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.
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.
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 Respondent, Robert P. Sulcer, as principal of Riverland Elementary School, is guilty of "incompetency, and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty" as charged in a 28-count "Amended Petition for Dismissal from Broward County School System," filed September 6, 1984, and should be dismissed from employment with the Petitioner, Broward County School Board.
Findings Of Fact RESPONDENT: BACKGROUND AND PAST PERFORMANCE In 1955, Respondent received a Master's Degree in Education, Supervision, and Administration from Southern Illinois University. He moved to Broward County in 1957 and was first employed by the School Board as a teacher at McNab Elementary School. He has been employed as a principal for 25 years. In 1960, he became the principal of McNab Elementary and continued as a principal in various elementary schools until 1971 or 1972, when he became a principal at Pompano Beach Middle School for seven years. He was assigned the principalship at Lake Forest Elementary School for 5 years, then became principal of Riverland Elementary School in 1982. When he was suspended without pay on August 2, 1984, based on the charges which are the subject of this proceeding, he had a continuing contract (as principal) with the School Board. His supervisors evaluated (in writing) his performance as a principal during each of the 25 years he was a principal, including the 1982-83 and 1983- 84 school years. All evaluations were positive and described his performance as satisfactory. There were no negative comments. II COUNTS 1 AND 2: CONSISTENT DISCIPLINE PLAN Count 1 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish and/or maintain and/or formally present consistent rules and/or regulations regarding student discipline and/or student behavior for the staff and student body at Riverland Elementary School for the 1982-83 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 2 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish and/or maintain and/or formally present consistent rules and/or regulations regarding student discipline and/or student behavior for the staff and student body at Riverland Elementary School for the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Counts 1 and 2 center on the "development of a consistent disciplinary plan" at Riverland Elementary School, including rules and regulations for the 1982-83 and 1983-84 school years. To sustain these charges the School Board must demonstrate that there was no consistent disciplinary plan including rules and regulations in effect at Riverland Elementary School for the years 1982-1983 and 1983-84 and that such omission constituted incompetency, misconduct in office or willful neglect of duty. The evidence not only fails to substantiate these two charges but affirmatively establishes that a consistent formal disciplinary plan and procedure was in effect at Riverland Elementary School during the 1982-83 and 1983-84 school years. A. 1982-83 During the 1982-83 school year, the Student Conduct and Discipline Code ("Discipline Code") for Broward County was in effect and fully utilized. Riverland Elementary School received its accreditation at the conclusion of that year and there was no reference to an inconsistent or non-existent disciplinary plan. There were no reports of a non-existent or inappropriate disciplinary system at Riverland Elementary School during 1982-83 made to School Board administrators at any time prior to the lodging of initial charges in March 1984. (R-2; TR-IV, p.467; TR-V, p.712; TR-XI, pp.42,108) The Discipline Code delineated the teachers' responsibilities for student discipline as well as the consequences for student misconduct. During school year 1982-83, Respondent utilized the disciplinary referral system and handled student discipline problems in a manner consistent with the Discipline Code. (Conversely, there is no evidence demonstrating that Respondent failed to follow the Student Discipline Code in any instance, whatsoever during the year 1982-83.) He made sure (that parents, teachers, and students were aware of the Discipline Code. When he became principal of Riverland he discussed discipline with the students during an orientation assembly. He met with the grade level chairpersons on a daily basis and discussed discipline with them. They, in turn, were instructed to direct the teachers under their jurisdiction to review the contents of the Discipline Code with their students and ensure that students took the Code pamphlets home to be signed by their parents. In connection with the SACS review process, a student assembly was held to discuss discipline. Because of the type of children in the school and the age of the majority of the students, however, school-wide assemblies to discuss discipline proved to be less effective than small group discussions. Respondent's preferred use of small group settings and his utilization of the Discipline Code was deemed acceptable by his immediate supervisor. Other teachers followed a similar practice without objection. (TR-III, p.372; TR-IX, p.40, TR-X, p.83, TR-XIII, p.77, TR-XV, pp.38 169,2,192-193; TR-XVI, pp.8-9,16,48-49) B. 1983-84 During school year 1983-84, the Discipline Code remained in effect. Respondent continued to utilize it as the foundation for the disciplinary process in place at Riverland Elementary School. Indeed, use of the Discipline Code, as adopted by the School Board of Broward County, was mandated. Although several teachers testified that there should be a school-wide code which overlaps or supercedes the official county-wide Discipline Code, there is no showing that a school-wide code, other than the Discipline Code, was required or even customarily used in the school system (TR-I, pp.89,90, TR-II, p.201; TR- IV, p.467, TR-V, p.712; TR-IX, p.38; TR-XI, p.108; TR-XV, p.16) Several teachers critical of Respondent's performance testified that he should have adopted a code listing infractions which would automatically lead to specific consequences. To comply with this request, Respondent would have had to enact a code inconsistent with the Discipline Code mandated by the School Board. Page 6 of the Code sets forth the criteria to be used by a principal or his designee in meting out discipline. The Code attempts to match specific conse- quences with specific behavior. The numbers in brackets which follow each rule refer to consequences which may be used if misbehavior occurs. With the exception of Attendance, consequences are listed on page 24. Under certain circumstances, specification is mandatory and is so identified by an asterisk (*). When discipline problems occur in the pres- ence of a teachers it is the responsibility of the teacher to handle the situation until all strategies available to the teacher according to the School Board Policy have been exhausted. School personnel are encouraged to employ realistic and appropriate methods of disci- pline not necessarily outlined in this Code. For example, cleaning desk tops is an appro- priate consequence for writing on them. When determining the consequences, the fol- lowing circumstances should be taken into consideration: age and/or grade level of student; frequency of misconduct; seriousness of particular misconduct; attitude of student; student records; any other relevant factors including but not limited to, handicapped students who are governed by provi- sions outlined in School Board Policy 5006.1. (e.s.) Under this disciplinary scheme, a principal administers discipline not only to punish students but to encourage behavior modification. To accomplish the latter a principal is given alternatives and combinations of alternatives for use based on the unique circumstances of each situation. Factors to be taken into account include the number of prior referrals, the seriousness of the situation, the child's previous disciplinary record, the age of the child, the intellectual level of the child, the emotional level of the child, and any learning disabilities that might be associated with the child. Respondent followed the Discipline Code and administered discipline based upon the referrals he received from teachers. There was no showing that he failed to follow the student Discipline Code. If the charge is that the Discipline Code, itself, lacks "consistent rules and regulations," or fails to conform to "consistent rules and regulations" such charge is more appropriately directed at the School Boards which adopted the Coded than Respondent who merely implemented it. (TR-XV, pp.38-39, 54; TR-XVI, p.31) At the outset of the 1983-84 school year, Respondent again directed his grade level chairpersons to disseminate the Code to teachers and instruct them to teach the Code to their students. The teachers were instructed to use the Discipline Code in conjunction with I.T.V. programs during the first week or two of school. The teachers carried out these instructions. Students were taught the Code, and their understanding of the Code was reinforced throughout the year. (R,4, TR-II, pp.184, 189,201; TR-V, pp.638,640; TR-X, p.126; TR-XVI, pp.48-49,5-6) In addition to the grade level chairpersons' meetings, Respondent disseminated various bulletins dealing with discipline, specifically Bulletin 83-9, which set forth the steps the teachers were to utilize in the disciplinary process. He issued Bulletin 83-9 because some teachers were not following the Discipline Code and meting out the appropriate discipline in the classrooms (per the Code) before sending students to his office. This bulletin was intended to reinforce the Code's recognition that teachers are primarily responsible for discipline in the classroom. The Code recognizes that classroom management is an integral part, if not the most important component, in the disciplinary process: When discipline problems occur in the pres- ence of a teacher, it is the responsibility of the teacher to handle the situation until all strategies available to the teacher according to the School Board Policy have been exhausted. (R-4; TR-III, P.394; TR-V, p.708)(R-2, p.6, TR-XV, p.31) COUNTS 3 AND 4: INCONSISTENT METING OUT OF DISCIPLINE Count 3 You are hereby charged with failing to admin- ister discipline consistently and/or effec- tively for students referred to you by staff members during the 1982-83 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 4 You are hereby charged with failing to admin- ister discipline consistently and/or effec- tively for students referred to you by staff members during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. These charges allege inconsistency in the meting out of discipline by Respondent as opposed to the failure to establish or maintain consistent disciplinary rules alleged in Counts 1 and 2. Although inconsistent discipline was alleged, none has been shown. The only evidence offered to support these charges was innuendo and vague, elusive accusations or perceptions by several teachers, most of which were based on hearsay consisting of generalizations uttered by others. The record is devoid of specific, concrete examples of "inconsistent" disciplinary action by Respondent. The complete lack of specific evidence is not due to want of records. Detailed records of every disciplinary action taken by Respondent during 1983-84 were available for analysis. (743 discipline referral slips covering school year 1983-84 were retained by Respondent and available for review.) There is no evidence, however, that anyone critical of Respondent's meting out of discipline ever took the time to, or went to the trouble of, reviewing them. Indeed, no one on behalf of the School Board even asked to see them.) It was Respondent who offered all referral slips (identifying details of each infraction and Respondent's action) into evidence. Some teachers testified that there were too many steps in the referral process although how this complaint relates to inconsistency was not shown. Others testified that they had to go through every single disciplinary step in order to refer a child to Respondent for discipline. The opposite was proven to be true. If a situation was serious enough, the disciplinary steps prescribed by Respondent (which were essentially the same steps as those prescribed by the Discipline Code) could be short, circuited and an immediate referral made. When serious disciplinary problems occurred, teachers brought students directly to Respondent's office and he handled the situation. (TR-II, p.219; TR-III, p.425; TR-IV, p.475; TR-X, p.15; TR-XI, P.24) Respondent made an effort to insure that the disciplinary process at Riverland was rational, and known to and followed by all. In addition to Bulletin 83-9 (delineating the steps in the process), Respondent disseminated numerous other bulletins and materials dealing with assertive discipline as part of the Faculty Handbook. He met with the faculty and discussed the disciplinary process. He insisted they use the detailed referral process which he established. The referral slips themselves show that he used all of the allowable disciplinary consequences--individually or in combination--including, but not limited to, student conferences, verbal reprimands written punishments, parental contacts, internal suspensions, corporal punishments, and external suspensions based upon the unique circumstances of each case. (TR-III, P.427; TR-XVI, pp.15,31; R-1; R-2) A. 1982-83 Count 3 alleges that Respondent failed to administer discipline in a consistent manner for the school year 1982-83. There was no meaningful evidence of any inconsistent discipline administered in 1982-83. There was no testimony or documentation of one specific incident which Respondent could cross-examine or refute. 2/ Indeed the record supports an inference that discipline was meted out consistently during 1982-83. There was a detailed Discipline Code in effect, known to all, and he insisted that it be followed. The SACS Report, prepared by the teachers at Riverland, and the grant of accreditation do not reflect that discipline was being inconsistently administered. Ms. Swilley, the Department of Education's competence reviewer, doesn't find inconsistent discipline; she refers to materials appended to her report, and then states the referrals reflect the teacher "concerns." The appended material only contains referrals from 1983-84 gathered together by Ms. Elmore, one of Respondent's harshest critics. The official Broward County School Board Progress Reports for Riverland Elementary School during 1982-83 and 1983-84, reflect teachers', students', and parents', attitudes, all of which are extremely high. (Teachers- -86 percent, parent--92 percent, and students--88 percent) There is no evidence that this alleged deficiency was ever complained of or mentioned in any memoranda, read-react-and-return memo, grade level chairperson minutes, faculty minutes, correspondence to Respondent's supervisor or Board administrators, notes or minutes of the P.T.A., parents advisory group, Respondent's performance evaluation, or any other document. (R-4; Appendix 14; P-4; P-3; R-19) B 1983-84 Similarly, no factual basis has been shown for the charge that Respondent inconsistently administered discipline during the 1983-84 school year. This charge, too, is unsubstantiated. No systematic analysis of the 1983-84 disciplinary records of particular students was done to demonstrate that students were disciplined differently when the facts indicate they should have been disciplined the same. Although some witnesses generally testified that Respondent disciplined students inconsistently during 1983-84, their conclusions were not substantiated. Although one teacher, Ms. Ordway, claimed inconsistency in the meting out of discipline, she could not give one specific example. Similar negative conclusions by Ms. Ross, another teacher, were based on "what the [other] teachers would say." The testimony of Ms. Kasmarik, another teacher, supports the opposite conclusion: Q. (By Mr. Panza) Ms. Kasmarik, let me ask you do you know what--can you give me specific instances that Mr. Sulcer treated two children with disparate consequences for the same act? Can you give me an example? A. That I personally saw it or that I heard about it? Q. No. You are the witness. What you saw, personally were involved in. A. With the referrals that he wrote up, Mr. Sulcer--The only referrals I wrote up were for fighting. That's the only referrals I wrote up, and when I got the response from that, Mr. Sulcer had used corporal punishment on both children. Q. So they were consistent as it goes to your personal observations? A. As my personal observations, it was consistent, yes. (e.s.) (TR-VI, p.826, TR-X, p.147) Likewise, Ms. Bullock, another teacher critical of Respondent's performance, testified: A. I would say that the punishment was consistent. Now, the problem is I didn't feel it was severe enough because it didn't prevent them from repeating the same incidents. (TR-XI, p.23) Mr. Dandy, Respondent's supervisor throughout, and the person who initially pressed him to correct alleged deficiencies, was unable to recall any specific instance of inconsistent discipline being meted out; rather, his criticism of Respondent only reflected the "teachers' perceptions." The unsubstantiated "perceptions" of other teachers based on nothing more than generalized complaint or hearsay are patently insufficient to sustain the charge. (TR-XIII, pp.82- 83,92,97) Respondent followed a set procedure in disciplining students. Before referral the child would describe, in writing, the misbehavior so that the child would understand the significance and inappropriateness of the conduct. On referral to the principal the child would bring with him or her the written description of the incident. Respondent would discuss the situation with the child review any prior disciplinary problems, and then determine the appropriate consequence based on the Discipline Code. He often gave verbal reprimands arranged for parent conferences, or wrote letters to parents. (TR- XVI, pp.10,11,20,31) Witnesses who complained of Respondent's disciplinary actions at hearing never stated what they expected him to do other than to formulate an additional code specifying an automatic consequence for every conceivable infraction. Such a rigidly defined code is neither required nor customary in Broward County. Moreover, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to construct a code with such mathematical precision. The effective disciplining of students is an art, not a science, involving many human variables. It requires flexibility and the exercise of professional judgment. A rigid code which precludes a principal from taking into account the unique circumstances of each case would be inconsistent with the Discipline Code adopted by the Board. COUNTS 5 AND 6: DETERRENCE OF CHRONIC BEHAVIOR OFFENDERS Count 5 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish adequate deterrent as a result of your action of causing or allowing students to become chronic or serious behavior offenders as a result of your inadequately disciplining said, students referred to you by teachers during the 1982-83 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 6 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish adequate deterrent as a result of your action causing or allowing students to become chronic or serious behavior offenders as a result of your inadequately disciplining said students referred to you by teachers during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Here, the Board charges that Respondent failed to establish adequate deterrents and, as a result, he allowed or caused students to become chronic or serious behavior offenders during school year 1982-83. A. 1982-83 The Board has not shown what a "chronic behavior offender" 3/ is or how many students, out of the total student population of approximately 600, fit this category. Neither was it shown that there were a significant number of chronic offenders that "were caused" by Respondent's disciplinary actions. There was student misbehavior at Riverland Elementary School while Respondent was principal, as there was prior to his arrival and after his departure. It has not been shown that the misbehavior was caused by Respondent's efforts to enforce the Student Discipline Code. Many of the children at Riverland came from poor families. These children had little respect for authority and had attitude problems stemming from background and upbringing. Many came from single-parent homes. Many of the children who had behavior problems at school came from homes where discipline was lax or nonexistent. The student population was transient--students were constantly checking in or out of the school. Some students had repeated at least two grade levels so there were several children 13 or 14 years old. Some children had learning disabilities and could be disciplined only in accordance with their prescribed plans. (TR-II, pp.193,222; TR-X, pp.39, 40, 131; TR-XI, p.27; TR-XV, pp.39, 44, 46) Given the diversity and nature of this student body, it has not been shown how the repetitive misbehavior of five to ten of the students can be fairly or logically imputed to Respondent's action or inaction. These students, which the Board (at least for the purpose of this proceeding) classifies as "chronic offenders," were not identified, neither was each incident of misbehavior together with Respondent's disciplinary action, analyzed, compared and critiqued by qualified witnesses. Finally, though some students were referred numerous times, it has not been shown that there was an inordinate number of such students, given the nature and diversity of the student population. Neither does it appear that such repetitive referrals became a problem of serious concern to teachers. The SACS Report, prepared by the teachers at Riverland, does not indicate that a "chronic offender" problem existed at the school. (R-13) B. 1983-84 The nature of students at Riverland Elementary School during 1983-84 was similar to that of the previous year and the Board's failure of proof is, likewise, the same. Respondent applied the district-wide Discipline Code in disciplining the students. The teachers were responsible for the teaching of the Code to students, and for the management of students in their classrooms. All acknowledged that the proper disciplining of students is a joint or cooperative effort by teachers, administrators, and principals. The evidence fails to show that there was an inordinate number of repetitive referrals, neither does it disclose the identity of these children (including their particular acts of misbehavior and the discipline administered) or how Respondent's action was deficient. To the extent some children were repeatedly referred for misbehavior, it has not been shown that Respondent's disciplinary action was the cause. It may well be that the teachers of these children failed to properly control and prevent their misbehavior, or the misbehavior may be due more to the unique personality and family context of each child. (R-2) Indeed, the parents of some of these children tried, without success, to modify their behavior. There were occasions when Respondent would have two or three parental conferences concerning a child's misbehavior, yet--a few weeks later--the child would revert to inappropriate conduct. Several teachers who testified were critical of the effectiveness of Respondent's disciplinary action, but failed to indicate action that would have been more effective. Some teachers favored more use of external suspensions, but under School Board policy external suspensions are to be used only as the last resort. Respondent did suspend some students and the referral slips for 1983-84 showed he used corporal punishment extensively. (R-66) As with school year 1982-83, the record does not establish the identity and number of the "chronic or serious behavior offenders". A reasonable estimate would be that there were between five and ten children (out of 600 students) who had repetitive disciplinary referrals. There is no basis to conclude that this is an inappropriate or unusually high number. In a student population of this nature and diversity, it is perhaps unavoidable that there will be some students who will be repetitively referred for disciplinary action. This condition existed before Respondent arrived at Riverland--and has persisted since he left. COUNTS 7 AND 8 VERBAL AGREEMENTS-1982-83 AND 1983-84 Count 7 You are hereby charged with repeatedly ac- cepting or entering into verbal agreements with students who are repeat offenders that they will not repeat said negative behav- ior/offense in lieu of providing appropriate discipline which has resulted in a negative impact on student behavior and/or student discipline at Riverland Elementary School during the 1982-83 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 8 You are hereby charged with repeatedly ac- cepting or entering into verbal agreements with students who are repeat offenders that they will not repeat said negative behav- ior/offense in lieu of providing appropriate discipline which has resulted in a negative impact on student behavior and/or student discipline at Riverland Elementary School during the 1983-84 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. A. 1982-83 In order to substantiate this charge, it was incumbent on the Board to identify those "repeat offender" students with whom Respondent entered into verbal agreements not to engage in the same conduct to specify the circumstances surrounding the infraction and to show that such verbal agreements were inappropriate. The appropriateness of a disciplinary action (otherwise authorized) cannot be determined without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The Board has failed to substantiate its charges with concrete and specific evidence. Indeed the record is devoid of evidence establishing that Respondent even entered into verbal agreements with students during 1982-83, under any circumstances. (The Board apparently assumed that he entered into verbal agreements with children who were repeat offenders, that such agreements were "in lieu of providing any appropriate discipline," and that such action had a negative impact on student behavior and student discipline at Riverland Elementary School.) It was not shown that Respondent inappropriately used the Student Discipline Code in any instance when he "counseled" with students concerning inappropriate conduct. 4/ To determine appropriate discipline for an individual student, all of the factors contained on page 6 of the Discipline Code would have to be considered in light of the specific infraction. Because of the flexibility and discretion given school principals, any analysis less definitive would be incomplete. (R-2) B. 1983-84 In 1983-84, Respondent--who continued to use the Student Discipline Code--entered into verbal agreements with students, whereby the students agreed not to engage in further inappropriate conduct. It has not been shown that he entered such verbal agreements in lieu of any other more appropriate discipline, or that, in any particular case, the verbal agreement was inappropriate. "Repeat offenders" were not identified nor Respondent's action in any particular incident shown to be improper. As already mentioned, the Board has not demonstrated that Respondent failed to follow the Student Discipline Code in the meting out of discipline. Under this Code, the use of verbal agreements, as part of the overall discipline process, is appropriate. Thus the critical factor is not the entering into of verbal agreements (because verbal agreements are permitted), but rather whether he did so in lieu of other more appropriate discipline. But disciplinary action--otherwise permissible--cannot be found inappropriate without knowing the specific facts of an incident. Such facts have not been shown. COUNTS 9 AND 10 RAMPANT DISRESPECT AND VERBAL ABUSE Count 9 You are hereby charged with unacceptable performance in administering the school discipline program during the 1982-83 school year and said performance has led to rampant disrespect by students toward teachers through verbal abuse and defiance of teacher instructions, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 10 You are hereby charged with unacceptable performance in administering the school discipline program during the 1983-84 school year and said performance has led to rampant disrespect by students toward teachers through verbal abuse and defiance of teacher instructions, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. A. 1982-83 Here the Board charges Respondent with "unacceptable performance" in administering the school discipline program during school year 1982-83. Respondent's discipline program was based on the Student Discipline Code and it was not shown that he ever violated that Code. The Board further charges that Respondent's disciplinary performance led to "rampant disrespect" by students towards teachers through verbal abuse and defiance of teachers' instructions. The evidence is insufficient to sustain a finding of rampant disrespect for teachers by students. 5/ Neither was it shown that any specific incident of disrespect was attributable to Respondent's implementation of the Student Discipline Code. Once again, this charge rests on supposition and generalization and lacks a factual foundation. Assuming, arguendo, that a student verbally defies a teacher's instructions, the question becomes whether the defiance is attributable to a principal's conduct. There are several plausible reasons as for defiance of a teacher's instructions, many of them unrelated to a principal's actions or inactions. Teachers may fail in managing their classrooms and earning the respect of their students, parents may have neglected to teach their children to respect and obey teachers. Here, the Board has not established a causal relationship between Respondent's conduct and any defiance of teachers by students. Speculation or generalization cannot substitute for specific and concrete evidence. (TR-X, pp. 100,101) B. 1983-84 For similar reasons, the charge relating to school year 1983-84 is unsubstantiated. Rampant disrespect for teachers has not been shown. (TR-X, pp.9,10,16,17) It has not been shown that Respondent violated the Discipline Coded the foundation of his disciplinary process, during 1982-83 or 1983-84. Neither has rampant disrespect for teachers been shown. The SACS Report completed by the teachers at the conclusion of the 1983 school year, makes no mention of it. Neither do any memoranda, documents, or other school records support this claim. If student disrespect and defiance had been so widespread, it is likely that it would have been brought to the attention of School Board officials long before Mr. Dandy came to Riverland to listen to teachers' grievances on February 17, 1984. (R-13) COUNTS 11 AND 12 CONTRIBUTING TO SERIOUS DISCIPLINE AND/OR BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS WHEREIN STUDENTS EXHIBITED DEFIANCE Count 11 You are hereby charged with contributing to the serious discipline and/or student behav- ior problems which occurred at Riverland Elementary School during the 1982-83 school year, wherein students exhibited defiance and disrespect toward authority figures and toward fellow students which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 12 You are hereby charged with contributing to the serious discipline and/or student behav- ior problems which occurred at Riverland Elementary School during the 1982-83 school year, wherein students exhibited defiance and disrespect toward authority figures and toward, fellow students which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Counts 11 and 12, virtually identical to Counts 9 and 10, are, likewise, unsubstantiated by the evidence. The record is inadequate to support a conclusion that Respondent contributed to serious discipline or student behavior exhibiting defiance and disrespect toward teachers and fellow students. It is likely that student disrespect for or defiance of teachers occurs, at least occasionally, in every elementary school. Relevant questions are what was the frequency and magnitude of the defiance and disrespect; who were the offenders, and what factors or combination of factors caused or contributed to it? The evidence offered by the Board is non-specific and incapable of supplying answers to these questions. Count 13 THE LOCKING OF THE BATHROOMS BECAUSE OF VANDALISM Count 13 You are hereby charged with failing to di- rect, administer and maintain a program to foster proper student behavior in the halls to such an extent that during the 1983-84 school year one set of bathrooms had to be locked because of fights among students and vandalism of bathrooms during the school day, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon- duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Here, alleged student misbehavior (establishing Respondent's incompetence and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty) was so bad that one set of bathrooms had to be locked because of fights among students and vandalism. This charge is unsubstantiated by concrete factually meaningful evidence; it is based, in the main, on hearsay and the unsupported conclusions of several teachers. It was not shown that vandalism in the bathrooms at Riverland Elementary increased or was at an unacceptably high level during 1983-84, or that any property damage was attributable to Respondent's performance of his duties. An occasional act of vandalism or damage to school property cannot, by itself and without more, support a conclusion that a principal is guilty of incompetency, misconduct in officer or willful neglect of duty. Neither was it shown that there were students fights in the bathrooms, or that fights occurred with such frequency that Respondent was forced to close the bathrooms. Rather, students would gather in the bathrooms prior to school starting and get into mischief. Mary Jo Sluder a teacher who was also Safety Patrol Director and supervised the school hallways, complained to Respondent that she was having problems watching both sets of bathrooms before school started. Respondent asked if it would help if one set of bathrooms remained locked until the second bell at 8:15 a.m., signaling the start of school. Ms. Sluder replied that it would be helpful and the plan was implemented. So one set of bathrooms remained locked for approximately 15 minutes, between 8:00 a.m. and 8:15 a.m., while children were at school. At 8:15 a.m., it was opened. (TR- XVI, pp.41,42; TR-IV, p.452) This was an acceptable strategy used by other principals under similar circumstances, and violated no rule or policy of the School Board. Between the first (8:00 a.m.) and second (8:15 a.m.) bells, bathrooms were always accessible to students. Respondent's action was a rational measured response to a problem perceived by the Safety Patrol Director and it obtained positive results without imposing a hardship on anyone. The danger of relying on hearsay and generalized conclusions of others is illustrated by the testimony offered to support this charge. Mr. Dandy, Respondent's immediate Area Supervisor and an individual who identified Respondent's action as deficient, admitted that he had no specific facts to support this charge; he had only talked to teachers and had reviewed no vandalism records at the school. Of the teachers who testified, one did not know if vandalism had increased during Respondent's tenure over that which had occurred under his predecessor; one did not know how long the bathrooms were closed. Although one teacher testified that it was common knowledge that the bathroom was locked because of vandalism--and this was the extent of her knowledge--vandalism was not discussed at the faculty meetings. Teachers would sometimes stop in the girls' and boys' bathrooms, to tell them to quit playing around. One teacher who complained of vandalism never witnessed conditions inside the bathrooms, never wrote disciplinary referrals for students who congregated in them, and never sent them to Respondent's office. (TR-V, pp. 578,774, TR-II, pp.242, 243, 245, 324; TR-IV, pp. 433, 451; TR-VI, pp. 871,872; TR-X, p.150) COUNTS 14 AND 15: TOO MUCH TIME OFF-CAMPUS AND NOT ENOUGH ON-CAMPUS VISIBILITY Count 14 You are hereby charged with spending too much or inordinate amounts of time in your office and/or off campus and not making yourself visible enough among students which has contributed to poor student disci- pline/behavior problems at Riverland Elemen- tary School during the 1982-83 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon- duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 15 You are hereby charged with spending too much or inordinate amounts of time in your office and/or off campus and not making yourself visible enough among students which has contributed to poor student disci- pline/behavior problems at Riverland Elemen, tary School during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon, duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. These charges accuse Respondent of spending too much time off-campus or in his officer and not making himself "visible enough" among students, thus contributing to poor student disciplinary behavior. Once again, as with the other charges, there is no evidence that Respondent, during 1982-83, spent too much time or an inordinate amount of time in his office or off-campus. This was not identified as a problem by the SACS Report or documented by any exhibit in evidence. A principal is evaluated based on his or her performance. Respondent's evaluations for the years 1982-83 and 1983-84 were totally acceptable. Neither indicates Respondent spent inordinate amounts of time in his office or off-campus, or that he did not make himself "visible enough." Respondent, charged with the responsibility of administering an entire school, attended numerous off-campus functions such as county directed meetings, parent conferences, visitations, professional meetings, and community service projects relating to Riverland Elementary School. His attendance was legitimate and, in most instances, required. (TR-I, p.74; TR-VIII, pp.40,42; TR-XIII, pp.14,16,20; TR-XV, p.46, R-45) It was not shown (nor was it alleged) that Respondent was unlawfully or inappropriately engaging in personal activities off campus. The charges focus on the frequency of his absences, not his whereabouts. The school district official who prepared this charge had no independent knowledge of Respondent's absences, and did no analysis to determine the extent of his absences from campus. Rather, he simply relied on and reiterated vague conclusions offered by several teachers dissatisfied with Respondent's performance. (TR-II, p.246; TR-IV, p.888; TR-VIII, pp.23, 24, 143) Mr. Stephenson, the school district official who helped prepare the charge, never asked Respondent about his alleged excessive absenteeism from campus because (according to Stephenson) that would be a normal routine matter discussed between a principal and his Area Superintendent (Mr. Dandy). But Mr. Dandy never asked Respondent about alleged excessive absenteeism either. (TR- XIII, p.140) The evidence is insufficient to support a conclusion that Respondent was absent from campus for an inordinate amount of time. The only evidence in support of the accusation is sporadic hearsay, or conclusions by others lacking a factual basis. Rather, the evidence establishes that Respondent's presence on campus was sufficient and that, if he left campus, he handled any disciplinary problems (that arose in his absence) upon his return. His secretary always knew where he was. A teacher could find out where he was by simply asking his secretary. (TR-I, p.75; TR-X, p.32) As to Respondent's alleged poor visibility among students, there is no specific factual information pertaining to 1982-83, so this charge is unsubstantiated. As for 1983-84, the evidence was also insufficient to support a conclusion that Respondent was not "visible enough." No standard of visibility was established against which Respondent's conduct could be measured. There is no evidence in the record that anyone (teachers, parents, or administrators) complained to Respondent about his visibility or asked that he become more visible on campus. (TR-VIII, p.91) Testimony by several teachers on this subject was inconsistent and contradictory. Some offered critical opinions, but their conclusions lacked factual support, they simply had a feeling that he should have been more visible. In contrast, some teachers felt that Respondent was "sufficiently visible;" Ms. Kasmarik testified that he was always around the campus and always walking down the halls: CROSS-EXAMINATION Q. (By Mr. Panza) Ms. Kasmarik, isn't it a fact that it's your opinion that you're better off with discipline when Mr. Sulcer was there than you are right now with the new principal? Isn't that a fact? Isn't that what you just said within the last couple of weeks? A. We have the same kinds of problems that we had when Mr. Sulcer was there. Q. Same kinds of problems with the new principal, is that right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Are those same kinds of problems based upon the type of children, in your opinion, that are in that school? A. Yes. Q. Now, you mentioned--Just kind of working backwards a little bit--that visibility was a problem or--not was a problem, is not a problem. You said Mr. Sulcer was walking the hall? A. Yes. Q. Mr. Sulcer went into classrooms, is that correct? A. Yes. He was in and out of the classroom all the time. Q. So teachers could see him around the school. He wasn't--he was there physically in the school? A. Yes. (TR-X, pp.121-122) Ms. Bullock, another teacher critical of Respondent's performance, admitted that he had been visible and had visited her classroom 15 to 20 times: DIRECT-EXAMINATION Q. (By Mr. Montante) Did you ever tell him it was necessary to come down [to observe her class? A. No. Q. Did you ever tell him it was necessary to become visible? A. No. Q. Did he ever offer to become visible to you? A. No. I felt he was visible. Q. Several times a year? A. Yes. Q. How long is the school year, ma'am? A. From August until June. Q. August until June? A. Yes. Q. That's a period of 11 months. A. Ten months. The school year is ten months. Q. He came down to the classroom several times: A. Several times. Q. Three times in 11 months. A. I didn't say three times. Several. How many is several? A. Ten, 15, 20. (e.s.) (TR-XI, pp.61,62) Although Ms. Ross, another teachers claimed that his visibility was almost non- existent, her location in the library (where she worked) was such that she would not have known when he was out of his office or in it. Ms. Bullock, another teacher, never asked him to come to her room because it wasn't necessary. (TR- VI, pp. 823,828; TR-XI, p.61) The vague and indefinite charge of not "enough visibility" must be based on more then the subjective, unsubstantiated judgment of a critical teacher. To be meaningful, the charge must be put in a factual context. In a letter to Dr. Stephenson, the district administrator involved in preferring the charges, Respondent's counsel asked for specific information on the charge so that Respondent could comply with Mr. Dandy's March 21, 1984 directive requiring improvement in this area: 4. Monitor hallways frequently through- out the school day (in an attempt to assist in undesirable behavior on the part of students (Effective immediately) Mr. Sulcer will, as he always has, monitor the hallways. As I am certain you are well aware, it is impossible to be in the hallway all day if one is expected to be a Principal of a school. Once again, I would request specific instances of when Mr. Sulcer was negligent in his monitoring of the hallways which allowed undesirable behavior to take place. I would also like to have the specif- ic set of circumstances that the administra- tion of the School Board can demonstrate that there was undesirable behavior on the part of students because of Mr. Sulcer's conduct. I would like to know the exact amount of time required by Mr. Dandy so Bob Sulcer can comply. If Mr. Dandy is going to evaluate Bob Sulcer in this area, he (Dandy) must know exactly how much time he expects Sulcer to spend. (R-50) This letter went unanswered. COUNTS 16 AND 17 SUPPLIES Count 16 You are hereby charged with failing to supply teachers with basic materials and supplies such as paper, crayons, scissors, etc., thus depriving student [sic] from essential mate- rials necessary for optimum instructions during the 1982-83 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 17 You are hereby charged with failing to supply teachers with basic materials and supplies such as paper, crayons, scissors, etc., thus depriving student [sic] from essential mate- rials necessary for optimum instructions during the 1983-84 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. There were no records of any kind, type or description, offered in evidence to support the allegations that school supplies were inadequate during 1982-83. One team chairperson during 1982-83 and 1983-84 never heard a complaint about lack of supplies. Dr. Stephenson, the school district administrator who helped prepare this charge, became aware of the alleged budget problem through information he received in writing from Ms. Elmore, a teacher critical of Respondent's performance. Based on Ms. Elmore's submittal, he concluded that there was a lack of materials and supplies at Riverland, a situation which should not have existed because adequate funds were available. He never independently investigated to determine if Ms. Elmore's statements were correct. (TR-XI, p.19; TR-VIII, pp.11,151) Ms. Elmore, a Faculty Chairperson at Riverland, had been told by the school bookkeeper that there was a freeze on supplies in 1983-84. She never personally asked Respondent for supplies, and he never told her that funds were unavailable. She felt that it was unnecessary to bother Respondent "with things that minor." (TR-V, pp.771,776) Ms. Ross, a grade level chairperson responsible for coordinating the ordering of supplies for teachers under her control, had no difficulty ordering supplies or books except that, when the funds were frozen, she "couldn't spend the money in my budget for awhile." (TR-VI, p.819) (She never asked Respondent if the budget was frozen.) She had all materials needed to currently teach her students. (Funds were temporarily unavailable only while the F.T.E. count was underway, a situation which was not unusual in the school district). When told the budget was frozen during F.T.E. count, she simply delayed ordering until the count was completed, she "had enough (supplies) to carry (her) over past the F.T.E. count." (TR-VI, p.865) After the count, she was allowed to order whatever she needed. (TR-VI, pp.819, 862, 864, 865) Ms. Ordway, a fifth grade teacher, who had switched to kindergarten, testified that she was unable to get necessary books and supplies for her kindergarten class. However, Ms. Callender, her Faculty Grade Level Chairperson, testified that Ms. Ordway as well as the rest of her grade group, had supplies the entire year. Ms. Callender also testified that Ms. Ordway was given permission to go to the A.B.C. Store to purchase whatever supplies she needed. Ms. Callender's testimony, more precise and less emotional than Ms. Ordway's, is accepted as persuasive. (TR-X, pp.28,48) Respondent did not turn down any supply order for materials that were needed for classes during 1982-83 and 1983- 84. The charge that teachers lacked supplies in 1983-84 is unsubstantiated by the evidence. (TR-XVI, pp.57,58,61) Finally, Ms. Elmore, one of the teachers most critical of Respondent's performances testified that she did not have enough supplies for 1982-83 and 1983-84. Her testimony was conclusory and is rejected as lacking in credibility. Finally, the SACS Report does not mention any problem with supplies at Riverland Elementary School for 1982-83. It is likely that if there was a supply problem of the magnitude alleged, it would have been mentioned in the SACS Report. The evidence does not establish that any children at Riverland were denied instructional materials due to lack of supplies. These charges are unsubstantiated. (TR-V, p.580; R-13) COUNTS 18 AND 19: SECOND IN COMMAND Count 18 You are hereby charged with failing to desig- nate a teacher as second in command and/or failing to inform the faculty which teacher would be in charge during your absence during the 1982-83 school year, thereby leaving the school unsupervised during your absences from campus, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office/and or willful neglect or duty. Count 19 You are hereby charged with failing to desig- nate a teacher as second in command and/or failing to inform the faculty which teacher would be in charge during your absence until approximately January 1984 of the 1983-84 school year, thereby leaving the school unsupervised during your absences from cam- pus, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Respondent appointed a second in command or designee at Riverland Elementary School for years 1982-83 and 1983-84. For 1982-83, Respondent appointed Polly Jones as his second in command or designee. There was no requirement to identify the second in command by posting a notice. However, Mr. Dandy, the Area Superintendent, required principals within his area to advise him of the name of the second in command at the commencement of the school year. Respondent notified him in accordance with this requirement. (TR-I, p.32; TR- VII, p.92; TR-XVI, p.7) During 1982-83, Ms. Jones handled discipline referrals during Respondent's absence and signed as designee. Teachers who were unaware of who the second in command needed only to ask. Respondent's secretary, the office personnel, and administrative staff were informed that Ms. Jones was the appointed second in command. (TR-XVI, pp.7,104) The contention that problems resulted from some teachers not knowing who was second in command during 1982-83, is unsupported by the evidence. No teacher asked Respondent who was second in command--either in person (at grade level chairperson meetings, faculty meetings, in the halls, at SACS Committee Meetings) or by memorandum. Ms. Elmore who was Faculty Chairperson during 1982- 83, never placed the question of who was second in command on the faculty agendas though she had the authority to do so. Although she testified that she did not know who was second in command in 1982-83, she did not ask Respondent or her grade/level chairperson who, ironically, was Ms. Jones, the second in command. In any case, most teachers at Riverland knew Polly Jones handled disciplinary problems in Respondent's absences and expected her to do so. (TR- V, pp.598, 763) For school year 1983-84, Respondent designated Elaine Callender as his second in command. Again, he informed Mr. Dandy of his action at the beginning of the school year. Although most teachers knew that she was the second in command, they did not hear it officially from Respondent. They knew that Ms. Callender could, and did, administer corporal punishment in Respondent's absence. Finally, teachers in 1983-84 knew, or should have known, that Ms. Callender was the second in command because she signed referral slips above the signature line marked "Designee": copies of the completed slip are normally returned to the referring teacher. (TR-I, pp.34,35; TR-X, p.5, TR-XVI, p. 175) These charges must fail since Respondent did, in fact, appoint a designee, and the teachers knew or could have known by simply asking him. Although it was suggested (through hearsay testimony) that students were disciplined by secretaries, there is no substantial evidence to support that implication. When the issue of who was second in command surfaced up at the faculty meeting on November 15, 1983 (as part of 12 identified concerns) would it not have seemed reasonable at the time for someone to ask Respondent who was second in command? The Faculty Council, after it was organized and operational in the early part of January, did ask Respondent, stating that some teachers claimed they did not know who was second in command and wanted this information posted. Respondent posted his second in command that very day. (Mr. Dandy's testimony that the second in command was not posted until mid-February is rejected as clearly erroneous.) (TR-XII, p.87; TR-XIII, p.123) COUNTS 20 AND 21: MORALE Count 20 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish and maintain positive lines of communi- cation with the faculty and students during the 1982-83 school year at Riverland Elemen- tary regarding student discipline which has contributed to the decline of faculty morale toward the principal relative to student discipline, which constitutes incompetency, and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 21 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish and maintain positive lines of communi- cation with the faculty and students during the 1983-84 school year at Riverland Elemen- tary regarding student discipline which has contributed to the decline of faculty morale toward the principal relative to student discipline, which constitutes incompetency. These two Counts center on the issue of faculty morale as it related to student discipline caused allegedly by Respondent's failure to maintain positive lines of communication with faculty and students during schools years 1982-83 and 1983, 84. Morales a somewhat amorphous term, is defined in the American Heritage Dictionary as "the state of the spirits of an individual or group as shown in willingness to perform assigned tasks, confidence, cheerfulness, and discipline." Although affected by many variables, morale is not a subject incapable of measurement. Instead of utilizing an objective or standard method to determine the level of morale at Riverland the School Board presented the testimony of selected teachers, for the most part, the same teachers who were on the ad hoc disciplinary committee and among Respondent's most avid critics. Their testimony lacks credibility and fails to support a conclusion that morale was lowered due to Respondent's handling of discipline problems. They were the teachers who complained most about morale. They gave secret testimony to Dr. Stephenson, the ranking administrator, who developed the charges against Respondent and they were, generally, unwilling to cooperate with Respondent and other teachers (led by the Faculty Council), who were attempting (between November, 1983 and March 1984) to develop ways to improve discipline at Riverland. 6/ No systematic evaluation of faculty morale, using any acceptable and reliable method, was ever undertaken. A poll was conducted at Riverland Elementary in connection with the Official Progress Report of the School Board. The poll indicated that 86 percent of the teachers thought that Riverland was a good school. Ninety-two percent of the parents with children at Riverland responded, "this is a good school." (TR-IV 34 p.461) These results detract from the weight to be given the adverse opinions of the several teachers (testifying at hearing) most critical of Respondent's performance. (TR-IV, p.461; R-19) COUNT 22 FAILING TO DISCIPLINE A STUDENT Count 22 You are hereby charged with failing to disci- pline a student who said to a teacher's aided "Fuck You," during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon- duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. On one occasion during the 1983-84 school year, a child cursed at a teacher's aide, Ms. Williams, who promptly referred the student to Respondent's office. Respondent asked the student for an explanation and the child admitted that he had said the disrespectful words and was ready to be spanked. Respondent asked Ms. Williams (the aide that was cursed at) to enter the office and witness the corporal punishment. After she entered, the child refused to submit to the spanking and constantly moved around, putting his hands across his buttocks and fidgeting making it difficult for Respondent to administer corporal punishment without injuring him. Under these circumstances, Respondent decided not to administer the corporal punishment for fear of injuring the child's hands. Instead, he telephoned the child's parents and told them the child refused the spanking. The parents told him they would punish the child, by using a belt. (TR-XVI, pp.53-54; TR-X, pp.67-68,85) This particular child did not have any further behavior problems at Riverland Elementary. Respondent did not ignore, dismiss, or fail to discipline this child. His handling of this incident of disrespect toward an aide was appropriate and consistent with the Discipline Code. (Although the Board faults him for not reporting the incident to the Department of Internal Affairs, Board Policy 4018, reasonably construed, does not require the reporting of every instance of student disrespect toward a teacher.) Since Respondent properly disciplined the child, the charge must fail. COUNT 23 RAT-INFESTED ROOM Count 23 You are hereby charged with failing to take appropriate action to remove kindergarten students at the request of the teacher from a rat infested room after being informed by the teacher that rats were prevalent in the area, subjecting kindergarten students to rat poison which had been placed by custodial personnel in the students' classroom, and refusing from approximately February 28, 1984, to March 7, 1984, to relocate said kindergarten students from said classroom to an empty portable on the school site which action had been formerly requested by the complaining kindergarten teachers which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. On March 1, 1984, Ms. Ordway, a kindergarten teacher at Riverland Elementary, complained to Respondent about a mouse she had seen in her classroom. He told her that he would get the custodian on it right away, which he did on that same day. The custodian set out traps that night, Respondent also went to Ms. Ordway's classroom that night to make sure that the traps were placed so that there would be no danger to the children. He continued to periodically check the room after school throughout the week, he looked for evidence of mice, but found none. Meanwhile, Ms. Ordway did not ask to have her class moved and her class remained at its regular location. (TR-XVI, pp.71- 73,87,155,254) On Thursday, March 8, 1984, approximately one week after Ms. Ordway had complained of a mouse, Mr. Dandy telephoned Respondent and told him of a complaint he had received (presumably from Ms. Ordway) concerning the mice situation. Respondent immediately called the Area Maintenance Office and requested assistance, then contacted Omni Pest Control and asked them to come out that day. (Respondent had not called the exterminator prior to this because neither he nor the custodian had found evidence of mice, and the custodian was actively addressing the complaint.) (TR-XVI, pp.72,154,157) Omni Pest Control came out on Monday, March 12, 1984, around noontime. Respondent immediately relocated Ms. Ordway's class since he assumed that the exterminator might use chemicals hazardous to children. The exterminator treated the classroom and returned two days later to do a follow- up. At 7:30 a.m. on March 19, 1984, the exterminator returned to check the classroom. Respondent, unavailable to talk to him at that time, called him later to check on the classroom's condition. The exterminator, having found no evidence of mice, told him that the mouse sighting "must have been a fluke." (TR-XVI, pp.72-73,86,88,155,157,159) The evidence does not support a conclusion that Ms. Ordway's classroom was infested with mice or rats. She is the only person who sighted one, and her testimony about what she saw, and the frequency of her sighting's, was inconsistent. No other mice were sighted and no evidence of mice was found by those who investigated and responded to her complaint: Respondent, a Health Department inspector, the school custodian, and the professional exterminator. Respondent reacted to Ms. Ordway's complaint in a reasonable and timely manner. The school custodian was the person who would normally investigate and handle such a complaint. When Respondent received a second complaint, he immediately contacted a professional exterminator despite the fact that he and others had found no evidence of mice in the classroom. This charge is based on the exaggerated complaint of Ms. Ordway, a teacher who, seemingly, Respondent could not mollify. COUNTS 24 AND 25 FAILING TO COOPERATE Count 24 You are hereby charged with failing to util- ize the suggestions of parents and teachers and/or work cooperatively with said groups to improve the declining [sic] student disci- pline/behavior problems at Riverland Elemen- tary during the 1982-83 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 25 You are hereby charged with failing to util- ize the suggestions of parents and teachers and/or work cooperatively with said groups to improve the increasing student disci- pline/behavior problems at Riverland Elemen- tary during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. The School Board failed to substantiate its charge that during 1982-83 or 1983-84, Respondent failed to utilize the suggestions of parents and work with them to improve student discipline at Riverland Elementary. Indeed, there is no evidence that any parents made specific suggestions to Respondent concerning ways to improve student discipline. Even if, arguendo, suggestions were submitted, there was no showing that Respondent was obliged to follow theme irrespective of their merit. Although the School Board also charges Respondent with failing to utilize the suggestions of, and work with, teachers, the opposite was shown. Respondent relied on the teachers of Riverland. He routinely asked them to address problems, and suggest specific changes, usually he implemented their suggestions. One of his management techniques to maximize participation was to set up committees of teachers to address problems and make recommendations. His conviction was that since teachers were a vital part of the school, they should have a say in how it was run--and what changes should be made. He respected their views and welcomed their comments. For example, in late 1983 and early 1984, he encouraged the Faculty Council to devise ways to improve student discipline. When the Council presented him with a School Wide Disciplinary Plan (suggesting numerous changes to improve student discipline) he promised to implement it. (In contrast, some teachers refused to cooperate with either the Faculty Council or Respondent, and were determined to leave student discipline problems to Respondent--alone--to solve.) Another example was his formation of a Cafeteria Committee (of teachers) to address student misbehavior in the cafeteria--a focal point of student "horseplay" in most elementary schools. The Committee met and formulated a plan, which Respondent approved and implemented. Both charges must be dismissed for failure of proof. (TR-III, p.387; TR-V, p.708; TR-VI, p.819; TR-XI, pp. 143,149,150,162; TR-XV, pp.59,110; TR-XVI, p.76) COUNT 26 THE CAFETERIA Count 26 You are hereby charged with failing to prop- erly maintain student control and discipline in the cafeteria and/or inadequately super- vising and/or providing inadequate supervi- sion of students which has resulted in chaos throughout the 1982-83 school year and has continued through the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon- duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. The School Board has not established a standard against which the adequacy of the supervision and control of students in school cafeterias can be judged. Elementary school students abound with energy and will sometimes run in cafeterias. Such running occurred prior to Respondent's arrival at Riverland, and continues, even now. As one witness summed it up, "Every child runs." . . . [and] "Kids are kids." (TR-X, p.78) These cafeterias are noisy, relatively unstructured places where children, within limits, are free to be themselves. No evidence was presented showing that, on a comparative basis, student behavior in the Riverland cafeteria was any worse than that prevalent in the other elementary schools. Indeed, Dr. Gail Daly (an experienced elementary school principal and chosen by the School Board to investigate Respondent's performance at Riverland) visited the school's cafeteria and found student behavior acceptable. (TR-XV, p.59) Although some teachers were critical of Respondent's visibility in the student cafeteria, they rarely ate their own lunches there (to help maintain order)-- even though they could leave school a half-hour early for doing so. Since most teachers did not eat their lunches with the students, supervision of student behavior in the cafeteria was left, for the most part, to teachers' aides. This was an acceptable practice in the various elementary schools. Any student misbehavior which may have existed in the cafeteria was not serious enough to warrant being brought to Respondent's attention, either by the group of teachers who identified "12 concerns" at Riverland or to Mr. Dandy, the Area Supervisor who responded to them. The teachers "12 concerns" do not mention misbehavior in the cafeteria, neither do Mr. Dandy's letters of February 24, and March 1, 1984 (which identify deficiencies in Respondent's performance and require corrective action). This charge must fail for lack of proof. (P-5, P-6, R-2) COUNT 27 FAILURE TO PERFORM DUTIES AS ALLEGED IN COUNTS 1-26 Count 27 You are hereby charged with failing to ade- quately perform your duties as principal with respect to student discipline/behavior as enumerated in the above counts during the 1982-83 and 1983-84 school years to such an extent that your effectiveness as a principal in this area has been impaired serious enough to warrant your dismissal as principal for "good and sufficient reasons, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. The efficacy of this charge depends on a positive finding that Respondent failed to adequately perform his duties as principal with respect to student discipline during 1982-83 and 1983-84, as alleged in the foregoing counts, Nos. 1 through 26. Since these counts were not sustained by the evidence, the charge fails. COUNT 28 SWILLEY REPORT Count 28 You are hereby charged with failing to demon- strate competent performance as an adminis- trator in one or more of the following areas: the administrative and supervisory require- ments and/or communication skills and/or management techniques and/or exercise learn- ing and goal achievement and/or human and interpersonal relationships for the school year (or any part thereof) 1983-84, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Dr. Stephenson, then Associate Superintendent of Personnel, requested a review of Respondent on April 3, 1984, for the purpose of determining his competence. The Department of Education selected Henrietta Swilley (from Bay County) to conduct the competency review. She visited Riverland Elementary from May 1, 1984, to May 3, 1984, (2 1/2 days) one-half day short of the three-day observation required by 6B-5.02(12) Florida Administrative Code. On or about July, 1984, she sent to the School Board her undated and unsigned report. This report was placed in evidence by the School Board as an attachment to a deposition taken of Respondent. Neither Ms. Swilley nor any School Board official testified about the contents of this report, or vouched for its accuracy. Consequently, Respondent's ability to challenge the accuracy of its opinions and conclusions, or examine those who developed or relied on it, was limited. The report, however, is hearsay which, though admissible, can be used only to explain or corroborate other evidence, it cannot, in itself, support a finding of fact. See, 120.58(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Apart from this limitation on its use, the report is replete with factual errors, misstatements, and inconsistencies. It appends materials which do not correspond to references in the report. These errors detract from the weight which might otherwise be given to the report, and place in doubt the credibility of its assertions and conclusions. Several examples should suffice. On pages 4 and 5 of the report, Ms. Swilley reviews teacher observations and evaluations. Of the eight teachers listed, the evaluations of only four were included in the appendix. She indicates that Respondent held conferences with all eight teachers on the same day, May 17, 1983. The four evaluations appended, however, show that the conferences were held on March 3, 16, and April 12 and 15, 1983. On page 5, she faults Respondent of using similar or "patterned" comments on seven of the eight teachers evaluated. But she does not show how this violated any rule or standard of practice. (Mr. Dandy, Area Supervisor, using a similar form, includes no comments, whatsoever, on his evaluations of principals, a practice which, in his views was perfectly acceptable. (TR-XII, p.43).) On page 6, she states: From studying the 1983 evaluations of Ms. Elayna Cross and Ms. Catherine Phoenix it was unclear to this reviewer as to how much time Mr. Sulcer spent observing these teachers. Yet, the time Respondent spent in observing Ms. Phoenix (9:15 to 10:15 on March 3, 1983) is shown on the top of her evaluation contained in the appendix. On page 6, Ms. Swilley further states: If the sampling of evaluations studied is an indication of administrative progress in the area of assessment, all other continuing contract employees on staff would have to be evaluated within 25 days from my visit in order to stay within the confines of the negotiated contract [which prohibited princi- pals from conducting evaluations during the last week of school]. But the evaluations in her sampling were completed, and applied only to the prior school year--1982-83, not 1983-84. Thus her conclusion lacks support. (In fact, Respondent had approximately ten teachers left to evaluate after Ms. Swilley's visit in May, 1984 [TR-XVI, p.77].) Finally, on pages 6,7, Ms. Swilley questions whether Respondent acted as an instructional leader at Riverland. She opines as to what Respondent would have observed if he had visited the classrooms, and includes the results of her interviews with an unknown number of teachers. Among those teachers were Ms. Ross, Ms. Sluder and Ms. Elmore. (These were Respondent's most vociferous critics and members of the original ad hoc faculty committee which identified "12 concerns" at Riverland.) The assertions of Ms. Ross and Ms. Sluder--hearsay, once removed--concerning Respondent's alleged failure to visit or observe their classes are rejected in favor of Respondent's more persuasive testimony to the contrary. (TR-X, p.121; TR-XVI, pp.46-47) The School Board has not shown, by independent evidence, that Respondent failed to demonstrate competence in any of she areas described in this charge. Thus the Swilley Report, even if internally consistent, cannot support a finding of incompetence. This charge must also fail. FAILURE OF SCHOOL SYSTEM TO FOLLOW PROCEDURAL RULES In recommending the suspension and dismissal of Respondent, the Superintendent of Schools failed to follow procedures governing dismissal. Rule 6B-4.08, entitled, "Criteria for Dismissal Procedures," provides: 6B-4.08 Criteria for Dismissal Procedures. When an action or other matter appears to exist which may possibly result in the future dismissal of any employee, the immedi- ate supervisor of the individual should take appropriate action to advise the employee of the matter and the potential consequence if not corrected. Every possible helpful effort should be made by the immediate supervisor to aid the employee to correct the matter which could cause his or her dismissal if not corrected. Except in extremely serious circum- stances, the employee should be given suffi- cient time, following notification, for improvement. Any charges of undesirable traits or practices should be bona fide, verifiable, and clearly stated to the employee in writ- ing. Any employee thus charged should have a fair opportunity to explain or otherwise defend himself or herself, as provided in Section 231.36, Florida Statutes. These criteria mandate that an employee be advised of deficiencies which may result in his dismissals and that he be given sufficient time, following notice, to improve or correct the deficiencies. Here, Mr. Dandy, as Area Supervisor, routinely evaluated Respondent on January 31, 1984, and found him satisfactory when judged against all performance criteria. On February 17, 1984, approximately two weeks later, Mr. Dandy--at the invitation of Ms. Elmore or Ms. Sluder--came to Riverland Elementary and met with some teachers who had gathered to complain to him about lack of student discipline. After hearing the complaints of several teachers, Mr. Dandy--precipitously--told them he was now in control, that they should hence forth come directly to him. Some teachers were intimated by his manner and aggressiveness. Instead of asking individual teachers about any perceived problems, he asked, "Do you feel the rest of the teachers feel . . . is a problem?" or words to that effect. On February 21, 1984, three days later, Mr. Dandy met with the teachers again and, this time, invited Respondent to attend. Respondent, though genuinely surprised by this turn of events, came to the meeting and responded to each of the complaints or concerns raised by the teachers. On February 24, 1984, three days later, Mr. Dandy wrote Respondent outlining the teachers' complaints or concerns and asked for a written response by March 1, 1984. Respondent complied, submitting a timely response addressing, as specifically as possible, each of the concerns. Mr. Dandy responded with a second letter on March 21, 1984, directing Respondent to take eight corrective actions (Mr. Dandy never subsequently evaluated Respondent to determine if those directives were satisfactorily carried out, though he admits improvements were being made.) On March 22, 1984, one day after receiving Mr. Dandy's eight directives, the Superintendent filed the charges against Respondent which later (with one added count) became the basis for Respondent's dismissal. (P-5; P-6; P-19; TR-XII, p.47; TR-XIII, pp. 14, 47, 72, 128, 129) The complaint about Respondent's performance voiced by some teachers to Mr. Dandy were never thoroughly, and conscientiously, investigated or verified by Mr. Dandy prior to his undermining Respondent's authority and, to some extent, taking control of the school away from him. When Respondent was finally informed of the complaints he responded to each in a professional and meaningful way. He was then given "directives," quickly followed by charges, without being given a fair opportunity to take corrective action and effectively respond to the complaints. In their hasty action, school board officials disregarded or were oblivious to the requirements of Rule 6B-4.08. This is all the more perplexing in light of the fact that Mr. Dandy, the Area Supervisor and Respondent's immediate supervisor, never recommended--then or now--that Respondent be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That all charges against Respondent be dismissed, that he be reinstated with full back-pay and emoluments of employment; and that he be awarded reasonable attorney's fees which he actually expended in his defense or which he has legal duty to pay. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of November, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of November, 1985.
The Issue The issue for determination in this case is whether the Respondent should be suspended and/or discharged from employment as a teacher with the School Board of Dade County for the reasons set forth in the Notice of Specific Charges filed on August 11, 1989. That Notice alleges that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in office as defined by Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009(3), violations of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession (specifically, Rules 6B-1.001(3) and 6B-1.005(3)(a) and (e),) conduct unbecoming a School Board employee in violation of School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21 and 6Gx13-4C- 1.01 and/or violation of the School Board's ccrporal punishment policy set forth in School Board Rules 6Gx13-5D-1.07.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds a teaching certificate from the State of Florida and has been employed pursuant to a continuing professional contract with the School Board of Dade County ("School Board") since September, 1986. During the 1988/1989 school year, Respondent was assigned as an elementary school teacher at Broadmoor Elementary School. As part of his duties as a teacher at Broadmoor, Respondent supervised the children on the physical education field at the school prior to the commencement of classes. The number of students playing in this area each morning often exceeded two hundred and, at the time in question, Respondent was the only teacher assigned to supervise the children. On April 3, 1989, while carrying out his duties as supervisor of the physical education field prior to the commencement of classes, Respondent was involved in an incident involving a student, R.S. who was eight years old and in the third grade at the time. The initial encounter between Respondent and R.S. on that date occurred when Respondent was distributing balls to the students to play with. The student struck Respondent in the back and ran off to the playing field. A few minutes later, the student struck the Respondent a second time by punching him in the stomach when he attempted to break up an altercation between and another student. After punching Respondent in the stomach, R.S. again ran off. Shortly thereafter, a dispute arose between R.S. and several other students who were playing box ball. The other students contended that R.S. was "out". However, R.S. refused to leave the game. The other students called Respondent over to intervene. Respondent instructed the students to replay the point. On the replayed point, R.S. was again "out", but she refused to leave the game and Respondent approached her and directed her to give him the ball. After turning the ball over to Respondent, R.S. began yelling and kicking at Respondent to get the ball back. In grabbing for the ball, R.S. tore the sleeve of Respondent's shirt and ripped some buttons off it. Respondent grabbed R.S. by the arm and told her that they "needed to talk." Respondent attempted to physically remove R.S. from the playing area by grabbing her arm and leg. R.S. resisted the efforts. In trying to restrain and control the student, the Respondent applied a "PIT" hold which Respondent had learned while teaching emotionally disturbed children at the Montenari School. The acronym PIT refers to prevention intevention training. While there is some indication that PIT methods include procedures for incapacitating an individual and placing them on the ground, the Respondent in this case did not attempt to place the student on the ground. Instead, Respondent attempted to hold the student in a position where she could no longer effectively strike or kick at him. R.S. is not emotionally disturbed and does not have a history of discipline probless. While PIT methods are apparently used to restrain violent or aggressive emotionally disturbed students, they are not authorized by the Dade County Public School System for use in restraining students in a regular school. At the time of this incident, the student, R.S., was in third grade and weighed approximately 60 pounds. The Respondent weighed approximately 250 pounds. While Respondent was holding the student and attempting to remove her from the area as described above, the student and the Respondent fell to the ground. While the student contended that the Respondent deliberatley "slammed" her to the ground, the more persuasive evidence indicates that both Respondent and the student accidentally fell while Respondent was attempting to remove her from the playing area. Thus, it is found that Respondent did not deliberately throw the child to the ground. While on the ground, the student continued to struggle and attempted to get up. Respondent pushed her back to the ground and held her down. As a result of the struggle, the student suffered scrapes on the side of her face and a swollen lip. It is unclear whether the injuries occurred as a result of the fall or Respondent's subsequent actions in pushing the student back to the ground. After the student calmed down, the Respondent took R.S. to his room rather than to the Administrative Office or the clinic as required by school policy. Petitioner contends that no administrative staff was in the office at the time and that he attempted unsucessfully to contact the student's parents. However, he did not alert any other school personnel or administrative staff of this incident and the student was left unattended in the Petitioner's office for a short period of time. Other students alerted R.S.'s homeroom teacher of the incident and that teacher located the student and brought her to the clinic where she was treated and her parents were contacted. R.S. had punched Respondent on prior occasions. However, Respondent never reported those incidents to school administrators or to the student's parents. Instead, he attempted to work with the child utilizing nonviolent techniques. Several parents of students at the school have voiced concern over the incident and Respondent's handling of the matter. As a result, Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher at the school has been impaired.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of misconduct in office and imposing a ten day suspension without pay upon Respondent. DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of February, 1990.
