The Issue Whether respondent, an assistant professor at Miami-Dade Community College, should be dismissed on grounds of willful neglect of duty, gross insubordination, and incompetency as alleged.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Joan Humphries, earned a bachelor's degree from the University of Miami, a master's degree in counseling and guidance from Florida State University, and a Doctorate of Philosophy in experimental psychology from Louisiana State University. (Testimony of Humphries.) Before coming to Miami-Dade Community College, she worked as a psychological consultant at Louisiana State Hospital and taught at the University of Miami. She has been employed by the College for approximately 15 years--since October, 1966. (Testimony of Humphries.) First employed by the College as a part-time instructor, she soon became a full-time instructor of introductory psychology courses. She is now a tenured assistant professor and was granted a continuing teaching contract by the College. (Testimony of Humphries.) During her years at the College, she received annual performance evaluations from the chairperson of her department--now named the Department of Behavioral Studies. Until 1978, she was evaluated as a competent instructor. Her 1970 evaluation stated: Dr. Humphries continues to do an excellent job of teaching PSY 207. She has been most helpful in orienting new faculty members [and] is a most dependable and valuable member of the psychology faculty. (P-75.) In 1971, David Powers, her new department chairperson, recommended her for promotion and gave her this evaluation: Joan Humphries possesses excellent knowledge of her subject field. Her course is extremely well planned out and organized. She is quite fair in her grading techniques, . . . (P-78.) In 1972, she was rated as "outstanding" in professional status, growth, and development; "competent" in her performance as a faculty member; and as giving "more than most" in ancillary services to the College. In 1973, Dr. Powers again rated her as competent and described her professional strengths and goals: Professional Strengths: Joan displays an in-depth knowledge of behavioristic psychology. Joan is competent in utilization of audiovisual materials and psychological equipment. She is conscientious in meeting her office hours. She has originated several ideas for obtaining both community involvement and enrollment in future psychological courses. Joan involves her students in community activities by requiring a ten hour out-of-class service project. Professional Goals: In order to maintain larger retention rate, Joan should develop a diversity of instructional strategies including greater enthusiasm in teacher presentation. She should place less emphasis on objective testing and involve more subjective methods for student evaluations, [i]ncluding student feedback on course activities and evaluative tools should be meaningful for her students. This summer she will be acting chairman of a committee for a parental education course to be offered in the fall. (P-82.) In 1974, Dr. Powers again rated her as a "competent" faculty member and "outstanding" in professional status, growth, and development. He recommended her for promotion and described her professional strengths: Professional Strengths: Joan is showing even more enthusiasm [sic] toward the college this year than last year. She has developed many innovative ideas including a proposed psychology laboratory, courses associated with the county judges and for the education of elderly citizens within the community, and a rationale for a four day college work week. Joan helped increase the fall term departmental productivity figure by conducting a large section of 100 Psychology 211 students. She has incorporated a formal student evaluation system into her course. She not only participates in community betterment but requires her students to spend at least 15 hours working on a community project. In determining the student's grade, this year, she has placed greater emphasis upon student involvement in projects, experiments, and oral presentations. In her classes Joan includes recent relevant research findings in order to clarify psychological concepts. She has devoted many hours toward coordinating the senior citizens program and the parent education course. She is an active sponsor of Phi Lambda Pi and continually invites guest speakers into her classes. Joan actively engages in scientific research and she has recently written an article for the Journal of Parapsychology. Joan is recommended for promotion to Associate Professor, Senior. Professional Goals: Joan should be a good resource coordinator for utilization of the new Alpha Theta Cyborg. This coming year the department could use her for teaching a couple sections of Psychology 212. Her ideas for meeting the community's needs are practical and worth implementing. Joan should perhaps develop a written syllabus in outline form to give to all of her students at the beginning of the course. Joan would like to initiate and teach a course in recent psychological developments, i.e., biofeedback, hypnosis, and brain research. (P-89.) She was not promoted, however, because she had not yet completed the required three years in grade. She appealed the College's failure to promote her. Although she subsequently satisfied the three-year requirement, she has not been promoted. She attributes this to discrimination by the College because of her earlier appeal. In 1975 and 1976, she was rated "competent" but given specific suggestions for improved performance (P-119.) In 1977, she was rated as a "competent" faculty member who contributed "more than most" in ancillary services to the College, and recommended for promotion. But, "some reservation" was indicated concerning her professional status, growth, and development. (P- 235.) In 1978, her new department chairperson, Gerald L. Sicard, rated her as "competent;" described her as a dedicated psychologist who gave enthusiastic lectures; and noted that evaluations by her students were generally positive. (P-315.) She was rated "unsatisfactory" by the evaluations completed in 1979, 1980, and 1981. The Charges: Eleven Specific Allegations of Misconduct The College's charges against respondent--willful neglect of duty, gross insubordination, and incompetency--rest on eleven specific allegations of misconduct. The findings of fact which follow are organized under the pertinent allegation. Alleged: Over a period of years, the respondent has demonstrated belligerence toward those in authority. Respondent has not demonstrated a pattern of belligerence or hostility toward her College superiors. Her supervising department chairperson, Mr. Sicard, had difficulty defining the term at hearing. When pressed, he gave as examples her desire to tape record conversations when meeting with a supervisor, her writing of memoranda when an issue could be easily resolved by an office conference, and her refusal to sign a performance evaluation form because she did not agree with it. Such conduct illustrates her distrust of her supervisors and the persistence with which she advocated her views; they do not demonstrate belligerence. Neither, according to her students, did she exhibit belligerence toward her supervisors in the classroom environment. 7 College administrators became irritated with her obvious distrust, her persistence, and her unwillingness to compromise; two examples: (1) When her fellow faculty members selected a common course textbook for use in introductory psychology, she resisted and stubbornly advocated another choice. (2) During 1978, Mr. Sicard learned that respondent was offering extra grade points to students who campaigned for enactment of the Equal Rights Amendment ("ERA") to the U.S. Constitution. Students who desired to campaign against the ERA were not, however, equally rewarded. Mr. Sicard questioned her about the fairness of this practice and its relevance to introductory psychology. She explained that prejudice against women was a disease, that to give students points for campaigning against the ERA would be supporting a disease. Mr. Sicard, still unconvinced, instructed her by memorandum on November 6, 1978, to discontinue the awarding of points to students for pro-ERA or any other political activity. (P-359.) One week later she explained, in writing, that she had been promoting good mental health, not partisan politics, and cited various publications by psychologists in support of her view that discrimination against women was detrimental to human welfare; and that, in the past, her students had worked for legislation benefiting autistic children and migrant workers and the College had supported such action. She ended by asking Mr. Sicard if advocacy of human rights and legislation supporting human rights would be considered engaging in partisan politics. But, although she disagreed with her supervisor, she complied with his directive and discontinued the practice. (Testimony of Sicard, Tikofsky, Hansen, Signorelli, Humphries.) Alleged: On numerous occasions, the respondent willfully and deliberately failed to comply with directives from College administrators relative to her classes of instructions. In connection with respondent's 1978 performance evaluation, Mr. Sicard and respondent negotiated and agreed upon goals and objectives for the coming year. The College contends that several of the goals were not met. Some of these items were tasks which Mr. Sicard thought were important at the time, others originated with the respondent. The effect to be given these goals is ambiguous. Mr. Sicard now considers some of them to be mandatory or directory in nature; others not. In any case, during the ensuing year, respondent satisfied most of the goals and objectives specified in the 1978 evaluation. In 1978, as already mentioned, respondent's department decided to select a common text for introductory psychology courses. Respondent resisted the consensus selection; she advocated an alternative and wrote memoranda to Mr. Sicard expressing her views. He responded with this memorandum: Instead of replying to the above-memos, it would probably be mutually beneficial to discuss your problems during my office hours. This way we can move from adversary roles to the cooperative model existing with the other departmental faculty. In doing this, I hope we can work together to achieve your and the department's goals. Please advise me in this matter. (P-334.) Thereafter, respondent did not go to Mr. Sicard's office to discuss the issue further. But the nature of his memorandum is, by its terms, non-directory, even conciliatory in nature. Respondent's failure to accept the invitation cannot fairly be translated into willful failure to comply with an administrator's directive. On December 4, 1978, Mr. Sicard recommended that respondent's employment be terminated for various "acts of insubordination." (P-368, P-369.) He asserted that she violated regulations by utilizing the psychology laboratory for hypnosis and biofeedback treatment for students with smoking and overweight problems; that her earlier awarding of grade points to students who worked for ERA violated a 1976 directive of David Powers, the previous department chairperson; and that she continued to refer students to Robert Courier, an alleged psychic and hypnosis counselor, despite the fact that Mr. Courier had been prohibited from instructing students in her classes. Her alleged failure to comply with laboratory regulations, even if true, does not constitute willful violation of an administrator's directive relative to her classroom instruction; and Mr. Sicard acknowledges that her referral of students to Mr. Courier "do[es] not violate previous directives" to respondent. (P-368.) This leaves only the alleged violation of Mr. Powers' 1976 directive. In that directive, Mr. Powers directed Respondent to obtain prior clearance from the departmental chairperson for "[a] 11 off-campus activities which affect the student's grade[s]." (P-147.) In 1977, however, Mr. Power's successor chairperson, Bess Fleckman, effectively countermanded or negated the effect of Mr. Powers' directive. By a memorandum dated March 21, 1977, she asked respondent to take full responsibility for assignments to students, stating that this should not "be a concern of a chairperson." (P-261, P-262, P- 263.) Thus, respondent's subsequent assignments concerning off-campus ERA activities did not violate a directive from her supervising administrator. By memorandum dated April 3, 1979, Mr. Sicard suggested that respondent improve her teaching techniques by accepting the assistance of Ms. Fleckman--a qualified and experienced classroom instructional specialist. (P- 388.) Respondent replied with a memorandum stating that she did not wish to work with Ms. Fleckman because she did not feel Ms. Fleckman "would be objective in evaluating my performance. (P-391.) Mr. Sicard replied on April 17, 1979, converting his suggestion into a clear directive that respondent work with and accept the assistance of Ms. Fleckman. Although clearly unhappy with the arrangement, respondent complied. (P-404.) The College has not shown that respondent ever refused or willfully and deliberately failed to comply with an administrator's directive which was phrased in clear and mandatory terms. Administrators, understandably, preferred to give suggestions to respondent, not orders or directives. But, failure to agree with or follow a suggestion does not amount to willful violation of a directive. (Testimony of Humphries, Fleckman, Sicard.) Alleged: Respondent . . . repeatedly refused to follow directives from college administrators, which has distracted from the objectives of her department, division, and campus. This charge is similar to the preceding allegation; no additional evidence was offered to substantiate it. Consequently, it is similarly concluded that no showing has been made that respondent repeatedly refused to follow directives from college administrators. (Testimony of Humphries, Fleckman, Sicard.) Alleged: Respondent deliberately failed or refused to perform assigned duties within the parameters established by her department chairperson. This charge may overlap with charges contained in paragraphs B and C above. The only additional incident of any significance offered by the College in substantiation involves respondent's purported attempt to use the psychology laboratory for therapy purposes. In June, 1978, respondent served as coordinator of the department's psychology laboratory with the assignment to expand its uses. On June 22, 1978, she circulated a memorandum to faculty members announcing a new laboratory program called "Positive Personal Programming," which would be carried out by Kenneth Forrest; she believed he was a student in an honors-level psychology course taught by Dr. Cecil B. Nichols. The program involved treating subjects with weight control or smoking habits by means of hypnosis and biofeedback techniques. Since regulations allegedly precluded use of the laboratory for therapy purposes, Mr. Sicard instructed respondent that this proposed program could not be implemented. Although she protested that the proposed program would be beneficial and should be allowed, she complied with his directive and immediately cancelled the program. The program was never implemented. Mr. Sicard testified that he did not know whether the program described in respondent's memorandum to faculty was ever implemented, but he "assumed" it was. (Tr.160.) He considered respondent's memorandum as an act of insubordination justifying her termination. (P-368.) The evidence does not establish that the proposed use would violate applicable regulations. 2/ In any case, it has not been shown how a program which was never instituted could violate any limitations on use of the psychology laboratory. The College has not shown any deliberate failure or refusal by respondent to perform her duties within the parameters established by her department chairperson. (Testimony of Sicard, Humphries.) Alleged: Respondent failed to satisfy established criteria for the performance of assigned duties. No objective criteria have been promulgated to assess the performance of College faculty members. In the absence of such criteria announced prospectively, the College seeks to establish by expert testing that respondent did not cover the material required in an introductory psychology course; that she placed undue emphasis on biofeedback techniques; and that the grading system she used was inadequate. Although there is conflicting testimony on these matters, the testimony of Ronald F. Tikofsky is accepted as persuasive. Now a departmental chairperson at the University of Wisconsin, he obtained a master's degree in psychology, and took a minor in psychology for his doctorate. He taught in the Department of Psychology at the University of Michigan, where he became a full professor, and later served as chairperson of the Department of Psychology at Florida International University from 1971 through 1979. He has participated in the development of college curriculum, helped college instructors develop teaching techniques, and evaluated the performance of faculty members. His academic credentials are impressive, his testimony was objective, forthright, and credible. (Tr. 967-1017; R-48.) His opinions are accorded great weight. He opined that, in his profession, there is no consensus on any set number of concepts which should be taught in college level introductory psychology courses, that this properly follows within the discretion of the individual instructor. His review of the topics respondent covered during the fall and winter semesters of 1980 led him to conclude that she covered the basic materials of an introductory psychology course, and that the time she devoted to biofeedback theory and demonstrations was appropriate. After reviewing respondent's grading records, he concluded that her grading method was not unusual or unacceptable. Development of grading curves is an art, not a science; it involves the interplay of several variables and the subjective judgment of the instructor. Generally, respondent would take the class average, note the distribution, establish cutoff points for various grade levels, apply them to the data, and then apply a subjective factor. Mr. Tikofsky testified that the number of credit points assigned for completing outside projects was neither excessive nor inappropriate. These opinions of Mr. Tikofsky are expressly adopted. The College has not shown that respondent failed to satisfy any meaningful performance standard, announced either prospectively or retroactively. (Testimony of Tikofsky, Sicard, Humphries.) Alleged:. Respondent failed to comply with directives for required improvements that were set forth in her yearly personnel evaluations. As already mentioned above, the yearly personnel evaluations contained "goals and objectives," not "directives." These goals and objectives were the product of discussion and negotiation between the department chairperson and instructor; some were considered mandatory, others not. Those that originated with the instructor lacked mandatory effect. The three goals and objectives concerning biofeedback--contained on respondent's 1979 personnel evaluation form--originated with the respondent. She made a good faith effort to complete or completed each of those biofeedback goals. The remaining six goals and objectives were satisfied by respondent. As to the 1978 personnel evaluation, most, if not all, of the listed goals and objectives were satisfied. Her next evaluation--where she was rated unsatisfactory--does not fault her for failing to meet any 1978 goal or objective. The evidence does not show that respondent failed to satisfy any goal or objective which was listed on her evaluation and clearly understood--at the time--to be a directive, rather than an end toward which effort should be directed. (Testimony of Sicard, Humphries; P-315, P-474.) Alleged: The level of instruction in respondent's classes was below reasonable minimum standards. This charge overlaps with paragraph E above, and H below. The College has not established or published any objective minimum standards to measure an instructor's performance. Respondent used a standard approach to teaching introductory psychology: she used a vocabulary or concept list for each chapter of the textbook and gave frequent objective tests. Her classes were structured and well-disciplined. Her students were generally satisfied with her performance and compared her favorably to other instructors at the College. Those who went on to take more advanced psychology courses made grades similar to or better than those they received from respondent. Ms. Fleckman helped her to improve her teaching techniques. When Ms. Fleckman observed her teaching in 1979, she could offer only a few suggestions and rated her 8 on a 10-point performance scale. Videotapes of respondent teaching her classes were viewed at hearing. After reviewing the tapes, Mr. Tikofsky opined that respondent was an adequate and competent classroom instructor. His opinion is accepted as persuasive. The videotapes demonstrate convincingly that respondent delivers lectures in an organized, methodical fashion and that she has the attention of her students. The tapes further show that she takes her teaching responsibilities seriously, is genuinely interested in the subject matter, and that she tries to relate and respond to her students. In light of the above, and the findings contained in paragraph E above, it is concluded that respondent's level of instruction in her classes did not fall below reasonable minimum standards, either announced prospectively or applied retroactively. (Testimony of Humphries, Tikofsky, Fleckman, Signorelli.) Alleged: Students in respondent's classes were deprived of required course material. This charge overlaps charges contained in paragraphs E and G above, and the findings relating to those charges also apply here. During the fall and winter of 1980, Mr. Tikofsky opined that respondent covered the topics appropriate to a college level introductory psychology course. His opinion is accepted as persuasive. The topics which should be covered are left up to the individual psychology instructor. The College does not specify the topics and materials that must be covered. When respondent was suspended near the end of the 1980 winter quarter, she had covered the material which--according to her own class syllabus-- should have been covered at that time. The charge that her students were deprived of required course material is unsubstantiated by the evidence. (Testimony of Humphries, Tikofsky; P-2.) Alleged: Respondent's classes were unstructured. As already mentioned, respondent's classes were structured and well disciplined. Ms. Fleckman conceded that her classes were structured. Students took copious notes and were able to organize her lectures into outline form (see paragraph G above). This charge is unsubstantiated by the evidence. (Testimony of Humphries, Signorelli, Stipulated testimony of Students.) Alleged: Respondent maintained little control over students. Respondent conducted her classes in a no-nonsense, businesslike manner. She welcomed questions from students, but she did not tolerate disruption. She was a disciplinarian and was respected by her students. This charge is unsupported by the evidence. (Testimony of Humphries, Classroom Videotapes, Signorelli, Stipulated testimony of Students.) Alleged: Respondent failed to maintain enrollment and completion rates at acceptable levels. The College has not established, prospectively, criteria to determine acceptable student attrition rates. Never before has a College instructor been recommended for termination because of an unacceptable attrition rate. Respondent's 1979, 1980, and 1981 evaluations--where she was rated unsatisfactory--concluded that she failed to "maintain enrollment and course completion at acceptable levels." (P-380, P-474.) Although she repeatedly asked Mr. Sicard for a specific attrition figure which she should meet, no figure was ever supplied. Mr. Sicard concluded that her attrition rate was "too high in relation to her peers." That conclusion is unsubstantiated. Her completion rate, over the years, was 51.7 percent, a figure which compares favorably with her fellow instructors: Alan Winet (56.3); James Killride (50.6); Margaret Casey (54.3); Dorothy O'Conner (44.4); Peter Diehl (44.4); Royal Grumbach (51.5); Lawrence Chernoff (45.2); Ronnie Fisher (42.5); and Harold Andrews (47). Moreover, between 1978 and 1980, her attrition rate was improving, sometimes exceeding 60 percent. It is concluded that, when compared with her peers, respondent maintained an acceptable student course-completion rate. (Testimony of Hansen, McCabe.) Respondent's Relationship with College Administrators Respondent was frequently at odds with College administrators. She petitioned the College for a four-day work week and a female professor's bill of rights. She appealed the College's failure to promote her and repeatedly accused the College of sexual discrimination. She was an outspoken critic, questioning and challenging the actions of College administrators. (Testimony of Sicard, Humphries.) Her relationship with administrators was marked by mutual distrust and became adversarial in nature. To avoid misunderstandings, she resorted to tape- recording her meetings with supervisors; her communications with administrators were increasingly reduced to writing. (Testimony of Sicard, Humphries.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent be reinstated as a continuing contract employee at Miami- Dade Community College with full back pay for the period of time of her suspension. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 1st day of June, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. Caleen, Jr. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of June, 1982.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a psychologist should be approved, pursuant to Chapter 490, Florida Statutes. This proceeding arose as a result of Respondent's provisional denial of Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement as a psychologist under Chapter 490, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 21U-11, Florida Administrative Code, based upon Respondent's determination that Petitioner did not hold a license in another state which was obtained by requirements substantially equivalent or more stringent to requirements for licensure as a psychologist in the State of Florida. At the commencement of the hearing, Petitioner was advised of his rights in administrative proceedings. He indicated his understanding of such rights and elected to represent himself at the hearing. Petitioner testified in his own behalf and submitted 4 exhibits in evidence. Respondent presented the testimony of Dr. Frank Biasco, a member of the Board of Psychological Examiners. Joint Exhibit 1 representing the application file of Petitioner was also received in evidence.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Henry S. Tugender, Morganville, New Jersey, filed an application for licensure by endorsement as a psychologist with Respondent Board of Psychological Examiners on February 22, 1982. By letter of November 4, 1982, the Board's executive director informed Petitioner that his application had been denied by the Board pursuant to Rule 21U-11.04, Florida Administrative Code, because he did not hold a license in another state obtained by requirements substantially equivalent or more stringent to requirements for licensure as a psychologist in the State of Florida. Petitioner thereafter requested an administrative hearing. (Testimony of Tugender, Joint Exhibit 1) Petitioner received a master's degree in clinical psychology from Long Island University in 1959. He pursued doctoral studies in the clinical psychology program of Arizona State University from 1962 to 1964. In 1970, he obtained a Doctor of Philosophy degree from East Coast University, Dade City Florida, with a major in psychology. He was in an "external" degree program that involved a minimum residency during two summers and and submission of a dissertation. The university was not accredited by the American Psychology Association (APA) and is no longer in existence. (Testimony of Tugender, Joint Exhibit 1, Petitioner's Exhibit 1) Petitioner is licensed to practice psychology in three states and the District of Columbia. He was licensed in New Jersey in 1968, Illinois in 1971, Pennsylvania in 1975, and the District of Columbia in 1973. At the time of licensure, none of the three states or the District of Columbia required a doctoral degree to obtain a license. He qualified in each instance by having a master's degree, plus a varying number of years of experience. (Testimony of Petitioner, Joint Exhibit 1) At the time Petitioner was licensed in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Illinois and the District of Columbia, the licensure requirements of those states were not substantially equivalent to or more stringent than those now contained in Chapter 490, Florida Statutes, in that they did not require a doctoral degree with a major in psychology from a school with an APA approved program, or from a school maintaining a standard of training comparable to those universities having programs approved by the APA or the doctoral psychology programs of the state universities. Rifle 21U-11.04(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, sets forth criteria that must be met in all respects in order to demonstrate that the doctoral program meets the comparability requirements established by the rule. Petitioner presented no evidence concerning the content of his doctoral program at East Coast University, but conceded at the hearing that the program did not meet a number of the requirements specified in the rule. (Testimony of Petitioner, Biasco) Petitioner seeks to relocate to Florida for professional and health reasons. He currently is in private practice in New Jersey. He specializes in hypnosis and has been active in that field over many years. At the time of hearing, he held a valid Florida Department of Education teacher's certificate in psychology. He is also a certified school psychologist in the states of Pennsylvania and New Jersey. He is affiliated with a number of professional organizations and is listed in the National Register of Health Service Providers in Psychology. In 1974-75, he served as a consultant to the Florida Parole and Probation Commission, and in the Department of Corrections. (Testimony of Petitioner, Joint Exhibit 1, Petitioner's Exhibits 1-4)
Recommendation That Petitioner's application for licensure as a psychologist by endorsement be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of July, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM 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 14th day of July, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Jane Raker, Executive Director Board of Psychological Examiners 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Randy Holland, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol - 1601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Henry S. Tugender 35 Wickatunk Village Morganville, N.J. 07751
Findings Of Fact During October, 1980, the staff of Polk Community College prepared a cost analysis for the 1979-80 school year in accordance with requirements imposed by the State Board of Education. One of the purposes of this annual cost analysis is to allow comparison of costs among community colleges. The cost analysis for the 1979-80 school year indicated that Polk Community College had high instructional costs per full-time student in comparison to other community colleges. The District Board of Trustees of Polk Community College accordingly requested that the college staff conduct further studies to examine the cost effectiveness of the instructional program. These further studies revealed that Polk Community College employs more full-time instructors in various academic fields than there are classes available for the instructors to teach. This situation is the apparent result of a shift in student demand. The psychology grouping of academic subjects is among those which has been overstaffed with instructional personnel at Polk Community College in recent years. When the number of instructional personnel available to teach in the psychology grouping is considered against an optimum class size of thirty- five students and compared to the number of students who actually took courses in the psychology grouping, it is apparent that the psychology grouping had .1 more faculty members than needed for the academic year which began in September, 1977; .8 more instructors than needed for the academic year which began in September, 1978; 1.2 more faculty members than needed for the academic year which began in September, 1979; and 1.8 more faculty members than needed for the academic year which began in September, 1980. Projections for the 1981 academic year indicate that the psychology grouping will again be overstaffed by 1.8 instructors. Overstaffing of instructional personnel such as has consistently occurred in the psychology grouping of academic courses results in several inefficiencies. In order that instructional personnel can carry full course loads as required by law, it is necessary to allow some courses to be taught with fewer students than is considered efficient. Alternatively, faculty members are given special projects to complete in lieu of teaching a course. These special projects have very little value to the community college. Furthermore, by maintaining excessive instructional staffs to teach academic subjects where student demand is decreasing, the college is unable to hire instructional personnel to teach subject areas where student demand is increasing. There has been an increase in student demand for courses in data processing at Polk Community College. The college administration desires to reallocate its resources to provide more faculty members to teach data processing courses rather than courses in psychology for which student demands have decreased. The administration has accordingly recommended to the college's District Board of Trustees that one psychology instructor be terminated. The Respondent, James E. Durant, IV, is a psychology instructor at Polk Community College. The college administration has recommended that his employment be terminated due to the overstaffing in the Psychology Department. In making this recommendation, the administration evaluated the Respondent vis- a-vis other psychology instructors in the following areas: the capacity of the faculty members to meet the educational needs of the community, including consideration of past and anticipated demand for courses and their cost effectiveness, and future curriculum needs; the efficiency of the faculty members as indicated by such factors as professional evaluations; the educational qualifications of the faculty members including their versatility, level of degree, field, and length of service; and whether the faculty members have a continuing contract or annual contract with the community college. The administration concluded that there were no significant differences among instructional personnel in the psychology grouping in the areas of future curriculum needs, educational qualifications and type of contract. This conclusion is supported by the evidence. It does not appear that curriculum needs within the psychology grouping are changing. All of the faculty members in the psychology grouping have either master's degrees or doctorates and have been employed at the community college for a lengthy period. All are on continuing contract. The administration contends that the Respondent is the least cost effective of the psychology instructors and that he has been the least efficient. The administration based its conclusion that the Respondent was the least cost effective of the psychology faculty members through an analysis of weak and cancelled sections that have been taught by psychology faculty members. Weak sections are those classified as having been taught with fewer than fifteen students. Cancelled classes are those for which there was so little student interest that a scheduled course was cancelled. There are several deficiencies with use of a "weak and cancelled section matrix" as a means of determining the cost effectiveness of an instructor. The fact that a class runs weak or must be cancelled can be the result of factors which would reflect favorably upon an instructor. For example, if an instructor develops experimental classes or teaches courses beyond the introductory sort, there is likely to be less demand for the courses, but the courses would have an important function in the community college curriculum. Furthermore, student demand for classes depends to some extent upon factors that are beyond the control of the instructor. Student demand for classes is high, for example, during certain times of the day and low during others. Classes are scheduled by the administration, and not by the instructors. Despite these deficiencies of considering weak and cancelled sections as evidence of poor cost effectiveness, it is appropriate to do that in this instance. For the 1977 through 1981 academic years, the Respondent had a total of 32 weak or cancelled sections. No other faculty member in the psychology grouping had more than 13 weak and cancelled sections during that period, and the four other faculty members combined had only 34 weak and cancelled sections. These figures establish that there is significantly less demand for courses taught by the Respondent than courses taught by other members of the psychology grouping, and that he is therefore the least cost effective instructor within the grouping. The administration's contention that the Respondent is the least efficient instructor within the psychology grouping is supported by the evidence. The Respondent has consistently received the lowest supervisory and student evaluations of instructors within the psychology grouping since the 1975 academic year. Furthermore, there have been more student complaints lodged with respect to the Respondent than for all other members of the psychology grouping combined. The large number of student complaints resulted in remedial action being taken with respect to the Respondent during the 1979 academic year. The Respondent's classes were monitored more closely than is usual, and the number of complaints was reduced for a short period. During the 1980 academic year, however, the large number of student complaints has persisted. Typical student complaints have been that the Respondent is not accessible to answer questions, and that he degrades students by making them wait for inordinate periods outside his office or classroom. While it does appear that the Respondent is trained to teach courses outside of the psychology grouping, it appears that he has taught primarily psychology courses for a number of years. The evidence would not sustain a conclusion that he is qualified to teach in areas where there is a need for instructional personnel. The Respondent has contended that he is qualified to teach mathematics and French; however, there is no competent evidence in the record to support these contentions. The Respondent has contended that inappropriate factors were considered by the administration in recommending that he be terminated. He contends that the reasons given by the administration for terminating him are actually a subterfuge, and that the administration is seeking to terminate him because of the Respondent's political activities, and because of his views on controversial subjects. These contentions are not supported by the evidence.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the District Board of Trustees of Polk Community College enter a final order accepting the recommendation that the Respondent, James E. Durant, IV, be terminated from his position as an instructor of the community college, and that the Respondent be terminated effective at the conclusion of the 1980-81 academic year. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of July, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Department of Administration 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of July, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald H. Wilson, Jr., Esquire Boswell, Boswell & Conner Post Office Box 1578 Bartow, Florida 33830 Dr. James E. Durant, IV 2605 Reef Court Orlando, Florida 32805 Mr. Frederick T. Lenfestey President Polk Community College 999 Avenue H, Northeast Winter Haven, Florida 33880
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Notice of Specific Charges and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, School Board of Miami-Dade County (School Board), is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Respondent, Margaret B. Mitchell, was at all times material hereto, employed by the School Board as a teacher (under a continuing contract of employment), and assigned to Barbara Goleman Senior High School (BGSHS) where she taught mathematics. 2/ Pertinent to this case, each student in Florida must earn a passing score on each part of the High School Competency Test (HSCT), reading (communications) and mathematics, or be exempted from each part in order to qualify for a regular high school diploma. Section 229.57(3)(c)5, Florida Statutes. Given the nature of the test, it is maintained and administered in a secure manner such that the integrity of the test will be preserved. Pertinent to the preservation of test security, the Department of Education has adopted Rule 6A-10.042, Florida Administrative Code, which provides: Tests implemented in accordance with the requirements of Section [ ] . . . 229.57 . . . Florida Statutes, shall be maintained and administered in a secure manner such that the integrity of the tests will be preserved. * * * (b) Tests or individual test questions shall not be revealed, copied, or otherwise reproduced by persons who are involved in the administration, proctoring, or scoring of any test. * * * Persons who are involved in administering or proctoring the tests or persons who teach or otherwise prepare examinees for the tests shall not participate in, direct, aid, counsel, assist in, or encourage any activity which could result in the inaccurate measurement or reporting of the examinees' achievement. . . . The legislature has also addressed the issue of test security through the enactment of Section 228.301, Florida Statutes, which provides: It is unlawful for anyone knowingly and willfully to violate test security rules adopted by the State Board of Education or the Commissioner of Education for mandatory tests administered by or through the State Board of Education or the Commissioner of Education to students, educators, or applicants for certification or administered by school districts pursuant to s. 229.57, or, with respect to any such test, knowingly and willfully to: Given examinees access to test questions prior to testing; Copy, reproduce, or use in any manner inconsistent with test security rules all or any portion of a secure test booklet; [or] * * * (g) Participate in, direct, aid, counsel, assist in, or encourage any of the acts prohibited in this section. Any person who violates the provisions of Section 228.301, Florida Statutes, is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than 90 days, or both. Section 228.301(2), Florida Statutes. In October 1997, the HSCT was scheduled to be administered at BGSHS, with the reading (communications) portion scheduled for Saturday, October 4, 1997, and the mathematics portion scheduled for October 18, 1997. Respondent was one of a number of teachers selected to proctor both portions of the examination. As such, it was her responsibility to distribute the testing materials, collect the materials after testing, and maintain test security. On October 4, 1997, Respondent proctored a class for the communications portion of the HSCT, and distributed and collected the test materials. Those materials (the HSCT booklet) are triple sealed: the outer seal secures the whole booklet, while the enclosed communications portion and mathematics portion of the examination are separately sealed. On receipt of the booklet, students should only have broken the outer seal for the whole booklet and the seal on the communications portion (and not the mathematics portion) of the examination; however, one of Respondent's students accidentally broke the seal for the mathematics portion. Respondent, while responsible for test security (including inventorying all examinations and reporting broken seals), failed to report such breach. During the late afternoon of October 7, 1997, Respondent sent an e-mail message to four fellow mathematics teachers, Carolyn Guthrie, Jo Janke, Linda Galati, and Vicki Weintraub, advising them that they would find a "blue present" in their school mail box. The e-mail was accessed the morning of October 8, 1997, and the "blue present" Respondent referred to, a blue computer disc, was located in each mail box. Later that morning, Ms. Guthrie put the disc in her computer to see what it contained and discovered a file labeled "HSCT '97" which, when opened, contained a series of math questions. According to Ms. Guthrie, she immediately closed the file, returned the disc to Respondent, and told her "I didn't want it." Later, on reflection, Ms. Guthrie reasoned her response (given her suspicion that the disc contained the mathematical portion of the 1997 HSCT) was inadequate. Consequently, she spoke with the other teachers (Ms. Janke, Ms. Galati, and Ms. Weintraub) and took possession of their discs. Ms. Guthrie delivered these discs, as well as her suspicions regarding the information contained on the discs, to Jorge Sotolongo, principal of BGSHS. Subsequent investigation confirmed that the information (math questions) contained on the blue discs had been derived from the 1997 HSCT, and that the examination had been compromised. 3/ Consequently, the second portion of the HSCT (the mathematics section) scheduled for October 18, 1997, was cancelled. 4/ Ultimately, based on its perception that Respondent intentionally breached test security, the School Board suspended Respondent from her employment and commenced these proceedings to dismiss her. In resolving the pending charge, it cannot be seriously disputed that the information Respondent provided her fellow teachers on the blue discs was derived from the mathematics portion of the 1997 HSCT, and that the mathematics portions of the test was compromised. What remains to resolve is whether, as contended by the School Board, the proof demonstrates (more likely than not) that Respondent knowingly and willfully reproduced or revealed the test. Also to resolve (or, stated otherwise, inherent to the resolution of the pending charge) is whether Respondent's explanation regarding the source for the information she copied onto the blue discs, as well as her perception of its content, is worthy of belief. In this regard, Respondent avers that on the afternoon of October 7, 1997, she received a "black disc," anonymously, in her teacher's mail box at BGSHS; that she briefly opened the disc and scanned (without studying) its contents; concluded the disc contained "practice questions" for the HSCT; and copied the material on to the blue discs for her fellow teachers. Giving due regard to the proof, as well as her education, training, and experience, it must be resolved that Respondent's explanation regarding the source of the information she copied onto the blue discs, as well as her perception of its content, is inherently improbable and otherwise unworthy of belief. Rather, the proof points unfalteringly to the conclusion that Respondent knowingly and willfully reproduced and provided copies of the mathematics portion of the 1997 HSCT to her fellow teachers. 5/ Based on the foregoing incident, Respondent was arrested and charged in the County Court, Dade County, Florida, Case No. M98-56462, with a breach of test security (Section 228.301, Florida Statutes). Respondent entered a plea of not guilty; however, on June 28, 1999, after hearing, she was found and adjudicated guilty of the offense. As a consequence, Respondent was ordered to pay a fine of $1,000; to pay costs of $311; sentenced to 90 days house arrest; and ordered to serve a period of 6 months probation. Respondent's conduct (of compromising test security) is inconsistent with her obligation to exercise the best professional judgment and integrity; to maintain the respect and confidence of one's colleagues, of students, and of parents; to achieve and sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct; and to maintain honesty in all professional dealings. In sum, through her conduct, Respondent has evidenced that she is untrustworthy, unreliable and lacking in good moral character, such that her effectiveness in the school system has been seriously impaired.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered which sustains Respondent's suspension without pay, and which dismisses her from employment with the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of December, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied to Respondent for a psychology license by endorsement pursuant to Section 490.006, Florida Statutes (1981), and Rule 21U- 11.04, Florida Administrative Code. Respondent denied Petitioner's application on the grounds that she does not hold a license from a state where the requirements for licensure are substantially equivalent to or more stringent than Florida's. Petitioner received a B.A. in psychology from Boston University, an Ed. M. in guidance and counseling from the University of Miami and, in 1975, an Ed.D. from Boston University. The doctoral program which Petitioner graduated from was not approved by the American Psychological Association (APA). Petitioner holds an active psychology license in New Jersey, issued in 1979, and an active psychology license in Massachusetts, issued in 1982. Petitioner completed her application for licensure by endorsement (Respondent's Exhibit 1) and answered the following question in the negative: Did the applicant's doctoral program require each student to demonstrate knowledge in the following substantive areas of psychology: biological bases of behavior (e.g. phys- iological psychology, comparative psy- chology, neuropsychology, psychopharmacology), cognitive-affective bases of behavior (e.g. learning, memory, perception, cognition, thinking, motivation, emotion), social bases of behavior (e.g. social psychology, cultural, ethnic, and group processes, sex roles, organizational systems theory), and individual behavior (e.g. personality theory, human development, individual differences, abnormal psychology, psy- chology of women, psychology of the handicapped). Petitioner's testimony at hearing and the statement of an official of Boston University (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) established that Petitioner's answer to the above question was correct -- that she was not required to demonstrate knowledge in the state areas.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of December, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Eric R. Jones, Esquire 307 E. New Haven Ave., #4 Melbourne, Florida 32901 Randall A. Holland, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Room 1601, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jane Raker, Executive Director Board of Psychology Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The ultimate issue to be resolved in this proceeding is whether the Petitioner should be awarded a doctor of education degree by Florida State University. Petitioner contends that he properly completed the requirements for the degree, that a valid offer of the degree was made to him, that he accepted the offer, and that the degree was then wrongfully withheld. The university contends that Petitioner did not meet the requirements for the degree and that no valid, enforceable offer of it was made to Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact In 1976, Petitioner was admitted into the doctoral program in biology at Florida State University. He applied to transfer to the science education program and was admitted to the doctoral program in science education within the College of Education at Florida State University on June 24, 1977. He was pursuing a doctor of philosophy (Ph.D.) degree. Among the requirements that Petitioner needed to meet in order to receive the degree were successful completion of a diagnostic examination, completion of thirty-six resident hours of course work, course work in the field of statistics, a preliminary examination, approval of a prospectus for a doctoral dissertation, and presentation of an acceptable dissertation and a successful dissertation defense. Following his admission into the Ph.D. program in science education, a supervisory committee was established for the Petitioner, and a major professor was appointed. It was the major professor's and supervisory committee's function to monitor Petitioner's progress and ultimately to make a recommendation as to whether petitioner should be awarded a degree. By November 7, 1980, Petitioner had completed all of the requirements for a Ph.D. degree except for the presentation of his dissertation and the dissertation defense. These were scheduled to be conducted by the supervisory committee on November 7, 1980. Petitioner had been advised by at least two members of the committee that he might not be ready to present and defend his dissertation. Petitioner felt that he was. On November 7, 1980, Petitioner met with his supervisory committee and presented and defended his dissertation. After his presentation, Petitioner left the room, and the committee evaluated the dissertation and defense. The committee unanimously concluded that the dissertation and defense were inadequate. The dissertation was not marginally inadequate. It was grossly below standards. The committee unanimously and appropriately concluded that the dissertation and defense were not acceptable, and that Petitioner had not met the requirements for a Ph.D. degree. Petitioner's major professor felt that the Petitioner had devoted considerable time, energy, and hard work to the degree program. He was concerned that the effort not be totally wasted. He requested that the committee consider accepting the dissertation as adequate for the award of a doctor of education (Ed.D.) degree or a "master's specialist" degree, and that the committee recommend that Petitioner be awarded one of those degrees or that he be allowed to continue working toward a Ph.D. degree. None of the members of the supervisory committee had had experience with the Ed.D. degree. They all considered it an inferior degree and felt that awarding it to Petitioner would constitute something of a "consolation prize." In fact, an Ed.D. degree from Florida State University is not intended to be an inferior degree. Its focus is somewhat different, but the requirements for obtaining the degree are basically the same. The committee was mistaken in considering the offer of such a degree to Petitioner. Indeed, the requirements for an Ed.D. degree being similar, and in some cases identical to those for the Ph.D. degree, Petitioner had not qualified for the award of an Ed.D. degree. After the committee adjourned its proceedings on November 7, Petitioner's major professor discussed the committee's actions with Petitioner. He told Petitioner that pending proper approval, Petitioner would have the options of continuing to work toward a Ph.D. degree, or receiving an Ed.D. or master's specialist degree. It appears that the major professor was overly sensitive about the Petitioner's feelings, and he may not have bluntly advised Petitioner that he failed his dissertation, presentation, and defense. Petitioner considered his options and told his major professor that if it was possible, he would be amenable to accepting an Ed.D. degree. The major professor contacted administrative officials and was advised that the award of an Ed.D. degree would be possible. The major professor advised the Petitioner of that and told him that pending approval from the department chairman who had charge of the science education program, Petitioner could receive the Ed.D. degree. The major professor also advised Petitioner that some revisions would need to be made in the dissertation and that the title page would need to be retyped in order to reflect that it was being submitted in support of an Ed.D. degree. Petitioner complied with the direction to retype the first page, but made only minor revisions in the dissertation. Members of the supervisory committee signed off on the dissertation as being acceptable in support of an Ed.D. degree. The matter was submitted to the department chairman. The department chairman read the dissertation and concluded that it was grossly inadequate. He determined that he would not authorize the award of an Ed.D. degree because Petitioner would need to be properly accepted into an Ed.D. program before he could be awarded such a degree, and additionally because he considered the dissertation inadequate to support an Ed.D. degree. This action was communicated to the supervisory committee. The committee met again and determined that since the Ed.D. degree could not be awarded, that Petitioner should be given failing grades for the dissertation, presentation, and defense. Prior to the department chairman's review of the dissertation, Petitioner had paid his fees and was anticipating being awarded an Ed.D. degree. Since it was not approved by the department chairman, the degree was not awarded. Thereafter, the Petitioner opted not to apply to have his work considered in support of an Ed.D. degree or master's specialist degree. He continued working toward a Ph.D. degree for approximately six months. Ultimately, he decided to drop out of the program, and he initiated this proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by Florida State University denying Petitioner's application for award of an Ed.D. degree and dismissing the Petition for Administrative Hearing. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of January, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of January, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John D. Carlson, Esquire Woods, Johnston & Carlson 1030 East Lafayette Street Suite 112 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Patricia A. Draper, Esquire Charles S. Ruberg, Esquire Florida State University Suite 311, Hecht House Tallahassee, Florida 32306 Dr. Bernard F. Sliger President Florida State University 211 Westcott Tallahassee, Florida 32306
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is licensed as a psychologist in Argentina, where she was educated. She attended the University of Buenos Aires completing a six-year program in four years. Petitioner received a degree in psychology from the University of Buenos Aires on December 23, 1977, but did not receive her diploma from that institution until June of 1979. She became licensed as a psychologist by the Ministry of Health in 1979. Upon her graduation from the University of Buenos Aires, Petitioner began to practice psychology in Argentina. She worked in a hospital from 1979 to 1983. Petitioner describes this period of work as her "internship." She also worked in a drug abuse program, which she also describes as an "internship." During these work experiences, Petitioner supervised other personnel. During the same period of time, specifically from 1980 to 1982, Petitioner also engaged in private practice. In 1981 Petitioner enrolled in the Argentina School of Psychotherapy for Graduates, where she took a number of courses and wrote a paper which she presented to the faculty there. The Argentina School of Psychotherapy for Graduates is not a degree-granting institution. Upon completion of the four year program, only a certificate is issued. Petitioner did not produce a transcript from the Argentina School of Psychotherapy for Graduates as part of her application for licensure in Florida. She submitted only a syllabus, i.e., a listing of the names of the courses she took at that institution. A syllabus, however, is not a transcript. Subsequently, Petitioner moved to the state of Michigan where she applied for licensure as a psychologist at the master's degree level. Based upon her education and training, she received a limited license to practice psychology in 1989. Michigan recognizes master's degree level psychologists. In Florida, however, master's degree level applicants are not eligible for licensure as psychologists. In 1991 Petitioner was interviewed by the licensure board in Michigan. Subsequent to that interview, Michigan granted her full licensure to practice as a psychologist in that state. In granting Petitioner full licensure, the Michigan licensing board deemed that her education and training were equivalent to education and training at the doctorate level even though between 1989 and 1991, Petitioner had not added to her education credentials. She had merely obtained additional supervised experience. At some point, Petitioner took and passed the Michigan examination for licensure. The Michigan examination is not the same as the examination for licensure developed by Professional Examination Services. Petitioner has never taken the national examination required for licensure in Florida. In 1993, Petitioner applied for licensure as a psychologist in Florida. She maintains that Michigan's determination that her education and training are equivalent to a doctorate level education should be sufficient to qualify her for Florida licensure as well. She admits, however, that she does not have a Ph.D. She also admits that there is "a huge difference" between the training in Argentina and the training in the United States. As part of her application process and in order to demonstrate to Respondent her qualifications for licensure in Florida, Petitioner submitted her education and training credentials to two foreign education credentialing services. One of those services determined that Petitioner has the equivalent of a Bachelor of Science degree in psychology from an institution in the United States that has regional academic accreditation, plus completion of four years of advanced theoretical and clinical training. The other service found that Petitioner has the equivalent of a bachelor's degree in psychology. The second credentialing service was unable to evaluate Petitioner's studies at the Argentina School of Psychotherapy for Graduates because that institution is not recognized as a degree-granting institution of higher education. Neither of those evaluations could verify that Petitioner possesses the equivalent of a doctorate degree as a result of her training and education in Argentina. In 1992, the University of Buenos Aires created a Ph.D. program in psychology; however, that program did not exist at the time that Petitioner attended that institution. The Argentina School of Psychotherapy for Graduates is not a degree granting institution and does not offer a doctorate program in psychology. At the time that Petitioner chose to attend the University of Buenos Aires and the Argentina School of Psychotherapy for Graduates, it was possible to obtain a Ph.D. in psychology in Argentina, but Petitioner chose not to pursue that course of study. Based upon Petitioner's advanced education beyond her bachelor's degree, she has the educational equivalent of a master's level degree without the thesis generally required to obtain such a degree.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application for licensure as a psychologist either by endorsement or by examination. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of June, 1996, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of June, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 94-4675 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 20- 22, 24, 28 and 46 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 4 and 10 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 6, 13-17, 19, 39, 41- 43, 47, and 50-54 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 8, 12, 18, 25-27, 34- 38, 40 and 49 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the competent evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 23, 29-33, 44, 45, and 48 have been rejected as being subordinate to the issues herein. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-10, 12 and 15 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 11, 13 and 14 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank P. Rainer, Esquire 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 815 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Virginia Daire, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol PL-01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Dr. Kay Howerton, Executive Director Agency for Health Care Administration Board of Psychology 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied for licensure as a psychologist on or about June 26, 1984 and Petitioner's application was considered by the Board of Psychological Examiners (Board). Petitioner's application for licensure was denied by the Board on the basis that Petitioner's doctoral program was not comparable to an American Psychological Association (APA) approved program in that the biological bases of behavior was not a requirement of Petitioner's doctoral program as required by Rule 21U-11.06, Florida Administrative Code. The Board adopted Rule 21U-11.06, Florida Administrative Code and essentially codified the criteria for APA approved program for the first time in this rule. The rule took effect an April 5, 1984. The pertinent part of the rule is provided below. In order to be certified by the Board as eligible for examination pursuant to Section 40.005(1), Florida Statutes, an applicant must: Complete the application form and remit the examination fee set by rule of the Board. Submit proof of the completion of a doctoral degree with a major in psychology from a university or professional school that has a program approved by the American Psychological Association or a doctoral degree in psychology from a university or professional school maintaining a standard . of training comparable to those universities having programs approved by the American Psychological Association. For the purpose of determining whether an applicant's doctoral degree in psychology was received from a university or professional school maintaining a standard of training comparable to those universities having programs approved by the American Psychological Association the Board will apply the following criteria: Education and training in psychology must have been received in an institution of higher education accredited by one of the regional accrediting bodies recognized by the Counsel on Postsecondary Accreditation. The doctoral program must be publicly identified as a psychology program, and must specify in pertinent institutional catalogs and brochures its intent to educate and train psychologists. The psychology program must stand as a recognizable, coherent organizational entity within the institution. There must be a clear authority and pri mary responsibility for the academic core and speciality preparation, whether or not the program involves multiple administrative lines. The doctoral program must be an organized integrated sequence of study designed by the psychology faculty responsible for the program. There must be an identifiable psychology faculty. The program director must be a psy chologist. The program must have an identifiable body of students who are matriculated in that pro gram for a doctoral degree. The doctoral program must include super vised practicum and/or laboratory experiences appropriate to practice, teaching or research in psychology. The doctoral program shall require a minimum of: The equivalent of three full-time academic years of graduate study; Two academic years of the three shall be in full-time residence at the institution from which the doctoral degree is granted. The doctoral program shall require each student to demonstrate knowledge and use of scientific and professional ethics and standards, research design and methodology, statistics, psychological measurements, and history and systems of psychology. Further, the program shall require each student to demonstrate knowledge in the following subs tantive areas of psychology: Biological bases of behavior (e.g., physiological, psychology, comparative psychology, neuropsychology, psychopharmacology) Cognitive-affective bases of behavior (e.g., learning, memory, perception, cognition, thinking, motivation, emotion), Social bases of behavior (e.g., social psychology, cultural-ethnic and group pro cesses, sex roles, organization and systems theory), and Individual behavior (e.g., personality theory, human development, individual differ ences, abnormal psychology, psychology of women, psychology of the handicapped). (Emphasis supplied.) Rule 21U-11.06, Florida Administrative Code was adopted to implement Section 490.005, Florida Statutes (1983). The American Psychological Association Accreditation Handbook, Criteria For Accreditation of Doctoral Training Program and Internship in Professional Psychology (Handbook) adopted in January 1979 and amended in January 1980; sets out criteria that the doctoral programs must meet to be eligible for accreditation by APA and are listed below. Training in professional psychology is doctoral training offered in an institution of higher education accredited by one of the six regional accrediting bodies recognized by the Council of Postsecondary Accreditation (COPA). The program, wherever it may be administratively housed, must be clearly and publicly identified and labeled as a professional psychology program. A recognizable, coherent organizational entity must be responsible for the program. The faculty of the program must have clear authority and primary responsibility for all aspects of the program (even if the program cuts across institutional administrative lines). The program must include an integrated, organized plan of study and must ensure a breadth of exposure to the field of psychology. The program must include supervised practicum, internship, field, or laboratory training appropriate to the practice of psychology. There must be an identifiable psychology faculty and a psychologist responsible for the program. The program must have an identifiable body of students who are matriculated in that pro gram for a degree. The institution must demonstrate its commitment to the program by appropriate financial support. APA recognizes that certain principles are basic to sound training in professional psychology and requires that these principles be adhered to in an APA approved doctoral program. These principles are found in the Handbook under Training Models and Curricula, and in pertinent part are provided below. It is the responsibility of the faculty to integrate practice with theory and research early in the program. Students should form an early identification with their profession. Faculty should be available to demonstrate and model the behaviors that students are expected to learn. A close working relationship between faculty and student is essential. The foundation of professional practice in psychology is the evolving body of knowledge in the discipline of psychology. While programs will vary in emphasis and in available resources, sound graduate education in general psychology is therefore essential in any program. The curriculum shall encompass the equivalent of a minimum of three academic years of full time resident graduate study. Instruction in scientific and professional ethics and standards, research design and methodology, statistics, psychological measurement, and history and systems of psychology must be included in every doctoral program in professional psychology. The program shall, further, require each student to demonstrate competence in each of the following substantive content areas: biological bases of behavior (e.g., physiological psychology, comparative psychology, neuropsychology, sensation, psychopharmacology. cognitive-affective bases of behavior (e.g., learning, memory, perception, cognition, thinking, motivation, emotion), social bases of behavior (e.g., social psychology; cultural, ethnic, and group processes; sex roles; organizational and systems theory), and individual behavior (e.g., personality theory, human development, individual differences, abnormal psychology). (Emphasis supplied). The uncontroverted testimony of Dr. Perry was that competency in the area of biological bases of behavior is a fundamental requirement which a doctoral psychology program must require to properly train psychologists and the policy of the Board has been since its inception in 1981 that applicants for examination must have graduated from a program which required demonstration of competence in the foundation area of biological bases of behavior. There has been no standard criteria established for all the doctoral psychology programs of the state universities in the United States. There has been no standard criteria established for all the doctoral psychology programs of the state universities in Florida. Dr. Perry testified that he had not reviewed all the doctoral psychology programs of the state universities in Florida but that it was his belief that those programs were comparable to APA approved doctoral psychology programs. Based on Dr. Perry's service with the Board, he testified that the Board is not concerned with whether the doctoral psychology programs of the state universities of Florida are comparable with APA approved doctoral psychology programs when the applicant has graduated from one of the state universities of Florida.
