Findings Of Fact At all times material, Respondent Michael Eric Pose, age fifteen, was a student at West Miami Junior High School (West Miami) in Dade County, Florida. Respondent's academic performance during the 1986-1987 school year was very poor. He received the grade of "F" in every class. His grades for conduct were also mostly "Fs." In addition, he received the lowest grade for effort (3). Respondent's poor academic performance, lack of effort, and unacceptable conduct resulted in his rot being promoted to the next grade. During the first three marking periods of the 1986-1987 school year, Respondent was enrolled in Louise Johnson's math class, where he was marked absent about 58 times and late 12 times. When Respondent did attend classes he would come without materials and refused to do work when materials were provided by his teacher. He failed to complete 99 percent of his homework assignments and refused 95 percent of the time to perform any class work. On at least two occasions, Respondent was caught sleeping in class by Ms. Johnson. The grades he received in that class for academic performance, effort and conduct were "F- 3-F" (scholarship-effort-conduct). Ms. Harriet Wade, physical education teacher, also had Respondent as a student during the 1986-87 school year. In that class, he was absent 60 times and late 8 times. He refused to wear his gym clothing to the physical education class, refused to participate in games or perform exercises, and frequently engaged in activities which disrupted the class, such as talking to other students and wandering over to talk to other groups. He earned "F-3-F". Ms. Wade's normal form of discipline is to assign detentions and/or the running of laps. Respondent refused to serve either punishment on each occasion it was assigned. Respondent's mother offered as an excuse for Respondent's failure to meet the physical education requirements that he had dislocated his hip when he was four years old. However, she also stated that the surgery was deemed successful and it is clear that the proper medical excuses or records were never submitted to school personnel. There is no competent medical opinion that Michael is presently disabled from normal sports or participation in other school activities. In the same school year, Respondent was also a student of Ms. Tania Martinez-Cruz, English teacher. He was absent from her class 64 times and late 6 times. He refused to do classwork 98 percent of the time and never turned in any homework assignments. After it became apparent that Respondent would not bring materials to class, Ms. Martinez-Cruz kept materials in her classroom for him so that he would have no excuse to avoid working in her class. This method failed. Moreover, during the times he did attend class, Respondent spent 90 percent of the class period sleeping, even though she placed him in the front of the class and required him to participate in classwork as much as possible. Student Case Management Referral Forms (SCMRFs) generally reserved for serious behavior problems, were issued on Respondent's behavior by Ms. Johnson, Ms. Wade, and Ms. Martinez-Cruz due to his lack of interest in school, poor behavior, absences, and tardies. In addition, Respondent received five other SCMRFs from different teachers and/or administrators, all of whom complained of his disinterest in school and unacceptable behavior. One such complaint involved breaking in to a teacher's automobile. Because Respondent was frequently engaged in conflicts of a disruptive nature, he was suspended five times during the 1986-87 school year. Mr. Sotolongo, Assistant Principal, had numerous conversations with Respondent's mother regarding his excessive absences, poor behavior and lack of progress. However, to date the mother has not been able to improve Respondent's interest in school. After numerous attempts at counseling the mother and Respondent, a child study team report was made and conference thereon was held. This report and conference resulted in the administrative assignment of Respondent to J.R.E. Lee Opportunity School. The opinions of the Assistant Principal and the other teachers and administrators who had conferences regarding Respondent was that the more structured environment of an opportunity school would be better for him, as opposed to permitting him to remain in the regular school program where he was making no progress.
Findings Of Fact Michael Douglas began the 1982-83 school year as a seventh grade student at South Miami Junior High School. Disciplinary measures were required on September 1, 10, 14, 17 and 29, 1982. The student refused to obey rules and instructions, and was generally incorrigible. On September 29, he threatened another student with assault. During September, school officials had several contacts with Michael's mother and his case was referred to the child study team. As a result of these conferences, he was assigned to a youth opportunity school on October 28, 1982.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner continue its placement of the student, Michael Douglas, in the Youth Opportunity School. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of February, 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 14th day of February, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Valentine, Esquire 3000 Executive Plaza 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Dr. Leonard M. Britton, Superintendent Dade County Public Schools Administrative Office Lindsey Hopkins Building 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Ms. Lillie Mae Jordon 5920 Southwest 6th Street Miami, Florida 33143
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, James Toward, is the Director of the Glendale Montessori School in Stuart, Florida and is the licensee of a license issued by the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("DHRS") pursuant to Section 402.308, Florida Statutes (1987). DHRS granted Petitioner License Number 093088 to operate a child care facility at 1055 East Tenth Street, Stuart, Florida. DHRS also granted Petitioner License No. 093087 which is not affected by this proceeding. The Glendale Montessori School is based upon the Montessori method of teaching and offers a toddler program, a preschool program, a lower elementary school program, an upper elementary school program and a junior high school. At the time of the hearing, there were approximately one hundred and fifty students at the school, of which fifty-three were in preschool. Brenda Williams was employed at the Glendale Montessori School by James Toward. She was an employee at the school from 1983 through the summer of 1987. Ms. Williams was hired as a receptionist, but her duties evolved into secretarial duties, bookkeeping, escorting children to and from their cars to the school and vice-versa, receiving parents of the children, taking prospective parents through the school, maintaining records and taking payments. She also looked after children when they were hurt, administered first aid and transported children. Brenda Williams' office was located in the front office of the main school building. The office was adjacent to the preschool and the children passed through her office enroute to and from the classroom. On May 26, 1987, Susan K. Barton, District Screening Coordinator for DHRS, sent a letter to the Director of Glendale Montessori School. This letter was received by Petitioner shortly after that date. In her letter, Ms. Barton advised Petitioner that DHRS had conducted a background check on Brenda Williams and that she was disqualified from employment in a sensitive position involving children. The letter further advised Petitioner that "refusal on the part of the licensee or facility to remove a person who has been found to be in noncompliance with minimum standards for good moral character from direct contact with children ... may result in denial, suspension or revocation of ... licensee's license, as well as other penalties." The letter also requested that Petitioner supply written confirmation that Brenda Williams "has been removed from any direct contact with children ... at your facility." The background check conducted by DHRS on Brenda Williams revealed that she had previously been arrested and pled no contest to a controlled substance violation. Adjudication was withheld. Ms. Barton did not direct Petitioner to "fire" Brenda Williams nor to remove her from contact with elementary school children. Her focus was to remove Brenda Williams from direct contact with preschool children by which she believed meant "being in general proximity" of the preschool children. In response to DHRS' letter, Petitioner removed Brenda Williams from her secretarial duties and changed the location of her office. She was given responsibility for bookkeeping and accounting for the school. Her new duties included working on financial books, closing accounts, preparing registration documents and contacting parents by telephone. Brenda Williams' office location was removed from the front office of the main school building and placed in a separate building approximately fifty yards from the classroom building where the preschool children were located. On June 1, 1987, Petitioner sent a letter to Ms. Barton in response to her letter and stated that Brenda Williams had been removed from direct contact with the children of the school. The Petitioner did not inform any of the other employees or the parents of Brenda Williams' shift in responsibilities because he did not want to cause her any embarrassment since she had been employed there for five years and had done excellent work. Although Petitioner changed Brenda Williams' office location and responsibilities, Ms. Williams performed some of her old duties while Petitioner was not on the premises. On occasion during July and August of 1987, Brenda Williams occupied her initial position at the front office and escorted children to and from the school. In addition, during the same time period, children would sleep or rest in her office while no other employees of the school were present. On September 26, 1987, Petitioner received a Notice of License Denial dated September 25, 1987, notifying him that DHRS was denying the renewal of his license to operate a preschool day care facility. The notice further stated that the license denial was predicated upon the fact that although he was previously notified that one of his child care personnel was disqualified from working at his facility in contact with children, the employee had continued in such capacity during the summer of 1987. Brenda Williams was no longer employed at the Glendale Montessori School when the Notice of License Denial was issued on September 25, 1987.
The Issue Whether Brevard County School Board (Petitioner or School Board), has just cause to terminate the professional services contract held by Joyce D. Iloka (Respondent).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a duly-constituted entity charged with the responsibility and authority to operate, control, and supervise public schools within the Brevard County Public School District. As such, it has the authority to regulate all personnel matters for the school district, including those personnel decisions affecting the professional teaching staff at THS. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent was an employee of the School Board and was subject to the statutes, rules, and regulations pertinent to employees of the school district. At all times material to this case, Respondent was assigned to teach drafting at THS. All allegations relate to Respondent's tenure at THS and the performance of her duties as a drafting instructor. By letter dated February 2, 2009, Petitioner notified Respondent that a recommendation would be made to the School Board to terminate her employment with the school district. At its meeting on February 10, 2009, Petitioner accepted the recommendation of the school administration and voted to approve Respondent's employment termination. Respondent timely requested an administrative hearing to challenge the decision of the School Board. Petitioner charged Respondent with failure to correct deficiencies identified in a performance plan designed to assist Respondent to remediate unacceptable defects in her teaching performance. Second, Petitioner alleged that the deficiencies noted by THS personnel also constituted an additional basis for termination: incompetency. Respondent maintains that student performance must be considered in the review of her performance and that she was competent and qualified to perform her teaching responsibilities and had done so for a number of years without concern from the THS administration. Respondent began employment with the school district in 1996. She was assigned to THS from 2004-2008. From her first assignment until the 2007/2008 school year, Respondent received satisfactory performance evaluations. Petitioner utilizes an instructional personnel evaluation system known as the Performance Appraisal System (PAS). PAS was approved by state authorities and was cooperatively developed by teachers and administrators for use in Brevard County. PAS details the procedures, method, and forms to be utilized in the completion of instructional personnel evaluations. All such criteria were met in the evaluations performed of Respondent's work. Additionally, school administrators who perform employee evaluations must be thoroughly trained in PAS and must conform to the uniformity afforded by the PAS instrument. All administrators identified in this cause who performed evaluations of the Respondent were trained and were fully certified to evaluate personnel based upon the PAS instrument. Ron Philpot is an assistant principal at THS. He has worked in Brevard County for approximately 37 years and has been assigned to THS for the last 17. Lori Spinner is the principal at THS. For the 2006/2007 school year, Mr. Philpot was assigned to evaluate Respondent. Dr. Spinner signed off on Respondent's 2006/2007 performance evaluation on February 14, 2007. Respondent's 2006/2007 PAS evaluation found her to be overall "high performing." Mr. Philpot was the only administrator/observer who visited Respondent's classroom in order to complete the 2006/2007 evaluation. In his many years of performing evaluations, Mr. Philpot has given only one unsatisfactory evaluation. On December 4, 2007, Dr. Spinner visited Respondent's classroom for the purpose of observing the class and Respondent's performance. On that date there were 17 students present and Dr. Spinner made visual sweeps of the classroom every ten minutes to determine the engagement level of the students. For the time period from 12:25-12:55 p.m., no fewer than two and no more than four students were off-task or not engaged in the lesson. Dr. Spinner remained in Respondent's class for 45 minutes and completed notes from her observation. Pertinent to the allegations of this case are the following observations entered by Dr. Spinner: Instructional Organization - No teacher-based questioning was used during the entire lesson. No learning objective is evident and no agenda or objectives are noted on the board. Materials are not organized and six incidents of non-instructional/unrelated talk were noted. In the middle of the lesson, the teacher states, "Where are you third block?" "What are you working on?" Directions for activity are vague and non- specific. Teacher states "Put in a window anywhere"; "Put in a door somewhere". Teacher circulated several times to address individual concerns. Presentation of Subject Matter - Only 1 concept was presented during the lesson (rotating windows and doors)and appeared to be a review. No new concepts were presented. Instructions for the project were inadequate and vague. Visuals on the board are illegible and difficult to see. Students demonstrated confusion with assignment. Several questions went unanswered or ignored. Communication - Vague and sporadic. No teacher questioning for comprehension. Student questions went unanswered or hands- raised were ignored. In response to one question, teacher states, "I think it says something about that in your book, I think it says . . ." Teacher expressed confusion in demonstrating a plot plan. Was not able to implement the correct commands with Mechanical Desktop Architect program. Management of Conduct - Several students not engaged during lesson. Five incidents of misconduct were not addressed during the lesson. Based upon the observations noted above, Dr. Spinner met with Respondent to provide her with an interim evaluation of her performance. Of the nine individual assessment categories, Dr. Spinner identified only two items that needed improvement. Both were noted under the "Instructional Strand" heading. Comments entered by Dr. Spinner advised Respondent: Ms. Iloka had several students off task or not engaged in the lesson, throughout the class period. She did not have materials prepared in advance which resulted in lost instructional time. Teacher-student interactions often included unrelated talk and off-task discussions. There were long delays during the instructional lesson and instructions/directions were not clear for students. Requirements for the activity were not presented in advance and directions were vague. This resulted in delays in learning and gaps in instructional activities. Presentation of instructions and project directions were vague and difficult for students to follow. Requirements were not presented in advance. There was no instructional questioning during the lesson to ensure comprehension. Concepts were presented with examples only. Students did not have an instructional visual to reference as they worked with the program. Dr. Spinner attempted to communicate the areas of concern noted above but Respondent was resistant. Further, Dr. Spinner sought to encourage Respondent to continue her education and professional development as a means of continuous professional growth. Dr. Spinner hoped that Respondent would recruit more students into the drafting program because the enrollment had steadily declined during Respondent's tenure at THS. None of Dr. Spinner's suggestions were well-received by Respondent. On January 30, 2008, Dr. Spinner observed Respondent's class from 1:55-2:40 p.m. As before, Dr. Spinner made a visual sweep of the class to determine student engagement every ten minutes. Again, as before, Dr. Spinner observed two to four students not engaged during the sweeps. Many of the comments generated by the January 30, 2008, observation mirrored the prior observation. Dr. Spinner felt Respondent had made no serious effort to improve the areas of concern that needed improvement. The interim PAS evaluation signed by Dr. Skinner and Respondent on February 1, 2008, included three categories that needed improvement and noted that Respondent's overall evaluation needed improvement. To provide assistance for Respondent, Dr. Skinner assigned a teacher/peer mentor at the school level to provide direction and help to the Respondent in order to remediate the deficient areas of performance. Respondent did not avail herself of the mentor and did not implement meaningful changes to her instructional content or delivery. Later Dr. Skinner secured a mentor teacher from outside the school to assist the Respondent. Again, Respondent did not implement the suggestions made by that mentor. Dr. Spinner prepared professional development assistance (PDA) forms for areas of concern in order to identify the behaviors that were deficient, the strategies for improvement of the deficiency, and the assistance that the school would provide to Respondent. For example, the PDA dated February 1, 2008, to improve management of student conduct noted that peer mentor, Jane Speidel, would assist Respondent to develop a classroom management plan so that students who are off-task can be appropriately engaged in the learning process. According to Ms. Speidel, Respondent did not want assistance in this regard and had "no desire to adopt any new changes." On February 19, 2008, Dr. Spinner again observed Respondent's class. Many of the same deficiencies in the categories of instructional organization, presentation of subject matter, communication, and management of conduct were noted. At one point during the observation, Respondent received a sub sandwich and a drink from a colleague. As Respondent had just finished a duty-free lunch time prior to the observation time, the delivery of food during a class period seemed inappropriate to Dr. Skinner. Dr. Skinner’s next observation of Respondent's class was on February 28, 2008. Deficiencies were listed in the areas of instructional organization, presentation of subject matter, communication, and management of conduct. Many of the problems noted in prior observations were continuing. The common thread running through each observation was the failure on Respondent's part to even attempt to incorporate new strategies or concepts into her teaching effort. Specifically, with regard to student performance, students remained off task. Students continued to be confused by vague or confusing directions and exhibited an indifference to drafting. Students were observed sleeping, eating, playing solitaire, and computer games or surfing the Internet when they should have been working on projects or completing appropriate drafting assignments. On March 6, 2008, Dr. Skinner gave Respondent her annual evaluation. Unsurprisingly, Respondent was given an overall evaluation of unsatisfactory. As Respondent had made little or no effort to improve in the areas noted as deficient during the school year (as delineated in prior observations), Respondent was advised: Ms. Iloka is expected to improve in the areas noted as unsatisfactory. A formal plan and support has been provided to assist her in becoming more effective with her students. She is expected to demonstrate improvement as an expectation for continued employment. At the conclusion of the annual PAS evaluation, Respondent was advised that a 90-day probationary period would begin at the start of the 2008/2009 school year. Accordingly, from August 11, 2008, Respondent was subject to PDA plans to address deficiencies in the categories of instructional organization and development, presentation of subject matter, and management of student conduct. The same three areas of concern that were identified throughout the 2007/2008 school year continued to be a concern. On August 11, 2008, Respondent signed a letter acknowledging that she would be on probationary status for 90 days and that she would be evaluated periodically during that time. A resource teacher from the county, John Hays, was identified to Respondent as someone who would provide support and information for presenting the subject matter appropriately and developing a classroom management plan. During the fall of 2008, Respondent was observed on several occasions. None of the visits to Respondent's classroom evidenced any significant improvement on her part to address the deficient areas of performance. Assistant Principal Jerri Mallicoat completed PAS evaluations that noted the same deficiencies. Respondent did not complete lesson plans with sufficient detail so that a substitute could understand and step in for an absence. Respondent did not develop a classroom management plan to ensure that off-task students could be redirected to the assignment. Further, students committing violations of school rules (such as eating in the classroom) were not appropriately disciplined and redirected. Respondent did not avail herself of resources available through the school site mentor or county resource opportunities. Petitioner afforded Respondent with opportunities for improvement through in-service classes and mentor teachers. Respondent is a non-degreed vocational industrial arts teacher. Drafting and other vocational industrial arts classes are commonly taught by credentialed persons who achieve some industry-recognized authorization as sufficient to demonstrate knowledge of the subject matter. Respondent's knowledge of her subject area is not questioned. Her ability to translate that knowledge in a meaningful manner to a classroom of students while maintaining order and on-task behavior and her failure to recognize her need to improve performance in these areas is the subject of this cause. For whatever reason, Respondent would not or could not improve performance in the deficient areas. During the 2008/2009 school year THS used block scheduling. Teachers would have students for 90-minute blocks. Respondent was challenged to fill that time with educational content and maintain students in on-task efforts. Respondent had two blocks of drafting students. Enrollment in drafting declined such that the remainder of Respondent's work day was spent as a substitute for other teachers. Within a block, Respondent had multiple levels of drafting students, first-time drafting students up to the more advanced levels. Each level of proficiency required appropriate instruction. Drafting, like other vocational industrial arts classes, does not have a state-mandated performance assessment tool. Drafting students are recognized in the private sector by whether they are able to achieve an industry-recognized testing standard of performance. Classroom performance at THS was based upon proficient use of the program utilized to create plans and the written materials that accompanied the computer work. Students eating, sleeping, playing solitaire, computer games, or surfing the Internet did not demonstrate proficient use of drafting skills. All of these behaviors were repeatedly observed in Respondent's class. Respondent did not remediate the performance deficiencies noted in the evaluations of the 2007/2008 and 2008/2009 school years.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Brevard County School Board enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment with the School District. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH 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 8th day of June, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph R. Lowicky, Esquire Glickman, Witters and Marrell, P.A. The Centurion, Suite 1101 1601 Forum Place West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Jeffrey Scott Sirmons, Esquire Johnson, Haynes, & Miller 510 Vonderburg Drive, Suite 305 Brandon, Florida 33511 Thomas Johnson, Esquire Johnson, Haynes & Miller, P.A. 510 Vonderburg Drive, Suite 305 Brandon, Florida 33511 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Richard DiPatri, Ed. D., Superintendent Brevard County School Board 2700 Fran Jamieson Way Viera, Florida 32940-6601
The Issue Whether just cause exists to sustain Respondent’s dismissal from employment with the Miami-Dade County School Board.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a duly-constituted district school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within Miami-Dade County, Florida. Article IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const. In 2010, Whitley started working for the School Board as a school security monitor. During the 2016-2017 school year, Whitley was assigned to Thomas Jefferson Middle School (“Thomas Jefferson”) as a security monitor. He remains employed in that role at Thomas Jefferson presently. Whitley’s job duties and responsibilities include, but are not limited to, maintaining the safety of the children, ensuring the children make it to class on time, assisting with any problems that may be going on in the school, and monitoring the security cameras. At all times relevant to the proceeding, Respondent has been employed by the School Board pursuant to a continuing contract. The incident giving rise to this proceeding occurred on February 6, 2017. On February 6, 2017, Whitley was patrolling his assigned hall and noticed that M.G., a 13-year-old sixth grader, was out of class and sitting at Respondent’s desk in the hallway. Whitley requested that M.G. get out of the chair, and M.G. refused to get out of the desk. According to M.G., after M.G. refused, Whitley flipped the desk while he was seated, which caused M.G. to fall and hit his head on the floor. There is conflicting evidence as to what happened when Whitley approached the desk (“incident”). At hearing, M.G. credibly testified that he reported the incident to Principal Robin Atkins the same day and that he also got an ice pack for his head. Almost a month later, the Office of Professional Standards opened an investigation regarding the incident. Afterward, Respondent was notified that M.G. accused him of flipping the desk that he was sitting in and causing him to hit his head as a result. In 2017, law enforcement interviewed Respondent. The matter was ultimately turned over to the School Board's General Investigative Unit (“GIU”). The investigation took approximately two years to conclude. Even though Thomas Jefferson maintained security footage and recorded videos of the hallway where the incident occurred, no video footage existed for anyone to review regarding the incident. Based on its investigation, on or about May 30, 2019, GIU determined that there was probable cause to support the allegation that Respondent had violated School Board Policy 4210, Standards of Ethical Conduct; 4210.01, Code of Ethics; and 4213, Student Supervision and Welfare. Respondent learned about the determination soon thereafter. After summer break, when Respondent returned to work, on or about August 27, 2019, Carlos Diaz, the district director of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards conducted a conference-for-the-record (“CFR”) meeting to discuss the pending allegations from the GIU case. Respondent was present at the CFR with his union representative. Following the CFR, the Disciplinary Review Team (“DRT”) met. DRT considered Respondent’s repeated and similar conduct for inappropriate contact with students and Respondent’s prior directives in its decision to discipline Respondent. DRT recommended that Respondent be terminated. The recommendation was adopted by the School Board. Prior Disciplinary History During his employment with the School Board, Whitley has been disciplined twice regarding inappropriate touching of students prior to the incident. The School Board kept a record of Respondent’s discipline in Whitley’s personnel file. On or about April 16, 2013, Whitley received a written reprimand after an investigation concluded that he shoved and touched a student’s shoulder repeatedly. Whitley’s reprimand directed Respondent to “[r]efrain from any physical touching of students.” In November 2013, Whitley was suspended for 12 workdays without pay after an investigation concluded that Respondent inappropriately picked up and dropped a student to the ground. The CFR memorandum regarding Respondent’s November 2013 occurrence directed Whitley to: “adhere to School Board Policies 4210, Standards of Ethical Conduct; 4210.01, Code of Ethics; and 4213, Student Supervision and Welfare”; “refrain from inappropriate communications with students”; and “refrain from inappropriate physical contact with students.” Hearing At the final hearing, M.G. provided persuasive credible testimony regarding the incident. He testified that he was sitting in Whitley’s chair in the hall. M.G. also admitted that he refused to move and told Respondent “no” when told to move. Whitley testified that M.G. “jumped” out of the chair. The undersigned does not credit Whitley’s testimony based on his contradictory statements about the incident, which diminish the trustworthiness of his testimony.1 Findings of Ultimate Fact Accordingly, the undersigned finds that M.G.’s credible testimony established that Whitley initiated contact with M.G., grabbed the desk to lean in, and flipped M.G., who was seated, out of the desk. As a result of Whitley’s actions, M.G. landed in a manner where his “hand hit the ground,” head hit the concrete floor, and, by doing so, jeopardized M.G.’s health, safety, and welfare.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order: finding Respondent in violation of rules 6A-5.056(2) and (4), 6A-10.081, and School Board Policies 4210, 4210.01, and 4213 as charged; and upholding Respondent's termination from employment for just cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of October, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. MCKINNEY 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 29th day of October, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher J. La Piano, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132 (eServed) Branden M. Vicari, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761 (eServed) Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 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)
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(d) and (j), Florida Statutes (2011), or Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a) and (e), and if so, what penalty should be imposed by the Education Practices Commission.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a teacher certified by the State of Florida, holding Florida Educator’s Certificate 958493, covering the areas of Elementary Education, Exceptional Student Education (ESE), and Autism Spectrum Disorders, valid through June 30, 2014. At all times material to the allegations in this case, Respondent was employed by the Bay County School District as an ESE teacher at Margaret K. Lewis Center (MKL Center). This is a second career for Respondent. She left a business and technology career to pursue a career in education, specifically working with students with special needs. Respondent obtained her Master’s degree and a special designation to work with special needs students. Respondent was motivated to pursue teaching special education students because she had an aunt with Down’s syndrome who had limited educational opportunities. Respondent taught at Oscar Patterson Elementary for the 2006-2007 school year, and then transferred to MKL Center beginning in the 2007-2008 school year. After Respondent received her state educational certification in autism spectrum disorders, she requested to be assigned to teach an ESE class beginning with the 2010-2011 school year. That year, she was voted as “Teacher of the Year” by her peers. The class to which Respondent was assigned was a challenging class. It was not unusual for students in this classroom to bite, kick, hit, pinch, and trip staff. During the 2010-2011 school year, the number of students was reduced from eight to four, and the number of paraprofessionals was increased from two to three. During the 2011-2012 school year, there were four students in her classroom: C.B., J.B., K.M., and D.C. One paraprofessional, Patricia Lewis, was assigned specifically to D.C. The other two paraprofessionals, Jennifer Shea Saulmon and Nancy Davis, worked with all of the children, and when able to, Patricia Lewis did as well. Ms. Davis, Ms. Saulmon, and Ms. Lewis have seven, fourteen and twenty-seven years of experience, respectively. C.B. had a severe mental disability with a limited ability to comprehend verbal communications and a limited ability to communicate. C.B.’s communication involved single words, sounds, and gestures. He could discern the speaker’s mood, but might not fully understand the content of what was said. For example, C.B. might not understand that someone was saying hello, but would understand that the speaker was friendly towards him. C.B. also had problematic behaviors including biting, pinching, scratching, and hitting. C.B. had an awkward gait and wore ankle orthotics (AFO’s), a type of plastic brace, over his shoe and lower leg to provide stability from the foot to the leg, and to assist in improving his ability to walk. C.B. was ten years old. J.B. was approximately 11 years old in January 2012, and was diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder. He also had a limited ability to communicate using single words, sounds and utterances, and gestures. J.B. also used an iPad to communicate. Over time, someone working with J.B. would develop a greater ability to understand and communicate with him. J.B.’s difficult behaviors included spitting, hitting, kicking, and pinching. K.M. was 11 in January 2012. K.M. was diagnosed with Down’s syndrome, and had previously suffered a stroke which limited her use of one arm. She also had significant intellectual limitations. However, K.M.’s ability to communicate was greater than the other members of the class, and she could understand verbal communications. In addition, K.M. was more independent than her classmates, and was a risk for elopement from both the classroom and the campus. As stated by one of the paraprofessionals, K.M. “was a runner.” By all accounts, K.M.’s behaviors were consistently disruptive, and managing her in a classroom took a significant effort. D.C. was also 11 in January 2012. D.C. was diagnosed as autistic and engaged in repeated self-injurious behaviors. When upset, D.C. would repeatedly strike himself in the head and face, and he often wore a football helmet as a protective measure. D.C. was very strong, and attempts to prevent him from hurting himself could often result in staff members being hurt. There was testimony at hearing that his behavior plan addressed how many he times he was allowed to hit himself or how long he was allowed to hit himself without intervention. However, the behavior plan for D.C. was not in evidence. A portion of the classroom was designed specifically for D.C., with padded walls and a padded floor, in light of D.C.’s tendency to hit his head against hard surfaces as well. He had some beads that he played with that sometimes calmed him. At some point during the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent began to show signs that the stresses of her very challenging classroom were having an effect on her. After the Christmas break, her stress seemed to have intensified. Respondent was having trouble sleeping, suffered from high blood pressure and pain from injuries sustained in the classroom, and was experiencing some depression. Respondent began to “self- medicate” with alcohol at night. There was no credible evidence that Respondent ever drank during the day or was under the influence of alcohol during work hours. At the end of the school day on January 30, 2012, Ms. Lewis approached assistant principal Elizabeth Swedlund to voice some concerns about Respondent’s behavior in the classroom. Ms. Lewis related some events that had occurred in the classroom that day, as well as some general concerns regarding treatment of the students in the classroom. She voiced the following concerns: that Respondent took away D.C.’s beads and would allow him to hit himself for a period of time longer than allowed by his treatment plan; that she made statements to K.M. such as “I could kill you” or “go play in the street”; and that she hit C.B. with a closed hand and kicked him while working in “circle time.” On January 31, 2012, Ms. Swedlund notified her principal, Britt Smith, of the conversation with Ms. Lewis. She decided to speak with the other paraprofessionals in the classroom and after doing so, to report the information to the abuse registry. Principal Smith notified Sharon Michalik, the District’s Executive Director of Human Resources, of the issue with respect to Respondent. As a result, Mike Jones, Chief of Safety, initiated an investigation. Mike Jones visited the campus the following day. All three paraprofessionals were interviewed and asked to provide written statements. He took Respondent for a drug and urine test, which came back negative. On Friday, February 3, 2012, Respondent was notified to meet with Ms. Michalik and other administrators to review the allegations. After this meeting, Respondent was suspended with pay, and the School District planned to proceed with a recommendation for termination. However, instead the parties entered an agreement executed on March 30, 2012, through which Respondent would take a medical leave of absence and would only be allowed to return to a position with the School District if she was found fit for duty. If she returned, she would be required to submit to random drug and alcohol testing. On March 30, 2012, the Department of Children and Families issued a letter to Respondent stating that it found no indicators of physical injury and no indicators of bizarre punishment. On April 27, 2012, Respondent was evaluated by psychologist David J. Smith who opined that at that time, she was not fit for duty. She was re-evaluated on July 26, 2012, and cleared to return to work. At that time, she was assigned to a different school. One of the issues raised by Ms. Lewis was that Respondent permitted D.C. to hit himself more frequently than allowed by his behavior plan. The Administrative Complaint specifically charges that she allowed D.C. to hit himself repeatedly for up to ten minutes, while his behavior plan indicated that he should be allowed to hit himself up to three times. The behavior plan was not entered into evidence. The evidence was unclear as to what the plan actually required, and it was equally unclear exactly what Respondent was doing. For example, there was testimony that she would attempt to redirect him once he started hitting himself, but did not physically intervene for ten minutes. There was other testimony that there was never a time when he was allowed to simply hit himself with no one doing anything. Without being able to examine the behavior plan, and without being able to specify the exact incident or incidents at issue, it is not possible to determine whether Respondent was varying from the requirements of the behavior plan, or if any variation was significant. Ms. Davis reported to Ms. Swedlund that on or about Friday, January 27, 2012, J.B. was in time-out because of bad behaviors. While he was in time-out, he was sitting behind a rolling partition, and Respondent was holding the partition in place so that J.B. would have to remain in place. J.B. spat at Respondent, which is something he did often. Ms. Davis reported that while holding the partition Respondent spat back at him, an action that shocked Ms. Davis. Respondent denies ever spitting on J.B. She testified via deposition that J.B. was spitting while in time-out, and she was holding the barrier while talking to him. She responded to his behavior by saying “you do not spit.” Respondent testified that it was possible that some spittle may have fallen on J.B., but that she never intentionally spit on him. The only person who testified regarding the spitting was Ms. Davis. While she was a very credible witness, there was no testimony regarding how close she was to Ms. Henson or to J.B., or that J.B. reacted in any way. Neither of the other paraprofessionals in the room testified that they saw or heard about the incident, and it is implausible to think that such behavior would go without comment. It is conceivable that in saying, “you do not spit,” that spittle would result. Given the high burden of proof for this proceeding, the allegation has not been proven by clear and convincing evidence. As previously stated, K.M. presented a classroom management problem. She had a tendency to run around the classroom, take her clothes off, or run out of the classroom and sometimes out of the building. She also would tear up items in the classroom and could be very disruptive. Ms. Lewis felt that Respondent had a hard time getting past her dislike of the child. She had heard her say things like, “I could just kill you right now,” and “go ahead and go into the street.” While Ms. Lewis believed K.M. could understand such statements, she did not react to them, except perhaps to run faster. Ms. Lewis did not believe that Ms. Henson was serious when she made the statements, but more likely made them when frustrated by K.M.’s behavior. Respondent did not recall ever making such statements. Neither Ms. Lewis nor the Administrative Complaint identified exactly when Respondent was to have made these statements, although Ms. Lewis specified that they were statements made at different times. While Ms. Lewis testified that she believed Respondent did not like K.M., it is just as likely that she did not dislike the child, but was extremely frustrated by her behavior. All of the paraprofessionals testified that Respondent truly loved the children she worked with, but that she was frustrated and overwhelmed in the very challenging classroom in which she taught. While the evidence was clear and convincing that Respondent made the statements, even Ms. Lewis testified that she did not believe Respondent was serious when she made them. Regardless, the statements were not appropriate statements to make to a child, especially a child with limited intellectual abilities that might not be able to discern whether Respondent was serious. They are, by their nature, disparaging statements. Finally, the incident which caused Ms. Lewis to approach Ms. Swedlund about Respondent involved Respondent’s reactions to C.B. C.B. liked to work on the computer. He would play computer games, such as Dora the Explorer, and was rewarded with computer time for good behavior and finishing all of his assigned work. On Friday, January 27, 2012, C.B. had a rough day, and had been hitting, pinching, and kicking staff. Respondent had spoken with his mother about his behaviors to see if there had been any changes at home that might have contributed to his aggressive behavior. Respondent had told C.B.’s mother that they would have to try some different methods to get C.B. to comply, and that his playing on the computer all day would have to stop. The paraprofessionals testified that on Monday, January 30, 2012, Respondent seemed agitated all day. One said she seemed to carry the frustrations of Friday into Monday. That morning Jennifer Shea Saulmon went to the cafeteria to pick up C.B., who had walked from the parent pickup area without incident, and seemed to be in a good mood. When they reached the classroom, C.B. went straight to the computers. Respondent immediately told him that he could not have computer time. Ms. Saulmon was upset by this, because C.B. had not misbehaved that morning. She questioned Ms. Henson’s decision, and Respondent responded that he could not play on the computer all the time. He then completed his morning work without any disruption, and then walked over to the computers. Ms. Saulmon told him he could not play on the computer at that time. At about 9:15 a.m., the class began “circle time.” During this time, the students sit on the outside of a u-shaped table while Respondent sits on the inside of the “u.” C.B. did not like circle time. On this particular day, he was sitting at the end of the u-shaped table, to Respondent’s left. He began, as he often did, to hit and bite. According to Ms. Saulmon, this behavior usually subsides after about five minutes. This day, however, it did not. C.B. continued to pinch and hit Respondent. In response, Respondent put her arm up with a closed hand (so that the child could not pull and bend back a finger) in a blocking motion, as the teachers and paraprofessionals had been taught to do in order to protect themselves. She said out loud, “I’m blocking, I’m blocking.” However, rather than simply holding her arm up to block against any blows, she would swing her arm toward him to stop the blow, and in doing so, made contact with his arm. Although to Ms. Davis it looked like Respondent was hitting him, she never thought Respondent was trying to hurt C.B. Each time Respondent blocked C.B., he pinched her again, and she blocked him again, which made him angrier. He then started kicking her, and Ms. Davis and Ms. Saulmon believed she kicked him back. However, neither paraprofessional could say that Respondent actually made contact with C.B. They were pretty certain that C.B. was kicking Respondent, and they could see movement toward him by Respondent, and C.B. responded angrily by squealing as he usually did when frustrated or angry. It is just as likely that Respondent was using her leg or foot to try to block C.B.’s kicks, as she stated in her deposition, and that C.B. was angry because she was blocking him. Nonetheless, Respondent’s clear agitation in the classroom that day led to Ms. Lewis’ conversation with Ms. Swedlund about Respondent’s behavior. While all of the paraprofessionals stated concerns about Ms. Henson’s ability to handle that particular class, all were very supportive of her continuing to teach in the special education area. All three seemed to think that the environment of that particular class, which by any measure would be extremely challenging, is one that overwhelmed Respondent, and that she had been in that setting too long. When Respondent returned to work at the beginning of the 2012-2013 school year, she was transferred to Beach Elementary School. The principal at the new school is Glenda Nouskhajian. Ms. Nouskhajian considers Respondent to be one of her lead teachers in the ESE department, and has no performance- related concerns about her. The only issue Respondent has had since coming to Beach Elementary was a minor paper-work issue related to transferring schools within the district. Respondent is not working in a stand-alone classroom like she was before. She is what Ms. Nouskhajian referred to as a “push-in,” meaning that she goes into other teachers’ classrooms and works with students in small groups in an inclusion setting. She works with the lowest quartile of students, and helps with all of these students’ interventions. Ms. Nouskhajian testified that the students with whom Respondent works are making “great strides,” and Respondent is an educator she would “absolutely” seek to retain. Ms. Nouskhajian knew that there was an issue at Respondent’s prior school, but did not investigate the details. She stated that Respondent had been placed at Beach Elementary by Sharon Michalik, and “I knew that if she was a danger to students, Sharon Michalik would not have placed her at my school . . . . That she went through the counseling and everything she had to do so when she came to my school it was a total fresh start.” Since coming to Beach Elementary, Respondent’s evaluation for the 2012-2013 school year was overall effective, with all categories rated as effective or highly effective. In sum, there is clear and convincing evidence that Respondent made inappropriate remarks to student K.M. There is not clear and convincing evidence that Respondent spat on J.B., or that she hit or kicked C.B. Likewise, there is not clear and convincing evidence that she varied significantly from D.C.’s behavioral plan or acted in a way that allowed him to hurt himself. There is clear and convincing evidence that Respondent was frustrated and overwhelmed in the autistic classroom and, despite having asked for the assignment, had been teaching in that environment for too long to be effective, given the violent tendencies of the children in that setting. There is clear and convincing evidence that she took a leave of absence in lieu of termination and could only return to the classroom after an evaluation found her fit for duty. A change of setting was needed and has served to re-invigorate Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent has violated rule 6A- 10.081(3)(e). It is further recommended that Respondent be reprimanded and placed on probation for a period of two years, subject to such terms and conditions as the Commission in its discretion may impose. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of March, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of March, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: David Holder, Esquire J. David Holder PA 387 Lakeside Drive Defuniak Springs, Florida 32435 Emily Moore, Esquire Florida Education Association 213 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gretchen Kelley Brantley, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Matthew Carson, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent committed the offense(s) charged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The undersigned makes the following findings of relevant and material facts: Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate No. 1091499, covering the areas of Elementary Education, English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), Exceptional Student Education, and Autism Spectrum Disorder, which is valid through June 30, 2016. The Commissioner of Education is responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct against individuals holding a Florida Educator's Certificate. Respondent is an experienced teacher, having taught for 22 years, the last ten in Florida. Respondent has a post- bachelor's degree in Special Education, and a second bachelor's degree in English, and a master's degree in Special Education. Respondent began his career teaching emotional behavioral students, and did that for a few years. He later worked at a residential school, then transferred to teaching those with intellectual disabilities, and later focused his time and professional efforts on autistic students. Respondent decided to teach Special Education students because he had himself been a Special Education student. The incidents complained of in the Amended Administrative Complaint are alleged to have taken place over a three-month period at Olympic Heights High School in Boca Raton, Florida, where Respondent was employed as the emotional behavioral teacher and provided math support. Respondent testified that students with emotional behavioral disorders that interfere with their learning, need a support system to help them learn how to better handle their emotional and behavioral states in order to learn. His job was to oversee that system and to direct a classroom where he could teach them those skills. In addition to his special needs classes, Respondent would "push into" math classes, to teach Special Education students that were in the general education community. In this case, Petitioner outlined several rule and statutory violations by Respondent in its Amended Administrative Complaint including: Violations of the Principles of Professional Conduct. Failing to make a reasonable effort to protect a student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental health and/or physical health and/or safety. Unreasonably restraining a student from independent action in pursuit of learning. Intentionally exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. The factual allegations underlying these violations were as follows: During the 2014-2015 school year, Respondent improperly and aggressively handled T.C., an eighteen year old, male student with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ADF). On or about January 27, 2015, when T.C. grabbed Respondent's coffee cup, Respondent improperly restrained T.C. by placing T.C. in a headlock. On three (3) other occasions during the 2014/2015 school year, Respondent pulled T.C. to the floor, squeezed his cheeks and yelled at him. Respondent would often put his hands on a student when unnecessary and yell at them calling them names. Further, in November of 2014, the Respondent left a student, P.M., unattended in the classroom for twenty (20) minutes while he used the bathroom facilities. Facts Regarding Aggressive Handling and Improper Restraint of T.C. Nicole Ben-Hamo was a speech pathologist doing contract work for the Palm Beach County School District at Olympic Heights High School, in Boca Raton, Florida. She testified that on January 15, 2015, she observed an incident between Respondent and T.C., a student. The incident occurred in what she described as "an amazing small classroom" (referring to its physical size). The classroom was full of other staff members who were in a position, she felt, to observe what she observed. Ben-Hamo saw what she described as "a little wrestle," when student T.C. "grabbed" Respondent's coffee cup. T.C. was tall, heavy, and a big guy. She observed Respondent move forward from behind T.C. to try to reclaim his coffee cup. She claimed that Respondent was standing up behind T.C. and both had their feet on the floor. Respondent reached over the shoulder of T.C. and around him as he tried to take back the coffee cup. Ben-Hamo later wrote a statement in which she claimed that Respondent's arm was around T.C. in a "headlock." Pet. Ex. 2. In her hearing testimony, she described the action as Respondent reaching with one hand to reach the coffee cup, and reaching around T.C. to restrain him with the other hand. In her prior deposition testimony, she noted that it was probably not the right terminology to say a "headlock," but said that Respondent was holding the student's head in a restraint while reaching for the cup. She conceded that she was not familiar with wrestling moves or any kind of move that would be called a "headlock." She testified that she does not know if that is what the move is called, or if it was intended to be a headlock.1/ Ben-Hamo tried to clarify that what she actually observed was Respondent's arm extending from T.C.'s clavicle to his neck area. She could not tell if Respondent was squeezing T.C. In both her deposition testimony and at the hearing, she indicated that she could not imagine that he was squeezing or trying to hurt T.C. In her written statement, given a day or so after the event, Ben-Hamo wrote that she did not believe that Respondent's actions constituted intentional abuse. Pet. Ex. 2. In an effort to further clarify what she thought she saw, Ben-Hamo explained that she did not think that she had witnessed intentional abuse. She felt that Respondent was trying to get the coffee cup back and calm the student.2/ Pet. Ex. 2. Ben-Hamo testified that the entire incident took a "short time" and that none of the other adults who were present intervened. Because she felt that the incident was not "proper interaction," she reported it to an assistant principal. Sarah Borah, the assistant principal; Sharon Dix-Stark, the ESE coordinator; and David Clark, the principal, all were called to testify by Petitioner.3/ Mary Beth Hall, who was present in the room, reported that Respondent sat next to T.C., as he often did. This was done to keep T.C. from jumping up to be disruptive or grab the food of others. While they were seated, she saw T.C. grab Respondent's coffee cup off the table. In turn, Respondent took T.C.'s hat, telling T.C. that "if you take something of mine; I'll take something of yours." Hall reported that nothing she saw about the interaction was extraordinary. She felt that by the time an investigator was called in "things had been kind of blown out of proportion" and the incident between T.C. and Respondent was more a matter of "perception." She felt Respondent worked well with the students. He was more "hands on" with T.C., with whom he got along well. Respondent served as a needed male role model to T.C. Hall recalled that Respondent and T.C. remained seated throughout the incident. Contrary to the testimony of Ben-Hamo, Hall never saw T.C. or Respondent stand during the incident. Hall gave a statement months later in which she used the term "chokehold." Pet. Ex. 3. However, she unequivocally explained at the hearing that she did not see Respondent actually choking T.C., using a chokehold on T.C., or restraining T.C. Hall testified, instead, that the two were "wrestling with their arms" over the items (the cup and hat) and reaching over and around each other, as would two children tussling for the same toy. They both remained seated during the incident and their respective desks never moved or were jostled out of position. Respondent never stood behind T.C. during the incident. According to Hall, the entire incident was two people sitting next to each other and wrestling with their arms. She used the term "wrestling" to indicate two people reaching around each other. Hall testified that she saw Respondent's actions as a means for him to teach T.C. not to grab something that did not belong to him and belonged to someone else. After what she described as a very quick incident, Hall reflected that Respondent got his coffee mug, T.C. got his hat back, and they both seemed happy after the incident concluded. Hall did not find it necessary to intervene in the incident, as there was no violence between Respondent and T.C. Hall observed several paraprofessionals in the room. None intervened, or put down their cell phones during the incident. According to Hall, T.C. was not harmed in any way. Hall testified that no noises or sounds were made by T.C. during the incident that indicated he was in any pain, distress, or discomfort. Hall never saw Respondent mistreat T.C. in any way. Respondent appeared to treat all children respectfully and attentively, and she never saw him use his hands improperly on any student in the classroom. Respondent testified on his own behalf. He felt he had a "wonderful" relationship with T.C. He described T.C. as a physically 18-year-old adult, who was large and strong. However, his emotional development was at the pre-kindergarten level. T.C. was over six feet tall, and weighed 250 to 260 pounds. T.C. was obsessive compulsive and had a short attention span. He had certain behavioral problems, which were accentuated because he never learned proper replacement behaviors for his maladaptive kindergarten behaviors. These behaviors were not appropriate for an 18-year-old. T.C. always needed to be escorted because he liked to run, look, investigate, and discover. Whether it was in front of a car or whether it was a trash can, he just always wanted to do things. For safety reasons, an adult was always required to be with him. Assistance was provided to help steer T.C. to more appropriate behavior and activities. Occasionally, T.C. would put Respondent's hand on his shoulder for Respondent to rub his shoulder. It was a method that Respondent used to soothe T.C., which they called "tickles." On the day of the incident, Respondent sat down next to T.C., who had finished lunch. Respondent placed his coffee cup on the dining table some three feet away. Without warning, T.C. lunged across Respondent to grab Respondent's coffee cup. He did not reach it the first time. Respondent began massaging T.C.'s arm and said, "Do you want tickles, or do you want the coffee cup?" T.C. calmed for a time, and then reached for the cup again. T.C. reached and got his hand on Respondent's cup. While doing this, he was leaning into or on Respondent's lap. He eventually reached and grabbed Respondent's cup. Respondent took T.C.'s hat from the windowsill, and asked if T.C. wanted his hat given back. T.C. reached for his hat with his other hand. As the incident unfolded, T.C. held the cup and reached over Respondent trying to grab his hat back from Respondent. The two were right next to each other, reaching back and forth. Respondent extended his hand out, so that T.C. would see that he was waiting for his cup to be exchanged. Eventually T.C. got bored of the cup and gave it back to Respondent. When T.C. gave Respondent the cup, Respondent gave him back his hat. The more persuasive and credible testimony regarding the classroom incident was that T.C. impulsively grabbed Respondent's cup while they were seated next to each other. Respondent then attempted to make a teaching point with T.C. about not taking the things of another, by taking his hat. In the process, T.C. and Respondent reached over and around the other in an effort to retrieve their item from the other. There was physical contact between the two, but it was not inappropriate, or unduly rough.4/ There was no credible proof that Respondent intended to harm, restrain, or injure T.C. Ben-Hamo's testimony and conclusions regarding the extent, type and nature of the contact and interaction between T.C. and Respondent is rejected as unpersuasive and implausible.5/ The undersigned finds that Respondent did not place or restrain T.C. in a "chokehold," "headlock," or other improper restraint. Based on this record and the circumstances, there was no clear and convincing evidence to support Petitioner's allegation that Respondent violated any statute, policy, or rule in the incident with T.C. regarding the coffee cup. Allegations Reported by Shannon Lewis Shannon Lewis, a paraprofessional, testified by deposition. Pet. Ex. 11. She described T.C. as being 6'5" tall and weighing 250 to 280 pounds. She noted that he had very little impulse control, and that when he saw something of interest, he impulsively went to get it. Lewis testified that one day when Respondent took T.C. to physical education class, T.C. wanted to put his tooth on the doorway when he exited the gymnasium.6/ According to Lewis, Respondent grabbed T.C. by one arm, then pulled him away and yanked him. She testified that Respondent put his foot behind T.C.'s foot, so that T.C. would have to go to the ground. According to Lewis, Respondent did that three times before he would relent.7/ Lewis testified that the students in the physical education class and two paraprofessionals, including Pedro St. Jacques and Illiana Girtman, were present when the incident occurred and saw it. She testified that St. Jacques was the aide assigned to T.C. Lewis testified that while T.C. was on the ground, Respondent squeezed his face and made his lips pucker and yelled, "No, T. No." No student or other teacher testified that they saw or witnessed the actions described by Lewis. St. Jacques executed an affidavit admitted into evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 3.8/ Resp. Ex. 3. However, he never witnessed anything inappropriate between Respondent and any students, including T.C. St. Jacques never witnessed Respondent throw T.C. to the ground and never saw him treat T.C. badly.9/ St. Jacques testified that sometimes it was necessary to approach T.C. in a different manner because of his size and to prevent him from getting hurt. It was sometimes necessary to physically guide T.C. away from whatever activity he became fixated on. St. Jacques never observed Respondent use any unnecessary or questionable force on T.C. in those instances. He knew that Respondent was working with T.C. to have him stop biting the door frames as he walked through the halls. He heard Respondent tell T.C. not to bite them and saw him maneuver T.C. away from them. No undue force was used by Respondent. Girtman was also present during this incident, according to Lewis. She was a paraprofessional with Respondent at Olympic Heights High School. She never saw Respondent touch a student in a way that she thought was unnecessary or improper. Respondent was always gentle with T.C. She never saw Respondent squeeze T.C.'s face or yell at him. Another paraprofessional, Alvaro Rodriguez testified. He was also identified by Lewis as being present during the door- biting incident. He never saw Respondent use physical methods or force on T.C. in a way that he thought was improper. He never saw Respondent pull T.C. down to the floor. He never saw Respondent squeeze T.C. by the cheeks or yell at him. Respondent denied that the hallway incident occurred, as described by Lewis. He testified that the banging of T.C.'s teeth on a piece of metal was part of his obsessive-compulsive disorder.10/ Respondent was not big enough to pull T.C. down to the floor, and never did so. When T.C. was agitated or running around, Respondent would ask him to sit, but he never pulled him to the floor. Respondent explained that sometimes T.C. needed gentle pressure on his arm or something to reinforce what it means to go down or to go in one direction or the other. Respondent denied that he yelled into T.C.'s face or yelled at him, and that T.C. did not respond to yelling, he only responded to quiet talking. Respondent testified that he never grabbed T.C. by the cheeks and squeezed. Respondent's testimony concerning this incident, and the testimony from St. Jacques, Girtman, and Rodriquez was more persuasive and credible. There simply was no clear and convincing evidence that Respondent improperly, violently, or forcefully threw or took T.C. to the ground, yelled at him, squeezed his cheeks or handled him in an inappropriate way. Further, the proof was insufficient to prove any unreasonable restraint was used by Respondent during this incident with T.C. Incident Involving P.M. Lewis described P.M. as a non-verbal and out of control student, who destroyed his home and wiped feces everywhere. Lewis claimed that Respondent decided to work with P.M. in his classroom one-on-one during lunch.11/ One day Lewis walked into Respondent's classroom and saw P.M. sitting on a yoga ball with no teacher in sight.12/ She then heard the toilet flush, and Respondent walked out of the bathroom. The aides were instructed that no student should ever be left alone. St. Jacques' statement indicates he (St. Jacques) was always assigned to supervise P.M. when Respondent was at the school, and that he (St. Jacques) was supposed to be with P.M. on the day in question. Apparently, P.M. was another student who needed full-time supervision. Evidently, P.M. liked to walk around the classrooms and would walk into Respondent's classroom on occasion. St. Jacques would always redirect him. When P.M. wandered into Respondent's classroom, it would only be for about 30 seconds. There was never a time that Respondent was responsible to supervise P.M. during his planning period, or at any other time. It was always the responsibility of the paraprofessional to supervise and attend to P.M. Even if Respondent was working with P.M., St. Jacques was responsible to be with him. Respondent testified, consistent with St. Jacques, that he never worked with P.M. without the aide present. He was never assigned to supervise P.M. in lieu of the aide, because that would have changed P.M.'s Individualized Education Program. Students were not allowed in Respondent's classroom during his planning period, except to be escorted to use the bathroom. Respondent testified that there were times that he would transition back from a class and P.M. would be in his room using his sensory equipment, but he would always be with St. Jacques. One time when he came out of the bathroom during his planning period, he observed P.M. in his room with Lewis, who sometimes covered for St. Jacques during the other paraprofessional's break. During the period of time that Respondent was in the bathroom, he was not assigned or supposed to be supervising P.M. He was surprised to see P.M. when he came out of the bathroom during his planning period. The allegation that Respondent failed to properly supervise P.M. and left him alone while Respondent used the bathroom was not proven by clear and convincing evidence. The more persuasive evidence at the hearing indicated that Respondent was not assigned to supervise P.M. at the time of this particular incident. The testimony of St. Jacques supports Respondent's version and this finding. Whatever Lewis saw, or thought she saw, was not persuasive or sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent left P.M. unattended in his classroom for 20 minutes or failed to supervise a student assigned to him. Exposing a Student to Unnecessary Embarrassment or Disparagement Lewis further testified that there was an incident involving students who wanted to use calculators during math class. J.M. wanted to use the calculator, but Respondent would not let her use it. The student had to be taken from the room because she screamed and carried on when not permitted to use the calculator. Apparently, Respondent wanted her to learn to do math without a calculator. There were two other students who Respondent also did not allow to use the calculator. In response to the various requests, Respondent commented, "This is ridiculous. You guys are stupid if you can't do this without a calculator. You need to have life skills in order for you to be successful outside of the classroom." There was not a shred of proof offered or adduced at the hearing that Respondent "put his hands on" any of these students.13/ Furthermore, there was no clear and convincing proof that Respondent intended to expose these math students to unnecessary embarrassment. See Langston v. Jamerson, 653 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Respondent denied that he ever called any of the students a derogatory name or called any of them "stupid." Lewis agreed that it was Respondent's role as the teacher to determine whether a calculator was used. She claimed that St. Jacques was in the room when Respondent called the girls stupid and heard him say it. St. Jacques' attested in his written statement in a contrary manner. Resp. Ex. 3. He said that he never witnessed anything inappropriate between Respondent and any students, including the girls involved in the calculator incident, J.M. and Rebecca. St. Jacques never witnessed Respondent mistreat the math students referred to by Lewis. Respondent was always respectful to the students and he never saw Respondent embarrass or ridicule any of them. Respondent testified that he treated the students in general with compassion and respect. He denied he ever called them names other than their own and never embarrassed any student or called them names because they wanted to use the calculators. Based upon the more persuasive and credible evidence adduced at the hearing, the allegations of belittling the math students and calling them "stupid" were not proven by clear and convincing evidence. There was insufficient proof to establish that Respondent intended to unnecessarily ridicule, demean, or belittle any particular student The testimony of St. Jacques bolsters Respondent's testimony on this point. The undersigned credits Respondent's testimony and finds it more persuasive. The undersigned finds that there was no clear or convincing evidence to conclude that Respondent's actions or statements to the girls regarding the use of the calculator, constituted a violation of any statute, policy, or rule.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint against Jeffrey Voner. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 2018.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner, Dr. Eric J. Smith, as Commissioner of Education, against the Respondent, Deana Brown, are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent held a Florida Educator's Certificate No. 801038, covering the areas of elementary education, English for speakers of other languages (ESOL), and varying exceptionalities, valid through June 30, 2013. The Respondent was first employed by the Polk County School District (District) as an exceptional student education (ESE) teacher in 1998. She transferred to Spook Hill Elementary School (SHES), a unit of the District, at the beginning of the 2003-2004 school year. At the beginning of the 2005-2006 school year, the Respondent was assigned by SHES Principal Matthew Burkett (Mr. Burkett) to teach in the pre-kindergarten (Pre-K) ESE class. Students in the classroom were three to five years of age and exhibited disabilities ranging from autism to being educable mentally handicapped. This was the Respondent's first experience teaching in the Pre-K ESE classroom. The Respondent's classroom was a portable structure, surrounded by a fence, with a ramp leading from the classroom door into a playground area. There was a restroom in the portable classroom building. The classroom was staffed by the Respondent and a paraprofessional. Mr. Burkett testified that he became concerned with the Respondent's classroom performance based on contacts with parents of students in the classroom. Mr. Burkett identified the concerns as "sleeping, being on the cell phone, those types of things." Mr. Burkett apparently made an effort to observe the Respondent based on such concerns, and his observations resulted in disciplinary actions. On January 19, 2007, Mr. Burkett issued a verbal warning to the Respondent regarding the issue of sleeping in the classroom and confirmed the verbal warning by letter dated January 22, 2007. The letter noted that the Respondent explained that she had been modeling behavior for the children during naptime. The letter advised that the Respondent's sleeping at naptime was not appropriate, that she should not lie down on the floor with her students, and that any issue "that jeopardizes the health and safety of the students will result in further disciplinary action." At 12:45 p.m. on February 2, 2007, Mr. Burkett returned to the Respondent's classroom to talk to the Respondent. He found the classroom dark and quiet, with the students, some of whom were asleep, lying on the floor. The Respondent was not asleep but was lying on the floor. Mr. Burkett reminded the Respondent that she had been directed to refrain from lying on the floor with students, and, on February 8, 2007, he issued a written reprimand to the Respondent for disregarding the directive. On February 9, 2007, Mr. Burkett issued a "letter of concern," wherein he referenced issues discussed during conferences with the Respondent on February 2, 5, and 8, 2007. The letter noted the presence in the classroom of the Respondent's niece, an unapproved volunteer, and stated that the girl was prohibited from being in the classroom until the niece applied for and receive approval to be a volunteer. The letter noted the presence of an adult male in the classroom, an air-conditioning technician employed by the county, with whom the Respondent was planning a class reunion. The letter directed the Respondent to refrain from conducting personal business in the classroom. The letter noted the Respondent's frequent use of a telephone earpiece and her cell phone on personal business during school hours. The letter indicated the Respondent had explained that the calls were to the parents of her students and were school related, that the Respondent had been instructed not to wear the earpiece, and that the Respondent had subsequently been observed using her cell phone and earpiece. The letter directed the Respondent to discontinue having her cell phone "on your person during the school day from 7:30 am to 3:15 pm." The letter noted concern that the Respondent was not "engaged" with her students and that the Respondent had claimed to have been "busy" at times a parent had observed the classroom. The letter directed the Respondent to assign "busy" tasks to her paraprofessional so that the Respondent could remain engaged with her students. The letter noted another discussion regarding napping and advised the Respondent that students were to nap for only one hour, rather than from 12:45 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. The letter noted the Respondent had not been supervising her students during playground time and had stayed inside to clean the classroom. The letter stated that the custodian was responsible for cleaning the room and would do so. The letter noted that various educational items hanging from the classroom ceiling were a violation of the fire code and needed to be removed. The letter noted that the Respondent had chosen to allow parents to drop students off at school prior to 7:15 a.m. The Respondent testified that she did so to accommodate parents whose schedules were difficult. The letter advised the Respondent that students were not to be dropped off at school prior to 7:15 a.m. and that the principal would intervene with parents if necessary. Also on February 9, 2007, Mr. Burkett issued a verbal warning to the Respondent for leaving the school campus during working hours on February 7, 2007, without obtaining prior approval from the school administration. He documented the verbal warning by separate letter dated September 9, 2007, wherein he noted that the SHES assistant principal had been required "to assist with the safety and supervision of your students" during the unapproved absence. The letter noted that the Respondent had explained she left school to take her niece to work. The letter advised that further incidence of leaving the school grounds during working hours without approval would result in further disciplinary action. On March 1, 2007, Mr. Burkett observed the paraprofessional in the playground, sitting on a swing set, holding a child, and yelling at other students who were running on the ramp. Both the portable door and the fence gate were "wide open." Mr. Burkett returned the students to the classroom where he observed other students playing in the teacher's chair while the Respondent talked on her personal cell phone, unaware that Mr. Burkett had entered the room. On March 6, 2007, Mr. Burkett issued a written reprimand for the Respondent's continued use of her personal cell phone during school hours. The Respondent asserted that she was talking to the parent of a student who had called a few seconds prior to Mr. Burkett's entrance into the classroom (despite his directive of February 9, 2007, prohibiting her possession of her personal cell phone on campus during school hours). By letter dated March 14, 2007, the District superintendant issued a letter suspending the Respondent without pay for one day (March 22, 2007) based on the events of March 1, 2007. On March 19, 2007, the Respondent became engaged in an altercation with her niece, who was again on the SHES campus during school hours. During the altercation, the Respondent argued with her niece and slapped her niece on the face. When the niece left the campus, the Respondent got into her personal vehicle and followed her niece. The Respondent failed to follow SHES procedure when she left the campus during school hours. By letter dated April 18, 2007, the District superintendant issued a letter suspending the Respondent without pay for one day (April 25, 2007) based on the events of March 19, 2007. By letter dated May 8, 2007, Mr. Burkett referenced the creation on March 8, 2007, of a Professional Development Plan (PDP) to "address the learning environment" in the Respondent's classroom. Among the performance deficiencies identified in the PDP and noted in the letter was the failure to circulate around the classroom during activities, engaging and interacting with students, rather than sitting at the teacher's desk. Additional deficiencies included a failure to comply with the students' Individual Education Plans (IEPs), posting a daily classroom schedule, and classroom safety issues. On August 31, 2007, the Respondent strapped a misbehaving student into a 24-inch tall high chair and then left the classroom to use a laminating machine and a non-classroom restroom. The paraprofessional remained in the room with the students. The student's IEP did not allow for use of a high chair as a restraining or "time-out" device. Mr. Burkett entered the classroom approximately ten minutes after the Respondent left and observed that both the high chair and the student had fallen over. The student was not injured. The Respondent returned to the classroom about five minutes after Mr. Burkett entered the room and explained where she had been. By letter dated September 10, 2007, the District superintendant issued a letter suspending the Respondent without pay for five days (September 17 through 21, 2007) based on the Respondent's disciplinary history and the events of August 31, 2007. Prior to the suspension period, the dates of suspension were amended to September 20, 21, and 14 through 16, 2007. On January 17, 2008, the Respondent again left the SHES campus prior to the conclusion of her working hours without obtaining approval from school officials. At approximately 2:30 p.m., on that date, a Pre-K student failed to appear at the designated time and location for bus transportation from the school to home. Mr. Burkett attempted to locate the Respondent to resolve concerns about the student's location and determined that the Respondent was not present on campus. After the Respondent was eventually located, she told school officials that she placed the student on a different bus on that date and then left the campus. She had not advised anyone at the school of the alternative transportation arrangements prior to her unapproved departure from campus. After confirming that the child was indeed on the other bus, his regular bus departed late from the school campus. By letter dated January 30, 2008, the District superintendant issued a letter suspending the Respondent without pay for five days (February 6 through 12, 2008) based on the Respondent's disciplinary history and the events of January 17, 2008. On February 21, 2008, an assistant principal at SHES went into the Respondent's classroom for an informal observation. The Respondent was seated at her computer when the assistant principal entered the room. After looking around the room, the assistant principal believed that not all of the Respondent's students were present in the room. The assistant principal took a head count, determined that one child was missing from the classroom, and inquired of the Respondent as to the location of the missing student. The child was subsequently found, unharmed, in the portable classroom bathroom. The Respondent had been unaware of the missing child prior to the assistant principal's observation that the child was not present and had no idea of the child's location. By letter dated March 3, 2008, the District superintendant issued a letter immediately suspending the Respondent with pay and stating that the superintendant would recommend to the Polk County School Board that the Respondent's employment be terminated. The grounds for the proposed termination included the Respondent's "continuing pattern of violating school and district policies" and a "pattern of failing to properly supervise students under your care." The Respondent's employment with the District ended after an unsuccessful administrative challenge to the proposed termination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order imposing a two-year suspension of the Respondent's teaching certificate followed by a three-year probationary period, including such terms and conditions, including appropriate additional educational requirements, as the Education Practices Commission may choose to impose. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of September, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 14th day of September, 2011.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether Respondent's employment as a teacher should be terminated for just cause, as delineated in Section 1012.33(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2005).
Findings Of Fact Kara Mort (Dr. Mort) has worked in the field of education since 1969 and in her chosen field as a Special Education teacher from 2001 through May 2005 in St. Johns County, Florida. She earned a Bachelor's Degree in Art Education from the University of North Carolina in 1968; a Master's Degree in Emotionally Disturbed Student Education from the Peabody College of Vanderbilt University in 1969; a Ph.D. in Special Education and Administration and Supervision from the University of North Carolina in 1982; and a Juris Doctorate Degree from the University of Florida in 1989. She has been certified to teach in North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida and holds an active Florida teaching certificate in the areas of Art, Emotionally Disturbed, Learning Disabled, Mental Retardation, and Administration and Supervision. Her licensure has never been subjected to any disciplinary action in any of the states in which she has had certification as an educator and the evidence reflects no prior employment discipline during her practice in the teaching profession. Dr. Mort has been a National Board Certified Teacher since 2001, which allows her to earn a bonus of 10 percent of the statewide average teacher's salary for each year of employment in a full-time position in a Florida public school. National Board Certified Teachers in Florida can also earn another 10 percent of the statewide average teacher salary as a separate bonus in any year in which they perform a required amount of mentoring services to help other teachers improve their classroom skills. Dr. Mort earned both types of bonuses in each of her four full years of service as a teacher for the Petitioner School District, but was ineligible to receive either bonus for the 2005-2006 school year because of the termination action. In April 2005, the St. Johns County School Board (Board) approved the Respondent for tenured teacher status under a professional services contract (PSC). Based upon her work in the 2004-2005 school year at Nease High School she received an outstanding performance evaluation. Principal Fred Cole offered praise of her relationships with her students and her leadership skills that year and she was selected by District officials to attend a two-day leadership retreat as one of the District's "cadre of excellent teachers and educational leaders." Dr. Mort had two classroom aides beginning with the 2004-2005 school year, Ms. Martha Lucas and Ms. Kathleen Tolx. Dr. Mort and the two aides were all new to Nease High School that year. Dr. Mort had been hired by the Principal of Nease High School, Robert Schiavone, to implement a new special education program. The program included students with significant learning disabilities and emotional disabilities. The curriculum was focused on basic level academic skills, as well as social, daily living, and employability skills. Dr. Mort had eight or ten Special Education students in her class at any given time during her school day that year. The students were all mentally retarded to one degree or another, with most having other substantial deficits, physical or emotional, or sometimes both. One of the students, J.H., has a history of engaging in physical attacks upon teachers, staff, and parents, apparently often related to seizures. J.H. is a large student, being approximately 5'10" tall and between 180 and 190 pounds in weight. When he is agitated he displays great physical strength and agility and is difficult to restrain or control. He often attacks his caretakers for seemingly minor reasons or totally unpredictably. His attacks typically involve grabbing his caretakers' arms to claw and scratch at them. He is extremely limited in his ability to communicate. His speech is very limited and the sign language he knows is imperfect and is best understood only by members of his family. Ms. Lucas had been previously involved in J.H.'s education, when she was part of a summer school program in which he was enrolled in a prior school year. He attacked Ms. Lucas during that summer school program and made a similar attack upon Dr. Mort in the fall of 2004. After that attack on Dr. Mort in the full of 2004, Ms. Lucas told Dr. Mort that she would not intervene if he became violent again, although she would continue to work with him on academic skills. J.H. made significant progress during the 2004-2005 school year as to his academic and developmental progress. His attacks on others diminished in frequency. His parents were very pleased with Dr. Mort's program, her relationship with their son, and the manner in which she managed his conduct when he became violent. Jane H., J.H.'s mother, and her husband continue to feel the same way about Dr. Mort and her ability to work effectively with J.H. and other students, notwithstanding the May "striking incident" described below. They made those feelings known to the Superintendent of the School District as well as the School Board when the termination of Dr. Mort's employment was under consideration. Dr. Mort and her staff and J.H.'s mother, Jane H., on some occasions are able to diminish the anger and violent conduct of J.H. by using certain techniques, such as threatening to call the school resource officer, a deputy sheriff, repeatedly making him aware that his conduct will not let him get his way; and persuading him to take his oral medication (Ativan) that tends to calm him down. His fits of anger and his attacks are unpredictable, however, as to when the occur, how long they will last, or how violent they may be. During their discussions concerning J.H.'s progress and management during the 2004-2005 school year, Mr. and Mrs. H and Dr. Mort agreed that the Ativan should only be used sparingly because it tends to put J.H. to sleep, wasting the remainder of the school day after the medication is administered. Additionally, since the medication is given orally, J.H. must be willing to cooperate for it to be taken or administered in order to achieve its calmative effect. Because of this discussion and circumstance, Dr. Mort chose to use verbal techniques to calm J.H. down, when possible, without given him the medication. During those times when he remained agitated and aggressive he was likely to refuse to take the medication anyway. The Ativan was kept in the office area between the two adjoining Special Education classrooms, one of which was Dr. Mort's. The District provides "walkie-talkie" communicators to teachers to enhance their ability to communicate with each other, the staff, and the school resource officer (SRO) during emergency situations. Ms. Binns kept two walkie-talkies in her classroom area next door to Dr. Mort's classroom. Dr. Mort and her classroom was not assigned a walkie-talkie because apparently the school did not have available the type that Dr. Mort requested. During the 2004-2005 school year the Petitioner began training a few of its special education teachers in a new crisis intervention program known as PCM. Ms. Binns received the training in the first half of that school year and her aide, Ms. Zwolinski, received PCM training in April or May of that school year. The Respondent had requested the training, but was not scheduled to attend any of the 2004-2005 training sessions. PCM training was not provided to Ms. Lucas or Ms. Tolx during that year either. The special floor mat that is required in order to use PCM restraint techniques was not present at Nease High School during the school year and the school did not yet have a full PCM team of three or more trained persons during that school year. PCM techniques are not authorized to be used in restraining students by persons not trained in PCM techniques. The physical restraint methods used in PCM require two, three, or four PCM trained individuals. On March 7, 2005, Dr. Mort suffered a serious injury to her left wrist and arm when another student, N.W., accidently pushed her to the ground while trying to get past her. She fractured her wrist in trying to break her fall, hurt her tailbone, and hit her head on a cabinet. She was unable to use her left hand or arm during the reminder of the 2004-2005 school year. Her left hand remains substantially useless as of the date of the hearing. Although she was seriously injured, Dr. Mort had the presence of mind to remain calm and spoke kindly to N.W. in order to keep him from feeling guilty about causing her injury. On May 17, 2005, J.H. was not feeling well. He apparently was upset about school personnel changes he had recently heard about involving the principal and assistant principal leaving the school at the end of that school year. He wanted to go home because he felt badly. He became very agitated when Dr. Mort told him she was unable to send him home because she was unable to contact his parents to come get him at that time. Over the course of that morning J.H. intermittently became upset, calmed down to the point where he would lie down for periods of time, only to become agitated again. During the lunch period that day, shortly before noon, he again became angry and frustrated about his circumstances and acted out by throwing books and other objects off a classroom table and onto the floor, which caused a great deal of noise. Dr. Mort repeatedly told him in a stern tone that he would have to pick up the books before he could go home. Eventually, he did kneel down and begin picking up the books. Ms. Zwolinski, Ms. Binns' aide, heard the books land on the floor and looked through the window between the classrooms to see what was happening. She entered Dr. Mort's room briefly through the hallway between the rooms and heard Dr. Mort twice ask Ms. Lucas to press the "panic button" to get help. This is a button by which help can be summoned from elsewhere on the campus during an emergency situation. Ms. Zwolinski saw Ms. Lucas push the emergency button after Dr. Mort's second, more agitated request. Ms. Zwolinski then returned to Ms. Binns' room to work with the students who were returning from lunch. During the event she observed, Ms. Zwolinski did not see Ms. Tolx in Dr. Mort's room nor did she see Ms. Tolx passing through Ms. Binns' room on the way to the adjoining room from the cafeteria. She never heard Ms. Tolx ask Dr. Mort if she needed help dealing with J.H. Dr. Mort then went to a nearby table where student J.P. was seated. He was in the vicinity of where the books landed. Dr. Mort was trying to be sure that he had not been hit or hurt by the flying books. In the meantime, J.H. stopped picking up the books and went to the day bed in the classroom. After sternly telling J.H. once again that he would not be able to go home until he picked up the books, Dr. Mort began to kneel down to help J.H. pick the books up. At that moment J.H. ran at Dr. Mort, and grabbed her arms as part of the first of three attacks over a period of the next few minutes. Initially he grabbed Dr. Mort's arms and clawed at the lower parts of both arms. Dr. Mort stepped back and pulled away from J.H. slightly and then he grabbed her again and began clawing at her breast area with one hand and the upper part of her usable arm with his other hand. She continued to try to twist out of his grasp as best she could, managing to break free slightly from his hold. He then attacked more violently a third time resumed his clawing of Dr. Mort's upper arms and buried his head into her chest and began biting her breast. By the time of this third assault Dr. Mort moved back to a nearby table and was leaning back against it with her lower body. J.H.'s clawing and biting of her breast caused severe pain, during which Dr. Mort continued to plead for Ms. Lucas' assistance. Ms. Lucas was in the room during the attack and finally pushed the emergency button at some point to summon help from the administration. No help ever came. The attacks intensified and Dr. Mort continued pleading for Ms. Lucas to help her. Ms. Lucas then retreated into Ms. Binns' classroom and got the walkie-talkie to try to summon the school resource officer. This was to no avail. The deputy, the SRO, never arrived. Dr. Mort's severe pain continued as she tried unsuccessfully to fend J.H. off with her one functional arm and hand. She was very concerned that his severe biting would cause damage to her breast and nipple and made repeated efforts to verbally snap J.H. out of his trance-like state, to no avail. Seeing no sign of any help and being in severe pain, Dr. Mort testified that she "cupped" her good hand and struck firmly one time at J.H.'s upper shoulder. Dr. Mort hoped that a "cup-pop" type of blow would create noise that would snap J.H. out of his seizure like state and stop the attack. Dr. Mort's one strike of J.H. coupled with her request for him to stop hurting her ultimately caused him to end his assault and he let go of her immediately thereafter. The single blow, on or near J.H.'s left shoulder was administered in the hope by Dr. Mort that it would prevent further serious harm to her without harming him. She did not strike him out of anger, but as a means to defend herself and snap him out of his trance-like state and end the attack. J.H. suffered no injury or bruises with respect to the May 17th incident, although Dr. Mort certainly did. Moreover, J.H. was never injured during the 2004-2005 school year, apart from occasional self-inflicted bite marks on his arms. Both Ms. Tolx and Ms. Lucas maintained that Dr. Mort had slapped J.H. in the face with her open hand, rather than administering a "cup-pop strike" to J.H.'s shoulder. In fact, however, the competent, persuasive evidence shows that Ms. Tolx was in the lunchroom during the May 7, 2005, incident and did not even see the attack of J.H. upon Dr. Mort nor Dr. Mort's strike of J.H. Ms. Lucas could not clearly seeing what was occurring between Dr. Mort and J.H. because the room was somewhat dark, she was busy locating and trying to use the walkie-talkie in the next room and has poor vision. She generally tried to avoid dealing with J.H. when he became violent. Ms. Tolx and Dr. Mort had been roommates for a few months in the Falll and Winter of 2004, because two hurricanes had rendered Dr. Mort's home temporarily unlivable. Ms. Tolx had angrily ordered Dr. Mort to leave her home one evening in January of 2005 for allegedly causing an argument between her and her 36-year-old developmentally disabled son that resulted in him leaving the house. Moreover, the relationship between Ms. Lucas and Dr. Mort was a strained one as well. Dr. Mort considered Ms. Lucas a poor employee and had previously told her so. Ms. Lucas and Dr. Mort had had a heated argument only a week before the J.H. incident and Ms. Lucas believed that Dr. Mort planned to have her fired. Ms. Lucas sought a re- assignment at some point and no longer works for the school district. It is determined that the testimony of Ms. Lucas and Ms. Tolx's under the above-found circumstances is not credible and persuasive. The testimony of Dr. Mort and Ms. Zwolinski is more credible. Consequently, Dr. Mort's testimony concerning the details of the incident involving the attack on her by J.H. is more credible and is accepted over that of Ms. Lucas and Ms. Tolx. Moreover, J.H. is a quite large, 190 pound student who is unpredictably aggressive and violent. If, indeed, Dr. Mort had slapped his face in an effort at self-defense and in trying to get him to end an acutely painful and injurious attack, it is deemed to have been reasonable force, undertaken in a last ditch effort at self-defense, to prevent further physical harm to herself, while causing the least possible harm to the student in trying to stop his attack. She did not strike J.H. in anger or as a means of retaliation for his hurting her. Under the circumstances found herein, based on persuasive, credible evidence, even more force than a slap to the face would have been reasonable. The Department of Education has adopted guidelines to evaluate the reasonableness of incidents of force used by teachers to prevent physical harm to themselves, school staff, or students. Those guidelines were adopted in 1997 by the Department of Education, as required by Section 1003.32(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2005). Given the circumstances with which Dr. Mort was confronted on May 17, 2005, her physical response to J.H.'s repeated and increasingly violent, painful, and injurious attacks was undertaken solely to prevent more serious injury to herself and to minimize injury to the student J.H. (in fact he was not injured at all). Such constituted reasonable force as authorized by Section 1003.32(1), Florida Statutes (2005), the referenced guidelines, as well as the applicable collective bargaining agreement. Nothing Dr. Mort did on May 17, 2005, reduced her effectiveness as an employee of the School District. The testimony adduced from witnesses presented by the Petitioner, to the effect that there has been a loss of trust by parents, other teachers, and students in Dr. Mort, because of her striking J.H., and to the effect that she cannot in the future maintain a calm, positive, productive, and safe educational environment in her classroom and with staff and parents is deemed unpersuasive. There is no persuasive evidence that other parents, some of whom testified, have found her to have lost her effectiveness as a teacher and an employee of the School District nor that parents have lost confidence and trust in Dr. Mort as a teacher of their children. More credible and accepted is Dr. Mort's testimony and that of J.H.'s mother herself (and the other parent witnesses) who find that Dr. Mort has provided an effective, positive, productive, and loving educational environment for J.H. and other students. In fact, it is undisputed that Dr. Mort is academically well-qualified to teach exceptional students and the parents of the students in her classroom have characterized her as an effective teacher during her tenure at Nease High School. Additionally, Mr. Cole, who was responsible for evaluating her during the 2004-2005 school year, observed and found a healthy learning environment maintained by Dr. Mort. He gave her a very favorable formal evaluation for that year. Dr. Mort's replacement for the 2005-2006 school year, Mr. Hill, did receive PCM training. That means that Nease High School now has a full PCM trained team of three individuals. In the fall of the 2005-2006 school year, Mr. Hill and Ms. Zowlinski responded to yet another physical encounter between J.H. and Ms. Tolx. They had to use an aggressive two- person PCM restraint technique to subdue J.H. In order to restrain J.H., who continued flailing and scratching at them during this occurrence, Mr. Hill and Ms. Zowlinski ultimately had to sit on him for an hour and ten minutes before calling the school resource officer to help end the encounter. Ms. Zowlinski suffered a serious back injury as a result of this incident and restraint of J.H. Because of the termination action, Dr. Mort lost a substantial amount of regular salary, supplemental pay, and bonus income she would have otherwise earned. Among those lost wages and bonuses are her previously-approved summer school pay, hospital/home bound salary for services she expected to provide that summer and into the next school year, and almost $10,000.00 payable to her because of her National Board Teacher's certification status. Additionally, she could not attend, and was not paid for an approved two-day leadership retreat to which she had been invited. She has lost both leave and retirement- related credits and benefits and had to pay COBRA insurance premiums of over $400.00 dollars per month to secure continued medical insurance coverage since October 1, 2005. In summary, the above-found facts, based upon persuasive, credible testimony and evidence show that Dr. Mort employed reasonable force in her involvement in the incident of May 17, 2005.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the School Board of St. Johns County dismissing all charges and reinstating Dr. Mort to her employment position with the full range of regular and supplemental back-pay and reimbursement of all categories of lost benefits, as delineated above, as a "make- whole" remedy. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas J. Leek, Esquire Kelly Parsons, Esquire Cobb & Cole Post Office Box 2491 Filed with Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of May, 2006. Daytona Beach, Florida 32115-2491 Anthony D. Demma, Esquire Meyer & Brooks, P.A. Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Dr. Joseph Joyner Superintendent St. Johns County School Board 40 Orange Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084-3693 Honorable John Winn Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
