon, Ms. Ranew, Ms. Gascoigne, and Ms. Cully are experienced educators with supervisory responsibilities. Each opined that Respondent had violated the Code of Conduct for the Education Profession and explained the reasons for those opinions. Petitioner established that Respondent failed to exercise the best professional judgment on May 21, 2008, as alleged in paragraph 19a of the Petition. The alleged violation set forth in paragraph 19b will be discussed below. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent’s misconduct was unethical and, consequently, failed to establish the violation alleged in paragraph 19c of the Petition. Petitioner established that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect Student 1 from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student’s mental and/or physical health and/or safety as alleged in paragraph 19d of the Petition. Petitioner established that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect Student 1 from harassment as alleged in paragraph 19(e) of the Petition. Petitioner has charged Respondent with “misconduct in office.” There is a difference between the generally used term “misconduct” and the term “misconduct in office.” The State Board has defined the term “misconduct in office” by Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009(3), as follows: (3) Misconduct in office is defined as a violation of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession as adopted in Rule 6B- 1.001, F.A.C., and the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida as adopted in Rule 6B- 1.006, F.A.C., which is so serious as to impair the individual’s effectiveness in the school system. While there can be no meaningful debate as to whether Respondent's conduct should be characterized as “misconduct,” there was a dispute as to whether Respondent’s effectiveness in the school system had been impaired, thereby establishing that Respondent was guilty of “misconduct in office” as alleged in the Petition. This incident received extensive coverage by the local, national, and international press. Locally, Petitioner received a high volume of written communications and telephone calls in response to Respondent’s conduct. Some communications supported Respondent’s conduct while others condoned Respondent’s conduct. The communications condoning Respondent’s conduct far outweighed the responses supporting her conduct.6 Petitioner received requests from parents that Respondent not be allowed to teach their students should she return to class. In addition to the negative publicity and negative communications generated by her conduct, Respondent’s principal has lost confidence in her. Ms. McCully testified as follows in response to questions from Petitioner’s counsel (Transcript, Volume III, beginning at page 371, line 17): Q. After the May 21, 2008, incident involving Ms. Portillo, would you recommend that she be hired as a teacher in your school? A. No, I would not. Q. Why is that? A. Personally, I feel that I would not have that rapport, trust, with her and be able to work with her after this. Dr. Lannon testified as follows in response to questions from Petitioner’s counsel (Transcript, Volume I, beginning at page 106, line1): Q. In your opinion, has Ms. Portillo’s actions on May 21, 2008, resulted in a loss of her effectiveness. A. I believe so. Q. How do you reconcile that with your recommendation that she can go back to work after a one-year suspension without pay? A. I came to that with great pain. I believe that the actions that Ms. Portillo undertook actually rose to the issue of termination. But also, in a sense of fairness, Ms. Portillo is a twelve-year employee who has contributed to the lives and the well-being of children in St. Lucie County. My sense on this was that while there is a price to pay – and I believe that the action of not protecting children is literally the most serious thing we can do in a negative way – that her past career would warrant a second chance, but not in the environment in which she had willfully created these series of steps leading to the involvement of a particular child in what I believe to be an embarrassing and disparaging way and the involvement of the class in a way that we may never know. Q. Did you consider terminating Ms. Portillo? A. I did. Q. And is it my understanding that you’re saying the fact that she had twelve positive years mitigated that decision. A. Yes. That’s exactly correct. Q. And that led you to the recommendation that’s at issue? A. That’s exactly right. On cross-examination, Mr. Lannon testified in response to questions by Respondent’s counsel (Transcript, Volume II, beginning on page 149, line 25): Q: And you’re of the opinion as you sit here today, Mr. Lannon, under no circumstances . . . that you would allow [Respondent] to teach elementary school children in St. Lucie County. I would not put her in pre-K through fifth grade. That’s the definition. So that would be correct. In his testimony at the formal hearing and in his letter of November 3, 2008, Mr. Lannon described the mitigating circumstances he considered in contemplating his recommendation to the School Board. The following, taken from Mr. Lannon’s letter, succinctly states those considerations: I have also considered mitigating circumstances. You have had a long (12 years) and positive career in St. Lucie County Public Schools. Your annual evaluations, conducted by five Principals over 12 years are positive. Behavior of young students, in groups such as classrooms, is often difficult and professionally demanding. The official investigation states “there is NO evidence that Ms. Portillo’s conduct was malicious or intended to cause harm or embarrassment . . . “ [Emphasis in the original.] Except for the conduct at issue in this proceeding, Respondent has been an excellent, dedicated teacher during her 12-year tenure at Morningside. She has spent a considerable amount of her personal time working on an extra-curricular activity named Odyssey of the Mind. Many of the employees at Morningside and parents of former students are supportive of Respondent. As to those employees and parents, Respondent’s reputation remains intact despite the negative publicity regarding the conduct at issue.7 The greater weight of the credible evidence clearly established that Respondent’s conduct on May 21, 2008, has impaired her effectiveness in the system. Petitioner established that Respondent’s conduct on May 21, 2008, constitutes “misconduct in office” within the meaning of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009 and, consequently, constitutes grounds for the suspension of her employment pursuant to Section 1012.33(6)(a), Florida Statutes, which provides, in relevant part, that the employment of a teacher with a professional services contract can be terminated or suspended for just cause, which is defined to include “misconduct in office” as defined by State Board rules. Section 1012.33(4)(b), Florida Statutes, provides, in relevant part, as follows: (b) Any . . . member of the instructional staff . . . may be returned to annual contract status for another 3 years in the discretion of the district school board, at the end of the school year, when a recommendation to that effect is submitted in writing to the district school board on or before April 1 of any school year, giving good and sufficient reasons therefore . . .. In explaining the rationale for his recommendations, Mr. Lannon testified as follows in response to questions from counsel for Respondent as to his recommended disposition of this matter (beginning at Transcript, Volume II, page 133, line 15): Q. What would happen in the one year that would allow her, from the year that you’re recommending that she be suspended to the year that she, if your recommendation is accepted, that she would come back to work for the School Board, what would happen in that year that would change the alleged loss of respect and confidence in her colleagues first? A. It might not. Q. Your same answer would be as it relates to students? A. Yes, sir. Q. And the parents. A. That’s correct. I have no knowledge of how they would feel. Q. So in essence, you’re allowing, you’re recommending that a person that you’re not sure would be respectful [sic] or confident [sic] by teachers, students, parents, and members of the community, you’re recommending that that person still work for the St. Lucie County School Board. A. I’m allowing that the 12 years prior to May 21, 2008, mitigated my thinking that said this person is deserving of another chance at some point in time. Q. And this chance that you’re talking about is not a chance of great risk or harm if I follow your logical conclusion; is that correct. A. If you look at it more fully, you’ll see that I would not allow her to teach at that grade level in an elementary school again. And there is a difference in the ability of students to be able to discern the words of adults as they age. And I’m going to bank on the fact that the quality that Ms. Portillo had previously shown, absent her actions on that day, which I believe to be premeditated and well thought out, even though they were quick, would not occur again. There can be little doubt that Respondent has been traumatized by the negative reactions to her misconduct.8 Respondent and her family have suffered economically as a result of her suspension. Respondent apologized to Student 1’s mother and testified that she is remorseful.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in this Recommended Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order uphold the suspension of Respondent’s employment for a period of one year from November 18, 2008, and provide for the change of her contract status from a Professional Services Contract to an Annual Contract, contingent upon the availability of a position for which Respondent is qualified and certified. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 31st day of March, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following pertinent facts are found: Respondent Wieland has been employed with the Broward County school system for approximately twenty-three years. In the school year 1973/74, he held the position of Director of Exceptional Child Education. His immediate superior was the Program Director of Educational Services, Mr. Larry I. Walden, a member of the superintendent's staff. Dr. James R. Fisher served as Director of Psychological Services on Dr. Wieland's Exceptional Child Education staff. During the 1973/74 school year, several rather drastic changes were occurring with regard to the administration of the exceptional child education program. This was the year of decentralization in Broward County, where concepts of authority, decision-making, accountability and responsibility were filtering down to the building or school levels through the various principals. Also, the Florida Educational Financial Program began in that year. This program related to state funding for students based upon a particular weight factor assigned for students in different programs. The cost factors for programs for exceptional students is considerably higher than for basic programs. Beginning with the 1973/74 school year, the actual responsibility for placement of children and implementation of programs resided with the principals of the individual schools. The role of the Exceptional Child Education staff was then reduced to one of consultation, advice and administration. Prior to decentralization, psychological testing was conducted under the direction or supervision of the Exceptional Student Education Department at the Diagnostic Center. With decentralization, testing psychologists became a part of the staff of the area offices and were answerable to their respective area superintendents. With this change, they were repeatedly instructed that their functions were consultative and that they were simply to test students upon receipt of a request from a school's principal. Beginning with the 1973/74 school year, school psychologists, as well as the then Director of Psychological Services, were constantly concerned with the pressures being placed upon them by the school principals and area superintendents to rapidly test and certify students for eligibility in the various exceptional education programs. A count of such eligible students was to be made in October and February of each school year. The results of such counts had a tremendous effect upon the school principal's budget. Many school psychologists felt that students were being placed in programs without sufficient diagnosis or data. This, along with inadequate personnel, was a constant topic of discussion both among school psychologists and at meetings on the staff level. Mr. Walden, respondent's immediate superior, was informed by Dr. Fisher of files containing insufficient data and other procedural irregularities. Mr. Walden also attended some of the staff meetings at which various problems were discussed. No specific problems at Horizon Elementary School were discussed between Fisher and respondent Wieland during the 1973/74 school year. In fact, Dr. Fisher was unaware of any discrepancies or procedural irregularities at Horizon during that year. Conditions did not improve during the 1974/75 school year, according to various school psychologists and the exceptional education staff. They still felt pressure to rapidly identify eligible students for exceptional education programs in order to generate funding and they still felt there was inadequate staffing for psychological services. During this year, Mr. Joel Kieter assumed respondent's position of Director of the Exceptional Education Program and respondent became Coordinator of Special Services, formerly called Psychological Services. Thus, Mr. Kieter was respondent's immediate superior. During this year, Mr. Kieter's office had no direct role in the certification of students for the various exceptional education programs. The 1974 "District Procedures for Providing Special Education for Exceptional Students" specifically provided that: "In the process of decentralization the exceptional student personnel at the district level have been relieved of direct responsibility for administration and instruction. The respon- sibilities of such personnel are now consultative and advisory in nature. The primary responsibility for administration and instruction is at the building level." However, Mr. Kieter's staff did attempt to give guidance to school psychologists and administrative personnel regarding the criteria for placement and the required procedures to be followed. Among the duties of respondent Wieland during the 1974/75 school year was direct responsibility for the Diagnostic Center, which was a repository for some 35,000 to 40,000 student files. School psychologists were instructed to obtain a case number from the Diagnostic Center for all new student files and to send a copy of the completed file to the Center. At one time, they were told that they could retain the folders as long as they thought the case was active. Student files were also to be kept at the student's school and in the area superintendents' offices. Inasmuch as the school psychologists were accountable to the area superintendents, the Center and its staff had no authority and could do little more than request them to promptly forward the files to the Center. At times, staff at the Diagnostic Center would return files for parental consent forms. Numerous staff meetings were held by Director Kieter during the 1974/75 school year. During these meetings, the school psychologists complained of their heavy caseload, the lack of secretarial help and other staff, pressures placed upon them by principals and area superintendents to place children in programs, inappropriate testing and lost or misplaced files. These were general discussions and specific incidents were not related. Dr. James Fisher, who was the team leader for psychologists in the North-Central area, had general discussions with both Dr. Wieland, Director Kieter, and even Mr. Walden concerning the pressure he felt with regard to the rapid testing of children and the inadequacy of data in the files of children who had already been placed. Dr. Fisher expressed to them his fear that emphasis was being placed upon the filling of classes, rather than upon the individual students. During the school year 1975/76, respondent again occupied the position of Coordinator of Special Services and Joel Kieter was again the Director of the Exceptional Education Program. The building principal of the referring school or the school enrolling the student was directly responsible for placement in the appropriate exceptional student program. ("1975 District Procedures for providing special Education for Exceptional Students," p. 199, H(2)(c) and p. 3). The exceptional student education staff was responsible for the determination of eligibility of individual students (p. 3 of the 1975 District Procedures). This determination was to be based upon the report of the testing psychologist. In the first portion of the 1975/76 school year, Director Kieter signed the eligibility determination forms (also referred to as the B-1 form). This responsibility was delegated by Mr. Kieter to respondent Wieland in mid- December, 1975. Prior to this delegation, Mr. Kieter occasionally signatured some B-1 forms without having seen the psychological report. This was done because of a backlog in clerical assistance and processing, and to expedite the procedure. Mr. Kieter was assured by the school psychologists that if the B-1 form had been sent to him for execution, proper testing had been completed, the report was in the process of being written and the data was available. Simultaneous with the time that the authority to sign B-1 forms was delegated to Dr. Wieland, Mr. Kieter issued a memorandum to all school psychologists stating that B-1 forms without the completed psychological report attached thereto would no longer be entertained. In the Fall of 1975, Mr. Fisher communicated with Director Kieter concerning the absence of certain psychological data in the files of some ten to twelve students at Horizon Elementary School. Mr. Kieter instructed Mr. Fisher to make up any deficiencies in those folders. Mr. Kieter also discussed the folders with the principal of Horizon, Mr. Wallsworth. Other than this incidence, Director Kieter was not informed of any specific irregularities or abuses in the exceptional education program at Horizon during the 1975/76 school year. Mr. John Georgacopoulos worked in the Diagnostic Center as a psychometrist from 1969 to 1971, and at Horizon Elementary School as a guidance counselor in the school years 1974/75 and 1975/76. As a guidance counselor, he attended "staffings" or meetings with school psychologists pertaining to the placement of students in the various programs. He was also involved with the testing of students at Horizon. In the school year 1974/75 -- his first year at Horizon -- Mr. Georgacopoulos perceived that there were problems in the running of Horizon's exceptional student program. These problems included the misclassification of students, the placing of students into programs without certification and without proper testing, the nonexistence of programs for which children were certified and mimeographed certifications with the students' name placed thereon at a later time. Mr. Georgacopoulos informed Horizon's principal, Mr. Wallsworth, of these irregularities on numerous occasions during the 1974/75 school year. He also states that he discussed these problems with Mr. Fisher, Director Kieter and respondent Wieland. Both Dr. Wieland and Mr. Kieter denied being informed by Mr. Georgacopoulos of any irregularities at Horizon during the 1974/75 school year. According to Mr. Georgacopoulos, problems at Horizon continued in the 1975/76 school year. These included the misplacement of children, improper or inadequate testing of students, nonexistence of programs, inadequate data in student files and the lifting of signatures onto psychological reports. In March of 1976, Georgacopoulos obtained from Mr. Wallsworth's office a computer printout of students funded for the various exceptional education programs at Horizon. He then checked the files of these students both at the Diagnostic Center and at Horizon and found that many did not have case numbers assigned to them, that many contained inadequate or no data and that, for some students, files did not exist at all either at the school or the Center. In March of 1976, Georgacopoulos went to respondent's office and talked to respondent about the alleged irregularities existing at Horizon. It is difficult to discern from Georgacopoulos' testimony what specifics were related to respondent. It appears that Wieland was informed that children were certified as gifted when no gifted program existed at Horizon, that children were being placed in the wrong programs, that children were being placed without appropriate or adequate testing and that the information in the student files was inadequate. At the time of this discussion, respondent had a difficult time following Georgacopoulos' conversation. He appeared to respondent to ramble and to be upset and confused. Respondent felt that Georgacopoulos simply disagreed with the psychologists' reports as well as the contents of the gifted program. As a result of this conversation, respondent told Georgacopoulos that some information might be in the files at the Diagnostic Center and offered him the opportunity to check these files with the assistance of his staff. Georgacopoulos told respondent that he had discussed these irregularities with Principal Wallsworth. On May 27, 1976, Robert Lieberman, a school psychologist at Horizon, went to respondent's office and told him of irregularities that existed at Horizon. These included the lack of programs for gifted and emotionally disturbed students, the misplacement of certified children, inappropriate "staffing" of children, inappropriate and/or inadequate testing before placement and the pressures placed upon school psychologists to test and place numerous students within a short amount of time. Lieberman was concerned that he would lose his job at Horizon and Respondent told him to try to finish out the school year without sacrificing his professionalism. Dr. Wieland also offered to help him get an interview for a job at the county level. Sometime between May 27th and June 9, 1976, Ms. Queen Sampson, a school psychologist from the area office, talked to respondent and confirmed the statements made by Georgacopoulos and Lieberman. On June 9, 1976, respondent again discussed the irregularities at Horizon with Mr. Georgacopoulos. During this conference, Mr. Georgacopoulos specifically placed the blame upon Principal Wallsworth and he was more emphatic and specific in his allegations concerning the irregularities. He also mentioned the falsification of psychological reports via the "lifting" of signatures, and stated that this had come to his attention in May of 1976. Respondent was aware at this June 9, 1976, meeting that Mr. Georgacopoulos was leaving the Broward County school system. Mr. Georgacopoulos testified that he had discussed specific irregularities at Horizon with Director Joel Kieter during the 1975/76 school year. Mr. Kieter denied that there had been any such discussions and testified that he had never even met Mr. Georgacopoulos prior to June 9, 1976. About an hour after talking to Mr. Georgacopoulos on June 9, 1976, respondent Wieland went to the office of William T. McFatter, Assistant to the Superintendent. He related that Georgacopoulos had made serious allegations against Mr. Wallsworth and asked for McFatter's advice. Mr. McFatter remembers that respondent mentioned the possibility of double funding and the qualification of students for the gifted program at Horizon. McFatter advised respondent to go straight to superintendent Mauer with the allegations. McFatter and respondent then went to the superintendent's office and a brief ten to fifteen minute meeting ensued. This was the last day of the school year for students and the superintendent was quite busy at this time. The possibility of double funding was an explosive issue to the Superintendent and this is the only irregularity he recalls having been mentioned by respondent on June 9, 1976. The superintendent immediately called a Mr. Cox, who deals with pupil accounting, and related to him his concern with double funding of students in the exceptional education program. Mr. McFatter, Mr. Mauer and respondent then went to the office of Mr. Cox and respondent Wieland was assigned the task of determining the existence or nonexistence of double funding. None was found and respondent so reported to Mr. Mauer. Subsequently, respondent and two other persons were assigned the task of auditing the records of the exceptional student program at Horizon. The auditors were unable to verify either the existence or nonexistence of certain records, forms and psychological reports for many students. It was clear that many files were incomplete and there was no evidence that either the gifted or emotionally disturbed programs existed at Horizon. Respondent Wieland explained the delay between the first March 1976, meeting with Mr. Georgacopoulos and his June 9, 1976, report to Mr. McFatter and the Superintendent as follows. Respondent (as well as others) classified Georgacopoulos as a "child advocate," and respondent felt at the March meeting that Georgacopoulos was merely expressing his disagreement with psychological reports and the contents of certain existing programs. During the March meeting, his allegations were general in nature and his discussion of irregularities appeared to ramble and be confusing. Respondent was more concerned with the demeanor of Georgacopoulos than with what he was saying. When Mr. Lieberman related similar and more specific irregularities, which were thereafter confirmed by Queen Sampson, respondent felt that disclosure of Lieberman's and Sampson's statements would be detrimental to their future employment with the school system. Upon confirming that Georgacopoulos was leaving the school system, respondent felt that the charges could be attributed to Georgacopoulos without injury to Lieberman and Sampson. He therefore had another conference with Georgacopoulos on June 9, 1976, and decided to seek advice from the Assistant to the Superintendent, Mr. McFatter. Various other events have transpired since June 9, 1976, concerning Horizon Elementary School exceptional education program irregularities. These include a letter from Mr. Georgacopoulos to the Superintendent, which letter appears to have instigated an investigation by the Security Office or the Internal Affairs Division. Such later events are not deemed relevant to the present charges against respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that respondent be immediately reinstated to his former position and that any back salary be paid to him for the reason that the charges against him were not sustained by the evidence. Respectfully submitted and entered this 3rd day of December, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: School Board of Broward County 1327 S.W. Fourth Street Ft. Lauderdale, Florida John B. Di Chiara DiGiulian, Spellacy, Bernstein, Lyons and Sanders Suite 1500, One Financial Plaza Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33394 Robert M. Curtis Saunders, Curtis, Ginestra & Gore P.O. Drawer 4078 1750 East Sunrise Boulevard Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33338
The Issue As to DOAH Case No. 12-2859TTS, whether Rhea Cohen (Respondent), a classroom teacher, committed the acts alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed by Robert Runcie, as Superintendent of the Broward County Schools (Superintendent) and, if so, the discipline that should be imposed against Respondent’s employment. As to DOAH Case No. 13-0704PL, whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed by Pam Stewart, as Commissioner of Education (Commissioner) and, if so, the discipline that should be imposed against Respondent’s teacher’s certificate.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the School Board has been the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Broward County, Florida; and Robert Runcie was Superintendent of Schools. At all times material hereto, the Commissioner has been the head of the state agency responsible for certifying and regulating public school teachers in the State of Florida; and Pam Stewart was the Commissioner. Respondent has been employed by the School Board since 2002 and holds a Professional Services Contract, issued in accordance with section 1012.33(3)(a). During the time relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was an ESE classroom teacher at Crystal Lake. During the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent was employed as an ESE classroom teacher at Atlantic West Elementary School teaching students on the autism spectrum. During that school year, the Education Practices Commission (EPC) reprimanded Respondent for sleeping in class while students were present and for using restraints inappropriately to control or manage autistic and exceptional student education students. The EPC imposed an administrative fine against her in the amount of $500.00. Thereafter, Respondent transferred to Crystal Lake. Respondent taught ESE students at Crystal Lake for the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years. The events at issue in this proceeding occurred during either the 2010-2011 school year or the 2011-2012 school year. Exact dates were available for some of the events, but unavailable for other events. Respondent’s classroom at Crystal Lake for those two school years was divided into two halves, separated by tables and rolling chalkboards that did not form a solid wall. For the 2010-2011 school year, Respondent taught her class of ESE students on one side of the divided classroom and a Ms. Knighton taught on the other side. For the 2011-2012 school year Respondent shared the classroom with Mr. Montalbano. On one side of the classroom was Respondent’s class, consisting of 11 ESE students. On the other side of the room was Mr. Montalbano’s class, consisting of seven ESE students. Mr. Montalbano’s class was smaller because his class functioned at a lower level than Respondent’s class. On October 4, 2011, student J., a non-verbal, wheel chair-bound boy, and student D., a boy with Down’s syndrome, were sitting next to each other in Respondent’s classroom. Student D. did something to irritate student J. Student J. balled up his fist as if to strike student D. Respondent, in front of the entire class, Lisa Phillips (an ESE paraprofessional), and Ms. Sorren, made the following statement: “So is the cripple [student J.] going to beat up the retard [student D.]”./4 Other students in the classroom laughed at student J. and student D. Student J.’s wheelchair is motorized. After making the statement quoted above, Respondent attempted to move student J. into a corner. When student J. moved the wheelchair away from the corner, Respondent unplugged the wheelchair’s battery and made the statement: “Now who has the power. I am in control, not you.” The other students laughed at student J. Respondent then moved student J. to the corner./5 On October 11, 2011, Respondent sent student J. to Mr. Montalbano’s classroom and commented that “he’s too much of a bother.” One day at dismissal, student J. asked Respondent three or four times to be taken to the bathroom. Respondent did not respond to student J. The bus arrived, but the driver refused to accept student J. because of his request to go to the toilet. Mr. Montalbano, who overheard student J.’s requests to Respondent, took over the responsibility for student J. Respondent became frustrated while helping student J. with the computer after student J. got the wires to the headphones tangled. Respondent ripped the headphones out of the back of the computer leaving the male connection in the female end of the computer. In a private discussion with Mr. Montalbano, Respondent referred to student D. as being a “moron.” Respondent sent her 11 students to Mr. Montalbano’s side of the classroom, which housed ten computers. There was a disturbance because one student did not have a computer. Respondent came to Mr. Montalbano’s side of the classroom and told student D. to give up his computer. Student D.’s first language is Bulgarian. When student D. muttered in protest, Respondent yelled at him to express himself in English. When student D. left the computer, his place was quickly taken by another student. Student D. began to cry. Respondent walked back to her side of the classroom, leaving student D. crying in Mr. Montalbano’s side of the classroom. On October 11, 2011, student Mi., an 11 year-old female on the autism spectrum, was playing with a puzzle during free time when she spotted an open computer. Student Mi. left the puzzle pieces out to go to the computer. Respondent noted the puzzle on the table and yelled out, “Who left this puzzle out?” Student Mi. hid under a table in reaction to Respondent’s statement. Respondent came to the table, roughly grabbed student Mi., and pulled her out from under the table. Respondent led student Mi. to the table with the puzzle and yelled in front of the class: “I don’t know what your mother teaches you at home, but you’re a little, spoiled brat and I am not going to clean up after you.” Respondent then took student Mi.’s doll away from her and put her in time out for the remainder of the day, approximately 30 minutes. On another occasion, Respondent had the other members of the class imitate student Mi., after student Mi. had engaged in self-stimulatory behavior. The other students laughed at student Mi. In October 2011, Ms. Hudson discovered Respondent and student Mi. in Mr. Montalbano’s half of the classroom with the lights dimmed. Ms. Hudson thought student Mi. had been crying. Ms. Hudson reported the incident to her principal, but she did not question Respondent, nor did Respondent volunteer to Ms. Hudson an explanation of the circumstances that resulted in Respondent being in the darkened classroom with student Mi. At the formal hearing, Respondent explained that student Mi. had run into traffic while waiting to be transported from school. Respondent testified, credibly, that she was trying to calm down student Mi./6 Ms. Sorren testified, credibly, that during the short time she was in Respondent’s classroom (approximately three school days), she heard Respondent address the students as morons, monkeys, jungle monkeys, and animals. That testimony was consistent with the other testimony as to the language used by Respondent in her classroom. Petitioners established that Respondent repeatedly yelled at her students to “shut up,” described a student’s behavior as being “stupid,” and called at least one student a “brat.” Student Mo., a female on the autism spectrum, was new to Respondent’s class. On an unidentified date, Respondent directed student Mo. to go to timeout. After student Mo. refused to go to timeout, Respondent shoved student Mo. into the timeout area. During the 2010-2011 school year, Respondent became upset with student C., a female, and ordered her out of her classroom. When student C. talked back to Respondent, Respondent threw student C.’s backpack and her shoes over the chalkboard that divided the classroom. Ms. Knighton and her class were in the part of the classroom into which Respondent threw the objects. Student C. became very upset. Respondent became upset with Ma., a male student. Ma. had a snack on his desk. Respondent knocked the snack to the floor and smashed it with her foot. Petitioners established that Respondent engaged in a pattern of misconduct. Respondent’s effectiveness in the school system has been impaired.
Recommendation The following recommendations are based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law: As to Case No. 12-2859TTS, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Broward County, Florida, enter a final order adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order uphold the suspension without pay of Rhea Cohen’s employment and terminate that employment. As to Case No. 13-0704PL, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order suspend Rhea Cohen’s educator’s certificate for a period of five years, to be followed by probation for three years with conditions to be set by the Education Practices Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of July, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 12th day of July, 2013.
