Findings Of Fact Respondent has been employed by Petitioner as a teacher's aide in a mentally handicapped classroom for the past three years. Prior to her employment, Respondent, who is the mother of a handicapped child, worked as a volunteer classroom aide. She is active in the Parent Teacher Association and is a girl scout leader. Respondent attended an orientation session at the beginning of the 1983-84 school year where school policies were discussed. However, she does not remember any explanation of corporal punishment policy and did not receive a copy of Petitioner's rules on this subject. Respondent has had no formal training in education and is not certificated. Respondent recalls a discussion at the beginning of the school year with the special education teacher who was her supervisor. The teacher advised Respondent not to hit Robert Pelligrino because his sister would likely take legal action. The teacher concedes that she made a special point of telling Respondent not to strike Robert Pelligrino, but claims to have forgotten everything else about the discussion including the reason for this unusual warning. On or about February 3, 1984, while engaged in her duties as a teacher's aide, Respondent slapped the student Robert Pelligrino in the face. She struck the child with sufficient force to leave a mark which was visible for a brief period following the incident. Although Petitioner presented no evidence to establish that Respondent struck Robert Pelligrino, she readily admitted doing so. However, Respondent claims she was merely trying to correct his finger-sucking habit. This alibi is rejected, in that events leading up to the incident provoked Respondent and caused her to believe that Robert needed to be disciplined while his unacceptable behavior was fresh in his mind. Robert, who is mentally handicapped, tripped a smaller, handicapped student who fell and was injured as a result of Robert's action. Respondent first went to the aid of the injured student and immediately thereafter slapped Robert. The two other incidents were attested to by Robert's sister, Mrs. Donna Ferrell, who was serving as a volunteer aide on February 1, 1984. Mrs. Ferrell and Respondent were both working with a group of handicapped children on the occasion of a class field trip. Mrs. Ferrell observed Respondent beating on the chest of one student in an effort to re-attach a "stick-on" name tag which the child had removed. Later, on the bus, Mrs. Ferrell observed Respondent reach out and strike or tap a student on the top of his head to gain his attention. This evidence did not establish that Respondent injured either student, that she used undue force, or that she was attempting to punish either of them.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing its charges against Respondent. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of September, 1984.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent's license as a teacher in the State of Florida should be disciplined.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent, Daniel Klahn, was the holder of Florida teaching certificate 634054. The certificate is for the area of Social Studies and was valid through June 30, 1994. During the 1990-1991 school year, Mr. Klahn was employed as a teacher by the Taylor County School Board. Mr. Klahn and his wife have two sons, Daniel M. Klahn, II, and John D. Klahn. During the 1990-1991 school year, Mr. Klahn and his wife decided they wanted to adopt a female child. Toward this end, they agreed to be foster parents for the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. L. S., a nine-year-old female child was placed as a foster child in the Klahns' home during the 1991-1992 school year. L. S. was born on May 3, 1982. She underwent surgery for ruptured blood vessels in her brain shortly after she was born. L. S. suffers from epilepsy. In approximately 1987, L. S. lived with her mother, step-father and two half-brothers. L. S. reported that her step-father had been sexually abusing her. L. S. was taken out of the home and placed in foster care as a result of her allegations against her step-father. L. S. ultimately admitted that it had been one of her step-brothers, Nathan Wheeler, that had abused her and not her step-father. Nathan was approximately 16 or 17 when the incident was reported by L. S. L. S. had originally accused her step-father because she had been told by Nathan that he would kill or otherwise harm her mother and step-father if she ever told on him. Nathan was eventually moved out of L. S.'s home. L. S. was not, however, allowed to go back to her mother for two years. During the two years that L. S. was in foster care she lived in four different foster care households, including Mr. Klahn's. Mr. Klahn's home was the fourth foster care home L. S. was placed in. She stayed in the home for approximately 3 months. L. S. was approximately 8 or 9 years old while she lived with Mr. Klahn. L. S., as a result of having been sexually abused, having been taken away from her mother and having been placed in various foster homes, was anxious to get back to her mother. When she was unhappy about a foster home, she would act out and become unruly. L. S. did not like being in Mr. Klahn's home. She believed that Mr. and Ms. Klahn treated her harder than they did their two sons. Mr. and Ms. Klahn were not very understanding of her situation and treated her as a child who simply lacked discipline. As a result of these facts and those described in finding of fact 13, L. S.'s grades started to slip and she became more troublesome. While in Mr. Klahn's home, L. S. continued to visit on occasion with the family that she had previously lived with, the Bennetts. At some point, L. S. reported to the Ms. Bennett that Mr. Klahn was abusing her. She eventually reported the alleged incidents to her mother. The alleged incidents reported by L. S., which form the bases of the Administrative Complaint against Mr. Klahn, are as follows: the Respondent inappropriately touched L. S. in the chest and vaginal area. when L. S. misbehaved the Respondent and his wife held down L. S. and attempted to place pepper in her mouth. The Respondent and his wife then placed liquid soap on L. S.'s mouth; the Respondent applied medication to L. S.'s vaginal area; the Respondent made inappropriate suggestive comments in front of L. S. Alleged Inappropriate Touching. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Klahn "touched L. S. in the chest and vaginal area", except as discussed, infra. Pepper and Soap Incident. On one occasion, L. S. was in the dining room doing homework. Mr. Klahn was attempting to assist her when she became angry and threw a temper tantrum. L. S. called Ms. Klahn a "mother fucking witch." When she did, Ms. Klahn picked up a pepper shaker and told L. S. to stick out her tongue. L. S. refused. Ms. Klahn then went into the kitchen and got the dish washing liquid soap and returned to the dining room. Ms. Klahn then put soap on L. S.'s lips. Mr. Klahn had to hold L. S. in order for Ms. Klahn to put the soap on L. S.'s lips. Vaginal Medication. Shortly after being placed in Mr. Klahn's home, L. S. was diagnosed as suffering from a yeast infection. Medication for the infection was prescribed by a physician. Mr. Klahn applied the medicine to L. S.'s vaginal area. L. S. felt that she was old enough to put the medicine on herself or that Ms. Klahn should have put the medicine on rather than Mr. Klahn. L. S. did not, however, tell Mr. Klahn how she felt. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Klahn put the medicine on L. S. because she refused to do it herself or because she refused to let anyone except Mr. Klahn put the medicine on. Suggestive Comments. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Klahn made inappropriate suggestive comments in front of L. S.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Daniel Klahn. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of April, 1995, in Tallahassee Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 3rd day of April, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Boyd, Esquire Post Office Box 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 J. Victor Africano, Esquire Post Office Box 1450 Live Oak, Florida 32060 Karen B. Wilde Florida Department of Education The Florida Education Center Room 301 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Kathleen M. Richards, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner had just or good cause to reject the Superintendent's recommendation that Respondent be re-appointed on probationary status to a one- semester teaching position as agriculture teacher.
Findings Of Fact Background Ms. Lee graduated from Florida State University in 1973 with a bachelors degree in art education. She received a masters degree in agriculture education from the University of Florida in 1984. She has served as an extension director for the Seminole Tribe and was a teacher in the Pahokee Junior Senior High School for about 14 years. She also held a position in the Ft. Pierce school system for a short time. She was initially employed by the Hamilton County School Board as a substitute teacher in March of 1998. Subsequently she was hired on an annual contract as the agriculture teacher at Hamilton County High School for the 1998- 1999 school year. Ms. Lee was issued a temporary-non-renewable certificate as a teacher, by the Florida Department of Education on October 17, 1998. This certificate covered the period July 1, 1998 through June 30, 2000. Pursuant to a favorable recommendation by Superintendent Parks, Ms. Lee was hired as the agriculture teacher for the school year 1999-2000. This contract required that she complete required college semester hours by September 1999, and receive a passing score on the Florida Teachers Certification Examination. This contract expired on May 31, 2000. Ms. Lee bought a used recreational vehicle with her own funds so that she could transport her students to agricultural events. Ms. Lee invested a lot of her own time and money into trying to enhance the agriculture program. Her husband helped her in this regard. During a time shortly before March 16, 2000, some of her students applied spray paint to Ms. Lee's recreational vehicle. Subsequently, when Ms. Lee learned that her vehicle had been vandalized, she used inappropriate language in front of an agriculture student, Ruben Perez, who was 18 years of age at the time. This occurred in her classroom and in the vicinity of her classroom. Ruben Perez surreptitiously tape-recorded this language. Ruben Perez stated that Ms. Lee had used inappropriate language prior to this incident which included vulgar language delivered in a loud voice. The Superintendent of Schools, Ms. Patricia Parks suspended Ms. Lee, without pay, on March 16, 2000. On March 24, 2000, Superintendent Parks, sent a letter to Ms. Lee advising that her suspension was reversed and that she would be reinstated with back pay and benefits. This action was taken subsequent to having been advised of the illegality of using the surreptitious tape-recording by Ms. Lee's attorney. The letter further advised Ms. Lee that there would be no record of the incident. Action by the Board At the end of the school year, Ms. Cheri Landry recommended to Superintendent Parks, in an undated letter, that Ms. Lee be given a contract for a one-semester position as "agriculture instructor/FFA advisor," for the period August 8, 2000 to December 20, 2000. This appointment was to be a probationary appointment. This recommendation noted that Ms. Landry had talked with Ms. Lee regarding, "areas in which she needs to improve which include "Climate/Learning Environment and Administration/Management." Superintendent Parks recommended to the Board that Ms. Lee be appointed to the position of agriculture teacher. A copy of a letter from Ms. Landry to Ms. Lee was appended to the recommendation. This letter summarized the areas in which Ms. Lee needed to improve. These documents represent the entirety of the information provided to the board with regard to Ms. Lee at the June 19, 2000, meeting. On June 19, 2000, the Board decided by a three-to-two vote, not to appoint Ms. Lee as recommended by Superintendent Parks. No record of the discussion of the reason for the Board's rejection was given other than Board member Ottis M. Cercy's statement that the firing was for "just cause." Ms. Lee was not given prior notice that the Board had under consideration the rejection of Superintendent Parks' recommendation. On June 19, 2000, Ms. Lee was in Texas with some of her agriculture students at a Future Farmers of America event. She was not under contract with the Board on that date and she was not paid by the Board for this activity. At the hearing, Board members Larry Carver, Martha Butler, and Ottis M. Cercy, stated that they had voted against the motion to enter into a new contract with Ms. Lee because they had received information, prior to the meeting of the Board, that Ms. Lee had cursed in the presence of students, and had permitted tobacco use and card playing in the classroom. Subsequently, Board Members Larry Carver, Martha Butler, and Otis M. Cercy sought additional information in an effort to ratify their action. Allegations of Misbehavior Mr. Wendell Hill, a retired teacher, had seen agriculture students smoking and dipping in an area where Ms. Lee could have seen them. Despite the fact that Hamilton County High School was officially a tobacco-free campus, students, as well as teachers, smoked on campus, and used smokeless tobacco. Mr. Hill also heard Ms. Lee speaking in a loud voice while in class. Jane Lowe, a history teacher and president of the teachers' union, observed that adults employed at Hamilton County High School occasionally smoked behind the boiler room. Evidence of smokeless tobacco use in Ms. Lee's room had been observed by Mr. Pinello, assistant principal of the high school. This observation occurred when he was the dean of students. Mr. Pinello did not relay this information to the principal. Mr. Pinello received some complaints with regard to the cleanliness of Ms. Lee's "environment" and classroom. He checked on this and relayed information regarding his findings to the principal. He received oral complaints that Ms. Lee had used inappropriate language but took no steps to confirm the reports. Allegations concerning Ms. Lee smoking, or permitting the use of tobacco products, were not presented to Ms. Landry prior to the June 19, 2000, Board meeting. Ms. Lee does not smoke nor did she knowingly permit students to use tobacco products. Moreover, she taught her students about the evils of tobacco use and encouraged them to refrain from tobacco use. The only witness who alleged vulgar conduct on the part of Ms. Lee during the incident precipitated by the vandalism of her recreational vehicle was Ruben Perez. He was also the only witness, with claimed personal knowledge, who alleged that Ms. Lee was vulgar at any time. The Board's minutes of May 22, 2000, revealed that Superintendent Parks had actively sought students as witnesses to the events described by Ruben Perez, but none could be found. No evidence was adduced demonstrating that the School Board or Hamilton County High School had a policy addressing vulgar language for either students or teachers. One student was suspended for a year for using vulgar language subsequent to June 19, 2000. The football coach has used vulgar language in front of school children but the Board has not fired him or taken any disciplinary action against him. Ms. Lee was first appointed to the position of agriculture instructor for the school year 1997-1998. Subsequently, for the school year 1998-1999, her appointment was subject to passing the Florida Teacher Certification Examination and passing additional course work. She held a temporary, non- renewable certificate from the Florida Department of Education for the period October 17, 1998 through June 30, 2000. She submitted an application for a new certificate dated June 12, 2000. At the time of the June 19, 2000, meeting of the Board, she had not completed the required semester hours of continuing education or taken the required certification examination. She successfully completed the requirements prior to the beginning of the 2000-2001 school year. The Board has often approved the appointment of teachers with temporary certificates. At the time of the hearing in this case, there were many teachers in the Hamilton County School system teaching under the authority of temporary certificates. Matters in Mitigation The agriculture operation at Hamilton County High School had in previous years, "gotten out of hand." The agriculture class had been a problem for 20 years. Ms. Lee improved the operation of the agriculture program by introducing new activities so that more students could be involved in the program. She promoted the Supervised Agricultural Experience Program and had winners in Future Farmers of America programs. She has involved the students in many projects including supporting the Farm Bureau in their annual dinner. The students provided a barbecue for the rodeo. She was heavily involved with her students and enhanced the agriculture program in many ways. Ms. Landry, the principal of Hamilton County High School, believes that Ms. Lee did a very good job and wants her to resume her position.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order appointing Ms. Lee, on probationary status, to a one-semester teaching position as agriculture teacher dating back to the beginning of school year 2000-2001. The order should reflect that she is to be awarded full pay and benefits for the contract period for which she was recommended. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of December, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven C. Bullock, Esquire J. Rhett Bullard, Esquire Brannon, Brown, Haley, Robinson & Bullock, P.A. 10 North Columbia Street Post Office Box 1029 Lake City, Florida 32056-1029 Donald K. Rudser, Esquire Post Office Box 1011 Jasper, Florida 32052 Robert J. Sniffen, Esquire Moyle, Flanigan, Katz, Kolins, Raymond & Sheehan, P.A. The Perkins House 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Patricia Parks, Superintendent Hamilton County School Board Post Office Box 1059 Jasper, Florida 32052-1059 Honorable Tom Gallagher Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Professional Education Subtest (hereinafter referred to as the "Subtest") of the Florida Teacher Certification Examination tests the examinees' mastery and knowledge of general teaching methods and strategies. It is offered four times a year. The Subtest consists of approximately 130 to 135 multiple choice questions (each with four choices from which the examinees must choose the correct answer). The questions are printed in a question booklet. There is a separate answer sheet on which examinees record their answers to these questions by blackening, with a pencil, the appropriate bubble. Examinees are given two and a half hours to complete the Subtest. The Subtest is a criterion referenced test as opposed to a norm referenced test. To pass the Subtest, an examinee must attain a scaled score of 200. The Subtest is administered by the Office of Instructional Resources of the University of Florida (hereinafter referred to as "OIR") pursuant to a contract that OIR has with the Department. Dr. Sue Legg is the head of OIR. Pat Dovall is one of her assistants. Among OIR's responsibilities is the development, in cooperation with the Department, of a Test Administration Manual for the Subtest (hereinafter referred to as the "Manual") to guide and assist test site administrators, test room supervisors and test room proctors in discharging their duties at the test administration sites. The Manual developed by OIR provides that the following procedures should be followed in the seating of examinees: 3. Procedures for Seating of Examinees Seat examinees in the same seat they used for the morning session. For retake candidates testing only in the afternoon, follow the procedures below. Place a test book receipt card on each desk where an examinee will sit. Be certain you and your assistants have unimpeded access to every examinee. Assign examinee to a specific row or column of chairs. DO NOT ALLOW EXAMINEES TO SELECT THEIR OWN SEATING POSITIONS. Arrange seating in a manner which will separate those who are obviously acquainted. Seat examinees so they cannot see their neighbors' responses or exchange information. Fill in appropriate chairs in each row or column in order to expedite distribution and collection of test materials. Place left handed examinees in a separate row or in the last seat or each row of right-handed examinees. If use of chairs with right-handed tablet arms cannot be avoided, seat left-handed examinees with vacant chairs to their left for use as writing surfaces. If an examinee objects to his seating assign- ment, the room supervisor should make every attempt to work out a satisfactory solution. If this is not possible, the center supervisor should discuss the problem with the examinee. 4. Seating Arrangements Level Seating Arrangements: Seat examinees directly behind one another, facing in the same direction. Maintain a three-foot separation. Inclined Seating Arrangements: Maintain a three-foot separation front and rear and side-to-side. With respect to the subject of "individual examinee irregularities," the Manual states the following: Report on the Irregularity Report name social security number test name time by reset watch Misconduct Defined as any of the following: creating a disturbance; giving or receiving help; using notes, books, calculators; removing test materials or notes from the testing room; attempting to take a test for someone else. ANY EXAMINEE MAY BE DISMISSED WHO IS ENGAGING IN ANY MISCONDUCT AS DEFINED ABOVE: Two witnesses (or more) must observe the misconduct. The test center supervisor or room supervisor must be one of the witnesses. A full written report, signed by all witnesses, must be sent to OIR immediately. Cheating Defined as an examinee giving or receiving assistance during a testing period. Dismiss examinee from the testing areas if either of the above occurs. Examinee may not return. Dismiss examinee who repeatedly, after warning, continues to work on a test after time has elapsed. Dismiss examinee who uses prohibited aids. Include the following on the Irregularity Report: Examinee's identification Type of "cheating" and details of activity Warnings given Time on the reset watch Test section Degree of certainty Name of persons confirming the information Information given to the examinee at the time of the incident Attach examinee's answer folder to the Irregularity Report and return to OIR. Suspected Cheating Record name of examinee suspected. Record name of persons from whom you suspect the examinee was copying. Warn the examinee that you suspect cheating. Move examinee to provide further separation. Disturbances Defined as behavior of examinee during testing that disturbs others; loud noises or other conditions that lead to complaints by the examinees. Individual disruptive behavior Warn examinee that dismissal will result if behavior continues. Report the incident on the Irregularity Report. Outside disturbance Stop test. Have examinees close test books with answer folders inserted. Note time on the reset watch. Adjust time when test is resumed to ensure a full test period. OIR is also responsible for the selection of test administration sites, subject to the approval of the Department. The North Campus of Broward Community College (hereinafter referred to as "BCC") was selected by OIR and approved by the Department as one of the test administration sites for the August 5, 1995, Subtest. For the August 5, 1995, Subtest at BCC, Dotlyn Lowe was the OIR- slected test site administrator, Greta Jackson was the test room supervisor, and Consuelo Johnson and Marcia Cadogan were the test room proctors. Each had served in similar capacities for prior examinations and, having previously reviewed the Manual, 2/ each was aware of its contents at the time of the administration of the August 5, 1995, Subtest. The August 5, 1995, Subtest at BCC was administered in a classroom which had approximately 50 seats arranged in eight or nine rows. Each seat had a right-handed tablet arm for use as a writing surface. Petitioner was one of the approximately 35 examinees who took the August 5, 1995, Subtest at BCC. He sat in the last occupied row of seats (in Seat Number 42). 3/ Seated immediately to his left, approximately two to two and half feet away (in Seat Number 41), was another examinee, George Sauers. On various occasions during the Subtest, Petitioner looked at Sauers' answer sheet to see Sauers' answers. 4/ Jackson, Johnson and Cadogan all witnessed Petitioner engage in such conduct. Jackson first noticed such conduct approximately an hour after the Subtest had begun. From her vantage point, she saw that Petitioner, instead of facing straight ahead toward the front of the room, was sitting with his body angled to the left in a position that enabled him to look at Sauers' answer sheet and see Sauers' answers without having to turn his head. 5/ Petitioner's left leg was crossed over his right leg and his left ankle was resting on his right knee. Petitioner had placed his question booklet on his left knee, but he was not looking at the booklet. Rather, his eyes were focused on Sauers' answer sheet. Jackson continued to watch Petitioner for another ten to twenty minutes from various parts of the classroom. During that time, she observed him repeatedly shift his eyes toward Sauers' answer sheet and then mark answers on his own answer sheet. Jackson then asked the two test room proctors, Johnson and Cadogan, to observe Petitioner. Johnson and Cadogan complied with Jackson's request. For the next fifteen to twenty minutes Johnson and Cadogan watched Petitioner and saw him engage in the same conduct that Jackson had observed. They then reported their observations to Jackson. Jackson thereupon consulted the Manual, specifically that portion dealing with the subject of "individual examinee irregularities," to determine what action she should take. Although she was certain that Petitioner had copied answers from Sauers' answer sheet, she was uncertain as to whether the provisions of the Manual relating to "cheating" or those relating to "suspected cheating" applied to such conduct. It was Jackson's understanding that an examinee who copied answers from another examinee's answer sheet was guilty of "cheating," as opposed to "suspected cheating," as those terms were used in the Manual, only if the "copying" examinee was knowingly helped by the examinee from whom he had copied, which did not appear to be the situation in Petitioner's case. Jackson, however, was not sure that this interpretation of the Manual was correct. She therefore dispatched Cadogan to seek guidance from Lowe, the test site administrator. Lowe sent her assistant, Jacqueline Edwards, to speak with Jackson. Edwards and Jackson determined that the provisions of the Manual relating to "suspected cheating" should be followed in dealing with Petitioner's conduct. Petitioner therefore was not removed from the test site. Rather, after being told that he was suspected of cheating, he was asked to change his seat (which he did without any argument) and allowed to remain in the classroom to finish the Subtest. In his new seat, Petitioner sat facing forward and had his test materials in front of him. He made no apparent effort to look at any of his new neighbors' answer sheets. Petitioner handed in his answer sheet before the expiration of the two and a half hours the examinees were given to finish the Subtest. Later that same day, following the administration of the Subtest, Jackson prepared and submitted a written irregularity report concerning Petitioner's "suspected cheating." 6/ Subsequently, on August 10, 1995, and again on August 28, 1995, Jackson sent memoranda to OIR accurately describing the incident. The memoranda were signed not only by Jackson, but also by Johnson and Cadogan, who did so to indicate that the information contained in the memoranda was accurate to the best of their knowledge. The August 28, 1995, memorandum was the most detailed of Jackson's three written statements 7/ concerning the incident. It read as follows: On Saturday, August 5, 1995, during the Professional Education Examination, I observed Mr. Lamothe looking at another examinee's (George Sauers) answer sheet. I observed Mr. Lamothe at his desk with one leg [a]cross the other and his test booklet approxi- mately 1 ft. away from him, resting on his crossed leg. However, Mr. Lamothe's pupils were in the extreme left corner of his eyes, looking onto Mr. Sauers' desk. Mr. Lamothe would then look up and once looked directly at me, pause as though he was thinking and then marked an answer on his answer sheet. I observed this incident, within an hour of the test, over a period of 15-20 minutes[.] I then asked the proctors (Consuelo Johnson and Marcia Cadogan) to also watch the examinee. After approximately 15-20 minutes, the proctors confirmed that they also observed Mr. Lamothe cheating. I sent Ms. Cadogan to the Test Center Supervisor, Dotlyn Lowe, for advice. Mr. Lamothe was not dismissed from test room, due to our interpretation of the Test Manual instructions on page 14, number 3 (that defines cheating as giving or receiving assistance, which was not the case). Therefore, we preceded as per the Test Manual instructions on page 15, number 4. I then informed Mr. Lamothe that he was observed/suspected of cheating and asked him to change his seat. Mr. Lamothe got his belongings together and moved to the front of the room. Mr. Lamothe finished his exam without further incident. Mr. Lamothe was sitting in the back of the room in Seat Number 42 and Mr. Sauers was sitting to Mr. Lamothe's left in Seat Number 41. Petitioner's scaled score on the August 5, 1995, Subtest was 215. Sauers scored a 229. The mean scaled score of the 2478 examinees taking the August 5, 1995, Subtest at all locations was 215.32. Of these 2478 examinees, 94.2 percent received a passing scaled score of 200 or above. 8/ 33. After reviewing Jackson's August 5, 1995, irregularity report and her August 10, 1995, and August 28, 1995, memoranda, 9/ Dr. Loewe consulted with his supervisor, Dr. Thomas Fisher. Dr. Loewe and Dr. Fisher determined, based on the information provided in these documents, that Petitioner's score on the August 5, 1995, Subtest should be invalidated. By letter dated September 18, 1995, Dr. Loewe informed Petitioner of this determination. The letter read as follows: This letter is in reference to your score on the August 5, 1995 Florida Teacher Certification Examination Professional Education test adminis- tration. At that administration test proctors witnessed you repeatedly looking at the answer document of another examinee. This constitutes cheating. As a result your score will not count and no score report will be mailed. 10/ If you dispute the material facts on which this decision is based, you may request a formal hearing by submitting a written request within 20 days of the date of this letter to: Dr. Thomas Fisher Administrator, Student Assessment Services Suite 701, Florida Education Center Florida Department of Educatio Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Failure to timely request a hearing constitutes waiver of administrative proceedings, subject only to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. If you wish to complete the teacher certification testing requirements you will need to register for and retake the Professional Education test at a scheduled administration. In response to Dr. Loewe's letter, Petitioner wrote the following letter, dated to September 28, 1995, to Dr. Fisher: This letter is in response to the memo that was sent to me on Septemb[er] 18, 1995 in regard to looking at the answer sheet of another examinee. I am appalled by these allegations. I spent several months studying for this exam and did not expect a response such as this (only a positive one). I am most definitely disputing these allegations. I request a formal hearing as soon as possible. Please send me further information on a time and place so I will be able to resolve this issue. A comparison of Petitioner's answers with those given by Sauers and the other examinees who took the August 5, 1995, Subtest lends further support to the conclusion that Petitioner cheated on the examination, as alleged in Dr. Loewe's September 18, 1995, letter to Petitioner. Petitioner answered 37 of the 132 questions on the August 5, 1995, Subtest incorrectly. Sauers answered 23 of the 132 questions incorrectly. Twenty-one of the questions Petitioner answered incorrectly, Sauers also answered incorrectly. Petitioner and Sauers chose the identical incorrect response on 16 of the 21 questions they both answered incorrectly. This exceeds what would be expected based on random chance. On 11 of these 16 questions where Petitioner and Sauers selected the same incorrect answer, their answer was different than the answer most of the examinees selected. This is highly unusual. For example, on Question 71, 77 percent of the 2478 examinees chose "C," which was the correct answer. Petitioner and Sauers both selected "A," a choice made by only 5 percent of the 2478 examinees. Petitioner took the Subtest again, for the fifth time, on October 28, 1995. In addition to having taken the Subtest in August of 1995, he had also previously taken the Subtest in April of 1994, August of 1994, and April of 1995. On the April, 1994; August, 1994; and April, 1995 Subtests he had received failing scaled scores of 192, 199 and 194, respectively. On the October 28, 1995, Subtest, Petitioner received a failing scaled score of 198. The mean scaled score of the 1744 examinees taking the October 28, 1995, Subtest at all locations was 213.11. Of these 1744 examinees, 95.4 percent received a passing scaled score of 200 or above. Petitioner was among the 81 examinees who took the Subtest on both August 5, 1995, and October 28, 1995. Of these 81 examinees, 67 scored higher on the October 28, 1995, Subtest than they did on the August 5, 1995, Subtest. Such an increase is typical. Nine of the 81 examinees scored lower on the October 28, 1995, Subtest than they did on the August 5, 1995, Subtest. Of these nine examinees, four scored one point lower, one scored three points lower, two scored four points lower and one scored six points lower. Petitioner was the other examinee who scored lower on the October 28, 1995, Subtest. His scaled score on the October 28, 1995, Subtest was 17 points lower than his scaled score on the August 5, 1995, Subtest. Such a significant decrease in scoring is consistent with his having cheated on the August 5, 1995, Subtest. Because Petitioner cheated on the August 5, 1995, Subtest by copying answers from Sauers' answer sheet, his score on that examination cannot be considered a reliable and accurate indicator of the extent of his mastery and knowledge of the general teaching methods and strategies covered on the examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Education enter a final order invalidating the score that Petitioner attained on the August 5, 1995, Subtest because he cheated on the examination by copying answers from the answer sheet of another examinee. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of January, 1996. STUART M. LERNER, 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 19th day of January, 1996.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this hearing, Respondent was a public school teacher licensed by the State of Florida to teach English language at the secondary school level, and her teaching certificate was current and in full effect. The Respondent, Queen Bruton, is employed by the Duval County School Board and holds tenure under the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act. On November 22, 1982, Respondent was sent a Notice of Proposed Dismissal by the School Board indicating the Board's intention to dismiss her as a teacher upon a charge of professional incompetency. The grounds for such conclusion include an indication that Respondent received unsatisfactory evaluations of her performance for the 1980-81 and 1981-82 school years. The Duval County Teacher Tenure Act (TTA), Chapter 21197, Laws of Florida (1941), as amended, permits the discharge of a teacher for, inter alia, professional incompetency as a teacher if certain conditions are met and procedures followed. All teachers in the Duval County public schools are evaluated whenever necessary, but at least once a year. Under the rating system in effect during the 1980-81 and 1981-82 school years, an unsatisfactory rating is awarded when an evaluation contains eight or more deduction points. Ratings are: (1) satisfactory, (2) needs improvement, and (3) unsatisfactory. On the rating form in use during the time in issue here, an unsatisfactory rating results in two deduction points in Items 1 through 27, and one deduction point in Items 28 through 36. An evaluation of "needs improvement" does not result in any deduction points. The School Board of Duval County has not, in any formal way, defined professional incompetence. The evaluation process is but one tool in the management of teacher employment. An unsatisfactory evaluation is not, therefore, conclusive of professional incompetence, but is one factor in that judgmental decision. The procedure used by the School Board in evaluating teacher performance was not adopted in conformity with the Administrative Procedure Act. At the time of adoption, the School Board was operating under teacher working conditions that had been implemented after extensive bargaining between the School Board and the teachers' union. These working conditions contained extensive provisions involving "teacher evaluation." When a contract was finally agreed upon between the School Board and the teachers' union, it contained provisions concerning teacher evaluation identical to those which were in effect under the working conditions previous to the implementation of the contract. These provisions, therefore, do not constitute rules "as defined in Section 120.52, Florida Statutes," but instead constitute guidelines for the evaluation of teacher performance arrived at not by decision of the School Board under conditions which require public hearing but jointly by agreement of the parties to the negotiations of the teacher contract between the School Board and the union, a collective bargaining agreement. Warren K. Kennedy was in Respondent's sophomore English class at Forrest Senior High School in Jacksonville during the 1980-81 school year. At one point during the school year, Kennedy saw a series of approximately 22 sexually explicit words or phrases written on the blackboard in Respondent's room. Kennedy copied these words and notified the principal, who went to Respondent's classroom and saw them himself. These words were placed on the board by someone other than Respondent, with her permission, and consisted of a part of an exercise in outlining. As such, Respondent claims the words themselves mean nothing, but words of that nature, including "orgasms, sexual intercourse, French tickler, blow job, condoms, dildo, masturbation, orgy," and the like serve no legitimate purpose in, and are not a legitimate part of, a sophomore English class. Respondent's classroom that year was chaotic. Students did little work, but instead talked openly and freely. Respondent sat quietly at her desk doing paperwork unless the noise got so great as to disturb other classes. Students felt free to walk out of class with impunity. Cursing was prevalent in class, and discipline was nonexistent. Defacing of school property occurred on at least one occasion with Respondent taking no corrective action. As a result, several students and the parents of other students requested their transfer from Respondent's class to another. Respondent was also unreliable in submitting grades and reports in a timely fashion. Observations of Respondent in the classroom environment by several different individuals revealed she did not insist her students come to class equipped with the proper supplies for effective writing or textbook activity. She rarely utilized visual aids pertinent to the matter being discussed. Classroom discussion with students did not generally involve a broad sampling of the class, but was focused on only a few class members. Her questions to the students were often vague and confusing to the students. Respondent's principal during that school year, Ronel J. Poppel, at whose request the above observations were made, himself observed Respondent in the classroom on several occasions. As a result of the input from those requested observations and of his own observations, he prepared an evaluation form on Respondent on March 15, 1981, which bore an overall rating of unsatisfactory and reflected that her performance was declining. This report, which reflected 7 of 36 items as unsatisfactory (12 total deduction points), had 20 other items rated as "needs improvement" and contained such written-in suggestions as "needs classroom management techniques, needs better standards of behavior, needs to have long-range planning from the beginning of the year, needs to show more enthusiasm for teaching--needs more variety in methods of teaching," and "should use better judgment in selection of topics." As a result of this evaluation, the observations of her principal and others, and the several counseling periods during which Respondent's deficiencies were pointed out to her along with suggestions for improvement, Respondent was put on notice of her failing performance and afforded the opportunity to take advantage of teacher education counseling (TEC) and, while she did enroll in at least one improvement course, failed to take full advantage of the available opportunities. Poppel's evaluation of Respondent as an incompetent teacher is based on: His personal observation; Evaluation by other professionals; Parent complaint follow-up; Her demonstrated lack of effective planning; Her lack of enforcement of school policies; Her lack of or inability to motivate students; Observed and reported chaotic classroom deportment; Her failure to keep proper records; and Her failure to leave lesson plans for substitutes. Notwithstanding the above, Respondent was well versed in the subject matter she was to teach and had the subjective background to be an excellent teacher. Her shortcomings, as described above, however, far outweighed the positive aspects of her credentials. Respondent was transferred for the 1981-82 school year to Fletcher High School in Jacksonville where she was placed under the supervision of Dr. Ragans, Principal, to teach English. Dr. Ragans spoke to Mr. Poppel, her former principal, about Respondent's weak areas so that he could develop plans to help her in those areas. In an effort to prepare Respondent for the coming year and to ensure she was fully aware of school policies and standards, Dr. Ragans held an extensive conference with Respondent to discuss her previous year's unsatisfactory rating and to make plans to remedy or remediate those areas. On August 25, 1981, he wrote a letter to Respondent in which he reiterated the items discussed previously. Review of this letter reveals there could be little doubt of what Dr. Ragans expected. Nonetheless, when he personally observed her in her classroom less than a month later, he found many of the same weaknesses previously identified, such as a noisy classroom environment, talking by students without being called on, Respondent appearing preoccupied with desk work, and inadequate lesson plans. In the observation report, he made numerous suggestions for improvement and offered Respondent the opportunity to a conference which she did not request. Prior to that observation, however, on September 8, 1981, Dr. Ragans and Respondent met with Dr. Jeff Weathers, TEC consultant for the School Board, in a full discussion of her professional shortcomings, at which meeting a suggestion was made that Respondent enroll in certain university-level courses in classroom management and motivation. Respondent was somewhat reluctant to take these courses because she felt they might interfere with her planning and her preparation for classes. Nonetheless, she did attend one class. Dr. Ragans had advised her he would arrange for substitute teachers for her so that she could take available classes. She was also invited to meet with master teachers in the school to seek assistance and to observe them, and she did in fact do so. In addition, a program was set up for her lesson plans to be reviewed by experts at the School Board. Respondent denies she ever submitted these plans, but according to Judith B. Silas, a resource teacher at School Board headquarters who reviewed Respondent's plans in December, 1981, her plans were confusing and lacking a consistent format: the dates on the plans reflect they were from an earlier series of years; objective numbers did not refer to the 1981 Curriculum Guide and did not cross-reference; and some included material had no relationship to plans or lessons. Ms. Silas's comments, forwarded to the school in February, 1982, were discussed with Respondent. A follow-up letter dated September 25, 1981, outlining the substance of the joint meeting with Dr. Weathers, was forwarded to Respondent. Shortly thereafter, on October 29, 1981, Dr. Ragans prepared a preliminary evaluation on Respondent rated overall as unsatisfactory in which 13 items were rated that way and 12 more rated as "needs to improve." On November 25, 1981, Respondent was provided with a lesson presentation checklist drawn by Dr. Weathers for her to use along with a notice of several night courses available to Respondent and a notice of a proposed observation of another teacher by Dr. Weathers and Respondent on December 14, 1981. After this observation, Dr. Weathers and Respondent discussed the positive aspects of that teacher's operation that Respondent could and should emulate. A new classroom observation of Respondent was set for January, 1982. In the interim, in January, 1982, Dr. Ragans received at least one parent request for a student to be transferred from Respondent's class because the classroom environment was noisy, unruly, and not conducive to learning. As a result of this letter and other parent contacts of a similar nature, Dr. Ragans had several informal discussions with Respondent during this period. On February 23, 1982, Respondent requested a conference with Dr. Ragans on her upcoming evaluation which was, she understood, to be unsatisfactory from a letter to her on February 5, 1982, from Dr. Ragans. This rating, conducted on February 2, 1982, but not signed by Dr. Ragans until March 3, 1982, was unsatisfactory, containing 14 items so marked and 13 marked "needs to improve." At the conference, held the same day as requested, Dr. Ragans advised Respondent he still felt she had marked deficiencies previously indicated regarding classroom control, authority, respect, lesson plans coordination, classroom planning, her failure to provide purposeful learning experiences, no student motivation, and her apparent inability to be understood by her students. Also cited to her were the continuing parent complaints and those of other teachers that their classrooms, used by her (she was a traveling teacher with no room of her own), had been damaged by her students. Much of this had previously been outlined in Dr. Ragans' February 2, 1982, letter indicating his intent to rate Respondent as unsatisfactory. Both Dr. Weathers and another school district supervisor, Dr. Henderson, observed Respondent in the classroom situation in late January or early February, 1982. Both individuals identified the same deficiencies as previously noted by so many others, and both made recommendations for improvement which were passed on, intact, to Respondent. In early March, 1982, Dr. Ragans advised Respondent in writing of his intent to evaluate her on March 15, 1982, to see if she had made any improvement. He did this because of Respondent's feeling that the previous evaluation had not given her enough time to work out improvements. This latest evaluation was also overall unsatisfactory. Two days later, on March 17, 1982, Respondent indicated in writing that she did not accept this evaluation. On April 30, 1982, Dr. Ragans again visited Respondent's classroom so that, if she had markedly improved, he could try to extend her contract or change her evaluation before the end of the school year. However, he could observe no appreciable change. Shortly after this visit, on May 3, he discussed with Respondent complaints he had received from several parents about warnings she had sent out on some students which inconsistently showed both satisfactory performance and danger of failing on the same form. She explained this as all students, including straight "A" students, who had not taken the MLST (test) were in danger of failing. Dr. Ragans felt this excuse was feeble and unjustified and demonstrated poor judgment on her part. All this was confirmed in a letter on May 17. A complaint from a parent of one of Respondent's students, received on June 11, 1982, initiated an audit of the grades given by Respondent during the school year. Results of this audit revealed at least 68 errors involving 46 students, including three students who received passing grades when they, in fact, had failed and should have been in summer school. A total of 13 student grades had to be changed, requiring a letter of notification and apology from the principal. Respondent did not deny the inconsistencies shown in the audit, but defended them on the basis of, in many cases, their being the result of her exercising her discretion and prerogative to award a grade different from that supported by recorded achievement if, in her opinion, other factors so dictated. In any case, the number of inconsistencies requiring a grade change was substantially higher than is normal. During the 1981-82 school year, Respondent had not been assigned a classroom of her own, but instead met and taught her classes in the rooms assigned to other teachers. This situation, while not unique to Respondent and one which several other teachers had as well, is nonetheless a definite handicap to any teacher. In an effort to alleviate the impact of this situation, all Respondent's rooms were scheduled as geographically close together as possible, and she was assigned only one subject to teach. Therefore, though she may have had several class periods which progressed at different speeds, the planning and preparation was similar and much less an arduous task than if she had different subjects to prepare for. In any case, there is little relationship between this and discipline and control in the classroom. Dr. Mary Henderson, Director of Language Arts/Reading for the Duval County School Board, observed Respondent in the classroom during both the 1980- 81 and 1981-82 school years at two different schools. Recognizing that Respondent has definite strengths in her knowledge of the subject matter to be taught and her recognition of and communication to the students of the relationship of their lessons to the test requirements, Dr. Henderson still felt Respondent was not a competent teacher. On both occasions, she found Respondent's lesson plans to be inadequate, her techniques in classroom management were deficient, she failed to make effective use of the students' time, and she failed to effectively motivate her students to participate in the classroom activities. Throughout all this period, according to both supervisors and others who observed her, Respondent always maintained a pleasant, calm, positive, and cooperative approach to all with whom she came into contact. At no time did she show hostility or resentment. Also, there was never a question as to her knowledge of the subject matter. Respondent possesses a bachelor's degree in English and a master's degree in administration and supervision. She has sufficient credit hours to qualify for a major in Spanish. She has also taken several in-service courses in such subjects as linguistics, methods of curriculum and instruction, British literature, and school administration. She is certified to teach English, Spanish, and typing. She has been a teacher in several Florida school systems for 29 years, of which the last 21 years were in various Jacksonville area schools. She is tenured. She was selected for summer school employment in 1980, while at Forrest High School, even though tenure does not ensure selection to teach summer school. During the 1980-81 school year, Respondent was caring for the aunt who raised her and who was suffering from terminal cancer. This required frequent travel back and forth to another part of the state, and in addition to being a physical burden, constituted a severe strain on her mental state. During that year, she started out teaching only twelfth grade classes, but as a result of a reduction in class sizes during the school year, she was given some additional tenth grade classes for which she had not prepared. Respondent feels her classroom discipline was not so unusual as to be remarkable. She feels she maintained classroom discipline as well as required and contested the allegations that she rarely referred students to the administration for additional discipline. She made all reasonable effort to improve her performance by enrolling in some of the courses recommended by Drs. Weathers and Ragans, but had to wait until the second semester because she did not get the information on the first semester courses until after they had started. The classes she took urged the use of listening and negotiating skills rather than the authoritative method in dealing with students. She tried to implement what she learned in her classrooms and feels she succeeded regardless of what the testimony shows. In addition, she took a course dealing with self- concept and self-confidence and applied for admission to Jacksonville University's master of arts program in an effort to upgrade her skills. Respondent admits that at the beginning of the 1981-82 school year, she was not using formal lesson plans. She had been asked by the administration for plans on a weekly basis and had jotted down ideas on paper. To formulate these ideas, she used prior years lesson plans, but did not turn any of these in. This does not track with Ms. Silas's testimony that the Respondent's plans she reviewed appeared to be from prior years. I find that prior years' plans were used by Respondent extensively and how these plans were transmitted to Ms. Silas for review is immaterial. Respondent, based on the above, while possessing the necessary technical qualifications to perform as a teacher, while possessing the appropriate knowledge of her subject matter, and while possessing the desire to impart that knowledge to her students, is nonetheless incompetent to conduct a class, maintain proper discipline, and generate adequate student motivation to accomplish these desired ends.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be removed from classroom teaching duties and be assigned some other function within the school system until such time, unless sooner released for other good cause, as she can retire with maximum benefits. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 1st day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary E. Eckstine, Esquire Chief Administrative Hearings Section City of Jacksonville 1300 City Hall Jacksonville, Florida 32202 William F. Kachergus, Esquire Maness & Kachergus 502 Florida Theatre Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Herb A. Sang Superintendent Duval County Public Schools 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207
The Issue Whether Respondent, Department of Education, should have invalidated Petitioner's, Lori Monroe, Florida Teacher Certification Examination, for her alleged violation of a test- taking protocol.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is seeking to be certified as a teacher. She submitted appropriate application and sat for the March 4, 2006, Florida Teacher Certification Examination. Respondent is the state agency responsible for certifying teachers in the State of Florida and conducts the Florida Teacher Certification Examinations. The Florida Teacher Certification Examinations are given four times per year in various locations around the state. Because of the frequency and volume of Florida Teacher Certification Examinations, the application process and information regarding testing procedures are refined. The preliminary information provided examinees includes a statement of understanding, written in the first person, which makes specific reference to the fact that the examinee "must follow the instructions of the test administration personnel," and, "If I do anything prohibited by this paragraph, my examination results will be voided." In addition, examinees are provided an information sheet identifying "cheating behaviors." Included in the list of "cheating behaviors" is the following: "During the examination administration, continuing to work on the examination after the testing time had elapsed, and the directive to stop working has been given by a room proctor or supervisor." Included in the referenced refinements in testing procedures are instructions contained in a Test Administration Manual provided to test room supervisors and proctors that ensure the appropriate administration of the tests. The Test Administration Manual specifically delineates the procedure to be followed upon observation by a room supervisor or proctor when "an examinee continues to work on the test when time is called." In the instant case, the room supervisor and proctor, both of whom were experienced test administrators, followed the appropriate procedures. Both the room supervisor and proctor were within several feet of Petitioner who was sitting in the front-row seat of the classroom. Not only was Petitioner within easy view, but, certainly close enough to clearly hear the general instructions to stop. They observed Petitioner continue to enter answers on her answer sheet after examinees had been told to stop two times. It is unfortunate that the particular conduct of the Petitioner is characterized as "cheating," as the evidence, including the observations of the room supervisor and proctor, portrays Petitioner as being so focused on the examination that she did not hear the instruction to stop and, unfortunately, continued to answer questions after the test had concluded. Respondent advised Petitioner by letter dated March 20, 2006, that she had been assigned a score of "invalid" and that she had not fulfilled the requirement for a passing score on the Elementary Education K-6 examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Education enter a final order concluding that an irregularity had occurred and that "invalid" was the appropriate test score for the subject test. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of July, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of July, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Matthew J. Carson, Esquire Department of Education Division of Vocational Rehabilitation 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 1244 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0440 Charlie S. Martin, Esquire McLeod, McLeod & McLeod, P.A. 48 East Main Street Post Office Drawer 950 Apopka, Florida 32704-0950 Lynn Abbott, Agency Clerk Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Honorable John Winn Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent properly considered prior teaching experience when calculating an appropriate salary for Petitioners.
Findings Of Fact All Petitioners were employed by the Board as full-time Florida certified public school teachers under a series of successive annual contracts. The Board operates under a Collective Bargaining Agreement known as the "Master Contract." The Master Contract includes, among other things, a salary schedule that is the result of negotiations with the Escambia Educational Association (EEA), the collective bargaining agent that represents teachers. A negotiated salary schedule is then recommended by the superintendent of Escambia County Schools pursuant to Subsection 1012.27(2), Florida Statutes (2007), to the Board for approval and adoption. The salary schedule adopted by the Board governs the compensation payable to instructional personnel. The salary schedule includes "steps" with corresponding "salary." Placement on the salary schedule step depends, in part, upon prior teaching experience. Generally, more prior teaching experience credited for placement on the schedule results in a higher level of compensation. All Petitioners received an annual instructional contract under the authority of Subsection 231.36(3), Florida Statutes, or later, Subsection 1012.33(3), Florida Statutes. Petitioners' annual instructional contracts set forth the contract salary on an annual basis payable through 12 monthly installments. The contracts specify the number of days to be worked and the daily rate of compensation. The Board's standard form contract provides that "[t]his annual contract shall be deemed amended to comply with all laws, all lawful rules of the State Board of Education, all lawful rules and actions of the School Board and all terms of an applicable ratified collective-bargaining agreement." All Petitioners performed the agreed-upon instructional services and, individually, were paid the agreed-upon contractual amount, as provided in the "Master Contract 1999-2002" or "Master Contract 2004-2007," as appropriate. This included the amount paid for years of service or "steps" as provided in the Master Contracts. Petitioners Davis, Elleard, Lanier, Malone, Outzen, and Taylor, however, protested the steps they were assigned. As shall be addressed below, the Master Contract allowance for steps was less than that required by Florida law subsequent to July 1, 2001. Petitioners' annual instructional contracts specify the salary paid through 12 monthly installments with a daily rate of compensation identified. The amount of compensation can be further broken down into an hourly rate based upon 7.5 hours per day, and provides for annual leave and sick leave. As is customary, if the employee takes leave and has no accrued leave balance, her pay will be reduced to compensate for the hours of leave without pay taken. The Board maintains ledgers with all the compensation information for its employees, including Petitioners. Petitioner Margaret Benson has been employed by the Board as a full-time public school teacher since August of 2002. Prior to her employment with the Board, Ms. Benson was a full-time public school teacher in New Jersey and Tennessee for 17 years. For each of those 17 years, Ms. Benson received satisfactory performance evaluations. Upon being hired by the Board, Ms. Benson was given credit for 15 of the 17 years of her prior teaching experience. Ms. Benson has requested that the Board recognize each of her 17 years of teaching service. In March or April 2007, the Board recognized one additional year of Ms. Benson's experience effective June 1, 2006. The Board has denied the request for the period of August 2002 through May 31, 2006. There is no evidence in the record as to whether Ms. Benson requested recognition of her entire teaching service, prior to the filing of this lawsuit. Petitioner Reba Davis was employed by the Board as a full-time public school teacher for the 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 school years. Prior to her employment with the Board, Ms. Davis was a full-time public school teacher in Florida, Oklahoma, Alabama, and Kentucky for 25 years. For each of those 25 years as a full-time public school teacher, Ms. Davis received satisfactory performance evaluations. Upon being hired by the Board, Ms. Davis was given credit for all but five years of her prior teaching experience. Ms. Davis has requested that the Board recognize each of her 25 years of teaching service. The Board has denied the request for the period of 2003-2005 school years. Ms. Davis retired from teaching in 2005, but is not using the five years of teaching credit toward her retirement benefit, which was earned outside the State of Florida. At the time she began her service with the Board Ms. Davis made inquiry with Mary Helen Fryman of the Board's Human Resources Office as to why she was not given credit for all of her prior experience. She was informed by Ms. Fryman that the matter was, "Still under negotiation and that she knew I would be given . . . my experience for my years in Florida." She made additional inquiries of the teachers union and the Board and was told that, "They were still in the bargaining stages and they were still not clear." Petitioner Deborah Elleard has been employed by the Board as a full-time public school teacher since August 2003. Prior to her employment with the Board, Ms. Elleard was a full-time public school teacher in Alabama for 29 years. For each of those 29 years as a full-time public school teacher, Ms. Elleard received satisfactory performance evaluations. Ms. Elleard retired from the State of Alabama and when hired by the Board, Ms. Elleard was not given credit for her 29 years of prior teaching experience. Ms. Elleard has requested that the Board recognize each of her 29 years of teaching service. In March or April 2007, the Board recognized her 29 years of experience effective June 1, 2006. The Board has denied the request for the period of August 2003 through May 31, 2006. When Ms. Elleard was hired she made inquiry as to why she was not receiving credit for her 29 years of teaching service. She was informed then and several times thereafter that the Board was working on the matter and that it would be resolved. Petitioner Deborah Gregory was employed by the Board as a full-time public school teacher beginning August 2002 until her resignation following the conclusion of the 2005-2006 school year. Prior to her employment with the Board during the relevant time, Ms. Gregory was a full-time public school teacher in Alabama, Escambia County, and Orange County for 16 years. For each of those 16 years as a full-time public school teacher, Ms. Gregory received satisfactory performance evaluations. Upon being hired by the Board in 2002, Ms. Gregory was given credit for 15 of her 16 years of prior teaching experience. Ms. Gregory has requested that the Board recognize each of her 16 years of teaching service. The Board has denied the request for the period of August 2002 through May 31, 2006. There is no evidence in the record as to when or if Ms. Gregory requested recognition of her entire teaching service. Petitioner Ida Lanier has been employed by the Board as a full-time public school teacher since August 2001. Prior to her employment with the Board, Ms. Lanier was a full-time public school teacher in Alabama for 25 years. For each of those 25 years as a full-time public school teacher, Ms. Lanier received satisfactory performance evaluations. Ms. Lanier retired from the State of Alabama, and upon being hired by the Board, Ms. Lanier was denied credit for her 25 years of prior teaching experience. Ms. Lanier has requested that the Board recognize each of her 25 years of teaching service. In March or April 2007, the Board recognized Ms. Lanier's 25 years of experience effective June 1, 2006. The Board has denied the request for the period of August 2002 through May 31, 2006. When she was hired, Ms. Lanier inquired as to why she did not get credit for prior service and she was told it was because she was retired from another state. She was informed that the collective bargaining agreement prevented the credit but that the situation might change. She continued over time to make inquiry to both her union and the Board. Petitioner Phyllis Malone has been employed by the Board as a full-time public school teacher since August 2003. Prior to her employment with the Board, Ms. Malone was a full-time public school teacher in Alabama for 25 years. For each of those 25 years, Ms. Malone received satisfactory performance evaluations. Ms. Malone retired from the State of Alabama and upon being hired by the Board, Ms. Malone was given credit for 15 of her 25 years of prior teaching experience. Ms. Malone requested that the Board recognize each of her 25 years of teaching service. In August 2006, the Board recognized each of her 25 years of experience effective June 1, 2006. The Board has denied the request for the period of August 2002 through May 31, 2006. Ms. Malone had conversations with the Board's Human Resources Office and wrote a letter to Dr. Scott of the Board and talked to Judy Fung of the Board, inquiring as to why she was not receiving credit for past experience. During the time she taught, she continued to make inquiries. Petitioner Vicki Outzen has been employed by the Board as a full-time public school teacher since August 2002. Prior to her employment with the Board, Ms. Outzen was a full-time public school teacher in Alabama for 25 years. For each of those 25 years, Ms. Outzen received satisfactory performance evaluations. Ms. Outzen retired from the State of Alabama and upon being hired by the Board, Ms. Outzen was not given credit for her 25 years of prior teaching experience. Ms. Outzen has requested that the Board recognize each of her 25 years of teaching service. In March or April 2007, the Board recognized Ms. Outzen's 25 years of experience effective June 1, 2006. The Board has denied the request for the period of August 2002 through May 31, 2006. Ms. Outzen made inquiries of the Board at the time she was hired and continuously during her employment with regard to the Board's refusal to give her the requested credit. She was informed that negotiations with the union were in progress and that she should continue to "check back" with the Board. She continually checked back with Ms. Fryman, Director of Human Resources at the Board, and was told in a letter that because she was retired from another state she must start teaching at step zero. Petitioner Janet Taylor has been employed by the Board as a full-time public school teacher since September 11, 2002. Prior to her employment with the Board, Ms. Taylor was a full-time public school teacher in Alabama for 30 years. For each of those 30 years, Ms. Taylor received satisfactory performance evaluations. Ms. Taylor retired from the State of Alabama and upon being hired by the Board, Ms. Taylor was not given credit for her 30 years of prior teaching experience. Ms. Taylor has requested that the Board recognize each of her 30 years of teaching service. Respondent has failed to recognize any of Ms. Taylor's prior years of teaching experience. The Board led Ms. Taylor to believe that she would be notified by the Board when she would be eligible to receive credit for prior teaching experience. For the years Petitioners are seeking credit, those years were not earned under the Florida Retirement System (FRS) as codified in Chapter 121, Florida Statutes (2007). If the Petitioners had been paid as they assert, the Board would be required to pay Petitioners as follows: Margaret Benson for an additional step for school years 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 2004-2005, and 2005-2006. This amount totals $3,308. Reba Davis for five steps for school years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. This amount totals $11,423. Deborah Elleard for 29 steps for school years 2003- 2004, 2004-2005, and 2005-2006. This amount totals $52,895. Deborah Gregory for one step for school years 2002- 2003, 2003-2004, 2004-2005, and 2005-2006. This amount totals $3,308. Ida Lanier for 25 steps for school years 2001-2002, 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 2004-2005, and 2005-2006. This amount totals $83,561. Phyllis Malone for 10 steps for school years 2003- 2004, 2004-2005, and 2005-2006. This amount totals $28,692. Vicki Outzen for 26 steps for school years 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 2004-2005, and 2005-2006. This amount totals $66,338. Janet Taylor for 30 steps for school years 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2005-2006, 2006-2007, and 2007-2008. This amount totals $101,427.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Escambia County School Board recalculate Petitioners' salary as of April 2, 2005, so that their salaries reflect the amount each should have earned if Petitioners had been given credit for each year of full-time public school teaching service earned in the State of Florida or outside the state, and pay them that amount. It is further recommended that Petitioners receive pay at all future times as provided by Subsection 1012.33(3)(g), Florida Statutes (2007), and this Recommended Order. It is further recommended that the Escambia County School Board remit to Petitioners a reasonable attorney's fee. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of August, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of August, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph L. Hammons, Esquire Hammons, Longoria & Whittaker, P.A. 17 West Cervantes Street Pensacola, Florida 32501-3125 H. B. Stivers, Esquire Levine & Stivers 245 East Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jim Paul, Superintendent Escambia County School Board 215 West Garden Street Pensacola, Florida 32502-5782
The Issue Whether the Education Practices Commission (EPC) should revoke or suspend the Respondent's Florida teaching certificate, or impose any other penalty provided by law, for the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated April 5, 1994.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida teaching certificate 326738, covering the areas of History, Political Science, and Economics, which was valid through June 30, 1994. Respondent's teaching certificate has not been renewed for failure to complete three additional course credits. On or about November 1989, Respondent was reported to Professional Practices Services (PPS) for failure to maintain honesty. The basis for the report was that on a teacher in-service day, Respondent did not report to work, but had a co-worker sign in for him. As a result of this report, the Pinellas County School District suspended the Respondent for three (3) days without pay. On or about August 21, 1990, Respondent entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement with the Department of Education that extended through the end of the 1990-1991 school year. The Deferred Prosecution Agreement included in its terms the requirements that the Respondent: violate no criminal laws and shall fully comply with all district school board regula- tions, school rules and State Board of Education Rule 6B-1.006, F.A.C.; perform assigned duties and responsibilities in a professional manner and which is satisfactory to the county school board and in compliance with the rules of the Florida Department of Education; and satisfactorily complete a workshop/inservice training course or college level course in developing positive relationships with others. On July 24, 1991, then Commissioner of Education, Betty Castor, revoked the Respondent's Deferred Prosecution Agreement with the Department of Education and filed an Administrative Complaint against the Respondent. On June 30, 1992, the Education Practices Commission (EPC) issued a Final Order regarding the July 24, 1991 Administrative Complaint against the Respondent. On or about August 12, 1992, Karen Wilde, Executive Director of the EPC, notified the Respondent of the terms of the Respondent's probation as provided by the June 30, 1992 EPC Final Order. On May 4, 1992, Betty Castor, Commissioner of Education filed a second Administrative Complaint against the Respondent. The second Administrative Complaint referenced the first pending Administrative Complaint entered against the Respondent and further alleged that the Respondent had engaged in inappropriate and unprofessional conduct. The second Administrative Complaint also alleged that on or about October 25, 1991, the Pinellas County School Board suspended the Respondent with pay and recommended that the Respondent be terminated. On August 18, 1992, the Respondent entered into a Settlement Agreement with the EPC whereby the Respondent elected not to contest the allegations set forth in the May 4, 1992 Administrative Complaint. This agreement required the Respondent among other things to: submit to an evaluation by licensed psychiatrist mutually acceptable to the EPC and the Respondent within sixty (60) days of the date of this agreement. submit to an evaluation by a licensed physician other than [Respondent's] regular physician. This exam must include a medical review to determine the cumulative effects of medication which has been prescribed to [the Respondent], and to determine whether any medications or combinations thereof with each other or with alcohol may contribute to the behaviors which are the basis of the Adminis- trative Complaint. On November 6, 1992, the Education Practices Commission issued a Final Order with regard to the Second Administrative Complaint. The November 6, 1992 Final Order incorporated the terms of the August 18, 1992 Settlement Agreement. On or about December 11, 1992, Karen Wilde, Executive Director of the EPC, notified the Respondent of the terms that the Respondent agreed to in his Settlement Agreement. On or about March 10, 1993, Karen Wilde again notified the Respondent of the requirements of the Respondent's Settlement Agreement and the Respondent's non-compliance with terms of that latest settlement agreement. The Respondent has not complied with the terms of the Final Order of November 6, 1992 which incorporated the Settlement Agreement insofar as the evaluations from a physician and from a psychiatrist have not been submitted. On or about April 1, 1993 Karen Wilde notified the Respondent that the Respondent was being reported to the PPS for non-compliance with the terms of the Final Order of November 6, 1992. On June 30, 1993, the PPS initiated an action against the Respondent for violation of the Respondent's EPC probation. Respondent has taught school for over twenty years. On September 7, 1992, Respondent seriously injured his back in the course of his employment as a result of intervening to prevent a fight between two students. Respondent's injury required him to undergo surgery to repair a herniated disc, and resulted in a 9 percent permanent partial impairment rating to the body as a whole. During this time Respondent was on prescribed pain medication. Respondent filed a worker's compensation claim which was settled by the Pinellas County School Board. The settlement stipulated that Respondent would resign his employment with the Pinellas County School Board, and further provided that the School Board has no objection to deletion of paragraph 8(f) and 8(g) of the settlement agreement. On August 18, 1993, the Respondent resigned his teaching position with the Pinellas County School Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Respondent be barred from reapplying for a teaching certificate for a period of one (1) year from the final disposition by the Education Practices Commission; That prior to reapplication the Respondent be required to provide the certificates that were required by Paragraph 5 and 6, and shall comply with Paragraphs 8(f) and 8(g), all of the Final Order entered by the Education Practices Commission on November 6, 1992; That upon reemployment in the teaching profession that he be placed on a term of probation of three years on the terms outlined in Paragraphs 7, 8(a), 8(b), 8(c), 8(d), 8(e), and 9, all of the Final Order entered by the Education Practices Commission on November 6, 1992; and That an administrative fine of $500.00 be paid by the Respondent to the Petitioner within the first twelve months of the probationary period. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of March, 1995. RICHARD HIXSON 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 16th day of March, 1995. APPENDIX The following constitute rulings on the Findings of Fact proposed by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1.-10. Adopted. 11. Adopted in part. 12.-18. Adopted. Incorporated in paragraph 18. 20.-22. Adopted. Respondent's Proposed Order Adopted in part. Reject as not supported by the evidence. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted. COPIES FURNISHED: Nathan L. Bond, Esquire 2121 Killarney Way Suite G Tallahassee, Florida 32308 David L. Smith 2521 Oak Leaf Lane Condo D Clearwater, Florida 34623 Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Kathleen M. Richards, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Barbara J. Staros, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: At all times material to the instant case, Respondent held Florida teacher's certificate number 581280, covering the area of art education. Her certificate was valid through June 30, 1998. During the 1996-97 school year, Respondent was employed by the Broward County School Board (School Board) as an art teacher. This was her first year of teaching. In February of 1997, Respondent was reassigned from another school in the district to McNabb Elementary School (McNabb). Diane Lang is now, and has been for the past four years (including the 1996-97 school year), the Principal of McNabb. From the outset, Respondent had difficulty controlling students in her classroom at McNabb. Principal Lang attempted to help Respondent improve her classroom management skills. Her efforts, unfortunately, were to no avail. Principal Lang also received complaints concerning Respondent's use of profanity in the classroom. On February 25, 1999, Principal Lang reprimanded Respondent in writing for having engaged in such inappropriate conduct in front of her students. Late in the school day on April 21, 1997, when Respondent was in the art room teaching Ashley Russom's fifth- grade class, a student from another fifth-grade class, R. M., who was misbehaving in music class (being held across the hall), was sent by the music teacher to the art room for a "time out." When R. M. entered the art room, Respondent sarcastically announced to her students, "Look, it's my favorite student." Respondent then approached R. M., took him by the arm, and pulled him across the room to a chair. When he reached the chair, R. M. tripped and fell on the floor. He then picked himself up and, pursuant to Respondent's directions, sat on the chair. Respondent then returned to teaching the class. She was interrupted, however, when R. M. started making faces and distracting the students in the class. Respondent responded to R. M.'s disruptive conduct by again approaching him, taking him by the arm, and pulling him. This time she dragged him to the supply closet, which has a glass window facing the classroom. She left R. M. inside the supply closet and, as she exited, slammed the door. Upon slamming the door, Respondent yelled out, loudly enough for the 30 fifth-grade students in her class to hear, "Shit, I broke a nail." After Respondent resumed the lesson she was teaching, R. M. began pressing his face against the supply closet's glass window and making faces. He then picked up a knife that was in the supply closet, stood up on a counter that was next to the window, and put the point of the knife to his neck. A number of students in the class saw what R. M. was doing, and they shouted out to Respondent that R. M. was playing with a knife. Respondent then looked at R. M. through the supply closet window and told the class, "Just leave him alone; he's just trying to get attention." R. M. then began running on the counter in the supply closet with the knife still in his hand. Respondent was attempting to teach the class, but the students were not paying attention to her. They were watching R. M. As R. M. was running on the supply closet counter, he lost his balance and fell off the counter. R. M.'s demeanor changed after his fall. He sat quietly in the supply closet (without making faces or engaging in any other disruptive conduct) until he was let out by Respondent at the end of the period. As the students were leaving the art room, Respondent stated, loudly enough for some of the students to hear, "Why do I have to clean up after these damn kids?" Upon returning to Ms. Russom's classroom, her students told her about what had happened in Respondent's class. Ms. Russom, in turn, informed Principal Lang of what the students in her class had related to her. R. M. left school that day with a cut finger. The next school day, Principal Lang spoke to approximately ten of Ms. Russom's students concerning Respondent's conduct during the lesson she taught them on April 21, 1997, and she (Principal Lang) requested that the School Board's Special Investigative Unit conduct an investigation of the matter. At the conclusion of the 1996-97 school year, Respondent received an overall unsatisfactory performance evaluation and her annual contract was not renewed. As a result of the above-described conduct in which she engaged on April 21, 1997, while she had Ms. Russom's fifth- grade class in her classroom, Respondent's effectiveness as an educator has been reduced.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and punishing her for committing these violations by revoking her license and denying her the right to teach for a period of six years, after which she may apply for a new certificate in accordance with the provisions of Section 231.28(4)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of May, 1999.
