Findings Of Fact Respondent has a bachelor's degree in secondary education in English, which she received from Penn State University in 1973. After graduation, she took ballet lessons for six months in New York and then returned home to recuperate from pneumonia. She returned to Philadelphia and taught in a private school for a short time. She then attended a graduate program at Temple University and received her certification as a reading specialist in 1977, although she did not complete her master's degree. While she was in graduate school, she was a long-term substitute for one and one-half years in Philadelphia. She returned home to Miami Beach, Florida, because she was assigned to a school which she considered undesirable and because she had some dental problems. Respondent started teaching in the Dade County Public Schools in September of 1980 at Robert E. Lee Junior High School. During most of that school year, William R. Jones, who is currently the principal of Robert E. Lee Junior High School, was the assistant principal for curriculum at that school. As such, he received numerous complaints concerning Respondent and her classroom instruction from other teachers, from students, and from parents. Therefore, he observed Respondent teaching. Jones attempted to help Respondent with her teaching presentation, a fact which was acknowledged by Respondent at the formal hearing in this cause when she admitted that he had helped her a great deal in the field of teaching. However, during the 1980-1981 school year she responded to his assistance inappropriately. She told Jones that he had conditioned her to respond favorably to him sexually, and she told other teachers of her physical attraction to Jones. Respondent began to display bizarre behavior at school. On three occasions she was found lying on the front lawn of the school. The students thought that she was asleep, ill, or possibly dead, and this understandably caused commotion in the classrooms. After the first such occasion, Jones told her not to do it again. However, on two subsequent occasions she was found lying on the front lawn of the school. On another occasion, Respondent hysterically interrupted a conference Jones was having with another member of the school staff. He told Respondent that he was involved in a conference, but she refused to leave. She vacillated between laughing and crying. Finally, Jones advised Respondent that if she did not leave, he would call school security. She continued to refuse to leave, and he was compelled to terminate his conference so that he could talk to her. She then indicated that she had nothing to say to him. At the conclusion of the 1980-1981 school year, after Jones had become the principal of Robert E. Lee Junior High School, he was conducting a faculty meeting. Respondent got out of her seat and began to yell and scream. She ran about the cafeteria where the meeting was being held and made threats toward Jones. Due to this disruption, Jones had to end the faculty meeting and send Respondent home. After observing Respondent's classroom technique, Jones determined there was a need for her to obtain additional help or training in Preparation, planning and techniques of instruction. For example, Respondent changed her classroom activity six or seven times during the class period; she would start the class on an assignment and three or four minutes later, before the class had finished, would change the assignment to something else. Jones requested Respondent to attend the Teacher Education Center. She refused to attend. Jones had Respondent transferred from her regular class of approximately 30 to 35 students to a smaller classroom with 13 to 15 students in the hope that she would be able to cope with this reduced-size class. The attempt was unsuccessful. Both Jones and his new assistant principal, Mr. Bonilla, still found Respondent's performance to be unacceptable. In his final evaluation of the school year, Jones rated her as unacceptable. About halfway through the 1980-1981 school year, Jones advised the executive director for the Division of Personnel Control of the Dade County Public Schools, Dr. Patrick Gray, of Respondent's difficulties. After Jones's and Bonilla's annual evaluation of Respondent at the end of the 1980-1981 school year, Gray held a conference with Respondent and referred her to a psychiatrist, Dr. William Gustafson. As a result of his evaluation, Gustafson advised that Respondent was definitely emotionally disturbed and in need of psychiatric treatment. He further opined that Respondent was definitely not able to function as a teacher at the present. Thereafter, Respondent requested a medical leave of absence without pay for psychiatric reasons, and that leave was approved. About this same period of time, Dr. Gray's office received an undated letter from Respondent charging Jones with numerous acts of unprofessional conduct. Among other things, she alleged that Jones, a married man, was having an affair with a fellow educator and that that person had become pregnant. In fact, that faculty member had never been pregnant. During the 1981-1982 school year, Respondent was on a leave of absence from the Dade County Public Schools on medical leave for psychiatric reasons. It is the school system's policy to pay the premiums on hospitalization, vision and dental insurance during such a leave of absence, and this was done for Respondent. Midpoint in that school year, Respondent advised that she wished to return to work, and Dr. Gray arranged to obtain a medical evaluation by psychiatrist Charles B. Mutter. Dr. Mutter reported that Respondent's judgment was impaired, her insight was nil, and she had marked emotional difficulties warranting further psychiatric treatment. He found she had a schizoid predisposition and was in a borderline state with marked anxiety. As a result of Mutter's evaluation, Respondent did not return to work. On March 2, 1982, Dr. Gray received a report from Dr. Gustafson advising that Respondent had returned to treatment with him. Gustafson stated that she was still quite impaired by her condition, although she had improved in some respects. That same day, Gustafson telephoned Gray to advise that Respondent was no longer in treatment and that she considered Gustafson and Gray to be in a conspiracy against her. Gustafson further opined that Respondent had potential for desperate actions and needed continuing therapy. On June 16, 1982, Gray received a letter from Respondent requesting that her medical leave be extended for another year. However, on July 2, 1982, Gray received a report from Dr. Gustafson recommending only a two-month extension of Respondent's medical leave. On August 4, 1982, Gustafson wrote to Gray stating that Respondent had been successfully able to function as a teacher in a private school over the past summer. At that time, it was his opinion that she could handle the responsibilities of a classroom teacher once again. Gustafson's opinion at that time was based in part on Respondent's representation that she had been teaching a classroom of students during the preceding summer. He stated later that had he known that Respondent was only tutoring one student at a time during her summer employment, a fact which Respondent acknowledged at the hearing, he would have been more cautious about his recommendation that she was able to return to work. On the strength of Gustafson's recommendation, Respondent was returned to work in the Dade County Public Schools. She was assigned to Hialeah-Miami Lakes Senior High School, a school with a low incidence of student disruption and of high student test scores. Hialeah-Miami Lakes was in the top one-third of Dade County schools academically as well as in student activities and in the overall operation of the school. Respondent was assigned to teach English/Communications. Respondent's classes each lasted 55 minutes. During the first nine weeks of the school year, she typically assigned students a test which took approximately five to ten minutes to complete. For the rest of the class, she told them to read material of their own choosing. The students either read or slept. While the students were testing themselves and/or reading and/or sleeping, Respondent stared at the ceiling or else read a book. Sometimes she giggled to herself, even though there did not appear to be anything to laugh at occurring at the time. Some of the students felt that she screamed at students without good cause and "acted crazy." Some students requested to be transferred out of her class. The assistant principal in charge of curriculum at Hialeah-Miami Lakes Senior High School observed Respondent's class and found that there was no teaching being done. Further, although the Faculty Handbook at Hialeah-Miami Lakes requires that a minimum of two grades a week be placed in the teacher's grade book for each student, and although Respondent was advised of this requirement, she had no grades in her grade book by the end of the seventh week of school. Instead, she placed colored squares in her grade book. Although this coloring system may have held meaning for Respondent, a substitute or new teacher for the class would not be able to understand anything from this form of grading system. A conference was held with Respondent, the principal of the school, and the assistant principal for curriculum in the principal's office regarding Respondent's unacceptable performance. At that time, both the principal and assistant principal found Respondent's behavior to be bizarre. She grabbed her arms and started to giggle and laugh even though no one had said anything to precipitate any laughter. Although Respondent insists that her testing of the students was absolutely necessary, it normally takes other teachers one week at the most to accomplish the same testing of the students prior to commencing instruction. Respondent was still testing in the seventh week of school and had not yet begun to instruct or teach the students. Other teachers observed Respondent's behavior during the time she was at Hialeah-Miami Lakes and became concerned to the degree that five of them approached the principal regarding Respondent. Raymond Harrell, the language department head at Hialeah-Miami Lakes, described Respondent's behavior, including her inappropriate giggling. Harrell and another teacher, Gary Graziani, related an incident concerning a school- sponsored television program, which is run every other Friday for 15 minutes and is part of the school curriculum. Respondent was upset about the noise from the televisions and stated to them and others: "We have got to stop the noise, I cannot teach with that noise, it's pounding in my blood." It was suggested that she might take her class to the auditorium on the days that the newscast was run; however, she refused and insisted that the noise must be turned down. She stated: "It's like being behind a train. I just can't take it, I just can't take it." No other personnel at the school, including the teacher who had Respondent's classroom before her, had complained about the noise from the televisions. On another occasion, while Harrell was chairing a department meeting concerning curriculum, Respondent raised her hand and gave a 10- to 15-minute speech about the history of her high school curriculum and the way she did things in Pennsylvania. Her comments had nothing to do with the subject of the meeting, and she told the department head to be quiet and pay attention. Harrell, who has also observed Respondent staring at the ceiling and even talking to the ceiling, is of the opinion that she is absolutely incompetent to be a teacher. During the month of October 1982, the principal of Hialeah-Miami Lakes Senior High School requested Dr. Charles Sherwood, the regional supervisor for the Dade County schools, who has extensive background in reading and in English, to come to Hialeah-Miami Lakes to evaluate the reading program at that school. On October 15, 1982, Dr. Sherwood complied with that request, and, as part of his evaluation, he observed Respondent. Dr. Sherwood observed Respondent give a test to her students which required approximately five or six minutes to administer and take. She collected the test sheets and told the class to find something to read. Some students looked at magazines, others talked with each other, and Respondent sat down in a chair and looked at the ceiling. She was not teaching at all. Although Respondent's students were required to have writing instruction, she did not give them any. Dr. Sherwood questioned Respondent as to the materials and supplies she would be using, and she advised him that she would find some when she needed them. The materials that she did have and intended to use when she finished testing the students were not appropriate for her class. Dr. Sherwood does not believe that Respondent is competent to teach school. When the principal of Hialeah-Miami Lakes raised questions as to Respondent's fitness to teach, she was again referred to Dr. Patrick Gray. Gray again referred her for psychiatric evaluation, and, although Respondent resisted, eventually the evaluation did take place. On November 5, 1982, Respondent agreed to see Dr. Anastasia M. Castiello, a board certified psychiatrist. Dr. Castiello diagnosed her as schizophrenic. Dr. Castiello concluded his report on his November 5, 1982, evaluation of Respondent as follows: . . . Finally, in response to your specific question, i,+ is my opinion that Miss Ronburg's mental condition is such at the present time that she would be unable to properly function as a teacher and as a matter of act [sic], it is unlikely that she could function in whatever capacity in a job situation of any kind. After reviewing Dr. Castiello's evaluation, Dr. Gray concluded that the school system had exhausted its efforts to help Respondent and would not be able to be of further assistance to her. He did not feel that medical leave of absence would achieve any further positive results and therefore recommended the termination of Respondent's employment with the school system. On the basis of his educational background and his experience in the area of personnel control, Dr. Gray believes that Respondent clearly lacks the competence to perform the assigned functions of an instructional staff member in Dade County Public Schools. Effective November 18, 1982, Respondent was suspended from her employment with the Dade County Public Schools, and the school board instituted proceedings to dismiss her from employment. On February 7, 1983, Respondent's attorney took the deposition of Dr. William Gustafson who had first seen Respondent in the spring of 1981. Dr. Gustafson agrees that Respondent is suffering from schizophrenia, which he describes as an inability to differentiate what is real from what is unreal and a difficulty in arranging thoughts in an orderly, reasonable, and rational manner. When he first saw her, Gustafson believed that Respondent was delusional about her situation at Robert E. Lee Junior High School and her feelings about Mr. Jones. He noted her inappropriate laughter, from which it appeared that she was responding to things that were within herself. Although Gustafson believes that Respondent has improved somewhat, as of the date of his deposition, his diagnosis remains the same. Dr. Gustafson has been hampered in his treatment of Respondent by her refusal to come for treatment as often as the psychiatrists recommend to be desirable and necessary for treatment of her condition and by Respondent's refusal to take the medication prescribed for her. After her suspension from her employment, Respondent visited Gustafson, who became concerned that she had suicidal feelings, and he hospitalized her for this reason. She checked out of the hospital within three hours. Gustafson believes that if Respondent continues in treatment and accepts medication, she can recover. She has not, however, admitted that she is sick, and she continues to refuse medication and treatment. As of his deposition on February 7, 1983, Gustafson had not seen Respondent in his office for approximately one month. In fact, he had seen her only three or four times since he hospitalized her in November of 1982 and has no reason to believe that she will come in to see him any more often than she has in the past. He believes that in order to be of assistance to her, he should see her once or twice a week for hourly sessions. Since Respondent has only seen Dr. Gustafson approximately 12 times over the period of two years between her first referral to him and the date of the formal hearing in this cause, Dr. Gustafson cannot be considered as her treating physician, and his opinion is entitled to only the same weight as the opinions of the other two psychiatrists who have evaluated Respondent. The most recent psychiatric evaluation of Respondent was performed by Dr. Charles B. Mutter on March 23, 1983. Dr. Mutter is the same psychiatrist who evaluated her in January 1982. Dr. Mutter found that Respondent's judgment is impaired, and her insight is superficial. He further found that she needs more intensive psychotherapy than she is receiving and is in definite need of medication to help her remain more stabilized." Dr. Mutter concluded that Respondent's present mental state precludes her from teaching. He would only recommend that Respondent be permitted to return to the classroom with two stipulations: that she continue treatment with Dr. Gustafson on at least a twice-monthly basis, and that she take medications prescribed by Dr. Gustafson on a consistent basis. At the formal hearing in this cause, Respondent admitted that she would not take medication for her illness even though she has been advised to do so by the psychiatrists. She also testified that she does not feel that she requires psychiatric treatment in order to perform the role of a classroom teacher. Since all three psychiatrists agree that Respondent needs continuing regular therapy and medication in order to improve, and since Respondent refuses to undergo therapy and take medication, it is clear that until she chooses to follow medical advice she will not improve and cannot function as a teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered affirming the suspension of Respondent Donna Ronburg, dismissing her from her employment with the School Board of Dade County, Florida, and denying her claim for back pay. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 30th day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 30th day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Phyllis O. Douglas, Esquire School Board of Dade County Lindsey Hopkins Building, Room 200 1410 NE Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 William du Fresne, Esquire 1782 One Biscayne Tower Two South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131
The Issue Whether respondent's teacher's certificate should be disciplined on charges that he was repeatedly arrested and convicted for passing worthless checks, that he was arrested at the elementary school where he was employed for failure to return a rented vehicle, and (3) that he falsified his application for extension of his teacher's certificate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida teacher's certificate number 342272, regular, valid until June 30, 1986, covering the areas of sociology and social studies. At all times pertinent to the charges, respondent was employed as a public school teacher by the Dade County School District. (Testimony of Gray; P-5) Between 1977 and 1981, respondent was arrested sixteen times and charged with twenty-three counts of passing worthless bank checks, one count of failure to return a rented vehicle, one count of uttering a forged instrument and one count of forgery. On many of the charges, adjudication of guilt was initially withheld. Eventually, however, respondent was ordered to serve one year in the Dade County Stockade and was placed on probation for a period of five years following his release. (P-1 through P-22) Respondent, however, continued his habit of writing worthless checks. As a result, his probation officer sought to revoke his probation. On February 26, 1982, the Dade County Circuit Court adjudicated respondent guilty of fifteen offenses for which adjudication of guilt had been previously withheld, and ordered him to serve eight years in the state penitentiary, with twenty years of probation following his release. (P-1 through P-22) From 1977 through 1981, respondent wrote twenty-three bad checks totaling in excess of $9,500.00 (P-1 through P-22) On October 23, 1980, respondent applied for an extension of his teaching certificate. On his application, he indicated that he had never been convicted or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense, and that there were no criminal charges pending against him other than minor traffic violations. In fact, respondent had been arrested on October 16, 1980, and charged with twelve felony counts of passing worthless bank checks. Moreover, respondent had previously had adjudication withheld on numerous criminal offenses involving felony counts of passing worthless checks. (P-1 through P- 22) Because of his extensive criminal misconduct, respondent's effectiveness as a teacher in the school system has been seriously reduced. He has failed to set a proper example for students. The Dade County School District has removed him from his position and would not recommend he be rehired by another school district. (Testimony of Gray) Respondent offered no testimony or other evidence in defense of the charges.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's teacher's certificate be revoked. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 16th day of December, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 16th day of December, 1982.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of the conduct alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: Petitioner is authorized to operate, control and supervise all public schools within the School District of Dade County, Florida. At all times material to the specific charges in this case, Respondent, Norris L. Barker, was employed by Petitioner as a teacher with the Dade County school system. Pursuant to a one-year contract, the terms of which are not in evidence, Respondent was employed in September, 1987, as a math teacher at Miami Southridge Senior High School (Southridge). During the spring of 1987, prior to his employment with Petitioner, Respondent wrote to several school systems offering to donate Xerox memorywriters to the respective schools through a fund raising project which the various school systems were requested to endorse or promote. It was Respondent's goal to raise $8 million to be used to purchase the equipment. The Dade County Public Schools, through the then Superintendent, declined to endorse the fund raising project. After Respondent became employed with the Petitioner, he continued with his plan to raise money for education. Eventually, the project became known to Mr. Rodgers, the principal at Southridge, who advised Respondent that the school could not sanction the fund raising activities and that Respondent would have to obtain permission from a higher administrative source. Respondent did not receive permission to utilize the school name or the endorsement of the school district. As principal, Mr. Rodgers routinely makes informal observation visits to classrooms. These visits are intended as an informal review of the particular class or teacher. The duration of such visits is generally brief, lasting only a few minutes, and no written report or evaluation is made as a result of such visits. During Respondent's time at Southridge, Mr. Rodgers made several such informal visits to Respondent's class. Mr. Rodgers determined, as a result of the informal visits, that Respondent needed assistance with classroom management. This was indicated due to the number of students who were "off task" in Respondent's class. Mr. Rodgers felt that Respondent needed help in finding ways to keep the students working, not talking. On November 23, 1987, Respondent wrote a letter to Mr. Rodgers which expressed Respondent's concern that discipline problems among the ninth graders would adversely affect their performance on the SSAT. Apparently, Respondent believed the disruptive behavior of a few students was adversely influencing the learning conditions for the rest of the class. On November 24, 1987, William Machado, assistant principal in charge of the math department, performed a formal observation of Respondent. This observation was in accordance with the teacher assessment and development system and recorded Respondent's deficiencies in several specific areas of performance. It also provided a prescription plan for performance improvement which offered constructive comments to assist Respondent in deficient areas. Of the six areas evaluated, Mr. Machado found Respondent had problems and was deficient in four: knowledge of the subject, preparation and planning, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. Respondent was required to complete the prescription plan activities before January 11, 1988. All four of the prescription plan activities required Respondent to refer to the Prescription Manual which was available to Respondent. Further, with regard to Respondent's lesson plans, he was to seek the assistance of Jean Freedman, the math department head. Respondent talked briefly with Ms. Freedman and she offered him the benefit of her lesson book as an example of the type of plan Mr. Machado wanted Respondent to provide. As a means of further assistance, Respondent was to visit peer teachers' rooms to observe how the suggested activities might be incorporated into the teaching setting. Respondent did not submit the lesson plans in accordance with the prescription for performance improvement. There is no evidence as to whether or not he visited peer teachers' rooms. He did not observe Ms. Freedman's class as recommended. In the period immediately following Respondent's formal evaluation, he was absent from school a number of days the total of which exceeded his authorized sick leave. On December 19, 1987, Respondent climbed a 150 foot Southern Bell relay tower located on private property. It was Respondent's stated intention to remain atop the structure to raise $8 million for education. Respondent left a note stating that if the money were not raised by January 4, he would "meet God." Respondent did not have provisions for an extended stay. He was dressed in short pants, tennis shoes and a short-sleeved shirt. The weather conditions that evening were quite cool. Officer Collins responded to a call regarding Respondent's presence atop the tower. He unsuccessfully attempted to talk Respondent into coming down. When his efforts failed, Officer Collins requested negotiators who then talked with Respondent for several hours in further effort to have him voluntarily come down. These efforts also failed. After some four hours, the SWAT team came in to remove Respondent from the tower. Members of this team scaled the tower from Respondent's blind side and forced Respondent into the bucket of a fire truck extension ladder. Afterwards, Officer Collins took Respondent to the crisis intervention center where he was involuntarily committed for observation. He was released following a two day period of observation. The incident of Respondent's tower climbing was widely published in Miami newspapers and received coverage on local radio and television stations. These accounts of the incident identified Respondent as a Dade County high school teacher and, in some instances, identified Southridge. As a result of the media coverage, Mr. Rodgers received telephone calls from concerned parents and teachers regarding Respondent's conduct. On January 7, 1988, Mr. Rodgers recommended that Respondent be dismissed from employment at Southridge. The recommendation was based upon Respondent's performance in the classroom (TADS observation 11/24), Respondent's lack of professional judgment as shown by his conduct on December 19, 1987, the concerns expressed by parents and students regarding Respondent's emotional and mental fitness to regain control of students assigned to his classes, and the degree of public notoriety given to the incident of December 19. When Respondent attempted to return to Southridge on January 6, 1988, he was referred to the Office of Professional Standards and has not returned to the classroom.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the School Board of Dade County enter a final order confirming the administrative decision to terminate the employment of Respondent for just cause stemming from his misconduct in office. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 21st day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 21st day of November, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-0599 Rulings on Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Paragraph 1 is accepted to the extent that it provides Respondent was employed by a one year contract and assigned to Southridge. It is presumed the year intended was the entire 1987-88 school year. Paragraphs 2-6 are accepted. Paragraph 3 is rejected to the extent that it concludes Respondent did not try to improve. While the evidence established Respondent did not complete lesson plans as requested, there is no evidence that he did not try to do so. Also, while he did not visit Mrs. Freedman's class, he may have visited other master teachers for assistance. The record does not establish whether or not he could have met the prescriptions had he not been absent or had he been able to return after the holidays. Paragraph 8 is accepted. Paragraph 9 is accepted. Paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 are accepted. Rulings on Respondent's proposed findings of fact: Respondent's paragraphs while not identified as findings of fact will be treated as such and considered in order as presented. The first paragraph is rejected as argument, or conclusions unsupported by the record. The first two sentences of the second paragraph are accepted. The remainder of that paragraph is rejected as speculation, unsupported by the record in this cause. With regard to the numbered paragraphs the following rulings are made: Paragraph 1 is rejected. While it is clear that the evaluation cannot be considered proof of Respondent's inadequate knowledge of the subject matter, there is no evidence as to how the computation was made to reach that conclusion (the TADS criteria) nor is there evidence that Mr. Machado was "over zealous." The deficient area was one of four which Respondent would have had to work on had he chosen to refrain from other conduct which further eroded his effectiveness as a teacher. Paragraph 2 is rejected as unsupported by the record. Paragraph 3 is rejected as argument, unsupported by the record. Paragraph 4 is accepted. Paragraph 5 is rejected as, contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 6 is accepted only to the extent that it suggests the fund raiser was not done in the name of the school or the board. When a private interest is pursued, the teacher must take reasonable steps to assure that the activity is not associated with the employer. To the extent that failing to take reasonable precaution would lead to public notoriety and adverse publicity, Respondent is accountable. Paragraph 7 is rejected as comment, argument or contrary to the evidence admitted in this cause. There is, however, no finding that Respondent wrongfully utilized the school name or misrepresented the board's interest in his project. Paragraph 8 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 9 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 10 is rejected as conclusion or argument. No finding has been made to suggest Respondent suffers from a mental illness. Paragraph 11 is rejected as conclusion or argument. Paragraphs 12-17 are rejected as conclusions or argument in some instances unsupported by the record or contrary to the weight of the evidence presented. COPIES FURNISHED: Norris L. Barker 420 Northeast 18th Avenue, Unit #9 Homestead Florida 33030 Jaime Claudio Bovell 370 Minorca Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Mrs. Madelyn P. Schere Assistant School Board Attorney School Board of Dade County Board Administration Building, Suite 301 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Betty Castor Commission of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Dr. Joseph A. Fernandez Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools School Board Administration Building Annex 1550 North Miami Avenue Miami, Florida 33136
Findings Of Fact Introduction At all time relevant hereto, respondent, Delores V Crumiel, held Teaching Certificate No. 342743 issued by the State Department of Education. The certificate covers the specialization of elementary education, grades one through six. During school years 1979-80 through 1984-85, Crumiel was employed by petitioner, School Board of Dade County, as a tenured elementary teacher at West Little River Elementary School (WIRES) in Miami, Florida. Crumiel received a bachelor of science degree in elementary education from Florida Memorial College. Except for a leave of absence during school year 1982-83 due to the death of her husband, she was employed as an elementary school teacher in Dade County for the eleven years immediately preceding her dismissal. WLRES is located in a low socio-economic area of Miami. It has qualified as a Chapter I school, which means it receives federal monies to provide supplementary instruction in basic skills for low-achieving students from the low-income areas of the community. Under this program, instruction is focused on basic skills such as mathematics, language arts and reading, and the teacher has no responsibility in content areas such as science, social studies and health. However, in order to compensate for the lack of content areas, the Chapter I teacher is required to interweave topics from the missing content areas into language lessons in order to give a "language experience" to the students. The language experience is an important part of the federal program. The size of Chapter I classes at WLRES is roughly half of a normal class, and typically numbered from thirteen to fifteen students. It was established that a Chapter I class is easier to teach than a class in the regular school program because of smaller classroom size, less discipline problems, and easier subject matter content. The lesson plans are also easier to prepare than regular lesson plans because only language arts and mathematics are included in Chapter I plans. During the relevant time period, Crumiel was assigned to teach either fifth or sixth grades. By virtue of required classroom observations being conducted by supervisory personnel, Crumiel was found to be deficient in classroom management and teacher-student relationships in school year 1979-1980, deficient in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction and assessment technique in school year 1983-84, and deficient in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction and assessment techniques in school year 1984-85. After Crumiel declined a School Board offer to relinquish her teaching job, and accept a teaching aide position, the School Board voted on October 21, 1985, to dismiss Crumiel from employment with the Board on the basis of incompetency. This action confirmed her earlier suspension effective October 2, 1985, and she has remained suspended without pay since that date. The Board's action prompted the instant proceeding. Petitioner, Ralph D. Turlington, as Commissioner of Education, thereafter filed an administrative complaint seeking revocation of Crumiel's teaching certificate on the same ground. The two matters have been consolidated for hearing purposes. School Year 1979-1980 During school year 1979-1980, Crumiel was assigned to teach in a fifth grade classroom at WLRES. At that time Dr. John Johnson, II was her principal. Crumiel was formally observed by Johnson on December 4, 1979 and February 26, 1980 when he made routine visits to her classroom to evaluate her teaching skills. On these two visits Johnson found Crumiel to be deficient in the areas of classroom management and teacher- student relationships. More specifically, Johnson observed hostility and screaming in the classroom, and found her "upset, emotional and loud." He described her as being in "total disarray." He also felt the students were "acting out." Because of this, she received an unacceptable annual evaluation for the 1979-80 school year. In an effort to assist Crumiel, Johnson assigned a systems aide to work with Crumiel in the classroom. Crumiel was also assigned to work with a master teacher during the following summer (1981). The results of this effort are noted in a subsequent finding. Dr. Johnson gave her written prescriptions to help improve her performance and asked that the assistant principal work with Crumiel. A prescription is a course of action that must be carried out by a teacher in order to remediate a deficient performance. This type of assistance continued until Johnson departed WLRES in 1983. During this period of time Johnson received numerous complaints regarding Crumiel's classroom management from other teachers, and had to go to her class on a number of occasions to calm the students. During school year 1979-80, a first-year teacher taught in the classroom adjacent to respondent's classroom. She confirmed that Crumiel's classroom discipline was very poor, and that the students were noisy and disruptive. In addition, even though Crumiel was supposedly a "seasoned" teacher, the first year teacher frequently found Crumiel seeking assistance from her regarding subject matter content and teaching techniques. Despite the unacceptable annual evaluation given Crumiel in school year 1979-80, Johnson continued to recommend Crumiel for employment. However, he noted that Crumiel's performance was going "down" as time progressed, and except for the fact that he was leaving WLRES in 1983, he would have recommended she be dismissed from the school system. C. 1980-83 During the summer of 1981, Dr. Johnson assigned crumiel to team teach with Alstene McKinney, a master teacher, so that Crumiel could learn some ideas and techniques from McKinney. They taught two regular size classes of twenty-five to thirty Chapter I students in a pod. A pod is a free standing building utilizing the open space concept where a number of classrooms are separated by partitions. At least two classrooms would share common bathrooms and water fountain facilities. McKinney observed that Crumiel has a problem with classroom management, and that her class was always noisy. On various occasions McKinney had to stop teaching and ask Crumiel's students to quiet down. On one occasion McKinney observed Crumiel instructing her students that a quarter past the hour meant 25 minutes after the hour. When she later mentioned it to Crumiel, Crumiel corrected herself and said, "I meant 20 minutes after." Crumiel's husband unexpectedly died on September 1, 1982, from injuries received in an accident. By the following spring, respondent has accumulated some forty-five days of absences, and her absences were affecting her students' progress. In addition, she developed a pattern of calling in the evening and informing the school secretary htat she would report to work the next day, and then in the morning, calling to inform the school she would be absent. At that time, Dr. Johnson referred Crumiel to the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) in an effort to aid her in coping with her family crisis. The EAP is a program designed to assist teachers having academic, personal or psychological problems. Crumiel eventually took a leave of absence April, 1983 for the remainder of the school year. She was medically cleared to return to work in August, 1983. The medical clearance noted that Crumiel did not have any medical condition that would impair or restrict her performance as a teacher. School Year 1983-84 Respondent returned to WLRES on August 24, 1983. She was given a Chapter 1 fifth grade classroom assignment on that day by her new principal, Glenda Harris. The class was to be taught in an air-conditioned pod to be shared with two other teachers, Pauline Maloof and Merrial Daniels Radford. There were a total of forty-five students assigned to the entire pod. Although the adequacy of the size of the room was questioned by one of respondent's witnesses, it is found that respondent's classroom contained adequate space for the number of children being taught. In fact, in the prior year, two teachers and sixty-four students had shared the same space. Moreover, the pod concept is common in the Dade County school system, and even today, Crumiel's former pod classroom is still set up structurally in the same manner. During this school year, Chapter I classes were restricted to a maximum of sixteen students, with the average being fifteen students. This compared with a regular class that would have from twenty-eight to thirty-five students. An essential component in the Chapter I program is the oral language development segment. Through this component, the teacher gives the children a better example of speech patterns so that students who are not proficient in the use of standard English become aware of the standard patterns and usage. This enables the students to use appropriate language when entering the job market. To improve and enhance the teacher skills in the foregoing area, all Chapter I teachers, including Crumiel, received five in-service training sessions during the school year. On November 16, 1983, Harris visited Crumiel's classroom to make a formal observation of respondent's teaching. Harris was so stunned by what she observed that she chose not to record her visit as an official observation. During the visit, it became apparent to Harris that Crumiel had no grasp of Chapter I requirements. More specifically, Crumiel was not interweaving the content areas of science and social studies into the language experience. She confused the students by accepting incorrect answers as correct and vice-versa. Crumiel also demonstrated a lack of basic English skills, making such statements as, "Is there anyone who do not understand?"; "I am sorry, boys and girls--my book do not have . . . "; "Why you think it's 'drink?'"; and "Who do not understand?" In addition, Crumiel was using an outdated reading technique (round-robin reading), and did not use the diagnostic prescriptive approach by setting up reading groups within her class. It was evident to Harris that Crumiel had not read the lesson prior to teaching the children, and was totally unprepared. Because of this, the children in Crumiel's classroom did not receive a minimal educational experience on that day. Harris asked Crumiel where her teaching aid materials were, and was told by Crumiel they were in the bottom of one of her desk drawers. Crumiel also acknowledged that she had not read them. Harris returned for a formal observation of Crumiel on November 21, 1983. She found respondent's performance to be no better than it was on November 16, 1983. It was evident that respondent had not read the lesson prior to teaching the class and did not understand the point of the story being told. The students were also having great difficulty reading. Crumiel's interpretive skills were very poor and she still accepted incorrect responses from the students and vice-versa. For example, when one student gave an example of a compound word, charcoal, Crumiel told the student that it was incorrect because "char" was not a word. Respondent continued to mispronounce words such as "jack-o-later" for "jack-o-lantern," "likeded" for "liked," and "terranium" for "terrarium." She also used very poor grammatical structure. Based upon her observations, Harris rated Crumiel as being unacceptable with specific deficiencies in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. She also concluded that the students failed to receive a minimal educational experience. After the observation was concluded, Harris and Crumiel discussed the problems Harris had noted that day. Crumiel acknowledged she had done poorly, and asked that Harris observe her another day when she would be better prepared. Harris again formally observed respondent on November 29, 1983. She was given an overall rating of unacceptable with specific deficiencies in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction and assessment techniques. Harris noted that Crumiel had not set up a reading program even though this is required in both regular and Chapter I classes. In addition, respondent's lesson plans merely listed page numbers rather than activities, materials and evaluations. Further, while she had grouped the children, she had not given them the appropriate reading books based upon their diagnostic tests. Crumiel had also failed to preview the lesson prior to teaching the class. Respondent continued to mispronounce words such as "shevel" for "shovel," and "depenable" for "dependable," and displayed poor grammar throughout the instruction. Her subject verb agreement was virtually nonexistent and she misused possessives. For example, Crumiel stated, "This machine what is called the steam shovel. . . what is the little boy name? . . . Yes it does scoops up dirt." She was unable to define a steam shovel for a student until she looked the term up in a dictionary. She continued to accept incorrect information from the children as correct and vice-versa. Finally, Harris found respondent's techniques of instruction unacceptable since Crumiel merely read directions to the class. After the observation was completed, Harris met with Crumiel and discussed all areas of her evaluation. On December 8, 1983, a conference-for-the-record was attended by Harris, Crumiel and Jack Grayson, the assistant principal at WLRES. At that time, the observations and visits of November 16, 21 and 29, 1983 were discussed. In an effort to assist Crumiel, Harris and Grayson devised a prescription designed to meet Crumiel's needs. In this case, the prescriptive plan required Crumiel to enroll in a basic English course and a Methods and Materials course in the teaching of reading. She was told to do this by the second semester of the school year. She was also told that Grayson would give her assistance with her reading plans, and visit her classroom on December 13, 1983 to become more familiar with her classroom style. In addition, Harris offered to make available further training in the Dade County Diagnostic Prescriptive Reading System. She was asked to set up a schedule of visitations to other classrooms so that she might learn teaching techniques from other faculty members. Finally, Crumiel was given a set of procedures to be used in critiquing her own plans and presentations of lessons. After the conference, Harris and Grayson spent an hour- and-a-half showing Crumiel how to set up her reading program. They were surprised when they found that respondent, despite having taught for eight or nine years in the system, did not know how to do this. Respondent was next formally observed by Grayson during a lesson on invitations on December 13, 1983. Respondent was given an overall rating of acceptable. However, Grayson later discovered that another teacher, Merria1 Radford Daniels, had actually written the lesson plan, and had demonstrated to Crumiel how to teach that day's class. She did so after Crumiel came to her seeking help before Grayson's visit. Daniels had made displays for Crumiel, and had written the lesson on Crumiel's blackboard with the key words to be used. She also demonstrated the lesson in Crumiel's presence. Daniels then had Crumiel demonstrate the lesson for her, and told respondent to go home and practice in front of a mirror. Respondent admitted this to Grayson. Respondent was informally visited by Harris on January 23, 1984. Although the students were supposed to be in their seats and ready to begin at 8:30 a.m., Harris found them up and out of their seats at 8:58 a.m. when she entered the classroom. Crumiel had not prepared a lesson for that particular class, so she taught a lesson originally scheduled for another time. Even so, she merely read instructions and handed out materials. Harris found no evidence that respondent was carrying out the prescription previously given to her on December 8, 1983. She concluded that the children did not receive a minimally acceptable educational experience that day. Respondent was again formally observed by Harris on June 5, 1984. At that time she was given an overall rating of unacceptable with specific deficiencies in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. Although respondent had developed lesson plans for the class, the classroom activities did not reflect evidence of effective instructional planning. More importantly, Harris did not see any progress by Crumiel since she had been given the prescription on December 8, 1983. She found Crumiel still reading directions to the students rather than teaching them subject matter content. A large part of the classroom instruction was taken up by students performing meaningless exercises. Respondent still lacked a basic understanding of the subject matter, abbreviations. This was evidenced by respondent's inability to answer questions from students indicating when abbreviations are to be used. For example, she could not answer why the abbreviation for doctor is capitalized, or why the abbreviation for ounces is oz. rather than oun. She still continued to use improper English such as "Be sure your name and date is on all your papers." On June 6, 1984, Grayson revisited Crumiel's classroom to conduct a formal evaluation of Crumiel's mathematics class. Grayson rated respondent's performance as unacceptable with a specific deficiency in the area of techniques of instruction. He found the lesson too simple for the students and therefore a waste of their time. Crumiel's instructions and directions were confusing, and she was unable to clarify them for the students' benefit. Crumiel was again observed by Harris on June 8, 1984. Respondent had asked Harris to return after her prior visit on June 5 because she had learned something in a class she was taking and wanted to demonstrate it to Harris. After observing respondent Harris rated her as unacceptable with deficiencies in the areas of planning, knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. She was found barely acceptable in classroom management. Although Crumiel had a lesson plan, it was not effective and was inappropriate for students of the fifth grade level. Moreover, her classroom management appeared to Harris to be staged and practiced as in a performance. At hearing, Crumiel contended the pod was a poor environment in which to teach, and stated her class was frequently disrupted by outside students coming in to her area to use the restroom and drinking fountain. However, during school year 1983-84, Crumiel voiced no complaints to the administration about teaching in a pod, or that she experienced the disruptions she described. Indeed, no such disruptive activity was ever observed by the administrators who made classroom evaluations or by other teachers in the pod. If such activity did occur, it was only after someone inside the classroom unlocked the door since Crumiel's door was always kept locked. During the school year, the disruptive children were always evenly distributed between Maloof, Daniels, and Crumiel. After Harris became aware of Crumiel's classroom management problems, several students with behavioral problems were reassigned from Crumiel's classroom to that of Maloof and Daniels. Moreover, Crumiel received the highest academic level in the three groups. On her annual evaluation for the 1983-84 school year, Crumiel was rated unacceptable in the areas or preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. However, Harris refrained from recommending Crumiel for termination, choosing instead to write another, more detailed prescription in the hope that Crumiel could improve over the summer. On June 21, 1984, another conference-for-the-record was held by Harris, Crumiel, Grayson and a teacher union representative. At that time, Harris outlined the prescription and asked that Crumiel continue with the EAP. Crumiel had previously participated in the EAP but had ceased attending, Crumiel was told to prepare her lesson plans in behavioral terms and was given various reading materials to help her with this task. She was further given an excerpt from the teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS) manual on techniques of instruction. In addition, she was directed to take certain courses offered by the Teacher Education center (TEC) to assist her in deficient areas. However, Harris suggested that the outside course work could be postponed until the fall so that she could spend a restful summer. Finally Crumiel was told she would be informally observed during the first nine weeks of the following school year, and formally observed in the second nine week period. This information was incorrect since any teacher on prescription must be formally observed during the first six weeks of the next school year. In conjunction with the EAP respondent began individual psychotherapy and supportive counseling with a licensed clinical psychologist that summer. She remained his patient until September, 1985. During school year 1983-84, Crumiel received help from Maloof and Daniels, who shared her pod. Maloof gave Crumiel assistance in grouping her children, shared materials with her, and made various suggestions on how to improve her teaching techniques. However, when they discussed educational topics, Crumiel did not seem to understand the subject matter. Daniels showed respondent how to order materials for the different levels of students. Finally, a reading specialist gave a workshop session in October, 1983 that addressed the procedures for pre- testing, post-testing and leveling students. Crumiel attended this workshop. School Year 1984-85 Beginning in the 1984-85 school year, WLRES implemented the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS) of teacher observation for all teachers. In the prior year, only annual contract teachers were under the TADS observation scheme. Since Crumiel was under a continuing contract, she was not subject to this observation method prior to school year 1984-85. Under the TADS system, teachers are required to have objectives, activities and a way of monitoring student progress in and through their lesson plans. At the beginning of the school year, Harris moved Crumiel to Room 212, a self-contained classroom. This move was prompted by complaints about noisy, disruptive students in Crumiel's classroom from the teachers who shared the pod with Crumiel during the prior year. Room 212 contained approximately the same amount of space that Crumiel previously had in the pod, but the classroom was not air-conditioned. However, around two- thirds of the teachers in the school did not have air- conditioning at that time. Harris also changed respondent's grade level from grade five to grade six. This was done to relieve her of the additional pressures of preparing the students for the state assessment test (SAT). WLRES had been adjudged deficient during the previous school year, and fifth grade classes were scheduled to be tested on the SAT in the first nine weeks of the school year. Crumiel protested her reassignment to a higher grade level and told Harris that sixth grade mathematics were beyond her teaching ability. However, Harris reminded Crumiel that she was certified for the sixth grade, and that the chances of her actually teaching sixth grade math in a Chapter I class were remote. Children were assigned to respondent in very much the same manner that they had been assigned the previous year. The administration made certain that slow learners and students exhibiting behavior problems were evenly distributed among the various teachers. Harris visited respondent's classroom on September 20, 1984 to conduct an informal observation. Respondent's lesson plans were not written in behavioral terms as directed by her June 21 prescription. Further, she had not grouped the children or pretested them in reading. Harris also found Crumiel's presentation of subject matter and classroom management skills unacceptable. Harris concluded that the children did not receive a minimally acceptable educational experience. Harris met with respondent following the informal visit. At that meeting, Harris reviewed Crumiel's prescription and the efforts being made by Crumiel to fulfill its goals. Harris discovered that respondent had "forgotten" to inquire about the various courses taught at the Reacher Education Center and displayed an unconcerned attitude towards the requirements of the prescription. She was told by Crumiel that the sixth grade level objectives were too difficult for her, and that she did not know how to write lesson plans in behavioral objectives. Harris then told Crumiel she would visit respondent's classroom on September 25, 1984. Harris also began showing Crumiel how to write objectives in behavioral terms. Harris was unable to visit respondent's classroom on September 25 because respondent called in sick that morning. Crumiel did, however, bring her lesson plans to Harris the following day. Harris found them lacking any behavioral objectives. Harris again encouraged Crumiel to read the material furnished her. Respondent's mathematics class was formally observed by Grayson on October 1, 1984. A formal observation was required at that time since Crumiel was on prescription from the prior year. She was rated unsatisfactory in preparation and planning because her lesson plans did not have the items required by the TADS system. In other words, Crumiel had no way to assess her students in order to monitor their progress. Grayson recommended that respondent continue with the prescription given by Harris, and to turn in her lesson plans on a weekly basis for his review. Grayson continued to review those plans until her dismissal some two years later, and to offer suggestions on how they could be improved. During the school year, the teacher occupying the adjacent classroom continually complained about the noise in respondent's room. Because of this, Crumiel was moved to room 206, a larger self-contained classroom which had been recently renovated and filled with new furniture. It was uncontradicted that room 206 was far superior to the other classroom spaces in the building that were used by Chapter I classes. Respondent was formally observed again by Harris on January 23, 1985. Harris found that the children were not receiving a minimal educational experience. Using the TADS system, Crumiel was rated unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction and assessments techniques. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because she was still using November lessons plans with only the dates changed, and was not using the prescribed plan. Crumiel was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she gave no instruction. She was found to be unacceptable in classroom management because the children were not prepared to begin the lesson. In the area of techniques of instruction, Crumiel received an unacceptable rating because she was not using appropriate methods or differentiated materials, and she failed to use two or more learning styles as required by TADS. Finally Crumiel was found to be deficient in assessment techniques because she failed to use the information given her in the TADS prescription manual. In addition, because her grade book and student folders were not properly maintained, and there was no way to tell what had been taught and tested, or to access the students' improvement. As a result of the January 25 visit, Harris prescribed help for respondent from the TADS prescription manual, which is written on a level that the average teacher can understand. However, Harris did not suggest that Crumiel use the manual after that occasion since Crumiel admitted she was unable to understand the information in the manual. At respondent's request, Harris performed another formal observation on January 29, 1985. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management and techniques of instruction. Harris also concluded that the students did not receive a minimal educational experience. Crumiel was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because her lesson plans were not written in conformity with her prescription. She appeared unprepared and wasted classroom time on repetitious, meaningless exercises. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of knowledge of subject matter because she did not understand the lesson she was suppose to be teaching, and told the children that adding an "s" at the end of a verb would make it plural. Crumiel's classroom management was rated unacceptable because the classroom environment was not conducive to learning. Harris found the room unkempt and materials in disorder, and noted that Crumiel did not start the lesson promptly due to a number of unnecessary delays. In the area of techniques of instruction Crumiel received an unacceptable rating because the majority of the materials used were inappropriate for the objectives. Further, the methods of instruction never varied, and respondent did not give consideration to the various learning styles in the classroom. Harris concluded that the materials and methods used often insulted the age level of the students. After the observation was concluded, Harris asked Crumiel to review and study the materials given her in the prior prescription. Crumiel was also told that Eneida Hartner, director of the North Central area, would provide her with additional help. Finally, Harris taught a reading lesson to Crumiel's class in an effort to improve Crumiel's teaching style. While Harris was in the classroom, respondent did relatively well with teacher-student relationships. However, when no administrator was present, respondent could often be heard shouting and cajoling the children to behave. There were instances when children were seen hanging out of the windows and shouting. Respondent was heard telling a student on one occasion, "Sit your black butt down." On February 8, 1985, Harris and Hartner visited respondent's classroom for approximately one hour to informally observe Crumiel. Even though Hartner had designed certain activities for respondent to use that day while teaching, Hartner and Harris concluded there was no teaching in the classroom. They also noted that respondent was not following the diagnostic prescriptive approach which is required of all elementary teachers.. Hartner recommended that Crumiel receive assistance from a Chapter I educational specialist, Pat Kanovsky, who was assigned to help Crumiel with the language experience approach used in Chapter I classes. Hartner also directed a prep specialist, Gwen Bryant, to monitor Crumiel in the areas of basic skills, such as reading, writing and mathematics, and to help respondent in the prescriptive diagnostic approach. She also recommended that Crumiel receive assistance from the assistant principal, department chairman and master teacher, and to make use of certain excerpts from the TADS prescription manual. Bryant visited Crumiel's classroom four times in February 1985 in an attempt to provide her with assistance. On her February 14 visit, Bryant observed that respondent was not using the "RSVP" program in an appropriate manner. This is a program that is used for all children in both Chapter I and regular classes. Bryant also noted that Crumiel had not used her pacemaker chart correctly, and was therefore unable to determine if the children were being taught subject matter at a pace commensurate with their level of ability. On her February 27 visit, Bryant found the students confused and not understanding what they were expected to do in class that day. They were yelling, and many were out of their seats. Respondent was unsuccessful in her efforts to manage behavior. After seeing this, Bryant made a number of suggestions to respondent. She also went over the instructional material and demonstrated how to properly use it. She explained how the students were to be placed and instructed according to their reading levels. Bryant gave further tips on teaching techniques, suggestions on managing classroom behavior and how to properly begin a lesson. On February 11, 1985, Kanovsky spent approximately two hours with Crumiel in an effort to improve Crumiel's lesson plan preparation. Among other things, Kanovsky told respondent that her grammar was inappropriate for use in a Chapter I classroom. Hartner, accompanied by Harris, visited respondent's classroom on March 27, 1985, for the purpose of making an external observation. This type of observation was required since Crumiel had already received two negative evaluations from WLRES administrators. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction and assessment techniques. She was given an unsatisfactory rating in preparation and planning because she failed to properly include a language experience activity in her instruction. She was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she continued to use poor grammar while teaching. For example, Crumiel made such statements as, "Their eyes be red" and "How do their face look?" Crumiel was found to be deficient in techniques of instruction because the lesson lacked sequence, and she failed to adjust her instruction when she did not get anticipated responses from the students. She also accepted responses from the students without telling them whether they were right or wrong. Further, it did not appear that Crumiel had made use of any of the suggestions regarding teaching techniques given by Bryant on February 27. Finally, respondent was given an unsatisfactory in assessment techniques because a review by Hartner of the students' folders revealed that Crumiel had failed to use the diagnostic prescriptive approaches in reading and mathematics that were required by the Dade County school system. Having formally observed Crumiel, Hartner concluded that respondent's students did not have a meaningful educational experience on March 27, 1985. She further concluded that respondent lacked adequate command of her area of specialization, elementary education, and that she lacked the necessary motivational skills necessary to promote oral language development. She also concluded that Crumiel would be unable to teach non-Chapter I students because of the greater number of students and more difficult subject matter in those classes. In short, she found Crumiel unable to teach in any capacity at the elementary school level. In addition to her visits on February 14 and 27, Bryant met with Crumiel on at least two other occasions to help Crumiel understand the diagnostic prescriptive approach to reading. Bryant came away from those meetings with the belief that Crumiel did not understand her directions or the teaching materials. She also concluded the Crumbie was unqualified to teach the sixth grade. An educational specialist, Shirley Fields, also visited respondent's classroom on April 19 and 22, 1985, to discuss the oral language development segment of instruction. On one of her visits, she demonstrated for Crumiel's benefit an actual lesson from the program. Harris returned to respondent's classroom on June 3, 1985 for the purpose of conducting a formal observation. She found no improvement on Crumiel's part and concluded it would be counter-productive to fill out a formal observation form. The subject matter of the class was fractions, and Crumiel appeared to have no knowledge of the subject matter. During the school year, Harris and Grayson received a number of verbal complaints about respondent's classroom management. This was confirmed by testimony from the other teachers and a teacher liaison who frequently observed or heard disruption and noise in respondent's classroom. Harris, Crumiel and a teacher union representative attended a conference-for-the-record on June 12, 1986 to discuss Crumiel's teaching performance. However, it was necessary to discontinue the conference shortly after it was begun because Crumiel lost her composure. The conference was reconvened on June 24, 1985. At that meeting Crumiel rejected an opportunity to be reclassified as a teacher aide, a position that would enable her to continue working with children, but only under the direct supervision of another teacher. On her annual evaluation for 1984-1985, respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction, assessment techniques and professional responsibility. In addition, she was not recommended for employment the following school year. Psychological Testing In an effort to find some type of alternative position for Crumiel, the classroom teacher's union recommended that she undergo a battery of psychological tests. In this vein, Crumiel was referred to both a psychiatrist and a psychologist to determine if there was a reason for her poor performance in classroom teaching. The psychologist, Dr. Bradman, had previously seen the patient since June, 1984 in conjunction with the EAP. On June 14 and 18, 1985 Bradman administered the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised (WAIS-R) Test to Crumiel. This test is more commonly known as an IQ or intelligence quotient test. At the time of testing, Bradman found no evidence of depression although Crumiel experienced some mild anxiety. The test segment which would most likely be affected by depression was the Digit Symbol Subtest. However, Crumiel scored within the average range on this segment, and it represented one of her highest scores. Respondent obtained a Full Scale IQ of 74 which is in the borderline range of intelligence. Stated differently, approximately 95% of the people taking the test would achieve a higher score than Crumiel. Bradman found this result to be accurate and valid, and that neither stress or depression could account for Crumiel's low performance. During the course of the two sessions on June 14 and 18, Bradman asked Crumiel a number of questions to test her intellectual skill and capacity. In response to a question asking her to name four men who have been president of the United States since 1950, she responded, "Roosevelt, Lincoln, George Washington and Theodore Roosevelt." When questioned further, she added, "Jefferson." Crumiel also told Bradman that there were 48 weeks in a year and that Labor Day is in May. She did not know who Louie Armstrong was, and thought that to get from Chicago to the country of Panama one would travel east. She could not correctly define the words "assemble," "enormous," "conceal," "consume," "regulate," "commence," "domestic," "tranquil" or "ponder." Finally, Crumiel could not answer basic arithmetic questions such as "If raffle tickets cost twenty-five cents each, how much would it cost to buy six tickets?" and "If soft drinks are sold six cans to a package, if you want 36 cans, how many packages must you buy?" Based upon the results of the WAIS-R, Dr. Bradman concluded that respondent was not capable of teaching the higher elementary school grades. However, he was unable to form an opinion as to whether Crumiel could teach the lower grade levels based strictly upon the testing he had performed. On August 29, 1985, Crumiel was also evaluated by a board certified psychiatrist, Dr. Waldo M. Ellison, who was accepted as an expert in that field. He examined Crumiel to ascertain if there was a psychological reason for her dysfunction as an elementary school teacher. Ellison noted that respondent experienced some mild anxiety during the examination but had no depression. Further, he found no evidence of any medical problem or condition. Although Crumiel told Dr. Ellison that mathematics was her favorite subject, she was unable to determine two-thirds of the number sixty. She also could not correctly define the word "motivate," and was unaware of important current events such as the name of the mayor of Miami, or the fact that a hurricane was then approaching the City of Miami. Based upon his evaluation, Ellison concluded that respondent's intellectual deficiencies would interfere with the ability to provide her students with a minimum educational experience. Miscellaneous It was the general consensus of all administrators and faculty who observed Crumiel during the relevant time periods that she did not possess the skills necessary to teach elementary students, either at a regular or Chapter I level. More specifically, they found that she lacked an adequate command of her area of specialization, elementary education, and that her lack of minimum skills and competency resulted in her students being deprived of a minimal educational experience. Respondent's own testimony helped confirm the above observations since it was replete with inappropriate English grammar and language. Her lack of fundamental mathematics skills also became apparent during cross-examination by the Board counsel. Respondent's Case Respondent blamed her problems in 1984-85 on her assignment to a small, self-contained classroom without air- conditioning. However, this classroom was approximately the same size as used by two other teachers in the pod, and they did not experience the same difficulty as did Crumiel. Moreover, two- thirds of the faculty at WLRES that year had no air-conditioning. Even so, she was moved to a larger, more modernized classroom during the year but her performance did not improve. Respondent also cited over-aged, disruptive students being assigned to her Chapter I classes as a cause for her classroom management difficulty. But credible testimony established that disruptive students were evenly assigned to all Chapter I teachers, that Crumiel's class had no more than other Chapter I teachers, and several were taken out of her classroom in an effort to aid her performance. Crumiel also contended that her classes were frequently disrupted by students wandering into her classroom from an adjacent physical education area to use the restroom and water fountain facilities. No administrator ever observed this while visiting in her class, and it was shown that even if it did happen, she could have prevented this by refusing to unlock her door. Crumiel further stated that she attempted to follow through with her prescriptions, but that Harris and Grayson were never satisfied. However, independent administrators not associated with WLRES confirmed her failure to follow the prescriptions. Respondent also stated she received a "B" in a college course taken one summer at a local college as evidence of her effort to improve her skills. But a fellow teacher placed this testimony in serious doubt when she testified that Crumiel had taken notes into the final examination and improperly used them while filling out her examination booklet. Through the deposition testimony of Dr. Capp, a psychologist, respondent attempted to refute the IQ score of 74 by showing that she received a score of 99 on the test on February 4, 1986, and that she was functioning within the normal range of intelligence. Dr. Bradman had no scientific explanation for this result, but opined that Crumiel may have studied for the second test, or had remembered the questions from the first time the test was administered. Dr. Capp agreed that this was possible. In any event, the testimony of Drs. Bradman and Ellison is deemed to be more persuasive and credible, and their results and conclusions are found to be more accurate. Union Contract Respondent was a member of the United Teachers of Dade County. That body has a labor contract with the Dade County School Board. Among other things, section 6 of the contract provides in relevant part as follows: Any teacher assigned in any observation category shall be entitled to a prescription of professional growth practices (remedies) which shall include reasonable time-frames for implementation . . .. The function of such practices is to assist the teacher in professional growth . . .. Failure to implement prescribed professional growth practices or to correct deficiencies for which professional growth was prescribed shall constitute just cause for disciplinary action in accordance with the due process provisions in this Article . . .. In the instant case, respondent was placed on prescription at the end of school year 1983-84. Respondent was told she would remain on prescription during the first nine weeks of school year 1984- However, in order to comply with a TADS requirement, a teacher who ends the year on prescription must be observed during the first six weeks in the following school year. To meet this requirement, a formal observation was made by Grayson on October 1, 1985 which was within the time-frame for improvement set forth in the prescription. At that time, Grayson gave a second prescription to Crumiel with instructions that a lesson plan be submitted by each Wednesday. Another formal observation was made by Harris on January 23, 1985, or well after the first and second prescriptive periods. Crumiel was then placed on another prescription effective January 28, 1985 by prescription dated January 23, 1985. Certain prescriptives were ordered to be complied with no later than the next visit. This was followed by a formal observation by Harris on January 29, 1985. When the next formal observation was made by Hartner on March 27, 1985, no time-frames were in effect. All such observations, prescriptive periods and remedies were in conformity with the contract. Even respondent did not file a grievance complaining that the contract was violated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of incompetency, and that she be terminated from employment with the School Board of Dade County, and her teaching certificate number 342743 be REVOKED. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of July, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of July, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Dade County Public Schools Board Administration Bldg., Suite 301 1450 NE Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Craig R. Wilson, Esquire 215 Fifth Avenue, Suite 302 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Daniel F. Solomon, Esquire 1455 Northwest 14th Street Miami, Florida 33125 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Judith Brechner, General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Room 215, Knott Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX Petitioner (Case No. 85-3673): Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in findings of fact 1 and 2. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 6. Rejected as not being necessary to resolve the issues. Rejected as not being necessary to resolve the issues. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 7. Covered in finding of fact 7. Rejected as being irrelevant. Rejected as being irrelevant. Covered in finding of fact 9. Covered in finding of fact 9. Covered in finding of fact 9. Covered in finding of fact 10 Covered in finding of fact 11 Covered in finding of fact 12 Covered in finding of fact 12 Covered in finding of fact 8. Covered in finding of fact 6. Covered in finding of fact 12 Covered in finding of fact 12 Covered in finding of fact 13 Covered in finding of fact 13 Covered in finding of fact 13 Covered in finding of fact 13 Covered in finding of fact 14 Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 15 Covered in finding of fact 15 Covered in finding of fact 15 Covered in finding of fact 13 Covered in finding of fact 13 Covered in finding of fact 13 Covered in finding of fact 13 Covered in finding of fact 28 Rejected as being unnecessary Covered in finding of fact 29 Covered in finding of fact 28 Covered in finding of fact 29 Rejected as being unnecessary Covered in finding of fact 29 Covered in finding of fact 16 Covered in finding of fact 16 Covered in finding of fact 17 Covered in finding of fact 16 Covered in finding of fact 16 Covered in finding of fact 16 Partially covered in finding of fact 16. Covered in finding of fact 16 Covered in findings of fact 18 and 19. Covered in finding of fact 18 Covered in finding of fact 18. Covered in finding of fact 18. Covered in finding of fact 18. Covered in finding of fact 19. Covered in finding of fact 19. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 21. Covered in finding of fact 21. Covered in finding of fact 21. Covered in finding of fact 21. Covered in finding of fact 22. Covered in finding of fact 23. Covered in finding of fact 24. Covered in finding of fact 24. Covered in finding of fact 25. Covered in finding of fact 25. Covered in finding of fact 25. Covered in finding of fact 25. Covered in finding of fact 26. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 26. Covered in finding of fact 27. Covered in finding of fact 27. Covered in finding of fact 27. Covered in finding of fact 27. Covered in finding of fact 27. Covered in finding of fact 27. Covered in finding of fact 30. Covered in finding of fact 31. Covered in finding of fact 31. Covered in finding of fact 32. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 33. Covered in finding of fact 34. Partially covered in finding of fact 34. Covered in finding of fact 35. Covered in finding of fact 35. Covered in finding of fact 36. Covered in finding of fact 37. Covered in finding of fact 37. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 37. Covered in finding of fact 37. Covered in finding of fact 38. Covered in finding of fact 38. Covered in finding of fact 39. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 38. Covered in finding of fact 40. Covered in finding of fact 41. Covered in finding of fact 42. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 44. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 45. Covered in finding of fact 45. Covered in finding of fact 45. Covered in finding of fact 45. Covered in finding of fact 45. Covered in finding of fact 46. Covered in finding of fact 45. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 45. Covered in finding of fact 47. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 45. Covered in finding of fact 48. Covered in finding of fact 48. Covered in finding of fact 48. Covered in finding of fact 49. Covered in finding of fact 49. Covered in finding of fact 49. Covered in finding of fact 49. Covered in finding of fact 50. Covered in finding of fact 50. Covered in finding of fact 51. Covered in finding of fact 51. Covered in finding of fact 51. Covered in finding of fact 51. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 52. Covered in finding of fact 52. Covered in finding of fact 52. Covered in finding of fact 53. Covered in finding of fact 53. Covered in finding of fact 53. Covered in finding of fact 53. Covered in finding of fact 53. Covered in finding of fact 53. Covered in finding of fact 53. Covered in finding of fact 54. Covered in finding of fact 55. Covered in finding of fact 55. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 56. Covered in finding of fact 57. Covered in finding of fact 58. Covered in finding of fact 58. Covered in finding of fact 58. Covered in finding of fact 59. Covered in finding of fact 59. Covered in finding of fact 60. Covered in finding of fact 61. Covered in finding of fact 61. Covered in finding of fact 61. Covered in finding of fact 62. Covered in finding of fact 63. Covered in finding of fact 64. Covered in finding of fact 65. Covered in finding of fact 66. Covered in finding of fact 66. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 67. Covered in finding of fact 68. Covered in finding of fact 68. Covered in finding of fact 68. Covered in finding of fact 57. Petitioner (Case No. 86-1116): Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in findings of fact 2 and 5. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 13. Covered in findings of fact 16 and 17. Covered in findings of fact 18 and 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 21. Covered in finding of fact 23. Covered in finding of fact 24. Covered in finding of fact 25. Covered in finding of fact 26. Covered in finding of fact 27. Covered in findings of fact 30 and 31. Covered in findings of fact 35 and 36. Covered in finding of fact 35. Covered in finding of fact 37. Covered in finding of fact 38. Covered in finding of fact 39. Covered in finding of fact 40 except that the observation took place on October 1, 1984. Covered in finding of fact 41. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 45. Covered in finding of fact 53. Covered in finding of fact 58. Covered in finding of fact 50. Covered in finding of fact 11. Covered in findings of fact 3 and 29. Covered in finding of fact 56. Covered in findings of fact 11 and 33. Covered in finding of fact 71. Covered in findings of fact 5, 6, 9 and 10._ Covered in findings of fact 61, 65 and 66. Covered in findings of fact 61-63. Covered in finding of fact 69 Covered in findings of fact 13 and 35. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 70. Rejected as being a conclusion of law. Respondent:* Covered in background. Covered in background. Covered in background. Covered in background. Covered in background. Covered in background. Covered in finding of fact 34. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 30. Covered in finding of fact 45. Partially covered in finding of fact 53. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 21. Partially covered in finding of fact 53. The second sentence is irrelevant since no formal external observation was performed by Hartner on February 8, 1985. Rejected as being irrelevant since no formal observation was conducted on February 8, 1985. Covered in finding of fact 48. Covered in finding of fact 48. Covered in finding of fact 53. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary. Findings of Fact Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 1. Rejected as being a conclusion of law. Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Covered in finding of fact 45. Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Covered in finding of fact 48. Covered in finding of fact 49. Essentially covered in findings of fact 48-58. Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Covered in finding of fact 53. Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of evidence and irrelevant. Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Rejected as being a conclusion of law. *Respondent's filing contained two sections entitled "Proposed Findings" and "Findings of Fact."
The Issue Whether or not Respondent should be assigned to J.R.E. Lee Opportunity School. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURE Petitioner presented the oral testimony of Anya Cooper and Aaron Brumm and had admitted Exhibits P-1 (two pages of subpoena), P-2 (case management form 676566), P-3 (composite of Student Observation 1/12/87), P-4 (Composite Student Case Management Referral Forms), P-5 (Second Report for School Year 1986-1987), P-6 (Composite of Student Academic and Behavioral Reports), and P-7 (Individualized Education Program, IEP). Respondent presented the oral testimony of Fred Sage and had admitted R-1 (Computer printout), R-2 (Computer printout), R-3 (Child Study Team Conference Notes), and R-4 (composite of report card with progress notes of Grace Baptist Academy). Joint Exhibit A (Multi- Disciplinary Team Report) was also admitted. Due to the failure of Bonnie Edison to respond to a validly served subpoena, the parties stipulated to the taking and filing of her deposition by Petitioner subsequent to July 21, 1987. Respondent's father's August 22, 1987, letter has been treated as a Motion to Strike or Amend the Edison deposition, and the Edison deposition with attached exhibits has been admitted as amended by the Order of September 10, 1987. Petitioner filed a "Memorandum of Law on Jurisdiction, Substantial Interest, and Case or Controversy," and Respondent filed a letter styled, "Request for Ruling." These documents are addressed the Appendix to this Recommended Order, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent's parents were notified by a letter dated January 30, 1987, that Respondent had been administratively assigned to the Dade County School Board's alternative education program at J.R.E. Lee Opportunity School. Being previously aware that the recommendation for administrative assignment had been made, Respondent's parents had formally withdrawn Respondent from the public school effective January 29, 1987, and timely petitioned for formal administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. Respondent's parents are currently complying with State law by continuing their son in a private educational facility, however Respondent's substantial interest entitling him to a formal hearing continues to exist in that the parents desire their son to be enrolled in the regular program of the Dade County public school system and in that they propose to re-enroll him in that system if they prevail in these proceedings. At all times prior to his withdrawal from public school, Respondent was enrolled at Cutler Ridge Junior High School, located in Dade County, Florida. He attended summer school in the summer of 1986, and was 13 years old and in the seventh grade for the regular 1986-1987 school year. During the regular 1986-1987 school year, Anya Cooper was Respondent's mathematics teacher. In her class, Respondent performed his basic skill work below grade level. She described his conduct in her class as very "fidgety, constantly moving around, bothering other students, and talking and kicking purses." However, she also described the foregoing behavior as all done "in fun" and described Respondent's usual responses to admonishment as being, "Okay, Okay." Apparently she interpreted these responses to her correction as being in the nature of back-talk but admitted that following a smart retort, Respondent usually would not say more beyond "Okay" and often complied with her requests. Beginning September 22, 1986, Ms. Cooper kept a daily record of negative behaviors of Respondent. That day, Respondent was extremely talkative and refused to participate in boardwork. He also lied, saying a paper without a name on it which had received a grade of "B" was his own paper when, in fact, it had been submitted by someone else. When confronted with his lie, Respondent admitted the lie immediately. On September 24, he was too talkative and changed his seat. On September 26, he talked during a test and refused twice to take the test before actually taking it. On September 30, he chewed gum and was required to remove it. On an occasion in early October, he talked back to Ms. Cooper and was instructed not to talk in class anymore. On October 22, he threw a piece of staple which hit another student. Ms. Cooper counselled with Respondent about the danger of throwing staples, but Respondent interrupted her and refused to work. On October 23, Respondent kicked a female student, and on October 28, he put his foot on her arm. Ms. Cooper put him out of her class. There is no evidence that any student was ever injured. On October 27, Respondent refused to work and talked during the entire class period. Later that month, he threw a pen into the trash can, creating a loud noise and distraction. Nonetheless, despite the number of these incidents, Ms. Cooper only referred Respondent for discipline by the school administration one time. During summer school the previous summer, the Respondent had been referred by the coach to Assistant Principal Brumm for running around the cafeteria. Respondent was reprimanded and warned without being assigned to indoor or outdoor suspension. On July 22, 1986, also during summer school, Respondent had been referred to the office for disruptive and non-attentive behavior in one class. Assistant Principal Brumm sent Respondent home for one-half day as a disciplinary measure. By October 6, 1986, Respondent was in the Student-At-Risk-Program (SARP). This program assembles a special group of teachers within the school who are able to deal particularly effectively with disciplinary problems. The student members of the program are assigned their own counsellor and attend classes of much smaller size than do those students in the academic mainstream. The target goal of SARP is to identify students at risk for dropping out of school and modify their behavior so as to retain them in the school system. The testimony of Bonnie Edison, Respondent's seventh grade SARP life science teacher for the regular 1986-1987 school year, was submitted by after- filed deposition. Ms. Edison did not routinely refer Respondent to the administration for his discipline problems, nor did she involve the SARP counsellor. She addressed Respondent's disruptive behavior solely with SARP behavior modification techniques. In Ms. Edison's class, Respondent was "off task" and disruptive seventy to eighty percent of the time unless Ms. Edison addressed him on a one-to-one basis, or unless she included him in a group of no more than three students. Despite measurably high ability, Respondent's work effort was below standard ninety percent of the time. He consistently failed to bring proper materials to class but admitted he should do so. Ms. Edison counselled with Respondent a few minutes daily and occasionally for longer periods, sometimes with temporary success, but never with lasting success. Her greatest concern was that Respondent's need for one-on-one attention deprived her of teaching time and limited her time for other students. She also was concerned because, in their conversations, Respondent could name no rewards or goals she could integrate into her program at school. Nonetheless, noting that Respondent related better to plants than to people, and recognizing his very superior ability with horticulture, Ms. Edison involved him in independent study with plants as a reward. She also devised a reward system based upon Respondent's interest in wrestling as a contact sport, and upon his affection and respect for the wrestling coach who had previously referred Respondent for discipline. This coach helped Respondent study for his second grading period exam in Ms. Edison's class, and Respondent earned an "A" on this final exam. Between September 1986 and the end of January 1987, Respondent had a total of seven referrals to the school administration, although some referrals covered several incidents. The constant theme of the referrals of Respondent to the administration was that Respondent had the ability to learn, but insufficient self-discipline to allow him to learn. Respondent had been assigned to six days of CSI (indoor suspension) and one day of outdoor suspension. In the first grading period of the regular 1986-1987 school year, Respondent earned two F's, one D, two C's and one B. By January 29, 1987, in the second grading period, Respondent had earned two F's, two D's and two C's. In the second grading period, he had only been absent 2 or 3 times in each class except for math, in which he had 8 absences. There is no evidence that any teacher or administrator viewed these absences as excessive. On January 20, 1987, a teacher referred Respondent for disrupting other students in CSI by making squeaking sounds. Thereafter, a Child Study Team was convened. Each of Respondent' a teachers participated in a conference with Respondent's mother on January 28, 1987. The consensus of the team and teachers was that Respondent needed extremely close supervision. Each teacher consulted with Respondent's mother on this occasion. Although there is evidence of some parental contact due to previous disciplinary problems, it appears that January 28, 1987, when the alternative education program was being actively explored, was the first time the parents were made aware of the serious penalties attendant upon Respondent's grades, behavior, and absences. The probable explanation for the lack of prior communication is that Respondent never gave contact slips/reports to his parents, but it is also clear that there was little or no administrative follow-up on the written material sent home and that the parents also resented and reacted hostilely to two oral contacts by the administration. Mr. Brumm opined that all disciplinary and counselling techniques at his disposal had been tried but had proven ineffectual. It was Respondent's parents' position that the school had failed to adequately communicate with them concerning their son's disinterested and disruptive behavior; had failed to involve them early enough in disciplinary and academic correction of their son; and had failed to use corporal punishment to discipline Respondent. To buttress their assertion that the school had failed to adequately communicate with them, the parents asserted that since certain disciplinary reports/referrals had not been committed to writing or consigned to the computer prior to the administrative school assignment (January 30, 1987) or prior to the formal withdrawal of their son from the Dade County School System (January 29, 1987), there was little or no credibility in any of the disciplinary reports/referrals admitted in evidence and particularly no credibility in those reports/referrals dated February 6, 1987, and later. The failure of teachers and administrators to timely commit to writing the reports does not diminish the credibility of the oral testimony on the same facts by the teachers and Mr. Brumm. It does, however, render less credible the administration's assertion that adequate communication was made with the parents simultaneously with the alleged disciplinary actions. The parents' assertion that the school failed to use corporal punishment as an accepted disciplinary technique is ill-founded. The administration's failure to employ corporal punishment was consistent with established policy, and not demonstrated to be unreasonable. Respondent's exhibits of report cards and progress reports from the private school which he entered subsequent to withdrawal from the Dade County Public School System are irrelevant to the statutory issues discussed in the conclusions of law. They are also virtually unintelligible without any "key" by which they may be interpreted.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Claude Paul ("Respondent" or "Ms. Paul") committed the violations as alleged in the November 18, 2018, Petitioner's, Miami-Dade County School Board ("the School Board") action letter; and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Miami-Dade County, Florida. Ms. Paul began her employment with the School Board in 2008 as a substitute teacher. Since then, she was employed at several different schools. Starting in February 2016, she was assigned to Miami Park. Prior to the instant case, Ms. Paul had no prior discipline. Ms. Paul's employment with the School Board is governed by Florida law, the School Board's policies, and the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the United Teachers of Dade. Circumstances Giving Rise to Ms. Paul's Discipline The proposed discipline is based upon conduct occurring on September 5, 2018, as a result of an altercation between an 11 year-old student, J.B., and Ms. Paul while he was an Emotional and Behavior Disturbed (EBD) student in her fifth grade class. Ms. Paul had J.B. as a student the prior year for fourth grade. Due to his frequent disruptiveness, Ms. Paul placed J.B. at a desk in the back of the class facing a wall during most of his fourth grade year (2017-2018 school year). September 5, 2018, was at the beginning of the 2018-2019 school year. On that date, J.B. was talking to another student and did not stop when asked to do so repeatedly by Ms. Paul. Ms. Paul told J.B. she was moving his desk to the back of the class. As Ms. Paul approached his desk, J.B. dropped his pencil case and bent down to pick it up. Believing Ms. Paul was going to physically restrain or move him, as he stood up, J.B. slapped Ms. Paul once or twice on the face and called Ms. Paul a "bitch." The witnesses' recollections of what happened next diverge. According to J.B., Ms. Paul grabbed his arms and twisted them up high behind his back. It hurt immediately and he was "sad and mad at the same time." She then took him to the adjacent room of Clinician Kawine Clermont where Ms. Paul then slapped J.B. in the face after sending Ms. Clermont to check on the students in Ms. Paul's class. J.B. laid on a mat in Ms. Clermont's classroom. He had difficulty getting up and complained that his arms hurt. He was then escorted from Ms. Clermont's room by Antranique Andrews, Miami Park Security Monitor, and Claribel Garcia, Assistant Principal, to the main office. J.B. was also given a bag of ice for his wrist while his grandmother, Linda Carter, who was called by Ms. Paul to come pick up J.B., spoke to school staff. According to Ms. Paul's final hearing testimony, she grabbed both of J.B.'s arms to keep from falling after he slapped her. He struggled to get away and they both fell to the ground. She also testified that she did not pull J.B.'s arms behind his back but rather laid him down on the floor and held his arms. This is inconsistent with her written statement given the day of the incident in which she stated, "Then he punched me. Several time [sic] in the face. I almost fell to the ground . . . I ask [sic] another student to get the mat. I hold one arm in the back, the other on the side. He lay [sic] down crying." Ms. Paul denies being alone in Ms. Clermont's room with J.B. or that she slapped him. Ms. Paul testified that she sent another student to get Ms. Clermont who then escorted J.B. to the clinician's room. The best person to corroborate Ms. Paul's recollection is Ms. Clermont, who did not testify. However, she provided a written statement in which she recited her version of the events. The statement is oddly written in the third person wherein she refers to herself as "Clinician." It states in part: Clinician was in her classroom when two students came over and reported J.B. slapped Ms. Paul. Clinician rushed over and J.B. was laying [sic] on a mat in a ball crying. Clinician had J.B. go over to her classroom. When J.B. went over to clinician classroom he layed [sic] back on mat balled up crying. The statement does not say that she, Ms. Clermont, brought J.B. over, but that she "had" him go to her classroom. This does not preclude the possibility that Respondent escorted J.B. to her room as J.B. claims. Security Monitor, Antranique Andrews, was directed by Assistant Principal Garcia to respond to Ms. Clermont's room. There she observed J.B. curled up and crying on the floor. When J.B. did not get up as directed by Ms. Andrews, she asked teacher's aide, Mr. Flowers (first name unknown) to assist. Together Ms. Andrews and Mr. Flowers got J.B. to stand up and wash his face before they took him to the office. Ms. Andrews observed red marks on J.B.'s arms and that he was upset. Ms. Andrews testified, "His arms were a little reddish. I guess you could say bruised, but red, like if you had an imprint from pressing, but that was it." When Ms. Carter arrived at school to pick up J.B., she was told that J.B. slapped Ms. Paul. She was not informed that J.B. was hurt during the altercation, although she was aware J.B. was given an ice pack because he complained of pain in his wrist. She also observed that the side of his face was red, which she first attributed to him being upset or crying. Video from a school security camera shows J.B. exiting the school while holding the ice pack on his wrist. When Ms. Carter and J.B. reached Ms. Carter's vehicle, J.B. asked for help to open the car door. J.B. was physically unable to open the door. When they arrived home, J.B. asked his grandmother to take him to the hospital because he thought his arms were broken. Ms. Carter, who was not feeling well herself, told J.B. to take a bath and go to bed. However, J.B. needed assistance with undressing because he could not use his arms. The next morning, J.B. still complained that he could not use his arms. Ms. Carter took J.B. to the emergency room at North Shore Hospital. J.B. received x-rays that revealed fractures in both arms. He was asked why he had red marks on his face and what happened to his arms. This was the first time Ms. Carter heard from J.B. what happened at school. Detective Bernise Charley, Miami-Dade Schools Police Department, was dispatched to the hospital where she interviewed J.B. and his grandmother. J.B. described how he had been slapped and physically abused by Ms. Paul while at school. She also spoke with the medical staff and took photos of J.B.'s face and arms. She personally observed red marks on the side of J.B.'s face consistent with a handprint. J.B. was transported to Joe DiMaggio Children's Hospital ("Joe DiMaggio") for further evaluation and treatment. X-rays were repeated at Joe DiMaggio and revealed that J.B. suffered a spiral fracture to his right humerus (upper arm), a distal radial and buckle fracture to his left forearm, and a buckle fracture to his left wrist. The injuries were determined to be consistent with the incident with Ms. Paul as described by J.B. J.B. and Ms. Carter were subsequently asked to meet with the Department of Children and Families ("DCF") and the University of Miami Child Protection Team on September 13, 2018, to review the incident. J.B. and his grandmother were interviewed separately and each described the incident. Dr. Joan V. Alvaranga's report states: J. is an 11 year old boy with fractures of the right humerous and left wrist which are consistent with the report he provided. In addition, J. had red marks on his face, which had resolved by the time of the CPT evaluation, which he reported he sustained when the teacher slapped him on the face. In my medical opinion, this case represents child physical abuse. Deviation from Appropriate De-Escalation Techniques Craig Siegel, District Chairperson for the Clinical Art Therapy Department and lead trainer for Safe Crisis Management, testified that teachers are provided training by the school district in a variety of techniques to safely de-escalate a potentially violent situation and to protect themselves and others. Ms. Paul completed Safe Crisis Management training in December 2016. Teachers are taught that they are to use non- physical intervention strategies first to de-escalate a threatening situation. These include, but are not limited to: talking; evading; blocking; escaping to a "safe zone;" and summoning help. Physical restraint is to be used only as a last resort if the student poses an imminent risk of serious injury or death to themselves or others. The physical techniques taught to teachers are designed to contain the student in the safest manner possible and reduce the risk of injury. Only the least amount of force necessary is to be used. The approved restraint methods do not include twisting a child's arms behind their back or slapping them in the face. Although Ms. Paul certainly had the right to protect herself when slapped in the face by J.B., it strains credulity to assert that a slap from a then 75-pound, 11 year-old boy, posed an imminent risk of serious harm or death such that it was necessary to apply enough force to break this child's arms in multiple places. No other adult witnessed the altercation, but they all saw J.B. curled up on the floor crying. J.B. was hurt badly enough that he was initially unable to get up off the floor without assistance, red marks were immediately seen on his arms and face, and he needed an ice pack for his wrist while still at school. J.B.'s story, that Ms. Paul twisted his arms behind his back and forced him to the floor, has remained consistent. No evidence was presented to suggest that J.B. received his injuries at the hands of anyone other than Ms. Paul. Regardless of whether Ms. Paul slapped J.B. or not, it is clear that she exceeded all bounds of reasonableness in her initial restraint of J.B. in reaction to him slapping her.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order finding Claude Paul guilty of misconduct in office and terminating her employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of November, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY 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 20th day of November, 2019. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761-1526 (eServed) Christopher J. La Piano, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132 (eServed) Claude A. Paul 6113 Southwest 33rd Street Miramar, Florida 33023 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Richard Corcoran Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132-1308
The Issue Whether Respondent should be dismissed from her employment with the Dade County School System for alleged incompetency, insubordination, and willful neglect of duty, pursuant to Section 231.36(6), Florida Statutes. Respondent is a teacher on continuing contract status at Charles R. Drew Elementary School, Miami, Florida, where she has been employed by Petitioner since 1963. On March 10, 1978, she was advised by Petitioner's Assistant Superintendent for Personnel that charges of incompetency, insubordination, and willful neglect of duty had been brought against her by her Principal, Frederick Morley, which would be presented to the Superintendent for his recommendation to the School Board of Dade County. By letter of March, 1970, Respondent was advised that the Superintendent would recommend her suspension and subsequent dismissal from the Dade County Public Schools to the Dade County School board. By letter of March 23, 1978, she was provided official notification that the School Board had suspended her on March 22, 1978, and that her dismissal would be recommended to the Board on April 12 if she did not request a hearing within ten days. She did so on March 28, and on May 8, she was provided with a Notice of Charges consisting of seventeen separate charges alleging grounds for dismissal. At the hearing, Petitioner withdrew Charge 3, 5, 6, 12 and 15.
Findings Of Fact During the 1976-77 school year, Respondent was employed as a teacher of the fifth grade at Charles R. Drew Elementary School, Miami, Florida. The Principal of the school was Frederick A. Morley. On or about October 8, 1976, the Respondent failed to pick up the children of her class at the end of their physical education period. Although Respondent admitted that she was not at the designated place on time, she could not recall why she had been delayed on that particular date. (Testimony of Respondent, Morley) At the beginning of the 1976-77 school year at Charles R. Drew Elementary School, Principal Morley distributed an "Opening of School Bulletin" to all faculty members at a meeting which was attended by Respondent. This bulletin contained school policy on student discipline and corporal punishment. It provided that if such punishment became necessary, the teacher must consult with the principal or his designee prior to its use, and that one of those individuals would determine the necessity for corporal punishment and the time, place and person to administer the same. The policy statement further included the requirement that a third party adult must be present at the time the punishment was administered. Specifications to the size of the wood "instrument" for administering such punishment were set forth in the written policy as well as other guidelines as to the amount of maximum punishment, notification of parents, and the like. (Testimony of Morley, Petitioner's Exhibit 1) On November 1, 1976, Morley saw Cynthia Blue, one of Respondent's fifth grade students, crying in the hall. She informed him that Respondent had paddled her in the classroom. Respondent admitted to him that she had administered punishment to the student and he reminded her of the school policy concerning consultation with him or his designee prior to any such action. He confirmed this admonition with a written note on the same day. Respondent conceded at the hearing that, although she could not recall the incident, it was possible that she gave the student a "lick." She further testified that Cynthia Blue was an unruly student who broke rules with impunity. (Testimony of Morley, Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibit 4) Morley had a conference with Respondent on November 8, 1976, and reminded her at that time that she was obliged to follow the school guidelines on paddling students in the future. At this conference, Respondent conceded that she had not followed the school policy in this regard. However, on three separate occasions thereafter, Respondent again physically punished students without obtaining permission of the Principal or his designee. On November 17, 1976, and on January 18, 1977, she paddled students Monica Morrison and Eddie Byrd in the classroom. On both occasions, she admitted doing so to Morley and he again reminded her by written notes of her failure to follow proper procedures. (Testimony of Morley, Petitioner's Exhibits 2-3) Approximately a year later, on January 9, 1978, Respondent advised Morley that she wished to bring her student, Laurena Butler, to his office for corporal punishment. Apparently, when she arrived with the student, Morley was not there and Respondent therefore asked a nearby aide of one of the school officials to come into Morley's office and witness the spanking. Respondent then took Butler into the Principal's office and paddled her once after first missing her entirely and knocking a wooden tray off the desk and damaging it slightly. (Testimony of Morley, Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibit 5) Respondent's explanation at the hearing for her unauthorized administration of corporal punishment was that Morley was "wishy-washy" on the subject of student discipline and would never authorize her to paddle a student, or do so himself. She claimed that 75 percent of the other teachers paddled much more frequently than she, and that none of them understood the punishment policy of the school. On the one hand, she believed that she could punish a child if a third party was present, but she also testified that she understood the guidelines that required the Principal or his designee to authorize punishment. Respondent's testimony in the above regard was partially refuted by the testimony of her former students. One stated that on two occasions when he was sent to Morley for punishment by Respondent, he was paddled. Another student stated that he had been sent by other teachers to the Principal's office and been paddled about four times. These students had never seen Respondent paddle anyone, but had seen other teachers do so. They testified that she had "bad kids" in her class who made trouble by getting into fights, throwing erasers, and the like. Respondent testified that one of her problems was that she did not have the strength to paddle a child effectively and that they would laugh at her when she attempted to do so. However, she claimed that in telephone conversations with Parents of the students, she learned that they desired that their children be disciplined at school. She further stated that Morley had observed over the years that her discipline efforts were not of the best so he placed her successively in the second, fourth, fifth, and sixth grades. She believed that this made her task more difficult by having to deal with the older children. A former principal of Drew Elementary School testified that Respondent had had difficulty as a disciplinarian, as most teachers did, but that she was more effective in that regard than some of the teachers, except in instances of paddling where she had difficulty and generally produced unsatisfactory results. (Testimony of Respondent, Ford, Jones, Trimmings, Hooks). On or about September 27, 1977, a student threw a cookie box and struck Respondent while she was writing at the blackboard. The next day school security personnel questioned her on whether she had scratched the student in the altercation. She mistakenly assumed that she, rather than the student, was being investigated and became upset when discussing the matter with Morley on the day after the incident. During the course of the conversation, she uttered a vulgar word in his presence. (Testimony of Respondent, Morley, Hooks) Respondent admitted at the hearing that on or about September 28, 1977, she permitted her sixth grade class to go to their art class unsupervised. Although she did not precisely recall the incident, she theorized that it was possible that she had walked them part of the way and then gone to the school office and let them proceed alone the remaining 100 feet to the classroom. (Testimony of Respondent) On October 6, 1977, while Respondent was out of her classroom her students were noisy and disruptive, thus interfering with instruction in an adjoining classroom. Although Respondent did not recall the specific incident at the hearing, she surmised that she had been out of the room for legitimate reasons and normally would have appointed a student monitor to take charge. (Testimony of Green, Respondent.) On January 19, 1978, Respondent was informed by one of her students that the class was supposed to attend a special program in the auditorium. Respondent took the class to the cafeteria where such programs took place and found the door locked. Respondent went to the school office to ascertain whether or not a program was to take place. During this time the children were left unsupervized for several minutes and became noisy and ran in the halls. While Respondent was gone, Morley arrived and restored order. He sent for Respondent and upon her arrival asked her about the matter. Respondent, in a loud voice, said "If you would paddle these children, this wouldn't happen," shaking her finger in front of his face. A number of faculty members were present at the time. (Testimony of Respondent, Morley, Knight, Jones) Teachers are required to prepare weekly lesson plans for each subject. Those on continuing contract, such as the Respondent, are called upon to turn them in to the office several times a year without prior notice. On one occasion during the 1977-78 school year, Respondent failed to turn in her lesson plans on time. Respondent testified that she customarily prepared such plans, but on the occasion in question, had simply been late in preparing them due to the fact that she had given priority to the preparation of report cards. (Testimony of Reich, Respondent) On March 13, 1978, the aunt of one of Respondent's students, Cynthia Blue, asked Respondent if she could see the "progress folder" containing homework papers of her niece. Respondent was in the process of taking the class roll at the time and therefore did not act immediately upon the request. Cynthia's aunt thereupon summoned Morley to the classroom. Morley had told Respondent earlier that day that her class had been quiet during the preceding week when a substitute teacher was present during Respondent's absence. Respondent assumed that the children had been paddled by the substitute to insure their good behavior. Therefore, on March 13, when Morley came to the classroom regarding the question of the child's homework folder, Respondent inquired of the class if they had been paddled during the previous week. They were quiet for a moment, then burst into laughter. Respondent and one of her students testified that Morley joined in the laughter, but he denied the same. In any event, Respondent felt that she was being ridiculed and, having previously received notice that she was to be suspended on March 22, she informed Morley that she was leaving the classroom. In spite of Morley's request that she remain, Respondent departed from the school and did not return thereafter. Although approximately six school days remained prior to the effective date of her suspension of March 22, Respondent made no effort to request administrative leave of absence from School Board officials. (Testimony of Lawrence, Morley, Respondent, Trimmigs) During the period 1971-77, Respondent had satisfactory ratings on her annual evaluation forms for maintaining good discipline except for the 1971-72 school year and the 1976-77 school year, at which times they were 3.0 and 2.0 respectively, out of a maximum rating of 5.0. As found heretofore, Respondent's prior Principal had indicated that Respondent was unable to physically punish students satisfactorily, but that her overall discipline efforts over the years were similar to that of other teachers. The prior Principal was also of the opinion that Respondent was well-trained and could produce results in the classroom. (Testimony of Ford, Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 7, Respondent's Composite Exhibit 1) Respondent attributed her difficulties at the school to the existence of a personality conflict with Principal Morley and her feeling that he had singled her out for adherence to standards that he did not require of other teachers. She had requested a transfer approximately a year ago, but it was denied. Morley denied any special treatment of Respondent and the evidence fails to reveal actions on his part that were not precipitated initially by Respondent. (Testimony of Respondent, Morley)
Recommendation It is recommended that Respondent be reinstated without payment of back salary for the period of her suspension and that she be transferred to an appropriate instructional position in another school within the Dade County School System. It is further recommended that Respondent be issued a letter of reprimand by the School Board of Dade County for the established derelictions set forth in the foregoing conclusions of law and that she be admonished therein concerning a repetition of such conduct. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of October, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Michael R. Friend, Esquire 44 West Flagler Street, Penthouse Miami, Florida 33130 Elizabeth du Fresne, Esquire 1782 One Biscayne Tower 2 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 Phyllis O. Douglas Assistant School Board Attorney Lindsey Hopkins Building 1210 Northeast 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has been employed as a teacher by Respondent for thirteen years and has taught at the Prosperity Elementary School for the past ten years. She holds a Rank II teaching certificate based on her master's degree. Mr. Johnny Collins, the Superintendent of Schools, recommended that Petitioner be placed in the position of teacher-principal at Prosperity Elementary School for the 1981-82 school year. This recommendation was initially made in May or June, 1981. Respondent School Board rejected the Saunders nomination at its July 20, 1981, meeting. The reasons for the rejection as stated in the minutes are as follows: Mrs. Saunders failure to meet the qualifications of Chapter 231, Florida Statutes; 2) Failure to satisfy the job description as set forth in the approved job description for the Holmes County School Districts, specifically that principals be courteous, diplomatic and cooperative; that principals have leadership qualities; and that principals must be positive but not autocratic in solving problems; 3) failure to cooperate with past principals at Prosperity Elementary School and contributing to the disharmony amongst the personnel; 4) statements of Mrs. Flynn Jones, Tommy Hudson, Gerald Commander and Posie Vaughn. The incumbent Superintendent of Schools and his predecessor, along with five of Mrs. Saunders' previous direct supervisors, testified as to her qualifications. This testimony established that she is a competent teacher and has the necessary leadership ability to serve as a school principal. Her teacher evaluations have, without exception, been satisfactory or above in all areas. Petitioner's supervisor in 1972, Mrs. Flynn Jones, considered her rude and difficult to work with. Mrs. Saunders and Mrs. Jones had been on good terms until Mrs. Jones was appointed interim principal. Saunders, who apparently resented Jones' appointment, thereafter withdrew from her and responded only to formal instructions. Mr. Posie Vaughn has filled the Prosperity Elementary School teacher- principal position since 1978. He and Petitioner were competing applicants for the current school term principalship. Superintendent of Schools Collins, who took office in January, 1981, did not recommend Vaughn, but selected Saunders instead. After the School Board rejected Saunders, and Collins refused to nominate Vaughn, the School Board reappointed him. Mr. Vaughn has experienced the same personal hostility and lack of willing support which Mrs. Jones encountered. Mrs. Saunders, who resented Mr. Vaughn's appointment over her, once contacted the Superintendent of Schools to complain of teacher ratings (other than her own). On another occasion she criticized Vaughn's friendship with the piano teacher to School Board members. Mr. Vaughn testified to his belief that Mrs. Saunders is a troublemaker and not qualified to be principal. However, the ratings he filed on Saunders do not reflect these negative opinions. Further, Vaughn conceded that Saunders is a competent teacher and possesses the ability to lead. Mr. Dan Padgett, principal at Prosperity Elementary School from 1973 to 1976, found Mrs. Saunders to be a capable teacher and a courteous, cooperative employee. This favorable testimony was supported by several co-workers and parents of her pupils. Mrs. Margaret Woodall testified to her dissatisfaction with Mrs. Saunders' treatment of her child. However, her complaint as to Mrs. Saunders' disciplining methods received proper attention and Saunders made the requested change in her approach to the Woodall child.
Recommendation From the foregoing, It is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Holmes County accept the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools to place Juanita Saunders in the position of teacher-principal, Prosperity Elementary School. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of October, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, 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 6th day of October, 1981.
The Issue Whether just cause exists, pursuant to section 1012.33, Florida Statutes,2 to suspend Respondent from his employment as a teacher for ten days without pay. 1 All references to chapter 120 are to the 2019 version. 2 All references to chapter 1012 are to the 2018 version, which was in effect at the time of the alleged misconduct at issue in this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Based on the credible and persuasive competent substantial evidence in the record, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties Petitioner, Miami-Dade County School Board, is charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise free public schools in Miami-Dade County pursuant to section 1001.32, Florida Statutes (2018), and article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution. Respondent has been employed by Petitioner as a teacher since 2000. He has been employed as an art teacher at E.W.F. Stirrup Elementary School ("Stirrup") for the last 18 years, including when he is alleged to have engaged in the conduct that has given rise to this proceeding. Respondent is certified in art, graphic design, and vocational education. Notice of Specific Charges The Notice of Specific Charges ("NSC"), which constitutes the administrative complaint in this proceeding, alleges two instances of conduct on Respondent's part as the grounds for the proposed disciplinary action. Specifically, the NSC alleges that on or about September 27, 2018, Respondent told a female 5th grade student words to the effect of "get out here; I do not want you here," and forcibly pushed her away with his hand. The NSC also alleges that Respondent used profanity, spoken in Spanish— specifically, the words "mierda"3 and "pinga"4?while covering a class of kindergarten students. The complaint alleges that two adults witnessed Respondent's use of these words.5 This incident is alleged to have occurred on or about December 5, 2018. Based on this alleged conduct, the NSC charges Respondent with misconduct in office, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056(2), for having violated specified provisions of rule 6A-10.081, Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession; School Board Policy 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct; and School Board Policy 3210.01, Code of Ethics. Evidence Adduced at the Final Hearing The September 27, 2018 Incident 3 Translated into English, "mierda" means "shit." 4 Translated into English, "pinga," as used in the context pertinent to this proceeding, means "fuck." 5 As more fully discussed below, the NSC does not allege that Respondent's use of these words was directed at any students, or that any students saw or heard Respondent use these words. On September 27, 2018, S.D., a minor, was a student in Respondent's 5th grade art class. S.D. testified, credibly, that on that day, Respondent told her to "get out of his way," then pushed her away by placing his hands on her shoulders. She testified that Respondent's words and actions made her feel "embarrassed, or, like, weird." S.D. acknowledged that she had gone up to Respondent and tried to talk to him while he was talking to the president of the Parent Teacher Association ("PTA"). She tried to get hand sanitizer and Respondent said to her "not now, go away" because he was talking to the PTA president at that time. Respondent characterized S.D. as a child who "has a reputation for basically not obeying anything." He testified that when S.D. approached his desk, he was in a discussion with the PTA president, and he told S.D. to "get out of here" and "sit down." He did not recall touching her. He stated that from where he was standing, he doubted that he could have reached her to push her away, and that had he pushed her, she likely would have fallen. No other witnesses testified at the final hearing regarding this incident. The December 5, 2018 Incident On Wednesday, December 5, 2018, Respondent was assigned to cover another teacher's kindergarten class starting at 9:00 a.m., so that the teacher who regularly taught that class, Ms. Rivero, could attend an exceptional student education ("ESE") meeting regarding one of her students. For the 2018-2019 school year, Respondent was assigned a full day of planning each Wednesday. In addition, Respondent was assigned one hour of planning every other day of the school week, per the Miami-Dade School District ("District") policy of providing teachers a minimum of one hour of planning per day.6 6 Respondent was assigned a full day of planning on Wednesdays in the 2018-2019 school year. This was not a function of his having an extraordinary workload; rather, it was because on Wednesdays, the language arts classes were scheduled back-to-back and students were dismissed early, so that it was infeasible to schedule art classes on Wednesdays. As a result of this scheduling, Respondent enjoyed nearly four more hours of planning per week than the minimum planning time to which he was entitled under the District's planning policy. According to Smith-Moise, if a teacher's schedule provides more than an hour of planning per day, that teacher may be requested, from time to time, to use that additional planning time for involvement in other school activities, including covering other teachers' classes as necessary. The administration at Stirrup generally attempts to schedule substitute teachers to cover classes when a teacher is called away from his or her class; however, on December 5, 2018, another teacher's class already was being covered by a substitute teacher. Because Respondent had planning that entire day, he did not have classes, so was available to cover Rivero's class. The length of ESE meetings varies, depending on the type of ESE service being delivered and whether the students' parents agree with the school district regarding the ESE services proposed to be provided. This particular meeting was an initial ESE team staffing meeting; these types of meetings often are relatively long compared to other types of ESE meetings. Respondent covered Rivero's class on December 5, 2018, from approximately 8:35 a.m. until shortly after 1:00 p.m., when a substitute teacher was called to cover the class for the remainder of the ESE meeting. During the time he was covering Rivero's class, Respondent called the Stirrup administration office multiple times, and also called and sent text messages to a fellow teacher, Yvette Mestre, asking how long the ESE meeting would take and when it would be over. In response to Respondent's calls, Smith-Moise twice left the ESE meeting to speak to Respondent in Rivero's classroom. Both times, when she entered the classroom, she observed Respondent disengaged from the students and talking very loudly on his phone. Respondent made clear to Smith-Moise that he was very frustrated at having his planning time taken to cover Rivero's class when he had other responsibilities to attend to.7 7 Respondent testified that he had a great deal of work to do on a large mural project for his own classes that needed to be completed under a tight deadline. Shortly after the beginning of the school day on December 5, 2018, Smith- Moise had taken a student from Rivero's class to Mestre's classroom because the student was misbehaving in Rivero's classroom. A short time thereafter, Respondent began sending text messages to Mestre, asking when the ESE meeting was going to be over. Mestre, who was occupied with teaching her own class, responded that she did not know, and suggested that Respondent contact the administration office. Around 10:30 or 11:00 a.m., Respondent began calling Mestre, again asking about the length of the ESE meeting. Mestre testified that "he seemed upset because he had stuff that he wanted to plan." Mestre again responded that she did not know and suggested that Respondent contact the administration office. At some point, Mestre went to Rivero's classroom to retrieve a lunchbox for the student from Rivero's class whom she was supervising. When she entered the classroom, she observed Respondent on his phone. Respondent told Mestre that he was on the phone with his United Teachers of Dade ("UTD") representative and that he was upset at having to cover Rivero's class because it was his planning day. Mestre went to the administrative office and reported to Smith-Moise that Respondent was upset and needed assistance in Rivero's classroom. Smith-Moise directed Mestre to take Acevedo Molina, an office assistant, to the classroom so that she (Acevedo Molina) could assist Respondent. According to Mestre, when they entered the classroom, Respondent initially thought Acevedo Molina was going to take over supervision of the class; however, when Mestre informed him that Acevedo Molina was there to assist him but would not be taking over supervision of the class, Respondent became very irate, raised his voice, and used the words "mierda" and "pinga" in speaking to them.8 Acevedo Molina confirmed that Respondent used these words when he spoke to her and Mestre. Mestre and Acevedo Molina were, respectively, "shocked" and "surprised" at Respondent's use of these words. 8 Mestre testified that Respondent said, translated into English, "[t]he school doesn't understand the shit that I do," and "they don't give a fuck what I do in this school." Respondent testified that he does not recall having said those words when he spoke to Mestre and Acevedo Molina that day. There is conflicting evidence whether Respondent used those words inside the classroom, such that they were said within earshot of the students, or outside of the classroom, where the students would not be able to hear or see him use the words. Mestre and Acevedo Molina both testified that they had entered Rivero's classroom and were inside the classroom with Respondent when he used the words. Respondent claims that he had to have stepped outside of the classroom into the corridor to speak to Mestre and Acevedo Molina, because the door was locked and they would have been unable to open it and enter the classroom on their own. In any event, it is unnecessary to determine whether Respondent used these words in the classroom within the students' earshot, because the NSC only charges Respondent with having said "mierda" and "pinga" while "covering a class of kindergarten students for another teacher," and that Respondent's use of these words was "overheard by two adult witnesses." The NSC does not allege that Respondent directed the words toward any students or that any students saw or heard him use these words.9 No direct or persuasive circumstantial evidence was presented showing that any students saw or overheard Respondent use those words. Although Mestre and Acevedo Molina testified that Respondent was inside the classroom when he said the words, both testified that the words were not directed toward the students, and neither testified that any students heard or saw Respondent say those words. Thus, even if the evidence conclusively established that Respondent was inside the classroom when he said those words—which it does not—that does not prove that any students saw or heard Respondent use those words. To that point, Smith-Moise 9 Trevisani v. Dep't of Health, 908 So. 2d 1008, 1009 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)(a respondent cannot be disciplined for offenses not factually alleged in the administrative complaint); Cottrill v. Dep't of Ins., 685 So. 2d 1371, 1372 (Fla 1st DCA 1996)(predicating disciplinary action on conduct never alleged in an administrative complaint or some comparable pleading violates the Administrative Procedure Act). See Hunter v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 458 So. 2d 842, 844 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)(administrative complaint seeking to impose discipline must state, with specificity, the acts giving rise to the complaint). testified that the school had not received any complaints about Respondent's use of those words from any of the students or their parents. The UTD Contract establishes a policy of imposing progressive discipline ("Progressive Discipline Policy") when "the Board deems it appropriate, and . . . the degree of discipline shall be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense." Neither the Progressive Discipline Policy nor Petitioner's adopted policies articulate a disciplinary "scale" or penalty categories applicable to specific types of conduct. There is no competent substantial evidence in the record showing that Respondent previously has been subjected to disciplinary action by Petitioner. Petitioner did not present any competent substantial evidence establishing the factual basis for its proposal to suspend Respondent for ten days for the offenses charged in the NSC. Findings of Ultimate Fact As noted above, Petitioner has charged Respondent with misconduct in office under rule 6A-5.056(2) for having violated specified provisions of rule 6A-10.081, Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession; School Board Policy 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct; and School Board Policy 3210.01, Code of Ethics. Whether an offense constitutes a violation of applicable statutes, rules, and policies is a question of ultimate fact to be determined by the trier of fact in the context of each violation. McKinney v. Castor, 667 So. 2d 387, 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)(whether particular conduct violates a statute, rule, or policy is a factual question); Langston v. Jamerson, 653 So. 2d 489, 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)(whether the conduct, as found, constitutes a violation of statutes, rules, or policies is a question of ultimate fact); Holmes v. Turlington, 480 So. 2d 150, 153 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)(whether there was a deviation from a standard of conduct is not a conclusion of law, but is instead an ultimate fact). Charged Conduct and Rule Violations The September 27, 2018 Incident Based on the foregoing, it is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent pushed S.D. on September 27, 2018. There was no justification for Respondent to place his hands on and push S.D., even if she interrupted him while he was speaking with another person. Respondent's conduct in pushing S.D. constituted misconduct in office, as defined in rule 6A-5.056(2). Specifically, Respondent's conduct did not comport with rule 6A-10.081(1)(a), which provides that his primary professional concern must be for the student, and requires him to exercise best professional judgment. In pushing S.D., he did not treat her as his primary professional concern, and he did not exercise best professional judgment. Additionally, Respondent's conduct did not comply with rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. or School Board Policies 3210 and 3210.01. Specifically, in pushing S.D., Respondent did not make a reasonable effort to protect her from conditions harmful to her mental and physical health and safety. Although S.D. was not physically injured, she was embarrassed by Respondent's conduct in pushing her. Respondent's conduct also did not comply with rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)5. or School Board Policies 3210 and 3210.01. Respondent's conduct in pushing S.D. was intentional and it exposed her to embarrassment. Because Respondent's conduct in pushing S.D. violated rules 6A- 10.081(1)(a)1. and (2)(a)1. and 5., and School Board Policies 3210 and 3210.01, it is found, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent committed misconduct in office, pursuant to rule 6A-5.056(2). Pursuant to the UTD Progressive Discipline Policy, it is determined that Respondent's conduct in pushing S.D. was sufficiently serious to warrant suspending him without pay for five days. There was no justification for him having pushed her. Although S.D. was not physically injured as a result of Respondent's conduct, the potential existed for her to have been injured had she fallen, and, in any event, Respondent's intentional action subjected her to embarrassment. The December 5, 2018 Incident Based on the foregoing findings, it is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent used the words "mierda" and "pinga," which are profane words, when speaking to Mestre and Acevedo Molina on December 5, 2018. However, for the reasons discussed above, it is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent did not direct those words toward the students or that any students heard or saw him use those words.10 Respondent's use of profanity in speaking to Mestre and Acevedo Molina did not comport with rule 6A-10.081(1)(c). In using profanity toward his colleagues, Respondent did not strive to achieve and sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct. Mestre and Acevedo Molina both testified to the effect that they viewed his conduct as inappropriate in that professional setting. Respondent's use of those words when speaking to Mestre and Acevedo Molina did not comply with the requirement in School Board Policy 3210 to refrain from the use of profane or abusive language in the workplace. Respondent's use of those words when speaking with Mestre and Acevedo Molina also did not comply with the standard set forth in School Board Policy 3210.01, which requires the employee to show respect for other people. In sum, Respondent's conduct in saying "mierda" and "pinga" while speaking to Mestre and Acevedo Molina violated rules 6A-10.081(1)(c) and School Board policies 3210 and 3210.01. Accordingly, Respondent's conduct constituted misconduct in office under rule 6A-5.056(2). As discussed above, there is no competent substantial evidence establishing that Respondent has ever been subjected to discipline by Petitioner prior to this proceeding. Although Respondent's conduct in using profanity when speaking to two adult colleagues violates certain policies, in light of the UTD Progressive Discipline Policy, such violation is not sufficiently serious to warrant suspension without pay. Therefore, it is determined that, consistent with the concept of progressive 10 Further, as discussed above, the administrative complaint does not charge Respondent with using those words toward students or charge that any students saw or heard him use those words. discipline, Petitioner should issue a verbal reprimand to Respondent for his conduct in using profanity when speaking to his colleagues. Because Respondent was not charged with, and the evidence did not prove, that he directed profanity toward any students or that any students saw or heard him use profanity, Petitioner may not impose discipline on Respondent on that basis. Just Cause Based on the foregoing, it is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that just cause exists to suspend Respondent. Recommended Penalty Based on the foregoing, it is determined that Respondent should be suspended for five days without pay for having pushed S.D. Based on the foregoing, it is determined that Respondent should be issued a verbal reprimand for using profanity when speaking to Mestre and Acevedo Molina and Respondent should receive five days of back pay for the balance of the ten-day period for which Petitioner proposed to suspend him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that, consistent with the foregoing, Petitioner enter a final order suspending Respondent from his employment as a teacher for five days without pay, issuing a verbal reprimand to Respondent, and awarding Respondent back pay for five days. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of June, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 1st day of June, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher J. La Piano, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132 (eServed) Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761-1526 (eServed) Cristina Rivera, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132 (eServed) Carlos M. Sanjurjo Apartment 214 14907 Southwest 80th Street Miami, Florida 33193 Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami-Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Richard Corcoran, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend Respondent’s employment as a teacher, without pay, for 15 days.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Miami-Dade County, Florida. Respondent has been a teacher for over 17 years. Most of her career has involved teaching special education “ESE” and/or “EBD” students. Respondent was first hired by the School Board in 2002 and worked at different schools over the years, including in Broward County, Florida. In 2015, Respondent returned to the School Board. Since the 2019 school year, and at all times relevant to this case, Respondent has been employed at Linda Lentin K-8 Center, a public school in Miami-Dade County, pursuant to a professional services contract. At all times relevant to this case, Respondent’s employment with the School Board was governed by Florida law, the School Board’s policies, and the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the United Teachers of Dade. Disciplinary History Respondent has not been the subject of any prior discipline from the School Board. The September 24, 2019, Fight Involving A.J. and A.B. The alleged conduct giving rise to the School Board’s proposed suspension of Respondent occurred on September 24, 2019, during the 2019- 2020 school year, at which time Respondent was an EBD teacher at Linda Lentin K-8 Center. At that time, Ms. Buck, a paraprofessional, was assigned to Respondent’s classroom. EBD students have emotional and/or behavioral disabilities and often exhibit behavioral problems. Respondent’s EBD class was held in a self-contained classroom and consisted of a total of nine male students ranging from grades six to eight. A.J. and A.B. were two of the students in Respondent’s class. On September 24, 2019, while Respondent was conducting a lesson, A.J. and A.B. began arguing. The argument quickly developed into a physical altercation between A.J. and A.B. A 43-second video captured relevant portions of the incident. At the start of the video, A.J and A.B. can be seen squaring off against each other. As they squared off, Respondent walked by A.J. and pushed him toward A.B. At hearing, Ms. Buck persuasively and credibly testified that as Respondent pushed A.J. toward A.B., she heard Respondent state words to the effect of “move” or “get out of my way.” After pushing A.J. toward A.B., Respondent retreated to her desk area and distanced herself from the incident. In the meantime, with Respondent out of the way, A.J.’s and A.B.’s squaring off against each other escalated to a full-blown physical altercation in the classroom lasting at least 30 seconds. After the fight commenced, Ms. Buck pushed the security call button and ultimately intervened by pulling the boys apart with the help of another student. Respondent did not take any action to try and stop the altercation between A.J. and A.B., or call security herself. Mr. Fabel is an ESE staffing specialist with the School Board who trains district employees in Safe Crisis Management (“SCM”). All EBD teachers and paraprofessionals employed by the School Board are required to attend SCM training to learn how to deal with the behaviors of EBD students. EBD training lasts three days and instructs employees on how to manage student behaviors via non-physical and verbal interventions and, if necessary, physically. Both Respondent and Ms. Buck attended the required SCM training prior to the 2019-2020 school year. Without objection, Mr. Fabel was qualified, at hearing, as an expert in the School Board’s SCM training. Mr. Fabel watched the video and persuasively and credibly testified at hearing regarding interventions Respondent could have used to rectify the situation when A.J. and A.B. were squaring off. For example, Respondent could have given the students clear and firm verbal commands to move away from each other and return to their seats. Respondent also could have utilized a “guided assist”--taking the students by the arm and moving them to another part of the classroom. Respondent also could have positioned herself in between A.J. and A.B. so that the students’ avenue of approach toward each other, and eye contact with each other, was blocked. Mr. Fabel testified that when students are just squaring off, like A.J. and A.B. were at the beginning of the video, “they’re looking for somebody to intervene and keep them from getting into it.” However, Mr. Fabel persuasively and credibly testified that when Respondent walked away from the situation and went to her desk, it was a “green light for them to then go at one another.” Respondent’s conduct on September 24, 2019, was inappropriate, reflected poorly upon herself and the School Board, and reduced Respondent’s ability to effectively perform her duties. Respondent could certainly have responded to A.J.'s and A.B.'s squaring off through means other than pushing A.J. toward A.B. and retreating to her desk. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing demonstrates that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in office in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-5.056(2)(b) through (e) and 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. By pushing A.J. toward A.B. and retreating to her desk on September 24, 2019, Respondent violated rules 6A-5.056(2)(b) through (e) and 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., by disrupting the students' learning environment, thus reducing Respondent’s ability to effectively perform her duties; failing to make reasonable effort to protect the students from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the students' mental and/or physical heath and/or safety. Respondent also violated School Board Policy 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, section A.3., which mirrors rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. Respondent also violated School Board Policy 3213, Student Supervision and Welfare, which requires that teachers protect the physical and emotional well-being of students by maintaining the highest professional, moral, and ethical standards in dealing with the supervision, control and protection of students on or off school property, and reporting immediately to a building administrator any safety hazard or other potentially harmful condition or situation she detects.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order upholding the suspension of Respondent’s employment as a teacher, without pay, for 15 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of July, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of July, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher J. La Piano, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132 Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami-Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761-1526 Richard Corcoran Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
