The Issue The issue is whether Dr. Schlein was properly graded on the November 1986 practical examination for chiropractic. Preliminary matters At the opening of the hearing, the petitioner, Dr. Stuart Schlein, inquired whether a former member of the Florida Board of Chiropractic Examiners, Dr. Posner, could represent him in this proceeding. After inquiring about Dr. Posner's credentials, Dr. Posner was not accepted as a qualified representative, but Dr. Schlein was permitted to consult with Dr. Posner throughout the proceeding to assist in the presentation of Dr. Schlein's evidence. At the hearing, David Paulson, Ph.D., and Robert Samuel Butler, Jr., D.C., testified on behalf of both parties. Petitioner introduced exhibits 1-14, and respondent introduced exhibits 1 and 2.
Findings Of Fact Stuart Schlein, the petitioner, was a candidate during the November 1986 chiropractic examination. He was exempt from Part I (Basic Sciences Examination) and Part II (Clinical Sciences Examination) because he had already passed the National Board of Chiropractic Examiners' examination. The practical examination consists of three portions, one on x-ray interpretation, one on chiropractic technique, and one on physical diagnosis. There was no dispute with respect to the scoring of Dr. Schlein on the x-ray interpretation portion of the exam, on which he received a grade of 74.2 percent. Dr. Schlein's grade on technique was 75.0 and on physical diagnosis was 72.5, for an overall score on the three portions of practical examination of 73.9 percent. Dr. Schlein would have been eligible for registration for licensure as a chiropractor if his overall grade was 75 percent or better on the practical examination. Rule 21D- 11.003(4), (5), Florida Administrative Code. To conduct the technique and physical diagnosis portions of the practical examination, the Department of Professional Regulation hires examiners who have five or more years experience as licensed chiropractors in Florida who have not been disciplined or investigated by the Board. Rule 21D- 11.007(1), Florida Administrative Code. Pairs of examiners question each candidate. There is a standardization training session for examiners which lasts 2-3 hours the morning of the examination. During that training, the examiners learn the scoring scale to be used; candidates are scored on a scale from 1-4, with scores of four being the maximum. Examiners are told to independently evaluate the candidate's performance and are told how to record their answers on a sheet which can be scanned by computer, and are told the different content areas from which they may ask questions of candidates. For example, in the technique examination, there are four sub-areas to be covered, cervical, thoracic, occipital, and soft tissue. The examiner, individually, determines what he wishes to ask candidates from those subject areas. Both examiners' scores on each test are averaged to produce a candidate's final score for each test. The examiners change partners from the morning to afternoon examination sessions. For approximately 30 minutes before the morning or afternoon sessions, the examiners paired for that session may discuss with each other the questions which they intend to ask. To use a legal analogy, this method of testing candidate's practical knowledge is not much different than placing two examining lawyers in a room to question and evaluate a bar applicant, after merely instructing the lawyers to "ask something about evidence, about constitutional law, and about criminal law." (Transcript 137). There is no assurance that the questions posed by the examiners are at a proper level of difficulty to assess minimum qualifications for practice. There is no requirement that a given pair of examiners ask the same questions of their examinees during a morning or afternoon examination session. There is no assurance that the other examiner in the room even knows the answer to a question posed, yet both examiners are required to assign a grade for the candidate's performance on each sub-area. The Department makes a tape recording of the examination of each candidate for review. Dr. Schlein's grades on the technique and diagnosis portions of the practical examination were as follows: TECHNIQUE Examiner I Examiner 4 1. Cervical 3 4 2. Thoracic 3 3 3. Occipital 4 3 4. Soft Tissue 2 2 12 12 16 16 = 75 percent = 75 percent Average score 75 percent DIAGNOSIS Examiner 1 Examiner 4 Case History 3 3 Chiro. Exam. 2 2 Orthopedic 4 4 Neurological 4 3 Laboratory Diagnosis 3 2 Nutrition 2 [examiner failed to assign a grade] 18 14 24 20 = 75 percent = 70 percent Average score 72.5 percent Technique 75 percent Diagnosis 72.5 percent X-Ray 74.2 percent Final Average 73.9 percent Dr. Schlein objects to the grades he received for cervical and occipital on the technique exam and for neurological and nutrition in the diagnosis exam. With respect to the grade for nutrition, the Department of Professional Regulation could not explain why Examiner 4 failed to assign any grade for the candidate's answer with respect to the questions he was asked on nutrition. Dr. Schlein attempted to impeach the explanation given by Examiner 1, Dr. Butler, for the grades assigned on the four portions of the examination Dr. Schlein challenged by introducing portions of text books used in chiropractic schools which tend to support Dr. Schlein's oral answers. While the matter is not free from doubt, Dr. Schlein's text book excerpts have not convinced the Hearing Officer that the grades given are erroneous. Dr. Schlein was not properly graded, however, with respect to the area of nutrition since examiner 4 (who was not called as a witness) failed to assign any grade and the reason for his failure to do so was unexplained.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Dr. Schlein be granted the opportunity to be reexamined on the practical portion of the chiropractic examination, at no cost to him. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of June, 1988. WILLIAM R. DORSEY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 1988. APPENDIX The following are my rulings on the proposed findings of fact proposed by the petitioner. Rejected as introduction. Covered in paragraph 1. Covered in paragraph 2. Covered in paragraph 5. Covered in paragraph 6. Covered in paragraphs 1 and 5. Rejected because it is not possible to tell what the effect of the failure of Examiner 4 to give a grade on nutrition was, other than to draw the conclusion expressed in paragraph 5 of the Conclusions of Law that the examiner did not completely understand the grading instructions. Rejected for the reasons stated in paragraph 8. The finding that the testimony establishes there is no uniform method for grading examinees is implicitly accepted in paragraph 3, the remainder of the paragraph is rejected as argument. The following are my rulings of findings of fact proposed by the respondent. The Department filed no proposed recommended order. COPIES FURNISHED: WILLIAM O'NEIL, ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 130 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0750 STUART SCHLEIN, D. C. 1035 FRANKLING ROAD APARTMENT N-208 MARIETTA, GEORGIA 30667 PAT GUILFORD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 130 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0750
The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against the Respondent for alleged violations of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, (1979)
Findings Of Fact Wilfred's Romar Hairstyling Academy is a cosmetology school, which has been issued license #CT0000228. In March of 1980 Ardie Collins, an investigator for Petitioner Board of Cosmetology, found teacher trainee Sumner instructing a theory class in Respondent school without direct supervision by a certified cosmetology instructor. On April 17, 1980 Collins found student instructor Bra noon teaching a theory class in Respondent school without direct supervision of a certified cosmetology instructor. On April 29, 1980 Collins found that nine (9) students of Respondent school had been enrolled in the school without student permits. On September 18, 1980 Collins observed a student teacher trainee teaching students basic training on mannequins in Respondent school without direct supervision of a licensed instructor. Respondent did not dispute the foregoing facts and suggested in its memorandum that a penalty, if any, should be a "written reprimand." Insufficient evidence was produced to show that Respondent had violated requirements as to size and accessibility of the dispensary.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that a final order be entered by the agency which reprimands Respondent school and places it on probation for a period of time not to exceed two (2) years with semiannual inspections. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of September, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND 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 28th day of September, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Drucilla E. Bell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas Utke, General Manager Wilfred's Romar Hairstyling Academy 1013 East Colonial Drive Orlando, Florida 32807 Nancy Kelley Wittenberg, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 81-1576 81-1577 WILFRED'S ROMAR HAIRSTYLING ACADEMY, Respondent. /
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Petitioner should be granted additional credit for the responses given during his practical examination for licensure which was conducted during November, 1991, and for which Petitioner entered this challenge.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner, David Sanders, is a candidate for chiropractic licensure. His candidate for licensure number is 200142, and he took the November, 1991, practical examination administered by the Department. Petitioner received a score of 64.0 on the practical examination. Petitioner's score fell below the minimum score for passing, 75.0. Petitioner timely challenged the examination results and claimed that the Department had incorrectly graded Petitioner's responses and performance during the examination. In this case, the practical examination was administered by two examiners who, independently of one another, scored the responses given by Petitioner when presented with two case studies. For Case 1, the scoring was divided into fourteen sections or subsections where the candidate was evaluated and given points based upon the responses given. For the orthopedics section of Case 1, the Petitioner was given a scenario of facts from which he was to determine the appropriate tests to be administered to the patient. Following selection of the tests to be given, Petitioner was required to perform the test. For an inappropriate test, no points were awarded, even if the candidate performed the test correctly. Of the nine tests listed, four were to be chosen and performed. One point was awarded for each appropriate test correctly performed. In response to the orthopedics section, Petitioner selected three appropriate tests to perform. Consequently, the maximum grade, per examiner, he could have received was a score of three. Petitioner received a score of two from one examiner, and a three from the other. The first examiner commented that the Yeomans test was wrong. Since Yeomans was an appropriate test to perform, and Petitioner correctly performed the test, Petitioner should have received a three on that section from that examiner. Under the neurological subsections of Case 1, Petitioner was required to identify, based upon the fact scenario given, four muscles which should be examined and tested. Petitioner only identified three relevant muscles. Consequently, he received a score of three from each examiner. The scoring on this subsection was correct. Under subsection 8 of the neurological portion Petitioner received no credit as he failed to select three appropriate tests and correctly interpret the responses. Accordingly, the scoring on this subsection was correct. The final subsection of the neurological portion was the diagnosis rendered based upon all the findings of the scenario and test results. Since Petitioner rendered an inappropriate diagnosis, no points were awarded. The scoring on this subsection was correct. Case 2 of the physical examination contained nine sections or subsections for which Petitioner could have received credit. The first section of Case 2 required Petitioner to obtain a history from the patient. To achieve a perfect score on this section, the candidate had to inquire into seven or more areas of relevant history. If so, the score for the section would be a four. In this case, Petitioner should have received a four from both examiners regarding the history taken. As it was, Petitioner only received a three from the examiners. In order to receive credit on the physical-selection portion of the test, Petitioner was required to auscultate the heart and lungs, and purcuss the chest. Since he failed to do so, the scoring on this subsection was correct. In connection with subsections 18 and 19 of Case 2, Petitioner failed to receive full credit because he did not indicate an appropriate laboratory test. Had Petitioner requested a SMAC test, full credit would have been given for both subsections. As it was, because Petitioner failed to request a SMAC test, he could not receive credit on either subsection. The scoring on these subsections was correct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Chiropractic Examiners enter a final order changing Petitioner's score on the November, 1991, physical examination as noted above in order to recalculate and determine whether or not Petitioner failed the examination through no fault of his own. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of October, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October, 1992. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 92-2709 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: 1. None submitted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: With regard to paragraph 1, with the deletion of the words "on physical diagnosis" in sentence 1, the paragraph is accepted. Paragraph 2 is accepted. Paragraph 3 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 4 is accepted. Paragraphs 5 through 9 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: David Sanders 359 Glenwood Avenue Satellite Beach, Florida 32937 Vytas J. Urba Assistant General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Diane Orcutt Executive Director Board of Chiropractic Examiners 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Schutte satisfied the requirements which enabled her to sit for a cosmetology examination. She took the examination given in July of 1979 and passed the practical portion with a grade of 80, but she failed the written theoretical portion with a grade of 69. In October of 1979, Petitioner again took the theoretical portion of the cosmetology examination and failed with a grade of 72. She returned to cosmetology school and took forty (40) hours of remedial training. Thereafter, in December of 1979, Petitioner took the theoretical portion of the examination for the third time, on this occasion failing with a grade of 71. A passing grade of 75 is required for licensure. Petitioner Schutte has been employed in the cosmetology business owned by Leni Nelson since December of 1979. She has satisfied her employer with her work in the limited area of cosmetology she is allowed to perform without licensure. Ms. Nelson has found Petitioner to be interested in her work and concerned with the welfare of the customers, and she hopes that the problem Petitioner has encountered with the written examination can be resolved. Petitioner Schutte did not notify the Respondent Board that she had difficulty in reading written examinations, although she took three (3) consecutive written examinations. After consideration of the evidence and hearing testimony presented at the formal hearing, the Hearing Officer finds that Petitioner has a reading problem and therefore is at disadvantage in taking written examinations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends the following: Deny licensure to the Petitioner, Tracy D. Schutte; Notify the Petitioner that she may take the written portion of the examination again using a reader of her choice pursuant to Rule 21F-6.04(6), Florida Administrative Code. DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of May, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Drucilla E. Bell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ms. Tracy D. Schutte 1960 Byram Drive Clearwater, Florida 33515 Nancy Kelley Wittenberg, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The matters to be determined by this Recommended Order concern administrative prosecution of the Respondent on the part of the Petitioners. The action by Commissioner Turlington is, according to an Administrative Complaint, in which the Respondent is accused of false, malicious, derogatory and profane commentary, epithets related to faculty, staff, administrators and students within the Bay County School System. By subject, these allegations pertain to accusations of illicit sexual relationships on the part of school personnel, accusations of theft by a former faculty member and general derogatory comments related to various categories of individuals within the Bay County School System. It is further alleged that the Respondent failed to properly instruct and supervise students. Respondent is accused of coercing a student, who was employed at the Haney Vocational Technical Center Business Office, to provide the Respondent with confidential information in the personnel files of other school employees. Respondent is accused of making derogatory, demeaning and profane remarks about students while conducting class and in the presence of other students who are not the subject of those comments. Respondent is accused of making false representations to students about political influence with the Superintendent of the Bay County School System and members of the State Board of Cosmetology. Respondent is said to have falsified student records which she submitted to the State Board of Cosmetology. Finally, Respondent is said to have willfully and intentionally refused to comply with specific instructions given to her by her supervisor, the principal of Haney Vocational Technical Center. The accusations brought against the Respondent by Pete Holman as Superintendent of the Bay County School System are in a similar vein to those by the Education Practices Commission in the person of Commissioner Turlington. These accusations by the co-prosecutors are more completely described and discussed in - the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law which follow.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, MYRTICE SHORES FLORA, is the holder of a Florida teaching certificate, number 236133 and has held that certificate at all times relevant to the inquiry. She had been a cosmetology instructor at Tom P. Haney Vocational Technical School in Bay County, Florida for fifteen years prior to her suspension in August, 1983. The suspension relates to the matters as charged by the Superintendent of the Bay County School District. Her status With Bay County is that of a continuing contract employee. The allegations which underlie the complaints filed by the two petitioners do not pertain to her competence as an instructor. The charges which have been placed against the Respondent relate to activities within the school year 1982-83. In particular that period from late 1982 to approximately the summer of 1983. Within that time frame a number of conflicts existed between faculty members at Haney, in the Department of Cosmetology; between students who were attending the cosmetology course at Haney; between faculty and students in that setting and between the administration of the school and the Respondent. The focus or gravamen of these administrative complaints is to the effect that the Respondent was the central player in this cast and primarily responsible for the turmoil. One of the contentions that is made by both prosecutors, concerns what is described as false and malicious statements that were made about the principal of Haney, a Mr. Revere; other faculty members, a teacher's aide, students and the Superintendent of the Bay County School District. In that same realm, Respondent is accused of making derogatory comments and using profanity in referring to the principal, Riviere, and other principals who preceded him at Haney Vocational Technical Center; concerning assistant principals; concerning faculty members and concerning students. Respondent did make numerous derogatory remarks, with malice and at times the use of profanity, directed toward various persons at Haney and toward the Superintendent of Bay County Schools. Some examples are: Expression of dislike of the principal of Haney, Mr. Riviere, in the sense of "hating" him, questioning his administrative ability, saying that he was the "south end of a north bound donkey", that Mr. Riviere did not know what was going on in the Cosmetology Department nor what would be best for that department. These were comments made in front of students in the class. Respondent said in front of students that Principal Riviere had gotten a girl pregnant and stolen student funds in order to pay for an abortion for the girl. In addition, Respondent in conversation with a fellow cosmetology teacher, one Sandra Sawyer, referred to Riviere as a person "who didn't know his ass from a hole in the ground", a person who was a "stupid bastard". In referring to Riviere in conversation with Ed Sullivan, the registrar at Haney Vocational, she stated that Riviere was a person who given enough rope, "the son of a bitch would hang himself". She also referred to Riviere as a "bastard" in conversation with Sullivan. In discussions with Larry Johnson, the coordinator of personnel for the Bay County School District, Respondent made remarks on the subject of Mr. Riviere to the effect that he was "a very poor administrator", "a bastard" and a "son of a bitch". Further she stated that Riviere has sexual relationships with many of the female staff members at Haney Vocational. Respondent indicated to June Roberts, who was secretary to the assistant principal at Haney, one Jim Strickland, that Respondent felt that Riviere was "out to get her" and that she was "going to get him". Respondent told the school bookkeeper at Haney, one Ami Sullivan, that Riviere was having an affair with numerous women at the Haney school. Respondent told teacher aide at Haney, Cynthia Johnson, that Riviere would sleep with anybody and had the morals of a dog. She also told Johnson that Riviere was an unfit administrator. Respondent mentioned in front of students at Haney, during class, that Pete Holman, the Superintendent of schools in Bay County, "liked to sleep with black women". Respondent also commented to Sawyer, the co-teacher at Haney Cosmetology Department, that Holman slept with black women. Respondent made this same comment to Cynthia Johnson, the teacher's aide. Respondent also made adverse comments about other administrators. Among them, Assistant Principal Jim Strickland at Haney Vocational, whom she called a son of a bitch in conversation with Ms. Sawyer. She further told Sawyer that Strickland could not be trusted. In conversation with Larry Johnson, the Coordinator of Personnel of Bay County Schools she referred to the Assistant Principals at Haney, Homer Jackson and James Strickland, as incompetent, no good, and to the effect that they did not know what they were doing. She told Gail Chester, secretary in the Business Office at Haney, that assistant Principal Strickland was "a dumb ass" and that he "didn't know his ass from a hole in the ground". She referred to Assistant Principal Cheek "as an ass hole" and "a dumb ass", in conversations with Gail Chester. Respondent referred to the former Haney principal, a man named Slocum, as "a God damned son of a bitch" and stated on several occasions that Slocum and Slocum's secretary were having sexual relations. On numerous occasions to students, faculty and the administration, Respondent referred to Daisy Jackson, a former cosmetology instructor at Haney, as having stolen supplies from Haney Vocational. She also stated to those persons that Jackson was incompetent. In front of the class Respondent indicated that Sandra Sawyer, the co- teacher at Haney, had left her position at Haney because of emotional problems, in that Sawyer was going crazy. Respondent told Principal Riviere that Sandra Sawyer was incompetent, that she did not know what she was doing, and that she lacked enough experience to assist students in instruction. In front of students Respondent referred to Cynthia Johnson, a teacher's aide, as incompetent, a person whom the Respondent was teaching cosmetology services at night, and further indicated her belief that Johnson was "stabbing her in the back". In conversation with the school bookkeeper at Haney, Ami Sullivan, Respondent referred to Cynthia Johnson as "a spy". Respondent told Principal Riviere that Cynthia Johnson was not competent and did not know enough to adequately assist students, and did not know what she was doing. Respondent in conversation with Sandra Sawyer referred to some of the cosmetology students as lesbians, that some of them had learning disabilities, that some were stupid, that some were trouble makers, and that one student was a prostitute. The remarks recounted above, as individual comments, would not be significant. These remarks taken together demonstrate a persistent pattern of malicious gossip, disruptive in its influence. The remarks made to administrative officials can not be regarded as a good faith effort at offering complaints about relations with the Respondent's immediate supervisors and fellow teachers. These findings take into account the strains placed upon the Respondent in the overcrowded situation of the classroom at Haney in the relevant period, and the tendency which others had to be willing participants in gossip. Nonetheless, the quality of remarks by others did not carry with them the same careless disregard for the feelings of fellow workers and students. Finally, in her efforts at defense the Respondent has failed to establish that these statements were true. As established by the Superintendent Holman and the Assistant Superintendent for Instruction of Bay County Schools, Milton Acton, these remarks by the Respondent have made her lose her effectiveness as an employee in the Bay County School System. Her remarks fostered a tension in the school, which can not be balanced by her ample skills as a teacher. It is alleged that the Respondent has failed to provide proper instruction to students in her classes and failed to properly supervise their work. Having considered the testimony of students and staff and the success rate in passing the state board examination which is more than 90 percent, and the success in obtaining employment after finishing the course work at Haney Vocational, which again is more than 90 percent, Respondent is not found to have failed to properly instruct her students in the classes nor failed to properly supervise their work, as an overview of her performance. These findings take into account the alleged problems which Anita Shealy had in a bleach touch-up demonstration. Respondent's supervision was adequate on that occasion. Likewise, in the circumstance with a student, Kim Nelson, who experienced problems with frosting of her hair, it is found that Nelson undertook that matter against the advice of the Respondent and suffered the consequences. Other indications made by various witnesses for the Petitioner to the effect that they did not receive adequate supervision and assistance as students at Haney, are not accepted, when considered in the context of the overall testimony of this hearing. As reflected in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent in discussion with Rena Mabius, a student who worked in the busi- ness office at Haney, and who had access to personnel files of staff, Respondent commented that "it would be nice if you could get me some of those files so I could use them." This referred to discussion in which the student had indicated that most teachers did not accurately report their absences in the records, intimating that Respondent would not need to either. The student in the face of Respondent's remarks about obtaining the files quit her position in the business office to avoid controversy. This again, in keeping with the opinions of the educators Holman and Acton, would substantially reduce the effectiveness of Respondent as an educator. Respondent is accused of making derogatory comments, de- meaning and profane remarks to students in her class in the pre- sence of other students. While it is true that the Respondent would on occasion use such language as "damn, shit and bitching" and would comment on a student's performance during class, these remarks are not found to be unacceptably derogatory or demeaning, to the extent they were proven. Respondent is next accused of having repeatedly made false representations to her students that she possessed some substantial political influence with the Superintendent of the Bay County School System and members of the State Board of Cosmetology. Respondent did in fact make comments to her students that she had influence with the Superintendent of the Bay County School System and in effect had influence with the State Board of Cosmetology. These statements were not defamatory and Petitioner did not show that they were false. Moreover, they were not statements which were shown to have reduced her effectiveness as an instructor or otherwise to have had an adverse influence on the students. Respondent is accused of having falsified reports which she submitted to the State Board of Cosmetology. Respondent instructed the students to write the entries of the various services given, as indicated on their monthly service sheet, in pencil. This would allow changes to be made in the entries related to the number of services done. The significance of these numbers related to the fact that a certain number of services had to be achieved prior to the students' standing examination by the Cosmetology Board. Two of those students, Peggy Harsh Singleton and Tina Mangum in the submission of their November, 1982 monthly sheet from which the total figures for students at Haney Vocational in the Cosmetology Department were extracted, modified their November 1982 records to reflect services not given. While it is not clear that the Respondent, for all students at Haney in the period in question, had a policy of allowing numbers to be added which equated to services not done in the various categories of services necessary to be accomplished before standing the state board examination, she did on the occasion of Mangum and Singleton in the face of suspicions explained by her co-instructor Ms. Sawyer, ignore clear discrepancies within the monthly reporting by those students which would indicate false reporting by those students. Even though Sawyer explained her suspicions related to those student monthly service reports for November, 1982, Respondent's reply was to the effect that there was "a lot of things that she didn't like, that that's the way things were, and that's the way they did things" and that-Sawyer "better get used to it." In essence, it would not have been possible for the students to perform the number of services reflected in the November report and it is not possible that all changes shown in the November report reflect the reexamination of prior months reporting and the addition of services which they performed in the prior months by placing those prior services in the November report. Some of the items in the November report of the two students are bogus entries, brought to the attention of the Respondent by Sawyer and ignored. Copies of those November reports related to the students Singleton and Mangum may be found as Petitioners' Exhibits Numbers 1 and 3 respectively. Notwithstanding the stated suspicion and the evident discrepancies, Respondent filed a report with the State Board of Cosmetology that indicated Singleton and Mangum had completed the necessary services to stand the State Board examination. Respondent in speaking with student Singleton, whom the Respondent knew had not completed sufficient services to stand the examination, told Singleton she would be allowed to stand the State Board examination and complete missing services at a time subsequent to the State Board examination. As established through the testimony of the educators Holman and Acton this conduct brings about a substantial loss of effectiveness on the part of the Respondent, in that this action undermines her integrity in the eyes of the students, faculty and administration. The final contention by the Petitioners against the Respondent concern her willful and intentional refusal to comply with specific instruction given to her by her principal. Re-spondent in November 1982 had agreed to comply with Principal Riviere's instruction to the effect that she would not take students to Tallahassee to stand the State Board of Cosmetology Examination without first obtaining his permission. Thereafter, she submitted a request for temporary duty assignment in which one of the stated reasons was "Board testing of students in Tallahassee". This duty assignment request was signed by the Principal authorizing a trip to Tallahassee on November 14th, 1982. A copy of this request form may be found as Respondent's Exhibit Number 4 admitted into evidence. Respondent then took the students to stand the examination in Tallahassee. Later when she was confronted by the Principal on the question of whether she should have taken any of the students to the State Board she first denied having done so. She then acknowledged that she had taken them. In the course of the hearing Respondent attempted to argue that she had been given permission via the request for temporary duty assignment as described. Notwithstanding the signature of the Principal on that document, Petitioner argues that the Respondent knew that she was taking the students to stand the examination without the necessary permission of the Principal, in violation of the Principal's instruction. Under the circumstances in which written permission was given to go to Tallahassee, Respondent is not shown to have been insubordinate. Nor has Petitioner shown other acts of insubordination.
