Findings Of Fact Respondent is an annual contract teacher with the Dave County Public Schools and hold a Florida State teacher's certificate. Although she had worked as a teacher assistant in the past, her first year of employment as a full time teacher was the 1980-81 school year. Respondent was a teacher at Melrose Elementary School for the 1981-81 school year. At the beginning of the school year, she was assigned to teach a Compensatory Education Class. These are small classes and, in Ms. Harper's case, never exceeded 11 students. She was, however, required to keep and retain student records to enable subsequent teachers to determine at what level the student was functioning. After Respondent was transferred from the Compensatory Education classroom, the assistant principal requested that she turn in the records for the class. Respondent stated that she had destroyed them. Respondent's next assignment at Melrose Elementary School was as the teacher of a fifth-sixth grade combination regular education class. The assistant principal officially observed Respondent in the classroom three times and unofficially observed her on additional occasions. She found that Respondent lacked effective instructional planning based on Respondent's failure to complete lesson plans. The collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the Respondent's union stated that lesson plans were an essential part of the teaching process and a proper subject for evaluation. On one occasion, the school was preparing for and audit. Auditors (administrators from other schools) check teacher's plan books, grade books and other teaching materials. The assistant principal contracted Respondent several times in advance of the audit in an attempt to prepare her for it. However, Respondent failed to develop the required lesson plans, so the assistant principal wrote out a week's plans for her. She asked Respondent to take the plans home over the weekend and copy them in her own handwriting. The following Monday at the beginning of the audit, Respondent had only filled out plans for Monday, Tuesday and Friday. There were no lesson plans to be delivered to the auditors regarding Wednesday or Thursday. Testimony of Respondent's supervisor established that she was unable to control the students in her classroom, primarily because she did not assign them anything to do. Furthermore, she sent her students out to play without supervision and left her classroom unattended on several occasions, even though she had previously been instructed by her supervisor not to do so. Respondent received an unacceptable performance rating in the area of "techniques of instruction." This rating was based on the fact that Respondent did not pretest her students and therefore had no knowledge of what the student did or did not know, what he needed to be taught or where to place him in the classroom. As a result, she attempted to teach students division when those students had not yet mastered prerequisite skills. She did not divide her class into ability groups so that she could teach groups of students at their levels of comprehension, and she did not maintain student profiles which would have shown her a particular student's abilities and deficiencies. Respondent either did not assign homework to her students or they did not return it because she had no records to indicate such assignment or files containing student homework. Her records of student grades were incomplete and only sporadically maintained. In the spring of 1982, two students from Respondent's class ran into the principal's office crying. The female student had welts on her chest and face; and the male student had similar injuries to his arms. These injuries were the result of an attack by Respondent. She had not been authorized to administer corporal punishment by her supervisor. Although there was another incident where Respondent chased a student with a ruler, this was the only situation in her teaching career where her loss of control had serious consequences. She appears to regret this incident. Ms. Harper was reassigned to South Hialeah Elementary School for the school year 1982-83. When she reported to South Hialeah Elementary School on September 20, 1982, she was given a lesson plan format, a teacher handbook and other pertinent teaching materials. Respondent received a two day orientation during which she was permitted to read the handbook, observe other teachers and talk with the grade level chairman. She was given instruction in writing lesson plans in the format used throughout the county and required by the UTD-School Board Contract. She was then assigned a regular fourth grade classroom. On her second day of teaching, the assistant principal noted an unacceptable noise level emanating from Respondent's classroom during the announcement period. When she walked into the room, she found Respondent preparing her lesson plans with the students out of control. The assistant principal advised Respondent that this was not the proper time to prepare lesson plans. The next day the situation was the same, and fights broke out between students. The assistant principal was concerned for the safety of these students because of the fights and because Ms. Harper's classroom was on the second floor and students were leaning out of the windows. On October 4, 1982, the assistant principal conducted a formal evaluation of Respondent's classroom teaching, and initially found Respondent preparing lesson plans and not instructing or supervising her students. During the reading lesson, Respondent did not give individual directions to the students, but merely told them all to open their books to a particular page. Since the students were not all working in the same book because they were functioning at different levels of achievement, this created confusion. Finally, the students who had the same book as Respondent were instructed to read, while other students did nothing. After a brief period of instruction, the class was told to go to the bathroom even though this was the middle of the reading lesson and not an appropriate time for such a break. The assistant principal noted that Respondent did not have a classroom schedule or rules. The classroom was in constant confusion and Respondent repeatedly screamed at the children in unsuccessful attempts to maintain order. The assistant principal determined that these problems had to be addressed immediately. Accordingly, in addition to a regular long-term prescription, she gave Respondent a list of short-term objectives to accomplish within the next two days. These objectives consisted of the development of lesson plans and a schedule, arranging a more effective floor plan in the classroom, making provisions for participation by all of the students and developing a set of classroom rules. The assistant principal advised Respondent that if she had any difficulty accomplishing these objectives, she should contact her immediately. The short-term objectives were never accomplished. Respondent did not develop classroom rules. Although the assistant principal and other teachers attempted to teach her to write lesson plans, this was relatively unsuccessful. The principal observed the classroom on October 6, and found that no improvements had been made. She also noted that Respondent had not complied with the outline for lesson plans required by the contract between the UTD and the School Board. Neither had she complied with school's requirements for pupil progression forms. The principal advised Respondent to attempt once again to work on the short-term prescription assigned on October 4, 1982. Subsequent observations and assistance did not result in any noticeable improvement. Respondent was unable to understand the need for organizing students in groups according to their abilities. Her students contained to wander aimlessly about the classroom. She was unable to document required student information even after repeated demonstrations. She did not test students and she failed to record their grades, except sporadically. Other teachers and parents complained about classroom conduct. Some parents requested that their children be moved out of Ms. Harper's class. Others complained to school officials about telephone calls from Ms. Harper at 2:00 a.m. or 6:00 a.m. Even the school custodian complained because Respondent's students repeatedly threw papers out of the windows. The principal arranged for Respondent to meet with the grade level chairman and the assistant principal to learn to develop lesson plans. She obtained information about classes at the Teacher Education Center of Florida International University and directed Ms. Harper to attend the classes. She subsequently determined that Respondent had not attended. Respondent told the principal that she could not attend because of car trouble. At the hearing, Respondent stated that not only did she have car trouble, but since she was a single parent, she lacked the time and money to attend the classes. She conceded, however, that the classes were free. In a further effort to assist her, Respondent was excused from her regular classroom duties to observe successful teachers. On one occasion she was found taking a coffee break instead. Again, there was not improvement apparent from this remedial measure. At the principal's request, the School Board's area director observed Respondent on November 11, 1982. Her testimony established that Respondent worked with only one group of three students in the classroom and the reading lesson being taught to those children was below their appropriate level. She also observed that there were no records indicating the progress of Respondent's students and that the students were talking continually. Due to her numerous difficulties in teaching and the lack of progress in correcting the deficiencies, the principal, assistant principal and area director concluded that Respondent lacked the requisite competence to continue in her contract position. A recommendation of dismissal to the School Board followed on January 6, 1983, Respondent was suspended. After her suspension, Respondent secured employment as a teacher of English for speakers of other languages (ESOL) at the Tri-City Community Association. Testimony of its director established that Respondent is an effective teacher of ESOL and that she trains other teachers to perform this function.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order revoking Respondent's Florida teaching certificate and providing the right of reapplication after one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th 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 20th day of December, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig R. Wilson, Esquire 315 Third Street, Suite 204 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Ellen Leesfield, Esquire 2929 S.W. Third Avenue Miami, Florida 33129 Donald L. Griesheimer, Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue Respondent's continued employment with the Dade County Public Schools, as set forth in minutes of the School Board for October 19, 1977.
Findings Of Fact During the 1975-1976 and 1976-1977 academic school years, Respondent was an employee of the Petitioner as a teacher at the Richmond Heights Junior High School. (Stipulation) By order of the State Board of Education, dated September 20, 1977, the teaching certificate of Respondent, Department of Education Number 3436, was suspended for a period of two years. The matter is currently being appealed to the First District Court of Appeal. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, Stipulation) On October 19, 1977, Respondent was suspended without pay from his position by Petitioner due to the suspension of his teaching certificate by the State Board of Education. On October 31, 1977, Respondent requested a hearing in the matter. Petitioner provided Respondent with formal notice of charges on December 13, 1977, seeking his dismissal from employment with the school system. Respondent became a teacher in 1937 and has been employed in that capacity by Petitioner since 1961. He testified at the hearing to the effect that, in his opinion, the present proceedings are improper in that the action by the State Board of Education was premature and should not have been taken until the charges upon which such action was based had been considered by Petitioner in administrative proceedings. Respondent sought to introduce character testimony in his behalf by a number of witnesses, but upon objection by Petitioner, such testimony was not permitted by the Hearing Officer as it would be irrelevant to the proceedings. The proffered testimony would have shown that the witnesses had all known the Respondent for a lengthy period of time and that he is a dedicated employee of the school system who has served his community and church as an example for students. (Testimony of Anders, Respondent)
Recommendation That Respondent, Raphu S. Williams, be dismissed from employment as a teacher by the School Board of Dade County, Florida, under the authority of Section 231.36(4), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of April, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jesse McCrary, Esquire Dade County Public Schools Lindsey Hopkins Building 1410 Northeast 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Elizabeth DuFresne, Esquire One Biscayne Tower Suite 1782 Miami, Florida 33131 Phyllis O. Douglas, Esquire Dade County Public Schools Administrative Office Lindsey Hopkins Building 1410 Northeast 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue Whether Respondent's employment should be terminated based on the allegations contained in the Notice of Specific Charges.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner has been 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, pursuant to Article IX, Florida Constitution, and Section 1001.32. Petitioner has continuously employed Respondent since 1992 as a custodian at Melrose Elementary School, one of the public schools in Miami-Dade County. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Cynthia Gracia was the principal of Melrose Elementary School. Respondent is a non-probationary "educational support employee" within the meaning of Section 1012.40, which provides, in pertinent part, as follows: As used in this section: "Educational support employee" means any person employed by a district school system . . . who by virtue of his or her position of employment is not required to be certified by the Department of Education or district school board pursuant to s. 1012.39. . . . "Employee" means any person employed as an educational support employee. (2)(a) Each educational support employee shall be employed on probationary status for a period to be determined through the appropriate collective bargaining agreement or by district school board rule in cases where a collective bargaining agreement does not exist. (b) Upon successful completion of the probationary period by the employee, the employee's status shall continue from year to year unless the superintendent terminates the employee for reasons stated in the collective bargaining agreement, or in district school board rule in cases where a collective bargaining agreement does not exist . . . At the times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a member of the AFSCME collective bargaining unit. AFSCME and Petitioner have entered into a CBA, which provides in Article XI for discipline of covered employees. Article XI, Section 4 provides that covered employees who have been employed by Petitioner for more than five years (such as Respondent) may only be discharged for "just cause." Article XI, Section 4 of the CBA pertains to types of separation from employment. Article XI, Section 4(B) pertains to excessive absenteeism and abandonment of position and provides as follows: (B) An unauthorized absence for three consecutive workdays shall be evidence of abandonment of position. Unauthorized absences totaling 10 or more workdays during the previous 12-month period shall be evidence of excessive absenteeism. Either of the foregoing shall be grounds for termination. . . . School Board Rule 6Gx13-4E-1.01 provides as follows: Except for sudden illness or emergency situations, any employee who is absent without prior approval shall be deemed to have been willfully absent without leave. Pursuant to Section 1012.67, a school board is authorized to terminate the employment of an employee who is willfully absent from employment without authorized leave, as follows: Any district school board employee who is willfully absent from duty without leave shall forfeit compensation for the time of such absence, and his or her employment shall be subject to termination by the school board. Petitioner's leave policies do not permit a leave of absence for an incarcerated employee, unless the employee can demonstrate that he or she was wrongfully incarcerated. At the times material to this proceeding, Respondent was not wrongfully incarcerated, and he was not eligible for a leave of absence under Petitioner’s leave polices. School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 states in pertinent part that: All persons employed by The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida are representatives of the Miami-Dade County Public Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct themselves, both in their employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system. On September 25, 2002, Respondent was charged with assault and battery (domestic violence) involving his then girlfriend. Those charges were pending at the time of the final hearing. On or about November 14, 2002, Respondent appeared at a court hearing. Because he had missed an earlier court date, Respondent was incarcerated in the Miami-Dade County jail. Shortly after he was arrested, Respondent attempted to contact Ms. Gracia at Melrose Elementary School. Respondent testified he tried to call the school five or six times on the day he was arrested, but the call from jail was long distance and the school would not take a collect call. That same day, Respondent called his new girlfriend (Leanne Perez), told her that he was in jail, and asked her to tell Ms. Gracia that he was in jail. On November 14, 2002, Ms. Perez told Ms. Gracia by telephone that Respondent had been detained. When questioned, Ms. Perez explained that Respondent was in jail, but she did not provide any additional information. Respondent returned to his job site on December 16, 2002. Between November 14 and December 16, Respondent was absent from work without authorized leave. Neither Respondent nor anyone on Respondent's behalf contacted or attempted to contact Ms. Gracia between Ms. Perez's telephone call on November 14 and Respondent's reappearance at the job site on December 16. Prior to his incarceration, Respondent had absences from work without authorized leave. From April 11, 2002, to December 16, 2002, Respondent had 29.5 days of unauthorized absences from the worksite. Respondent's unauthorized absences impeded the provision of the custodial services that are necessary to keep a school clean and safe. During Respondent's unauthorized absences, the other members of the custodial staff had to perform their duties and had to perform extra work to cover for Respondent's absence. On December 5, 2002, Ms. Gracia wrote a memorandum to Respondent styled "Employment Intention." After listing the dates Respondent had been absent between October 10, 2002, and December 5, Ms. Gracia wrote as follows: These absences have caused the effective operation of the worksite to be impeded, and/or efficient services to students to be impeded. I am requesting your immediate review and implementation of any of the following options: Notify the worksite of your intended date of return; or Effect leave procedures (request for leave [form] attached); or Implement resignation from Miami-Dade County Public Schools. (Resignation letter attached.) You are directed to notify the worksite within 3 days of the date of this memorandum as to your employment intention. Your absences will be considered unauthorized until you communicate directly with this administrator. Ms. Gracia's memorandum was mailed to the address Respondent had given Petitioner as his residence, and a relative of Respondent, who was not named at the final hearing, signed for the mailing. Respondent testified, credibly, that he did not receive the memorandum until after he got out of jail. Respondent did not respond to the memorandum. Respondent testified, credibly, that he did not intend to abandon his employment. Respondent worked between December 16, 2002, and April 9, 2003, the date Petitioner suspended Respondent's employment without pay and instituted these proceedings to terminate his employment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order that adopts the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth in this Recommended Order, sustains the suspension of Respondent's employment without pay, and terminates that employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of October, 2003.
The Issue The issues for determination at the final hearing were: 1) whether the Respondent should be dismissed from employment due to incompetency; and 2) whether the conflict in the statute cited in the Notice of Charges dated November 18, 1982, and the Notice of Hearing dated June 18, 1983, constitute inadequate notice to the Respondent Muina of the charges against him. At the final hearing, Marsha Gams, a learning disability teacher at Carol City Junior High School, Rosetta Vickers, Director of Exceptional Student Education, Dade County School Board, Carol Cortes, principal at Carol City Junior High School, Karen Layland, department chairperson of the Exceptional Education Department at Carol City Junior High School and Desmond Patrick Gray, Jr., Executive Director of Personnel, Dade County School Board, testified for the Petitioner School Board. Petitioner's Exhibits 1-13 were offered and admitted into evidence. Yvonne Perez, Bargaining Agent Representative, United Teachers of Dade, Alexander Muina and Desmond Patrick Gray, Jr., testified for the Respondent. Respondent's Exhibits 1-5 were offered and admitted into evidence. Subsequent to the hearing, the Respondent requested via telephone conference call, that Respondent's Exhibit 6, the published contract between the Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade, be admitted into evidence as a late-filed exhibit. The contract was admitted over Petitioner's objection. Proposed Recommended Orders containing findings of fact have been submitted by the parties and considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order. When the parties' findings of fact were consistent with the weight of the credible evidence introduced at final hearing, they were adopted and are reflected in this Recommended Order. To the extent that the findings were not consistent with the weight of the credible evidence, they have been either rejected, or when possible, modified to conform to the evidence. Additionally, proposed findings which were subordinate, cumulative, immaterial or unnecessary have not been adopted. On July 11, 1983, the Petitioner filed objections to the Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Penalty. Certain of the Petitioner's objections were subsequently stipulated to by the Respondent and are not in issue in this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Alexander Muina has been employed by the Dade County School System for approximately nine years. He initially worked with regular students, then worked as an assistant teacher with profoundly mentally handicapped students. During the 1979-80 school year, the Respondent became a permanent substitute in a class for the trainable mentally handicapped. He held this position for approximately two months and during that period received a satisfactory annual evaluation. During the 1980-81 school year the Respondent was assigned to the "ESOL" Program which is an acronym for English for Speakers of Other Languages. During this period, the Respondent taught as an itinerant teacher at three different schools each week. One of the schools the Respondent was assigned was Carol City Junior High School, where he taught on Thursdays and Fridays, as part of the Entrant Program. This was a program which was established for the approximately 13,000 children who had entered the Dade County School System during the Mariel boat lift. Mrs. Carol Cortes, principal at Carol City Junior High School, compiled the Respondent's annual evaluation for 1980-81 after consulting with the two other principals to whose schools Respondent was also assigned. At that time, Respondent received an acceptable annual evaluation from Cortes; however, Cortes had not continually observed the Respondent or had continuous direct contact with him since he was only at the school two days a week. At the close of the 1980-81 school year, the Respondent asked Cortes if there was an opening in exceptional education in which he could be placed. Toward the end of the summer a position became available in varying exceptionalities, an area in which the Respondent is certified by the State of Florida, and he accepted this position. A varying exceptionality class includes students who have three types of learning disabilities or exceptional problems, including the educable mentally handicapped, the learning disabled, and the emotionally handicapped. Although the Respondent is certified by the State of Florida to teach varying exceptionalities, during his first year instructing the class the Respondent experienced significant problems which are reflected in his evaluations of November, January and March of the 1981-82 school year. The first observation of Respondent as a varying exceptionalities teacher was done on November 5, 1981, by Carol Cortes, principal. The Respondent's overall summary rating was unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning and classroom management. Individual Education Plans (IEPs) for each of the students were not being followed. The Respondent was not using the IEPs to develop activities for the students which would meet the goals of providing "diagnostic prescriptive teaching." Using the IEPs and the diagnostic prescriptive teaching techniques is crucial to the success of exceptional educational students. The students were not being taught according to their individual abilities, but rather were doing similar classroom work. Additionally, classroom management was lacking in that the Respondent did not formulate adequate behavior modification plans for the students who were observed talking and milling about the classroom. Following her first observation, Cortes offered assistance to Respondent, including changing his physical classroom layout and placing him with the department chairperson. This was done so that the chairperson could assist in developing the activities and plans necessary for the students and could also provide support in developing behavior modification plans. Cortes also asked the school psychologist to work with the Respondent in establishing such plans. Dr. Gorman, the assistant principal, had frequent informal observations of the Respondent in an attempt to help him with his classroom difficulties. The next formal observation of Respondent was performed by Cortes on January 20, 1983, and the overall summary rating was again unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, classroom management and techniques of instruction. Preparation and planning was unacceptable because the Respondent was still not following the student's IEPs. He continued to assign the same general activities to all students regardless of individual differences. His class was confused regarding their goals. Because the Respondent was not teaching toward the objectives set forth in the IEPs, the children were not achieving a minimum education experience. The Respondent was marked unacceptable in classroom management because he did not have adequate control over the students. Students were walking around the class and the class was generally noisy The work that the Respondent did with individual students was in the nature of giving directions rather than actually teaching. In order to teach it is necessary to provide students with new concepts and provide teacher input rather than simply monitor students. The Respondent was marked unacceptable in techniques of instruction because his lesson planning was deficient. He spent the majority of time in the classroom attempting to discipline students. His grade book was kept in an inappropriate manner and the students were frustrated. As a result of these problems, Cortes requested that the Respondent visit a program at Madison Junior High School which had an acceptable behavior modification program in place. The Respondent visited the program on January 26, 1982; however, no substantial improvement after the Respondent's visit was noted. The Respondent also took a reading course in late January, 1982. No significant improvement was noted following completion of that course. In January of 1982, a social studies position at Carol City Junior High School became available. Cortes offered that position to the Respondent and he could have transferred into the social studies department if he had so desired. The Respondent, however, elected to remain in the field of exceptional student instruction. At that time, Cortes felt that the Respondent was attempting to deal with his deficiencies and he should be given the opportunity to correct the problems with his class. Mrs. Vickers, Director of Exceptional Student Education for Dade County Schools, made a routine visit to Carol City Junior High School on January 27, 1982. She had heard from one of her education specialists that there were difficulties in classroom management in the Respondent's classroom. She observed that many of the students were not on task in that they walked around the classroom, talked out loud, and called the Respondent "pops". A few of the students tried to work, but the noise level in the class was so high it was disruptive. Vickers chose not to do a formal observation at that time, because she felt that there were many areas that she could not have marked acceptable. Instead, Vickers chose to do a planning session with Respondent on that same date. At the planning session, Vickers discussed with Respondent such topics as getting the students on task, bringing supplies and materials, completing assignments and doing homework. She discussed IEPs with the Respondent and the minimal skills tests that the children are administered in grades 5, 8 and 11. She explained to the Respondent how to use a grade book and examined the student's work folders. Although the folders contained significant amounts of work, the work did not correlate with the objectives on the children's IEPs. Vickers was also concerned that the Respondent was monitoring the class rather than directly instructing the students on specific skills. He did not pull individual students or groups aside for direct instruction. Vickers returned to the Respondent's classroom on February 25, 1982, in order to conduct a formal observation. At that time, Vickers gave the Respondent an unacceptable overall summary rating. She found him deficient in the categories of classroom management, techniques of instruction, assessment techniques, student-teacher relationships, and acceptable in the category of preparation and planning. She rated the Respondent unacceptable in classroom management because a serious problem existed with the management of his students who were not on task. The students were not working in an orderly fashion and the class was so loud that it distracted the class on the other side of the room. When Vickers tried to speak with the teacher in the adjoining room, the noise level in the Respondent's class prevented a successful conversation between them. Due to these problems, the Respondent's students were not receiving a minimum education experience. Children with learning disabilities are easily distracted by visual or auditory interference; this problem was occurring in Respondent's class. Vickers rated the Respondent unacceptable in techniques of instruction since he was not using the diagnostic prescriptive teaching method that is required in the Dade County School System. Respondent was not utilizing small groups to give specific help with skills, but was instead, monitoring. Vickers also rated the Respondent unacceptable in assessment techniques. Exceptional education teachers are required to do a profile on each student showing the skills that the student has met and the skills that the student needs to improve. The Respondent did not meet this requirement. Finally, Vickers found the Respondent unacceptable in student-teacher relationships since she observed that the students showed an unacceptable level of respect for the Respondent. Vickers suggested that the Respondent visit three other exceptional education teachers along with regular teachers in school. She also scheduled an assertive discipline workshop for exceptional education teachers and asked that Respondent attend. The Respondent however, did not attend the workshop. On March 25, 1982, Cortes completed Respondent's annual evaluation for 1981-82 and recommended nonreappointment. This annual evaluation took into consideration all of the observations done by administrators in the building. She found the Respondent unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. Cortes next observed the Respondent on May 17, 1982, and again gave him an overall summary rating of unacceptable. She found him unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning and classroom management. Preparation and planning was unacceptable because the Respondent was not following the IEPs for the students. Cortes observed that the Respondent misspelled a word on the black board and the students copied his misspelling. Classroom management remained unacceptable because most of the class was not working. The Respondent continued to have difficulties controlling his students who continued to address him inappropriately by calling him "pops". As the Respondent moved from student to student, the remainder of the class was either talking or milling about the room. Respondent did not have understandable classroom rules and resultant consequences for breaking such rules. Rather than institute positive rewards for students who met the classroom criteria, his emphasis was on negative reinforcement. Following Cortes' discussion with the Respondent as to these deficiencies, she continued to see minimal improvement. It was also recommended that the Respondent visit Mrs. Layland, the department chairperson, to observe her classroom management techniques. Layland had a behavior modification plan in place and was able to work individually with each student while other students remained on task. The Respondent did visit Mrs. Layland's class but there was no significant improvement following that visit. On May 24, 1982, Cortes performed a second annual evaluation on the Respondent in which she found him unacceptable in one category, preparation and planning and acceptable in the remaining categories, but did not recommend him for reemployment. The second annual evaluation had only one unacceptable category, preparation and planning, and overall Respondent was rated unacceptable. However, the area in which the Respondent was rated unacceptable is especially important in the context of exceptional education. Preparation and planning is an important aspect of this field since planning for exceptional education students must be done on an individual basis. Additionally, the teacher has to plan what each student will be learning over a given period of time, and such planning is necessary in order to successfully instruct these students. Notwithstanding the Respondent's improvement, Cortes moved for his nonreappointment at the conclusion of the 1981-82 school year. The Respondent, however, was reappointed for the 1982-83 school year, when it was determined that the documentation upon which the nonreappointment was to be based was insufficient due to noncompliance with the existing union contract. Prior to the completion of the 1981-82 school year, the Respondent, through his area representative, Yvonne Perez, requested a transfer back into a regular classroom where the Respondent could teach Spanish or Social Studies. This was based on the Respondent's recognition that he was encountering extreme difficulties in teaching varying exceptionalities. Patrick Gray, Personnel Director for the Dade County School System, was aware of the request for a transfer on behalf of the Respondent and agreed to consider it. Gray subsequently determined not to transfer the Respondent, and reassigned him to his existing position. Following his assignment back to Carol City Junior High School, Cortes began to formally observe the Respondent. The first such observation of the 1982-83 school year occurred on September 13, 1982, less than one month after teachers had returned to school. Cortes observed the Respondent and documented an observation sheet with five attached papers. Observations performed the previous year had included only one statement. Approximately one month later, Cortes conducted another observation with four detailed attachments. The documentation provided to the Respondent in September and October of 1982 was accumulated to verify or affirm the decision which was made by Cortes in May of the prior year, to terminate the Respondent. Based on Cortes' observations of the Respondent while he was employed at Carol City Junior High School, she would not recommend him for a teaching position in any other field. According to Cortes, the Respondent is lacking the basic skills necessary to be a successful teacher. Marsha Gams, chairperson of the Exceptional Education Department at Carol City Junior High School during the 1981-82 school year and Respondent's supervisor, met with the Respondent on numerous occasions during the course of his assignment to Carol City Junior High School. Although Gams saw improvement on Respondent's part during the period that she observed him, the improvement was not significant. Based on Gams' observation of the Respondent's class, she felt that the Respondent's students were not receiving a minimum education experience since the Respondent did not have an adequate grasp of the curriculum and materials required for the learning disabled and educable mentally handicapped students. The Respondent's class eventually affected Gams' students due to the noise level which came from his adjoining class. Karen Layland, chairperson of the Exceptional Education Department at Carol City Junior High School during the 1982-83 school year, also worked with the Respondent. They had joint planning periods and spent a number of afternoons reviewing lesson plans, methods, curriculum, and matching materials to IEP objectives. According to Layland, the Respondent's basic problem was that he did not clearly understand the requirements of teaching varying exceptionalities Layland did not observe significant academic progress in the Respondent's class. The Respondent's grade book was disorganized and the materials contained in the student's folders were not appropriate for the particular students. Moreover, there was a lack of organization in his classroom in that students left class without permission. Although Layland felt that the Respondent was well intentioned, he did not have an adequate grasp of the curriculum, teaching management and behavior management that are necessary in an exceptional education setting. Even if Layland had been allowed to continue to work with the Respondent for the remainder of the school year, she did not feel that he could have been brought up to a competent level to teach varying exceptionalities during that period of time. Based on her observations, Layland believed that the Respondent's students were not receiving a minimum education experience due to the Respondent's lack of definite knowledge of methods in instructional techniques for varying exceptional students. By November, 1982, the School Board had made a determination that the school system had exhausted its remedies to raise the Respondent's performance to an acceptable level. Although the Respondent had obtained an acceptable rating from Cortes at the end of the 1982 school year, even this evaluation demonstrated a serious deficiency on Respondent's part. Additionally, during the 1981-82 school year the Respondent encountered numerous significant problems which had not been adequately remediated in order to permit him to continue teaching varying exceptionality students. The school board administration declined Perez' request that the Respondent be transferred into a regular class on the belief that the Respondent was incompetent in basic classroom instruction. However, based on the Respondent's teaching record prior to his employment at Carol City Junior High School, the Respondent encountered difficulties only when he was teaching varying exceptionalities, and in other fields, his basic skills were documented as acceptable. At all material times, the Respondent was employed as an annual contract teacher and did not hold a professional service contract.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Petitioner Dade County School Board affirming the dismissal of the Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, 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 26th day of September, 1983.
The Issue The issue is whether the allegations contained in the Second Amended Administrative Complaint filed by Petitioner are true, and if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The School Board has employed Dr. Whalen since 1997. She first worked as a teacher at Gladys Morse Elementary School. When Morse closed she was transferred to Taylor Elementary School, a new school. She continued teaching at Taylor Elementary School until January 19, 2005. Her employment was pursuant to a professional services contract. Dr. Whalen holds Florida Educator's Certificate No. 530568. Dr. Whalen has been confined to a wheelchair for almost 55 years. She cannot move her lower extremities and she is without feeling in her lower extremities. On January 19, 2005, she was approximately 58 years of age. During times pertinent Dr. Whalen taught a "varying exceptionalities" class. A "varying exceptionalities" class is provided for students who have a specific learning disability, or have emotional difficulties, or who have a physical handicap. She has been an exceptional student education teacher for about 20 years. She has never been disciplined by an employer during her career. In addition to her teaching activities she is also County Coordinator for the Special Olympics. The Commissioner of Education is the chief educational officer of the state and is responsible for giving full assistance to the State Board of Education in enforcing compliance with the mission and goals of the K-20 education system. The State Board of Education's mission includes the provision of certification requirements for all school-based personnel. The Education Practices Commission is appointed by the State Board of Education and has the authority to discipline teachers. Nonviolent Crisis Intervention Kathy Kriedler is currently a teacher at Taylor Elementary School. She is certified in teaching emotionally impaired children and has taught emotionally impaired children in Taylor County since 1983. She is an outstanding teacher who was recently named Taylor County Elementary School Teacher of the Year and Taylor County District Teacher of the Year. Ms. Kriedler is a master level instructor in Nonviolent Crisis Intervention, which is a program of the Crisis Prevention Institute. The use of skills associated with the program is generally referred to as CPI. CPI arms teachers with the skills necessary to de-escalate a crisis involving a student, or, in the event de-escalation fails, provides the skills necessary to physically control students. Ms. Kriedler has been the School Board's CPI teacher since 1987. CPI teaches that there are four stages of crisis development and provides four staff responses to each stage. These stages and responses are: (1) Anxiety-Supportive; (2) Defensive-Directive; (3) Acting Out Person-Nonviolent Physical Crisis Intervention; and (4) Tension Reduction- Therapeutic Rapport. The thrust of CPI is the avoidance of physical intervention when possible. The CPI Workbook notes that, "The crisis development model . . . is an extremely valuable tool that can be utilized to determine where a person is during an escalation process." It then notes, helpfully, "Granted, human behavior is not an orderly 1-4 progression." The CPI Workbook provides certain responses for a situation that has devolved into violence. CPI physical control techniques include the "children's control position" which is also referred to as the "basket hold." CPI also provides a maneuver called the "bite release" which is used when a child bites a teacher and the "choke release" which is used when a child chokes a teacher. CPI specifically forbids sitting or lying on a child who is lying on the floor because this could cause "positional asphyxia." In other words, an adult who lies upon a child could prevent a child from breathing. CPI holds are not to be used for punishment. The School Board encourages teachers to learn and apply CPI in their dealings with students. The use of CPI is not, however, mandatory School Board policy nor is it required by the State Board of Education. Dr. Whalen took and passed Ms. Kriedler's CPI course and took and passed her refresher course. She had at least 16 hours of instruction in CPI. She could not accomplish some of the holds taught because of her physical handicap. The alleged chain incident Ms. Amanda Colleen Fuquay taught with Dr. Whalen when both of them were teachers at Gladys Morse Elementary School. Ms. Fuquay, like Dr. Whalen, taught exceptional children. Ms. Fuquay's first teaching job after receipt of her bachelor's degree was at Morse Elementary School. At the time Ms. Fuquay began teaching, Dr. Whalen was also a teacher at Morse. The record does not reveal when Ms. Fuqua initially began teaching at Morse, but it was after 1997 and before August 2002, when Morse Elementary merged into the new Taylor Elementary School. During Ms. Fuqua's first year of teaching she entered Dr. Whalen's class. She testified that upon entry she observed a male student chained to a chair at his desk. The chain may have been about the size of a dog choker. She said that the chain ran through the student's belt loop and around the chair. Ms. Fuqua said that she inquired of Dr. Whalen as to the reason for the chain and she replied, in perhaps a joking way, that the student wouldn't sit down. The evidence does not reveal when this occurred or even in what year it occurred. The evidence does not reveal the name of the alleged victim. The evidence does not reveal the victim's response to being chained to the chair. The evidence does not reveal whether Dr. Whalen chained the child or if someone else chained the child or if it just appeared that the child was chained. Robin Whiddon was Dr. Whalen's aide for school years 1998-99, 1999-2000, and 2000-2001, and she testified at the hearing. She did not mention this incident. Ms. Fuqua could not discern if this was a serious matter or whether it was some sort of a joke. She said, "I didn't have a clue." Ms. Fuqua failed to report this incident because she was new to teaching and she had not, "learned the ropes." Dr. Whalen denied under oath that she had ever chained a student to a chair, and specifically denied that she had done it in 1999, which is within the time frame that Ms. Fuqua could have observed this. Moreover, she specifically denied having chains in her classroom. The Commissioner has the burden of proving the facts in this case, as will be discussed in detail below, by clear and convincing evidence. Undoubtedly, Ms. Fuqua saw a chain of some sort that appeared to be positioned in such a manner as to restrain the unidentified student. However, the lack of any corroborating evidence, the paucity of details, and the denial of wrong-doing by Dr. Whalen prevents a finding, by clear and convincing evidence, of maltreatment. The alleged incident involving S.A. On August 13, 1998, at Morse, Ms. Kriedler was called by Dr. Whalen to her class. When Ms. Kriedler entered the class she observed Dr. Whalen holding S.A.'s arms to his desk with her right hand and holding the hair of his head by her left hand. She stated to Ms. Kriedler that, "If he moves a quarter of an inch, I'm going to rip the hair out of his head." Dr. Whalen also related that S.A. had kicked her. Dr. Whalen also said to S.A., in the presence of Ms. Kriedler, "Go ahead and kick me because I can't feel it." This referred to her handicap. By this time S.A. was motionless. After a discussion with Ms. Kriedler, Dr. Whalen released S.A. and Ms. Kriedler took him to her classroom. Subsequently, Ms. Kriedler requested that he be transferred to her class and that request was granted. Ms. Kriedler reported this incident to Shona Murphy, the Taylor County School District Exceptional Student Education Administrator. Ms. Murphy stated that Ms. Kriedler reported to her that that S.A. was flailing about and kicking when Dr. Whalen threatened to pull his hair. Robin Whiddon was Dr. Whalen's aide on August 13, 1998. She recalls S.A. and described him as a troubled young man who was full of anger. He would sometimes come to school appearing disheveled. He had blond hair that was usually short. Ms. Whiddon has observed him lash out at others with his hands. Ms. Whiddon was not present in the classroom when the incident described by Ms. Kriedler occurred. However, upon her return to the classroom, Dr. Whalen informed her that she had grabbed S.A. by the hair until she could control him. Ms. Murphy discussed the incident with Principal Izell Montgomery and Superintendent Oscar Howard in late August 1998. As a result of the discussions, these officials decided to video-tape Dr. Whalen's classroom, and to take no other action. Dr. Whalen denied under oath that she grabbed S.A.'s hair. Despite Dr. Whalen's assertion to the contrary and upon consideration of all of the evidence, it has been proven by clear and convincing evidence that Dr. Whalen grabbed and held S.A.'s hair and threatened to pull it out. Grabbing a student's hair is not an approved CPI hold. However, at the time this occurred Dr. Whalen was not required to use CPI methods. Grabbing a student's hair is generally unacceptable conduct unless, for instance, it is done in self- defense, or in order to protect the student or others. It has been not been proven by clear and convincing evidence that grabbing S.A.'s hair was impermissible. Dr. Whalen told Ms. Kriedler that S.A. had been kicking her. This statement raises the possibility that the action was initiated as a self-defense measure. When one considers that Dr. Whalen has limited mobility, and that her aide was not present, she was permitted to take reasonable actions to defend herself. Grabbing a student's hair may have been reasonable under the circumstances and, in the event, the record does not provide enough evidence to permit a determination. The video-tape of November 20, 2002 A video-tape, that included audio, and which was made part of the record of the case, portrays events on the morning of November 20, 2002. The video-tape was brought to the attention of the school administration by a parent who had received the video-tape from Dr. Whalen. The picture quality of the video is satisfactory but the audio is derived from a microphone near Dr. Whalen's desk. Therefore, it is clear that the microphone did not record all of the words spoken in the classroom at the time and date pertinent. Accordingly, facts found as a result of viewing the video-tape are limited to those which are clearly depicted by it. The School Board had discussed the wearing of apparel with representations of the Confederate battle flag on them in a meeting immediately prior to November 20, 2002. Early in the morning of November 20, 2002, there was a discussion with regard to the School Board deliberations among some of Dr. Whalen's students. The discussion came close to degenerating into physical conflict. This was reported to Dr. Whalen's aide, Ruth Ann Austin. It was further reported that some students called some of their fellow students "rebels," and others called other students "Yankees" and "gangsters." Assistant Principal Verges visited the classroom at the beginning of the school day, at Dr. Whalen's request, and he explained the matters discussed at the School Board meeting. Upon the departure of Assistant Principal Verges, Dr. Whalen unleashed a torrent of criticism upon her students addressing the subject of name-calling. Dr. Whalen spoke to the students in a loud and threatening tone of voice. While delivering this tirade, Dr. Whalen traveled to and fro in her motorized wheelchair. The video-tape revealed that this wheelchair was capable of rapid movement and that it was highly maneuverable. The lecture was delivered in a wholly confrontational and offensive manner. The lecture continued for more than 30 minutes. This behavior was the opposite of the de-escalating behavior that is suggested by CPI. However, Dr. Whalen had never been directed to employ CPI. S.O. was a student in Dr. Whalen's class and was present on November 20, 2002. He was a student of the Caucasian race who had, prior to this date, displayed aggressive and violent behavior toward Assistant Principal Verges and toward Ruth Ann Austin, Dr. Whalen's aide. Some on the school staff described him, charitably, as "non-compliant." S.O. was quick to curse and had in the past, directed racial slurs to Ms. Austin, who is an African-American. Because of his propensity to kick those to whom his anger was directed, his parents had been requested to ensure that he wear soft shoes while attending school. On November 20, 2002, S.O. was wearing cowboy boots and a Dixie Outfitters shirt with the Confederate battle flag emblazoned upon the front. Subsequent to Dr. Whalen's tirade, S.O. slid out of his chair onto the carpeted floor of the classroom. Dr. Whalen instructed him to get back in his chair, and when he did not, she tried to force him into the chair. She threatened S.O. by saying, "Do you want to do the floor thing?" When S.O., slid out of his chair again, Dr. Whalen forcibly removed S.O.'s jacket. Thereafter, Ms. Austin approached S.O. Ms. Austin is a large woman. Ms. Austin removed S.O.'s watch and yanked S.O.'s boots from his feet and threw them behind his chair. Dr. Whalen drove her wheelchair into the back of S.O.'s chair with substantial violence. Thereafter, Ms. Austin removed S.O. from the classroom. Removing S.O.'s jacket, watch, and boots was acceptable under the circumstances because they could have been used as weapons. The act of driving the wheelchair into the back of S.O.'s chair, however, was unnecessary and unhelpful. A memorandum of counseling was presented to Dr. Whalen by Principal Ivey on December 2, 2002, which addressed her behavior as portrayed by the video-tape. The S.O. and C.C. incidents Reports from time to time were made to Assistant Principal Verges, and others, that Dr. Whalen engaged in an activity commonly referred to as "kissing the carpet." This referred to physically taking children down to the floor and sitting on them. During April 2003, Dr. Whalen reported to Assistant Principal Verges and Ms. Kriedler that she had recently put two students on the carpet. During the four years Mr. Verges was Dr. Whalen's Assistant Principal, Dr. Whalen reported a total of only about four instances of having to physically restrain students. Dr. Whalen has never told Mr. Verges that she has regularly restrained children on the floor. Dr. Whalen's agent for using physical restraint is her aide, Ms. Austin, because Dr. Whalen's handicap does not permit her to easily engage in physical restraint. Ms. Austin physically restrained children five or six or seven times during the four years she was Dr. Whalen's aide. On four occasions a child actually went to the floor while being restrained by Ms. Austin. One of the two students who were reported to have been physically restrained during the April 2003, time frame was S.M. During this time frame S.M. became a new student in Dr. Whalen's class. S.M. was unhappy about being placed in a "slow" class. It was Ms. Austin's practice to meet Dr. Whalen's students when they exited the school bus in the morning. Accordingly, she met S.M., the new student. S.M. was "mouthy" when she exited the bus and would not get in line with the other children. S.M. and the rest of the children were taken to the lunch room in order to procure breakfast. While there, S.M. obtained a tray containing peaches and other food and threw the contents to the floor. Ms. Austin instructed S.M. to clean up the mess she made. S.M. responded by pushing Ms. Austin twice, and thereafter Ms. Austin put S.M. in a basket hold. S.M. struggled and they both fell on the floor. Ms. Austin called for assistance and someone named "Herb" arrived. Herb put a basket hold on S.M. while Ms. Austin tried to remove S.M.'s boots because S.M. was kicking her. S.M. was almost as tall as Ms. Austin and was very strong. At the end of the day, Ms. Austin was trying to "beat the rush" and to get her students on the school bus early. She was standing in the door to the classroom attempting to get her students to form a line. She and Dr. Whalen had planned for S.M., and another student, with whom she had engaged in an ongoing disagreement, to remain seated while the rest of their classmates got on the bus. While the line was being formed, S.M. and her fellow student had been directed to sit still. Instead, S.M. rose, said that she was not going to wait, and tried to push by Ms. Austin. Ms. Austin responded by asking her to sit down. S.M. said she would not sit down and pushed Ms. Austin yet again. Ms. Austin tried to restrain her and told the other students to get to the bus as best as they could because she was struggling with S.M. and was having substantial difficulty in restraining her. Ms. Austin asked for help. She and S.M. fell to the floor. S.M. was on the carpet. Dr. Whalen slid from her wheelchair and attempted to restrain the top part of S.M.'s body. Ms. Austin held the bottom part of her body and attempted to remove her boots with which S.M. was kicking. S.M. was cursing, screaming, and otherwise demonstrating her anger. Dr. Whalen talked to her until she calmed down. They then released S.M. The actions taken by Ms. Austin and Dr. Whalen were appropriate responses to S.M.'s behavior. The S.M. affair precipitated the C.C. incident. C.C. was a large male student who had no history of violence. C.C. teased S.M. about having been "taken down" by Ms. Austin. C.C., teasingly, told Ms. Austin, that he did not think Ms. Austin could take him down. Ms. Austin said she could put him in a basket hold which she did. C.C. challenged Ms. Austin to put him on the floor and she did. This was considered a joke by C.C. and Ms. Austin. This incident was nothing more than horseplay. As the result of the comments made by Dr. Whalen, addressing the S.M. and C.C. incidents, to Ms. Kriedler and to Assistant Principal Verges, a memorandum issued dated April 7, 2003. It was signed by Principal Sylvia Ivey. The memorandum recited that Dr. Whalen's comments raised concerns with regard to whether Dr. Whalen was using appropriate CPI techniques. The memorandum stated that Dr. Whalen's classroom would be video-taped for the remainder of the school year, that Dr. Whalen was to document each case of restraint used, that she should use proper CPI techniques, and that she should contact the office should a crisis situation arise in her classroom. The J.R. incident On January 19, 2005, J.R. was a student in Dr. Whalen's classroom. On that date, J.R. was a ten-year-old female and in the third grade. J.R. had been a student in Dr. Whalen's classroom only since about January 10, 2005. Dr. Whalen did not know much about J.R.'s history on January 19, 2005. At the hearing J.R. appeared physically to be approximately as large as Dr. Whalen. A determination as to exactly who was the larger could not be made because Dr. Whalen was seated in a wheelchair. Assistant Principal Verges found that J.R.'s physical strength was greater than average for an elementary school student on an occasion when he had to restrain her after she bit another person. J.R. brought a CD player to class on January 19, 2005, and after lunchtime, Dr. Whalen discovered it and confiscated it. Dr. Whalen took possession of the CD player because school rules forbid students to have CD players in class. Dr. Whalen put it in a drawer by her desk. When this happened, in J.R.'s words she, "Got mad." A heated discussion between Dr. Whalen and J.R., about the dispossession of the CD player ensued, but after a brief time, according to Dr. Whalen's aide, Angela Watford, "the argument settled." Even though Ms. Watford's lunch break had begun, she remained in the room, at Dr. Whalen's request, until she was satisfied that the dispute had calmed. Subsequent to the departure of Ms. Watford, J.R. approached Dr. Whalen, who was seated behind her desk working. The configuration of the desk and furniture used by Dr. Whalen was such that she was surrounded by furniture on three sides. In order to obtain the CD player, it was necessary for J.R. to enter this confined space. J.R. entered this space, moving behind Dr. Whalen, and reached for the drawer containing the CD player in an effort to retrieve it. When Dr. Whalen asked her what she was doing, J.R. said, "I am getting my CD player and getting out of this f class." Dr. Whalen told J.R. to return to her desk. J.R. continued in her effort to obtain the CD player and succeeded in opening the drawer and grasping the headset part of the CD player. Dr. Whalen attempted to close the drawer. J.R. reacted violently and this surprised Dr. Whalen. J.R. attempted to strike Dr. Whalen. Dr. Whalen reared back to avoid the blow and then put her arm around J.R. When J.R. pulled away, this caused Dr. Whalen to fall from her wheelchair on top of J.R.'s back at about a 45-degree angle. Immediately thereafter, J.R. bit Dr. Whalen several times. The bites broke Dr. Whalen's skin in three places and the pain caused her to cry. J.R. began cursing, screaming, and kicking. J.R. said she was going to "kick the s _ _ _" out of her teacher. In fact, while on the carpet, J.R. kicked Dr. Whalen numerous times. Dr. Whalen believed she would be in danger of additional harm if she allowed J.R. to regain her feet. This belief was reasonable. J.R. was in no danger of asphyxiation during this event because Dr. Whalen removed part of her weight from J.R. by extending her arms. Upon returning from lunch Ms. Watford spotted T.B., a boy who appears to be eight to ten years of age. T.B. was standing outside of Dr. Whalen's classroom and he calmly said to Ms. Watford, "Help." Ms. Watford entered the classroom and observed Dr. Whalen lying on top of and across J.R., who was face down on the carpeted floor, and who was cursing and kicking while Dr. Whalen tried to restrain her. Ms. Watford ran over to assist in restraining her by putting her legs between J.R.'s legs. J.R. thereafter tried to hit Ms. Watford with her right hand. Ms. Watford grabbed J.R.'s right arm and was severely bitten on the knuckle by J.R. The three of them ended up, Ms. Watford related, "in a wad." Within seconds of Ms. Watford's intervention, Frances Durden, an aide in the classroom next door came on the scene. She was followed by Takeisha McIntyre, the dean of the school, and Assistant Principal Verges. Ms. McIntyre and Mr. Verges were able to calm J.R. and safely separate her from Dr. Whalen. Then J.R. stated that Dr. Whalen had bitten her on the back. Dr. Whalen and Ms. Watford went to the school's health clinic to have their wounds treated. The wounds were cleaned and Ms. Watford subsequently received an injection. While Dr. Whalen and Ms. Watford were at the health clinic, J.R. was ushered in by Ms. McIntyre. J.R.'s shirt was raised and the persons present observed two red marks between her shoulder blades. Dr. Whalen said that the marks must have been produced by her chin or that possibly her teeth may have contacted J.R.'s back. She said that she had forced her chin into J.R.'s back in an effort to stop J.R. from biting her. Ms. McIntyre took photographs of the marks. The photography was observed by Mr. Verges. The photographs reveal two red marks positioned between J.R.'s shoulder blades. The two marks are vertical, parallel, and aligned with the backbone. They are from one, to one and one half inches in length. The skin is not broken. There is no wound. Teeth marks are not discernible. A teacher who has many years of experience in the elementary or kindergarten education levels, and who has observed many bite marks, may offer an opinion as to whether a mark is a bite mark. Mr. Verges has the requisite experience to offer an opinion as to the nature of the marks on J.R.'s back and he observed the actual marks as well as the photographs. It is his opinion that the two marks were caused by a bite. Ms. McIntyre, who has also observed many bite marks in her career, and who observed the actual marks as well as the photographs, stated that the marks were consistent with a bite. Registered Nurse Cate Jacob, supervisor of the School Health Program observed Julia's back on January 19, 2005, and opined that the red marks on J.R.'s back were bite marks. J.R. reported via her mother, the day after the incident, that she had been bitten by a boy on the playground of Taylor Elementary School, by a black boy with baggy pants, possibly before the incident with Dr. Whalen. Facts presented at the hearing suggest that it is unlikely that J.R. was bitten on the playground under the circumstances described in this report. T.B. was the only nonparticipant close to the actual combat who was a neutral observer. He did not see Dr. Whalen bite J.R., but did see her chin contact J.R.'s back and he heard Dr. Whalen say words to the effect, "I am going to make you say 'ouch.'" Dr. Whalen denied biting J.R. She stated at the time of the event, and under oath at the hearing, that she forcibly contacted J.R.'s back with her chin. She stated that it was possible that in the heat of the struggle her teeth may have contacted J.R.'s back. The opinion of the school personnel as to the origin of the marks upon J.R.'s back is entitled to great weight. On the other hand, a study of the photographs exposed immediately after the incident, reveals no teeth marks and no broken skin. The marks could be consistent with pressing one's chin upon another's back or pressing one's teeth in one's back. In the latter case, whether J.R. was bitten may be a matter of definition. Generally, a bite occurs when the victim experiences a grip or would like that experienced by Ms. Watford or Dr. Whalen in this incident. Although J.R. asserted that the marks occurred because of the actions of, "a boy on the playground," given J.R.'s general lack of credibility, that explanation is of questionable reliability. The evidence, taken as a whole, does not lend itself to a finding of the origin of the marks on J.R.'s back. Because proof by clear and convincing evidence is required in this case, it is not found that Dr. Whalen bit J.R. Principal Ivey's memorandum of April 7, 2003, specified that ". . . Mr. Howard and I informed you that we will video-tape your classroom . . . ." Thus it is clear that it was not Dr. Whalen's duty to cause the classroom to be video-taped. It is clear that for many months Dr. Whalen's classroom was video-taped and until the November 20, 2003, incident, none of her actions caused attention to be drawn to her teaching methods. It is found that the assault on Dr. Whalen was sudden and unexpected. Any actions taken by Dr. Whalen were taken in permissible self-defense. J.R. was suspended from Taylor Elementary School for ten days following this incident. Miscellaneous Findings Sylvia Ivey has been the principal of Taylor Elementary for three years. She has evaluated Dr. Whalen three times. She has evaluated Dr. Whalen as "effective," which is the top mark that a teacher may receive. From approximately 1997, when the S.A. hair pulling allegedly occurred, until December 2, 2002, not a single document was created indicating dissatisfaction with Dr. Whalen's teaching methods. Dr. Whalen's normal voice volume is louder than average. She would often elevate her already loud voice, intimidate students and pound on her desk. The aforementioned activities are not part of CPI. On the other hand, these methods worked for Dr. Whalen for 20 years. She was not required to use CPI until subsequent to the memorandum of April 7, 2003. There is no evidence that she failed to use CPI once she was required to employ it. As revealed by the testimony of Dr. Whalen, Ms. Kriedler, Assistant Principal Verges, Ms. Austin, and others, some of these children would strike, kick, bite, throw objects, curse, and hurl racial epithets at their teachers. Teaching some of these children was difficult.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of Counts 3 and 4, that she be issued a reprimand, that she be placed on probation as that term is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-11.008, for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER 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 15th day of June, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Mary F. Aspros, Esquire Meyer and Brooks, P.A. 2544 Blairstone Pines Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Brian A. Newman, Esquire Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson, Bell & Dunbar, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Second Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
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 The issues in this case are whether Respondent, a teacher, made some unkind remarks to a student one day in her third-grade class, as Petitioner, a district school board, alleges; and, if so, whether the school board has just cause to suspend Respondent from her position for ten days without pay.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Miami-Dade County Public School System. At all times relevant to this matter, including specifically the 2019- 2020 school year, Reid was employed as a third-grade teacher at the North County K-8 Center. Reid has been a District employee for approximately 21 years. The alleged incident upon which the School Board relies as the grounds for suspending Reid occurred, according to the Notice of Specific Charges, on Thursday, September 26, 2019. It is alleged that “[o]n that date [Reid] stated to student D.M. that the best birthday and Christmas present she had received was when D.M. was absent from school. She also told D.M. that she did not want him in her class but was stuck with him.” D.M.’s hearing testimony matched the District’s principal allegation nearly verbatim. In his recollection, “Ms. Reid said that it was the best birthday slash Christmas gift ever because I wasn’t there on Thursday, and she said she doesn’t want me in the classroom and that she is stuck with me, and that if I want to, I could leave the classroom and she can pick on anybody.”1 1 It is not clear exactly when, or for how long, D.M. was absent. On direct examination, D.M. responded affirmatively when the School Board attorney suggested that he had been out “for a few days,” but, in his own words, D.M. specifically mentioned only “Thursday,” which happens to be the day of the week on which the alleged incident allegedly occurred. Perhaps D.M. was simply mistaken about which day he had been out, or maybe his absence had occurred a week or more before the alleged incident. On cross-examination, D.M. said that he might have been absent due to a dental appointment, which would not likely have required a “few days” off, or even, ordinarily, a full day for that matter. To be sure, this confusion is not fatal to the School Board’s case. Still, if D.M. had been out, e.g., for the three days (Monday through Wednesday) immediately preceding the alleged incident, that fact—which was not proved—would have made the School Board’s case stronger. Conversely, if D.M. had been out of class only for one day (likely), and if his absence had taken place a week or more before the alleged incident (possible), there is less likelihood of Reid’s having made the comments at issue. This is because, generally speaking, a shorter absence likely would make less of an impression, and a more remote one would be more likely forgotten—and vice versa. D.M. frequently misbehaved in class and was often in trouble. Although it was still early in the school year, by the time of the alleged incident, Reid already had spoken with D.M.’s mother several times about D.M.’s poor conduct in the classroom. Nevertheless, according to D.M., Reid made the alleged remarks for no reason, out of the blue, without any provocation such as misbehavior on D.M.’s part, and indeed in the absence of any circumstances which might have prompted Reid to say such things. Perhaps ironically, however, D.M.’s testimony, which is unrebutted, weakens the District’s case. Common experience teaches that comments of the kind in question are more likely to be made in the heat of the moment, when angry or upset, than without some contemporaneous provocation, real or perceived. To be clear, it is not inconceivable that a teacher would make such remarks gratuitously, as D.M. claims happened in this instance; it is just more likely that such comments would be made in a moment of exasperation. The only corroborating eyewitness presented by the School Board was D.M.’s close friend, J.T., who testified that Reid “was, like—she was, like, ‘D.’—she was, like, ‘I’m so glad that D. wasn’t there those few days.” When later prompted with a leading question, whereby the District attorney asked J.T. whether Reid had mentioned “anything about birthday or Christmas gifts,” J.T. answered, “Yeah. She said it was the best Christmas gift.”2 Reid flatly denied having made the alleged comments, or anything like them, to D.M. This is not a case, in other words, where the teacher attempts to explain, put it in context, dispute the contents of, or otherwise downplay the meaning or effect of a remark that was, at least in some form, admittedly made. Reid did argue, in her testimony, that she would not have made the remarks attributed to her because (i) neither her birthday nor Christmas occurs on or around September 26 and (ii) she does not use the word 2 J.T. clarified that the “it” in question was “[t]hat [D.M.] was absent those few days.” To repeat for emphasis, however, it is unlikely, based on D.M.’s testimony, and thus, it is not found, that D.M. had been absent for a “few days” prior to the alleged incident. See footnote 1, supra. “Christmas” in the classroom. The District ridicules this argument as unpersuasive. In the undersigned’s view, the argument makes a fair point, but it is neither dispositive, nor compelling. Regardless of its relatively limited persuasive force, however, the argument does not undermine Reid’s unconditional denial, because it is entirely consistent with her testimony that she did not make the remarks at issue. DETERMINATIONS OF ULTIMATE FACT The District has failed to prove its allegations against Reid by a preponderance of the evidence. It is, therefore, unnecessary to make findings of fact concerning Reid’s disciplinary history, if any, for purposes of applying the progressive discipline policy in this case, as there is no current basis for discipline. To elaborate on the credibility determinations, this is basically a “he said/she said” case because D.M. and Reid have given irreconcilably conflicting testimony about the alleged incident.3 It is not necessary, however, for the undersigned to decide which of the two witnesses was the more credible, and then to make findings of fact in accordance with that witness’s testimony. This is because, whereas the District has the burden to prove that its allegations are more likely than not true, Reid need not prove her innocence. At bottom, the District’s evidence, although plausible, does not meet the standard of proof, as a matter of ultimate fact. At the same time, Reid’s testimony, although credible as far as it goes, does not, when weighed in the 3 J.T.’s testimony adds very little weight to D.M.’s because, as D.M.’s friend, he was not a disinterested witness, and because J.T. did not provide a unique perspective or add any relevant new fact(s) to the record. If the incident took place as alleged, moreover, then surely there would be other students, besides J.T., with personal knowledge of the event. That none were called instead of, or in addition to, J.T., whose neutrality may reasonably be doubted, is detrimental to the District’s case. The testimony of D.M.’s mother likewise carries relatively little weight because she was not an eyewitness; her secondhand knowledge of the alleged incident is necessarily derivative of D.M.’s. balance with D.M.’s testimony and the District’s other evidence, support affirmative exculpatory findings. Thus, the undersigned cannot find Reid guilty as charged, and he cannot find her innocent, either. Because the District bears the burden of proof, however, its case fails, and Reid prevails.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Christopher J. La Piano, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132 For Respondent: Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761-1526
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 exonerating Nicole S. Reid of all charges brought against her in this proceeding and awarding Reid back salary as required under section 1012.33(6)(a). DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of September, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 15th day of September, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher J. La Piano, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132 Anastasios Kamoutsas, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Richard Corcoran, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761-1526
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 the Board refused to re-employ Ms. Smith as a teacher's aide for the 1985-1986 school year in retaliation for a Complaint that she filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations in January, 1983?
Findings Of Fact Ms. Smith is a graduate of a high school in the Gadsden County School system. Ms. Smith successfully completed a business education course at Gadsden Vo-Tech after receiving her high school diploma. Ms. Smith was rated qualified to work as a teacher's aide in the Gadsden County School system by the Central Administration office in 1982 and in 1984. Ms. Smith was employed as a teacher's aide at Gretna Elementary School (hereinafter referred to as "Gretna") during the 1982-1983 school year. She began her employment at Gretna in October, 1982. Ms. Smith's immediate supervisor at Gretna during the first month of her employment was the Principal, Mr. Witt Campbell. Mr. Campbell left Gretna in November, 1982. For the remainder of the 1982-1983 school year, Ms. Smith's immediate supervisor was Rosa Barkley, who replaced Mr. Witt as Principal. Ms. Smith was pregnant during the 1982-1983 school year. On January 24, 1983, Ms. Smith became ill because of her pregnancy and had to go to the hospital. Ms. Smith did not return to Gretna during the remainder of the school year. On March 14, 1983, Ms. Barkley went to visit with Ms. Smith at her home. Ms. Smith told Ms. Barkley that she would return to work approximately two weeks after her baby was born. This meant that Ms. Smith would return after the start of the 1983-1984 school year. Ms. Barkley helped Ms. Smith request a leave of absence. This leave of absence was approved by the Board on March 29, 1983. In March, 1983, Ms. Barkley gave Ms. Smith a satisfactory rating on a Gadsden County Non-instructional Personnel Assessment form which was filed with the Board. Ms. Barkley gave Ms. Smith the benefit of the doubt in completing this form because Ms. Smith had been under Ms. Barkley's supervision only from November, 1982 to January, 1983. Ms. Barkley also recommended to the Superintendent that Ms. Smith be re-employed for the 1983-1984 school year. By letter dated June 17, 1983, Ms. Barkley asked the Superintendent to terminate Ms. Smith. Ms. Barkley made this request because she wanted to have an aide that would start the school year in August, 1983 and not in November, 1983, when Ms. Smith planned to return. Ms. Barkley indicated in the letter that Ms. Smith had been absent because of her pregnancy. The Superintendent, Mr. Bishop, decided to grant Ms. Barkley's request. The decision to terminate Ms. Smith was made by the Board and not by Ms. Barkley. Although the Superintendent generally relies heavily on the recommendation of a principal, the decision to terminate Ms. Smith was that of the Board. The Board, based upon the information it was provided, should have told Ms. Barkley, that a leave of absence, and not termination, was the proper remedy to Ms. Barkley's problem. By letter dated July 27, 1983, Ms. Smith was terminated by the Board. Ms. Smith filed a Complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations on January 19, 1984, alleging sex discrimination against Ms. Barkley. Upon the filing of the Complaint the Board investigated and decided that Ms. Smith should be rehired. The Board realized that it had caused the problem and not Ms. Barkley. Ms. Smith was offered the first teacher's aide position available. The position was at Chattahoochee Elementary School (hereinafter referred to as "Chattahoochee"). Ms. Smith accepted the position and began work at Chattahoochee in March, 1984. Ms. Smith worked with fourth grade Chapter 1 children (children who have been disadvantaged with regard to their educational opportunities). Ms. Martha Downs was her teacher. While at Chattahoochee, Ms. Smith had difficulty performing her duties as a teacher's aide. Her primary area of deficiency was in math. Mr. Corbin Scott, the Principal at Chattahoochee, attempted to help Ms. Smith by having Ms. Ella Ponder, a helping teacher, assist her. Although it was alleged that Ms. Smith was required to take a Criteria Reference Test normally taken by fourth graders, the evidence failed to support this allegation. Based upon Ms. Smith's poor performance, Mr. Corbin did not recommend that Ms. Smith be returned to Chattahoochee for the next school year. Although Ms. Smith admitted that she has some problems with math she failed to accept the fact that she was not adequately performing her duties as a teacher's aide. Instead, she believed that Mr. Corbin expected her to "teach" and that he was unfair when he did not recommend her continued employment at Chattahoochee for the next school year. Ms. Smith believed that the Complaint that she filed in January, 1984, affected the way that she was treated at Chattahoochee. This unfounded belief affected Ms. Smith's attitude while at Chattahoochee and later. The Board decided that the period of time that Ms. Smith was employed at Chattahoochee (March, 1984 to June, 1984) was too short. Therefore, in an effort to be fair with Ms. Smith and to settle the dispute with Ms. Smith, the Board decided to place Ms. Smith in another teacher's aide position for the 1984- 1985 school year. During the Summer of 1984, Ms. Smith and the Board settled the Complaint which Ms. Smith had filed in January, 1984. Pursuant to this settlement, Ms. Smith dismissed her Complaint for back-pay and her re-employment at Gretna. Ms. Smith was employed at Gretna during the 1984- 1985 school year as a teacher's aide pursuant to the settlement. Ms. Barkley, Ms. Smith's immediate supervisor at Gretna, was not consulted before the Board decided to return Ms. Smith to Gretna. Principals of schools are not consulted by the Board before employees are assigned to their schools. Although Ms. Smith agreed to return to Gretna as part of the settlement of her Complaint against the Board, she believed that Ms. Barkley would not treat her properly. This belief, which was unfounded, affected Ms. Smith's attitude toward Ms. Barkley and her job during the 1984-1985 school year. Ms. Smith was assigned to assist two teachers for most of the 1984- 1985 school year at Gretna: Ms. Corine D. Palmer and Ms. Charlotte Price. Neither Ms. Palmer nor Ms. Price talked to Ms. Smith about problems which they perceived in Ms. Smith's performance. Ms. Price's attitude was that she was there to teach students and, therefore, she did not want to be bothered with Ms. Smith. Ms. Palmer's attitude was to work around Ms. Smith; she gave up trying to use Ms. Smith effectively because of Ms. Smith's lack of effort. Both ladies essentially stuck their heads in the sand and ignored the problem since neither of them were responsible for evaluating Ms. Smith. Employees at Gretna were required to sign in and sign out on a sheet provided for them at the administrative office of the school. During the school year Ms. Smith was late arriving at school a total of fifteen times. Most of those times she was late more than a few minutes. She was late seven times during 1984 and eight times in 1985. At least three other teachers' aides (Inez Morris, Ida Miller and Mary Wright) were late to school more often than Ms. Smith. While Ms. Smith received an unsatisfactory rating for punctuality for the school year, the other three aides received a satisfactory rating. Many of the times that the other three aides were late, they were late only a few minutes. When they were late more than a few minutes, they notified Ms. Barkley or someone else at Gretna that they would be late, and indicated why. Ms. Smith, on the other hand, did not always notify Ms. Barkley or anyone else that she would be late, or indicate why she was late until she was asked. During the first week of the 1984-1985 school year (August 20-24, 1984), Ms. Smith was late three times. Ms. Smith rode to school with another employee who was late getting to school. On August 27, 1984, Ms. Barkley discussed Ms. Smith's lateness with her and gave her a letter indicating that she was expected to be at school at 8:05 a.m. Ms. Smith was late once during each of the next three weeks. She corrected the problem, however, by arranging to ride with someone else. After the week of September 10-14, 1984, Ms. Smith was late only one other time during 1984. During 1985, Ms. Smith was late at least once a week during seven of the eleven weeks ending March 15, 1985. In addition to being late reporting to school, Ms. Smith was late going to her assigned classroom after arriving at school and after lunch. Ms. Smith was required to be in her morning class no later than 8:15 a.m. Her lateness was reported by Ms. Palmer and Ms. Price and was also noted by Ms. Barkley. Ms. Smith was in the employee lounge on many occasions when she should have been in a class. On October 15, 1984, Ms. Barkley spoke with all of the aides about being in the lounge in the morning when they should be in their classes. Despite Ms. Barkley's comments, that afternoon Ms. Smith was in the lounge when she should not have been, and she continued to be late to her assigned classroom in the mornings. Ms. Palmer and Ms. Price told Ms. Barkley that Ms. Smith was late to class. Both of them tended to do without her and to avoid any effort to try to correct the problem. On February 15, 1985, Ms. Barkley gave Ms. Smith a letter that indicated that Ms. Smith was in the lounge when she was not supposed to be. A similar letter was given to Ida Miller and Dorothy Smith. Ms. Miller and Ms. Dorothy Smith corrected the problem. Ms. Smith did not. Ms. Barkley rated Ms. Smith's attendance as "unsatisfactory". This rating was not based upon the number of days that she was absent. It was based upon the number of times that Ms. Smith was not in her assigned classroom. Ms. Barkley kept a notebook in which she noted the dates of some events involving employees' actions. She has kept these notes since she became a principal. Most of the notes concerning Ms. Smith did not give the reason for absences or lateness. Ms. Smith did not, however, always report the reason for her lateness. Most of the observations involved lateness and absences. The notes concerning Ms. Smith were provided to the Board because she was requested to provide any documentation concerning Ms. Smith. She did not know where her other notes were. Ms. Barkley noted the conference she had with Ms. Smith on August 27, 1984. In this note, she referred to Ms. Smith as "Ms. Attitude." This notation and a later notation that Ms. Smith was in the lounge one day "chomping" show a lack of judgment by Ms. Barkley in the manner that Ms. Barkley referred to Ms. Smith. This lack of judgment is not sufficient, however, to prove that Ms. Barkley terminated Ms. Smith at the end of the 1984-1985 school year in retaliation for the Complaint filed by Ms. Smith in 1983. Ms. Barkley's explanation for these notations is rejected. Ms. Barkley talked to teachers and other aides about Ms. Smith. Ms. Barkley did not, however, limit her inquiries to Ms. Smith. Ms. Barkley was responsible for the supervision of all of the employees at Gretna. She was very active in managing her school. She observed her employees in the halls of the school, in the lounge and in the classroom. She did not single out Ms. Smith. Ms. Barkley asked teachers and other aides about all employees and she checked up on all her employees. Ms. Smith was observed in class by Ms. Barkley. Ms. Smith was seen giving wrong answers and performing sloppy work. When Ms. Barkley talked to Ms. Smith about some of her problems, Ms. Smith's attitude was defensive. She did not believe that she had any problems and believed that Ms. Barkley was being unfair to her. She therefore did not indicate that she agreed with Ms. Barkley or that she would make any efforts to correct her problems when Ms. Barkley spoke to her about her problems. Ms. Price indicated that Ms. Smith had evidenced a poor attitude about her performance with her also. On March 15, 1985, Ms. Barkley met with Ms. Smith and informed her that she would not be recommended for employment during the 1985-1986 school year. Ms. Barkley sent a letter to the Board dated March 15, 1985, recommending that Ms. Smith not be re-employed during the 1985-1986 school year. Ms. Barkley also rated Ms. Smith "unsatisfactory" on five characteristics listed on a Gadsden County Non-instructional Personnel Assessment form dated March 8, 1985. This form was signed by Ms. Smith on March 15, 1985. Ms. Smith was given an unsatisfactory rating for utilization of time, compliance with school and district policies, attendance, punctuality and leadership. This evaluation was similar to the evaluation given Ms. Smith by Mr. Corbin. Ms. Barkley, Ms. Price and Ms. Palmer were given a Personal Reference Form for Teacher Aide Applicants by Ms. Smith. Ms. Smith told Ms. Price and Ms. Palmer that the forms were going to be used by her to apply for a job outside of its school system. Although both teachers had misgivings about Ms. Smith's ability and did not want her back as a teacher's aide, they both liked her personally and wanted to help her find a job. They also wanted to avoid any conflict with Ms. Smith. Therefore, even though they should have known better, they completed the forms giving Ms. Smith affair rating and indicating that they would employ her as a teacher's aide. Ms. Barkley completed the form given to her by Ms. Smith on April 30, 1985. She gave her a poor rating and indicated that she would not employ her as a teacher's aide. Ms. Barkley had completed a Gadsden County Non-instructional Personnel Assessment form when Ms. Smith left Gretna in 1983. Ms. Barkley gave Ms. Smith a favorable evaluation. She did so, however, because Ms. Smith had only worked at Gretna during the 1982-1983 school year for approximately four months and Ms. Barkley had only been there during three of those months. Therefore, Ms. Barkley did not believe it would be fair to give Ms. Smith an unfavorable evaluation. The Board did not refuse to re-employ Ms. Smith for the 1985-1986 school year in retaliation for any dispute between Ms. Smith and Ms. Barkley or any other person. Ms. Smith was not re-employed because she lacked the necessary job skills to work as a teacher's aide and had failed to perform adequately. On or about July 15, 1985, Ms. Smith filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations alleging that the Board had discriminated against her on the basis of retaliation. The Executive Director of the Florida Commission on Human Relations issued a "Determination: No Cause" on May 12, 1987. Ms. Smith filed a Petition for Rehearing. On or about July 13, 1987, the Executive Director entered a "Redetermination: No Cause." Ms. Smith filed a Petition for Relief. The Florida Commission on Human Relations forwarded the Petition the Division of Administrative Hearings by order dated August 18, 1987.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Ms. Smith's Petition for Relief be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of March, 1988. APPENDIX The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 2. 3 Irrelevant. 4-5 3. 6-7 22. 8 4. 9 23. 10 5. 11 12. The date of termination was July 27, 1983. 12 10. 13-14 13. 15 20-22. 16 10. 17 8. 18 9. 19 22. 20 23. 21 11. The evidence failed to prove that the Board acted solely on the recommendation of Ms. Barkley. 22 25. 23 26. 24 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 25-26 27. 27 28. 28 While Ms. Smith may have corrected the "ride problem" she continued to be late during the 1984-1985 school year. 29-31 27. 32-33 33. 34-36 Although these proposed findings of fact are correct they are irrelevant. 37 41. 38-39 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 40 Irrelevant and not supported by the weight of the evidence. 41 35. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Irrelevant. 44 35. 45-46 36. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Although it is true that Ms. Smith did improve her punctuality arriving at Gretna during 1984 she failed to continue to arrive on time during the rest of the school year. See 28. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 45. 2 21. 3 10 and 11. 4 14. 5 16. 6 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 16. 7 16-18. 8 20 and 22. 9-10 37. 11 41. 12 42. 13 28 and 33. 14 28-29 and 33. 15 45. COPIES FURNISHED TO: EDWARD J. GRUNEWALD, ESQUIRE LEGAL SERVICES OF NORTH FLORIDA, INC. 400 NORTH MADISON STREET QUINCY, FLORIDA 32351 CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON, ESQUIRE 211 EAST JEFFERSON STREET QUINCY, FLORIDA 32351 DONALD A. GRIFFIN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 325 JOHN KNOX ROAD BUILDING F, SUITE 240 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1925 DANA BAIRD GENERAL COUNSEL 325 JOHN KNOX ROAD BUILDING F, SUITE 240 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1925
