The Issue Whether petitioner's assignment of Antonio Doll to an alternative educational program is justified on grounds of his "disruption of the educational process in the regular school program and failure to adjust to the regular school program?"
Findings Of Fact Antonio Doll's career at Norland Senior High School in Miami was not an unqualified success. On May 24, 1984, he was suspended for ten days after attempting to sell marijuana he had in his possession. About a month earlier, on April 25, 1984, his misconduct in the classroom had been called to the school administrator's attention, and had resulted in a parental conference with school authorities. On March 7, 1984, he was suspended for ten days because of vandalism. This came after parental conferences on January 30, 1984, occasioned by insubordination in the classroom, and on December 9, 1983, after classroom misconduct and an episode of truancy. Antonio Doll was referred to the school administrator seven times in eight months. As of January 25, 1984, his academic grades were worse than his conduct marks. He was failing five subjects and had a D in a sixth. Only in industrial arts was he doing better than D work.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner assign Antonio Doll to the opportunity program at Douglas MacArthur Senior High School-North. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Valentine, Esquire 3000 Executive Plaza Suite 800 3050 Biscayne Blvd. Miami, Florida 33137 Mr. and Mrs. Collier 2560 N.W. 161 Street Opa Locka, Florida 33055 Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools Board Administration Building 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact At all time relevant hereto, respondent, Anthony Newkirk, was a student at Thomas Jefferson Junior High School (TJJHS) in Dade County, Florida during school years 1984-85 and 1985-86. The school is under the jurisdiction of petitioner, School Board of Dade County (Board). During school year 1984-85, Anthony was a thirteen year old seventh grade student at TJJHS. His attendance calendar card reflects that he was absent from first period home room at least twenty times that year. In addition, he was absent from his first through sixth period classes on 28, 22, 9, 37, 27 and 30 occasions, respectively. He also received failing grades in two subjects. During this same year, Anthony received a number of detention assignments and suspensions from school for disciplinary problems. These included class referrals by teachers, fighting at school, skipping detention and using profanity. On at least two occasions, his parents were contacted regarding his behavior. Anthony's behavior gradually deteriorated in school year 1985-85. He was referred by his art teacher to the assistant principal at least seven times for disruptive actions in her class. For example, Anthony would not remain seated when asked to do so, he would deliberately begin talking in a loud manner while the teacher was attempting to instruct the class, and he refused to remove his hat in class as required by the school dress code. Such conduct interfered with the student's own learning as well as the educational process of others in the classroom. In addition to the above problems, Anthony was referred to the principal by other teachers for similar conduct in 1985-86. He was also cited for excessive absenteeism and tardiness, and for skipping detention hall. On several occasions his parents were contacted regarding his behavior. On April 17, 1986, Anthony was referred to a child study team consisting of a guidance counselor, teacher and school psychologist. Despite this counseling effort, Anthony skipped a detention hall on April 26. The assistant principal then made a decision that Anthony could not function in a normal school environment. He accordingly recommended that Anthony be reassigned to Jan Mann Opportunity School-North, an alternative education program designed to meet the needs of students who are disruptive, disinterested or unsuccessful in a normal school environment. His reassignment became effective on June 3, 1986, and Anthony is to begin the 1986-87 school year at Jan Mann on September 2, 1986.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Anthony Newkirk be reassigned to Jan Mann Opportunity School-North. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of August, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 29th day of August, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank R. Harder, Esquire Twin Oaks Bldg., Ste. 100 2780 Galloway Road Miami, Florida 33165 Ms. Willie Newkirk 7286 N.W. 21st Court Miami, Florida 33147 Dr. Leonard Britton, Superintendent Dade County Public Schools 1450 N.E. 2nd Ave. Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Respondent, Edna Jane Bowman, should be terminated from her position as a teacher with the Duval County School Board (DCSB) for good cause, based on alleged incompetence, as that status is defined at Section 4(e) of the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act, Chapter 21197, Laws of Florida (1941), as amended (Tenure Act).
Findings Of Fact The Respondent has been a full-time "tenured" teacher for the School Board during the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 school years and for a total of 28 years. She is certified by the State Department of Education in the area of Social Studies, grades five through nine, as well as other fields such has History (grades six through twelve). Like other teachers in the School District, her performance was evaluated annually by the principals of the schools where she taught. During the relevant school years, referenced above, the Teacher Assessment System (TAS) was the primary method used for evaluating teachers. John Williams has 39 years of experience in the field of K through 12 education and is the Board's Director of Professional Standards. He is familiar with the TAS and manages the District level officials who are responsible for proper administration of the TAS in teacher evaluation. The TAS measures teaching performance based on nine different "Competencies." These include: Promotes student growth and performance. Evaluates instructional needs of students. Plans and delivers effective instruction. Shows knowledge of subject matter. Utilizes appropriate classroom management techniques, including the ability to maintain appropriate discipline. Shows sensitivity to student needs by maintaining a positive school environment. Communicates with parents. Pursues professional growth. Demonstrates professional behaviors. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 22, in evidence). Teachers are evaluated by a school administrator, typically the principal, based on two formal classroom observations, which are announced to the teacher ahead of time. The Teacher Assessment Instrument (TAI) is used to collect data and identify indicators associated with each competency criterion. In evaluating a teacher's performance, administrators or principals may also employ informal, unannounced observations and use the results thus obtained in evaluating the teacher's performance. The "Evaluation of Professional Growth of Teacher" is an evaluation form used during the final annual evaluation conference. The form reflects the teacher's final rating as to each competency area and also reflects the teacher's overall performance rating for the school year. The TAS delineates the steps in conducting a performance assessment or evaluation of the teacher beginning with an instructional session and a pre-observation conference and then proceeding with the observation process. If a teacher demonstrates deficient performance in any competency area, a "success plan" is written in collaboration with the teacher. Although the success plan may be implemented at any time, it must be implemented by February 1st of a given school year for teachers who have the potential to receive an overall annual rating of "unsatisfactory." A success plan identifies areas of weakness by competency category, sets out objectives to be achieved, and provides timelines to meet those objectives. A success plan team is assembled and, in addition to the teacher, it is typically composed of school administrators, teachers with expertise in a subject matter that the deficient teacher is struggling with, and "resources teachers" or "coaches." The various steps and procedures in conducting a success plan and success plan team effort is delineated in the TAS, shown in Petitioner's Exhibit 22, in evidence. Ms. Bowman worked at Jefferson Davis Middle School (Jefferson Davis) during the 2007-2008 school year. Mr. Addison Davis was principal of Jefferson Davis. Mr. Davis made multiple informal observations of Ms. Bowman's teaching and provided her with his opinions, based on his observations, including concerns he had about a lack of lesson plans and failure to implement a District-wide "workshop model." The workshop model requires classroom activities where small groups of students work collaboratively to complete an activity or project and achieve certain curriculum student standards. Mr. Davis explained that model is particularly effective for students whose primary language is not English. Several of such students were assigned to Ms. Bowman's classes during that school year. Principal Davis also noted that the Respondent did not provide students with academic and behavioral expectations, did not adequately assess student performance and failed to use student portfolios. He opined that he observed a disconnection between student needs and the instruction provided, intended to serve those needs. Mr. Davis also observed a lack of instruction in some instances, in which students were directed to sit down, be quiet, or read portions of a text book. Due to observed deficiencies, a Success Plan was put into place on November 8, 2007, with Ms. Bowman's input. The Success Plan outlined areas of weakness, objectives toward improvements in those areas, with timelines. The Success Team included experienced teaching coaches who were available to model appropriate instruction for Ms. Bowman on several occasions. Ms. Bowman opposed the Success Plan, viewing it as unnecessary, essentially as harassment by the School District's administration. She failed to attend any of the bi-weekly meetings which were held throughout the entire school year. Mr. Davis also conducted two formal observations on December 10, 2007 and January 30, 2008. He met with Ms. Bowman before each formal observation to set a date for the observation and to discuss the lesson plan to be observed. They discussed the data related to the lesson plan, showing the relevance of the lesson to student needs and showing how student learning would be assessed. Ms. Bowman, however, failed to provide any assessment data, and, in lieu of that information, she submitted a "District Learning Guide" from three years past, which was not sufficiently related to the 2007-2008 curriculum. During the formal observation, Mr. Davis witnessed a period of 25 to 30 minutes during class time when there was no instruction. He saw students asleep at their desks and some arguing between the teacher and several students. He observed that there was a continuing failure to implement the "Workshop Model" and to provide students with academic and behavioral expectations. He saw a lack of assessment of student performance and a failure to use student portfolios. There was a continued disconnection between student needs and the instruction being given, supposedly to serve their needs. Mr. Davis gave the Respondent a number of warnings about the above-referenced deficiencies, based upon his observations, and their post-observation conferences. He encouraged the Respondent to participate in her Success Plan but she continued to refuse to cooperate. Ms. Leslie Sarjeant was an instructional coach and Success Team Member. She corroborated the fact that Ms. Bowman rejected the Success Plan process and did not participate. Rather than participating in the Success Plan for her own remediation Ms. Sarjeant described Ms. Bowman as railing against what she believed were the ill motives of the DCSB in criticizing her performance and embarking on the Success Plan process, which she believed was a pre-conceived effort to terminate her. The TAI forms completed by Principal Davis, and others completed by Assistant Principal Torrence, showed Ms. Bowman's failure to demonstrate competencies in promoting student growth and performance, evaluating instructional needs, and planning and delivering effective instruction. Mr. Davis then issued a "Notice of Potential Unsatisfactory Performance" to the Respondent on January 2, 2008. The evaluation of the Respondent was issued on January 31, 2008, reflecting unsatisfactory performance in the following competency areas: promoting student growth and performance, planning and delivering effective instruction, and demonstrating professional behaviors. Mr. John Williams, a District administrator, issued a formal Notice of Unsatisfactory Performance on May 7, 2008. In accordance with DCSB policy, after a first such unsatisfactory rating, he gave the Respondent the option to transfer to another school. Ms. Bowman elected to transfer to Southside Middle School, to teach seventh grade Social Studies and Geography for the following school year, 2008-2009. Ms. Bowman introduced a satisfactory evaluation of her teaching by Principal Davis, for the school year 2005-2006, in order to attack his credibility concerning the testimony about the unsatisfactory performance. This evaluation was done shortly after Principal Davis had been assigned to Jefferson Davis, in December of 2005. She maintained that he changed his opinion only after she wrote a letter to a local newspaper critical of DCSB administration, concerning certain policies regarding student attendance, discipline, promotion, etc. She did not, however, criticize DCSB administrators, and particularly not Principal Davis personally. This contention is not persuasive because Ms. Bowman, in past years, had also made similar accusations that other school administrators/principals had retaliated against her by the use of performance evaluations. She, for instance, raised concerns in a memorandum to the DCSB's human resources office in which she contended that the administration was using her evaluations, in 2004, as a means of retaliation. The contention that Principal Davis was retaliating against her at Jefferson Davis Middle School because she wrote the letter to the local newspaper is less than credible, inasmuch as these other complaints as to retaliation, as to her past evaluations, arose in earlier school years (2004-2005), and the other referenced events at Jefferson Davis Middle School occurred before Principal Davis was ever assigned to that school. The principal at Southside Middle School (Southside) during 2008-2009 school year was Ms. Latanya McNeal. She has 14 years of experience in education, with eight years as a school administrator. Because the Respondent received an unsatisfactory evaluation for the prior year, and in light of her early observations of Ms. Bowman, Ms. McNeal initiated a Professional Development Plan (PDP) on August 28, 2008. Ms. Bowman signed acknowledgement of that plan. The PDP stressed the importance of: (a) maintaining and developing lesson plans based on student data/assessment of needs; (b) maintaining and using classroom materials tied to academic standards; (c) effectively using portfolios containing student work tied to curriculum and academic standards; and (d) continuous use of the workshop model. Although these were announced ahead of time, and despite Ms. Bowman's knowledge of the PDP and the Southside Classroom Observation Checklist, outlining duties she should perform, two subsequent informal observations on September 3, 2008, and September 24, 2008, revealed little progress toward the goals stated in the PDP. The observation checklists and "observation follow-up forms" for each observation showed the following deficiencies: "teacher needs to plan lessons that align to the standard"; "no instruction, students given worksheets, no connection to standard or text"; (c) "no workshop model, no evidence of portfolios"; (d) "no evidence of instruction"; (e) "presents a negative student/teacher environment . . .". After observation of these deficiencies on these occasions, a Success Plan for the Respondent was created and initiated on November 3, 2008. The Success Plan included all the concerns outlined in the PDP and focused on data-driven instruction, use of portfolios, assessment of student needs, measurement and explanation of student progress, and use of the CHAMPS program. The CHAMPS program is classroom management program used through out the School District. All teachers, including the Respondent, have been trained in its use. A "Success Plan Team" was established, consisting of Principal McNeal, other administrators and teachers, as well as a reading coach and an instructional coach. Regularly scheduled meetings were announced, held, and attended by most members of the team. The Respondent did not cooperate with the efforts of the Success Plan Team. At the first meeting she refused to speak about the plan, but insisted upon discussing and discrediting the evaluations of her by Principal McNeal. The Respondent was provided training and technical support with two computer programs, Compass Odyssey and FCAT Explorer. These are used to assess student needs and to track student progress. Despite the training and the need to use data to drive instruction, the Respondent never used either program or other student assessment programs. She acknowledged and expressed appreciation for the support and assistance provided to her by the Success Team members, but rejected the idea that instruction can be individualized based on student needs. The Respondent also failed to institute a portfolio system and refused to observe another teacher conducting a teacher-parent conference. As of January 30, 2009, five months into the school year, the Respondent had not yet submitted a five-day lesson plan, as required of every teacher at Southside. After conclusion of the Success Plan; Ms. Bowman complained that she was being singled out for purposes of termination. Although the Success Plan was noted as completed on February 25, 2009, Ms. Bowman did not integrate the plans, strategies, or objectives into her classroom instruction. Principal McNeal conducted two formal observations on December 22, 2008, and March 11, 2009. Before each formal observation she met with the Respondent to identify a date for a formal observation and to discuss the lesson plan to be observed, the data tied to it, showing student needs, the relevance of the lesson, and how student learning would be assessed. Implementation and use of portfolios, small group workshop models, and the CHAMPS program were also discussed. During the formal observations, Principal McNeal observed and documented on the TAI forms that no evidence of student portfolios existed. There was no evidence of differentiated/workshop instruction or data to guide instruction. There were incomplete grade books and no assessment of learning. There was no evidence of use of the CHAMPS program and it was noted that the Respondent engaged in "shouting matches" with students. She allowed one student to sleep throughout the observation, only to yell "wakeup" at the student when someone came to the door to pick the student up. A progress report, dated March 5, 2009, shows that a substantial number of Ms. Bowman's students were failing. The progress report shows that her students had only three graded items from January through March 5, 2009. One of these was an undefined "extra credit" entry. In her first class she had 16 students. Five of those students had F's and two had D's. In her second class she had 24 students with 13 having F's and two with D's. In another class of 28 students, nine had F's, four had D's, and two had no grades at all. See Petitioner's Supplemental Exhibits 32 and 33, in evidence. Although Principal McNeal discussed these and other concerns with Ms. Bowman, at the post-observation meetings, her concerns were unaddressed. Ample opportunity was given the Respondent during that school year to take part in training and workshops. The absentee report showed that 14 of Ms. Bowman's absences that school year were taken for training and workshops. She was also given the opportunity to have instructional and reading coaches come into her class, prepare lesson plans with her and model instruction for her. According to Ms. McNeal, however, as well as Instructional Coach Shakethia Butler, the Respondent rejected the idea of collaborating with others in planning and instruction. On March 13, 2009, Principal McNeal issued the Respondent's evaluation for the year. It showed unsatisfactory performance as to the following competencies: (a) promotes student growth and performance; (b) evaluates instructional needs of students; (e) utilizes appropriate classroom management techniques, including the ability to maintain appropriate discipline; (f) shows sensitivity to student needs by maintaining a positive school environment; and (g) communicates with parents. The Respondent received and signed that annual evaluation, but did not accept its contents and wrote a notation on the document to the effect that the evaluation was done on the second day of the FCAT testing and that the principal had not followed the evaluation schedule. However, both the Director of Professional Standards, John Williams, as well as Principal McNeal, established that observations are permitted on FCAT test days and that the FCAT had only been administered in the morning. That left the Respondent with more than three hours of instructional time in the afternoon during which she could be observed. Moreover, the conference form signed by Ms. Bowman on March 6, 2009, indicated her agreement with and approval of the March 11, 2009, observation date. As was the case with Principal Davis, the Respondent attacked the credibility of Principal McNeal, and the evaluation she prepared, with the argument that the evaluations were a pretext for retaliation against her based upon her "outspoken attitude." Ms. Bowman's work history shows a pattern of similar accusations of retaliation against several other principals at other schools where she taught. Thus, she accused the principal at Eugene Butler Middle School of giving her poor evaluations based upon "lies and revenge." She made accusations that she was retaliated against regarding matters concerning her evaluation for "being outspoken" and complained of being treated unfairly and harassed while at James Weldon Johnson Middle School. She accused the principal at yet another school, (J.E.B. Stuart Middle School) of conjuring up false evaluations of her based upon race discrimination, because, as she testified at hearing, discrimination had occurred "because everyone involved was African-American." She also made complaints, as found above, regarding her 2004-2005 teacher evaluations at Jefferson Davis Middle School as being based on retaliation. This was before Principal Davis was assigned to that school. In summary, the Respondent has demonstrated the above- found deficiencies in the competency areas referenced. This ultimately resulted in the two successive unsatisfactory evaluations, in two successive school years. The parties have stipulated that, under the Tenure Act, two successive unsatisfactory annual evaluations can provide grounds for termination of employment as a teacher. Moreover, when the above-found plans and efforts to help the Respondent improve her performance were inaugurated, the Respondent fairly consistently refused to cooperate with that performance improvement process.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Duval County School Board terminating the Respondent's employment as a teacher. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of January, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: David J. D'Agata Assistant General Counsel General Counsel's Office City of Jacksonville 117 West Duval Street, Suite 480 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Edna Jane Bowman 1043 Talbot Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32205 Ed Pratt-Daniels, Superintendent Duval County School Board 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207-8182
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations of this case, Petitioner was a school board charged with the responsibility of operating and supervising the public schools within its district. Such responsibility includes the employment of non-instructional school employees. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent was employed as a non-instructional school employee and was utilized as a security monitor assigned to Earlington Heights Elementary School. Prior to the incidents complained of, Respondent had been a satisfactory employee for approximately eight years. During the 1996/97 school year Respondent came to know an eight year old student, R.B., who was enrolled at Earlington Heights in the second grade. On March 14, 1997, Respondent went to R.B.'s classroom during an after school period and advised R.B.'s mother, who was present at the time, that the student was being taken to the office. Contrary to that remark, Respondent took R.B. to a restroom and requested that the minor child urinate into a paper cup left inside the restroom while Respondent remained outside. R.B. did as he was told but was not very happy. When R.B. did not return to the classroom, his mother went to find the minor, found him in the hallway, and asked him what had happened. R.B. related the incident of Respondent requesting him to urinate in the cup. At that time, R.B. and his mother went to see the school principal to lodge a complaint against Respondent. R.B. was frightened; his mother was angry at the prospects of what might have occurred with her son; and the principal tried to pacify them by calling Respondent to the office. Respondent admitted, in front of the principal and R.B.'s mother, that he had taken the child to the restroom so that he could urinate into a cup. Respondent explained the matter by saying he needed the urine for a friend's drug test. Subsequently, Respondent was placed in an alternate assignment away from contact with children while Petitioner investigated allegations of lewd and lascivious behavior (unsupported) and the instant charges of conduct unbecoming a school board employee and misconduct in office. Later during the investigation, Respondent admitted to Officer Ruggiero that the urine was needed for his own drug testing program. Apparently, unbeknown to his employer, Respondent was required to submit to drug testing several times prior to March 14, 1997. According to R.B., prior to March 14, 1997, Respondent had asked him for urine several times and had, on more than one occasion, paid him for same. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent wore a security uniform and was in a position of authority over the minor child, R.B. Respondent claimed to want to help R.B. by "adopting" him and supporting him for various school programs. Thus Respondent sought and exercised additional control over the minor student. R.B. complied with Respondent's requests for urine because he was, in part, afraid of the mean look on Respondent's face. R.B. was embarrassed by the requests for urine. Respondent's conduct with R.B. demonstrates a lack of professional judgment, exploitation of a minor, and a gross indifference to the child's rights. Respondent has offered no explanation for such a breach of ethics. Respondent's conduct has seriously impaired his service to the school district as administrators can no longer trust Respondent around minor students.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County, Florida enter a Final Order dismissing Respondent from his employment with the district. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. Parrish 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of December, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Roger C. Cuevas Superintendent Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Suite 403 Miami, Florida 33132 Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire School Board of Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Patricia M. Kennedy, Esquire Leslie Meek, Esquire United Teachers of Dade 2929 Southwest Third Avenue Miami, Florida 33129
The Issue Whether Respondent should be transferred to Jan Mann Opportunity School.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Antwan Clark (Antwan), attended the sixth and seventh grades at Carol City Middle School during the academic years 1991-1992, and 1992-1993, respectively. On October 10, 1991, Antwan was suspended outdoors for three days for fighting. On October 22, 1991, Antwan was caught running in the school hallways by the assistant principal Don DeLucas. When Antwan was told to stop, he ignored the verbal request. Antwan was given a detention for his behavior. On November 5, 1991, Antwan was referred by his sixth period teacher to Assistant Principal DeLucas for being tardy to class, refusing to sign for detention, and walking out of class without a pass. Antwan was issued a reprimand/warning for his behavior and a conference was held with school administrators and his parents. After school was dismissed on March 10, 1992, the school principal Mary Henry walked toward the Carol City Elementary School while watching the students leave the middle school grounds. Antwan, across the street in a gas station parking lot, threw rocks across the street in the direction of Ms. Henry. Police Officer Christopher Burgain observed Antwan tossing the rocks. When Antwan saw the police officer, he moved to another group of students in the parking lot. Officer Burgain got Antwan and took him to Ms. Henry who told him to take Antwan back to the school. Ms. Henry called Antwan's parents. Antwan was suspended outdoors for two days for this incident. On March 16, 1992, Antwan's teacher, Ms. Viamonte, referred him to Assistant Principal DeLucas for getting out of his seat, coming to class unprepared, responding to the teacher when she asked for his daily progress report that she "was wasting his time" and threatening to tear up the daily progress report. Antwan was given a reprimand/warning and a conference was held with his parents. On April 16, 1992, Antwan cut his sixth period and was given a three- day indoor suspension. Another conference was held with his parents. On May 11, 1992, Antwan was caught gambling at a nearby senior high school. The assistant principal for the senior high school returned Antwan to Ms. Henry at the middle school. Antwan was suspended outdoors for three days. On July 22, 1992, Antwan was referred to Assistant Principal John Strachan for disciplinary action for telling a teacher that he didn't have to do what the teacher told him to do. Antwan was suspended outdoors for one day. During the 1992-1993 school year, Antwan was placed in the Student At Risk Program (SARP), which is a program designed for students who are at risk of dropping out of school. Students participating in SARP are given more attention than the students in the mainstream population. A counselor is assigned to the SARP program. On September 21, 1992, Ms. McGraw, Antwan's fifth period teacher referred Antwan to Assistant Principal Strachan for refusing to do his work, yelling at her about a pass to the office after she told him he could not have a pass, and refusing to give her a working telephone number for his parents so that she could call them. Antwan was given an indoor suspension until school administrators could meet with his parents. Antwan failed to stay in his class area during physical education class. His teacher, Janet Evans, would have to stop her class and call Antwan back into the class area. On September 24, 1992, Antwan left class without permission, and Ms. Evans found him and some other students outside the girls' locker room gambling by flipping coins. For these actions he was given a one- day indoor suspension. On October 29, 1992, Antwan was referred to Assistant Principal Strachan for excessive tardiness to school. Antwan refused direction by Mr. Strachan and was verbal and disruptive about being given a suspension. Antwan's mother was called to come and pick up him. Antwan was given a three-day outdoor suspension. On November 20, 1992, Teacher Golditch referred Antwan to the principal for shouting across the room to the extent that the teacher had to stop the class lesson and change what the class was doing. When Antwan got to the principal's office he got out of his seat, made noises, and went to the staff's counter when he was not supposed to do so. Antwan was given a one-day outdoor suspension for these actions. On January 6, 1993, Antwan and four other students were horseplaying in the cafeteria, resulting in the breaking of a window. He received a three- day indoor suspension for this behavior. On February 11, 1993, Antwan was walking around in Ms. Schrager's class and would not take his seat even though Ms. Schrager repeatedly asked him to do so. Antwan was distracting other students in the class, and Ms. Schrager had to stop the class to correct Antwan. Ms. Schrager referred the matter to Assistant Principal Strachan. A security officer was required to remove Antwan from the classroom. When asked by Mr. Strachan why he would not take his seat when asked by Ms. Schrager, Antwan responded that he wanted to sit where he wanted to sit. For this incident, Antwan received a five-day indoor suspension. Cheryl Johnson, Antwan's math teacher, had witnessed incidents in Ms. Schrager's class when Antwan would get out of his seat, walk around the classroom, and talk to other students, thereby disrupting Ms. Schrager's class. Ms. Johnson also had problems with Antwan in her classroom. Antwan would bring his drumsticks to class and tap on his desk. He was tardy to class, failed to do his homework assignments and participated very little in class. On March 8, 1993, Antwan and other students were throwing books at each other in Ms. Schrager's classroom during class. Ms. Schrager referred the incident to Mr. Strachan, who talked with Antwan. Antwan told Mr. Strachan that a student had hit him so he threw several books in retaliation. Other students were also written up for this incident by Ms. Schrager. Antwan received a five- day outdoor suspension for this episode. On March 23, 1993, Ms. Kramer, Antwan's language arts teacher, referred him to Mr. Strachan for disciplinary action for the following behavior: walking around the classroom, talking to other students, refusing to take his seat when asked to do so by his teacher, telling his teacher he didn't have to do what she was telling him to do, and rolling his eyes while continuing to move around. He received a detention. On April 21, 1993, Ms. Schrager observed Antwan showing his friend an object which resembled the outline of a gun. She asked Antwan to come talk to her. He began to walk toward her and then walked to the other side of the room. She called a security guard to come into the classroom but they were unable to find the object. Antwan was given a ten-day outdoor suspension which was reduced to a six-day suspension after school administrators talked with Antwan's parents. On May 7, 1993, Antwan was in the hallway and was fifteen minutes late for class. Mr. Strachan saw him and told Antwan to come to him. Antwan ran away from Mr. Strachan. When Mr. Strachan caught up with him, Antwan wanted to know what he had done wrong. Antwan received two detentions for the incident. On May 13, 1993, Antwan chased a female student into Ms. Arlene Shapiro's classroom. He grabbed the front of the girl's blouse trying to get a beeper which she had underneath her blouse. The girl called for help. Antwan was not Ms. Shapiro's student and was not supposed to be in her classroom. Ms. Shapiro told Antwan to let the girl go and he replied, "No. Make me." She put her hand on his back to guide him out of the classroom, and he told her not to touch him or he would hit her. She took her hand away. He punched her on her arm and then ran down the hall. Ms. Shapiro referred the matter to Assistant Principal DeLucas. Mr. DeLucas questioned Antwan about the incident and Antwan admitted hitting the teacher. Antwan received a ten-day outdoor suspension. Antwan was not doing well academically at Carol City Middle School. His report card for the school year ending June, 1993, showed final grades of four "F's" and three "D's." While at Carol City Middle School, Antwan received numerous group and individual counseling sessions with guidance counselors. Additionally, Ms. Henry, the principal, took Antwan "under her wing" and tried to counsel him. School administrators met with Antwan and his parents to discuss the problems that Antwan was having at school. However, these efforts to correct Antwan's disruptive behavior were unsuccessful. Additionally, as Antwan's disruptive behavior continued to escalate, resulting in more frequent conferences with his parents, Mr. and Mrs. Clark's attitude seemed to change from conciliatory to hostile and defensive. Antwan was reassigned to Jan Mann Opportunity School during the summer of 1993. The classes are smaller than the traditional school class. There are counselors and a full-time psychologist on staff. The focus at Jan Mann is to try build self-esteem, teach conflict resolution, develop social skills, and correct past behavior problems.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered affirming the assignment of Antwan J. Clark to the Jan Mann Opportunity School. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of March, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 18th day of March, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-5483 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraph 1: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 2: Rejected as unnecessary and subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 3: The first two sentences are accepted in substance. The first part of the third sentence stating that Mr. Strachan personally removed Antwan from the classroom from five to ten times is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. The remainder of the sentence is accepted in substance. Paragraph 4: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 5: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 6: The first three sentences and the first half of the fourth sentence are rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. The second half of the fourth sentence and the last two sentences are accepted in substance. Paragraph 7: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 8: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 9: The first sentence is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Ms. Schrager saw an object which resembled a cap gun. The second sentence is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. The first part of the third sentence is accepted in substance. The second part of the third sentence is rejected as constituting argument. The last sentence is accepted. Paragraph 10: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 11: Rejected as unnecessary and subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 12: The first sentence is rejected as constituting argument. The remainder of the paragraph is accepted in substance. Paragraph 13: The first sentence is rejected as constituting argument except the fact that Antwan threw rocks at Ms. Henry is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is accepted in substance. Paragraphs 14-15: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 16: The first three sentences are accepted in substance. The last sentence is rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 17-19: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 18: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 20: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 21: The two sentences are accepted in substance. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as constituting argument. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1-3: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 4: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 5: Accepted in substance except to the extent that gambling occurred on only one occasion. Paragraph 6: The first two sentences are accepted in substance. The last sentence is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 7: The first two sentences are accepted in substance. The second sentence is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. The last sentence is accepted in substance. Paragraph 8: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 9: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Respondent's Exhibit 1 shows numerous counseling sessions between Antwan and his counselor and at least one conference between Antwan's parents and a counselor. Paragraph 10: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 11: Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Paragraphs 12-14: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 15: The first sentence is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. The second and third sentences are accepted in substance. The last sentence is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. I find that the parents' testimony is not credible. Paragraph 16: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 17-19: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 20: Rejected as irrelevant to this proceeding. Paragraph 21: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 22: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 23: The first sentence is accepted in substance as it relates to early conferences with the parents and school officials. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as constituting argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Anne G. Telasco, Esquire First Nationwide Building 633 NE 167th Street, Suite 304 North Miami Beach, Florida 33162 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Jaime C. Bovell, Esquire 3211 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Suite 210 Miami, Florida 33134 Mr. Octavio J. Visiedo 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, #403 Miami, Florida 33312-1308 Douglas L. "Tim" Jamerson Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether or not the Respondent student, Rommel Luis Montes, should be assigned to the J. R. E. Lee Center, an opportunity school.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Rommel Luis Montes, age fifteen, was a student at Riviera Junior High School (Riviera) in Dade County, Florida, during the school years 1984-85, 1985-86, and 1986-87. During the 1984-85 school year Respondent's academic performance was very poor. He received five failing grades, passing only the subject of physical education with the grade of C. Also his ratings for effort during the four marking periods of that year were poor. The result of Respondent's lack of effort and poor academic performance was his not being promoted to the next grade. During the 1985-86 school year Respondent's academic performance was also poor. During that year he received poor ratings for effort, a D as a final grade in five subjects and the grade of F in two subjects. Respondent did not improve his academic performance during the 1986-87 school year. During the first grading period of that year, Respondent received grades of F in three subjects, grades of D in two subjects and one incomplete grade which subsequently was changed to an F. As before, Respondent's rating for effort was poor. Mrs. Carol Ann Golden, a math teacher, had Respondent as a student during the first marking period of the 1986-87 school year. While enrolled in that class, Respondent refused to do any work. Most of the time he would come to class without materials, he would rarely do homework and less than 10 percent of the time did he perform any class work. He had unexcused latenesses and out of forty-five school days he was absent twenty. In efforts to discourage tardiness, Mrs. Golden would issue detentions to Respondent (requiring him to stay in school after hours), but he would either serve them late or not at all, in defiance of school personnel authority. Those times when Respondent was issued indoor suspensions (CSI) as a disciplinary measure, he would refuse to do any work. Mrs. Deanna A. Villalobos, a history teacher at Riviera, also had Respondent as a student during the 1986-87 school year. Here again Respondent's behavior was the same: he would come to class without materials 70 percent of the time, hardly did any homework, performed approximately 5 percent of the work assigned in class, had approximately twenty absences (including one instance when he failed to return to class after lunch), was frequently tardy, would spend his time day dreaming and looking out the window, and as a result failed all the history tests administered. Respondent was also issued detentions by Mrs. Villalobos which he failed to serve. It is the practice at Riviera for teachers and school administrators to submit written reports relative to troublesome student behavior. Such reports are prepared on forms called Student Case Management Referral Forms (SCMRF) and are generally reserved for serious behavior problems. Mrs. Golden and Mrs. Villalobos each issued two SCMRFs on Respondent regarding, inter alia, his total lack of interest in school and failing grade average. In addition Respondent received five other SCMRFs from a different teacher. In addition to Respondent's lack of interest in school, these reports also complained of his skipping class, excessive talking in class, leaving class without permission, and simply refusing to do any work in class. As a counselor at Riviera, Mrs. Waizenhofer worked on a weekly basis with Respondent. From her testimony it was apparent that Respondent, although not a bad kid, was disinterested in school and was not responding to the various techniques used by teachers, counselors and administrators to make students more interested and improve their academic performance. During one counseling session Respondent, while in tears, promised Mrs. Waizenhofer to improve his school effort just a little. Twenty minutes later, Respondent was caught cutting class. One attempt at interesting Respondent in school, was to place him in the work experience program at Riviera. This consisted of securing employment for Respondent at Burger King on a part-time basis. Respondent was not able to hold the job for more than two weeks and he failed the program. Mrs. Thomas, assistant principal, and Mrs. Waizenhofer had numerous conferences with Respondent's mother. The parent, however, was not able to cause a change in Respondent's attitude toward school. It was recommended to both Respondent and his parent that assistance be sought at different community agencies, which could provide specialized counseling services at little or no cost. Despite the efforts made by the school administrators, no change was noted in Respondent. At Riviera, like other schools with regular school programs, the average number of students in a class is about thirty. Such schools are not geared to address peculiar student needs or provide individual students with continuous special attention. By contrast, at an opportunity school, such as the J. R. E. Lee Center, the ratio of teachers to students is about nine-to- one, students are the subject of individualized educational plans, and there are more counselors on staff, including a psychologist. The expert opinions of both Mrs. Thomas and Mrs. Waizenhofer was that the more structured environment at an opportunity school would be better for Respondent, as opposed to permitting him to remain in a regular school program where he was making no progress.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order affirming the assignment of Respondent Rommel Luis Montes to the J. R. E. Lee Center. DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of March, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 17th day of March, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-0294 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact 1-12, have been adopted in paragraphs 1-12, respectively. COPIES FURNISHED: Jaime Claudio Bovell, Esquire 370 Minorca Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Mrs. Estrella Montes 10030 Southwest 43rd Street Miami, Florida 33165 Dr. Leonard Britton, Superintendent Dade County Public Schools The School Board of Dade County, Florida 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Assistant School Board Attorney Board Administration Building, Suite 301 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges and, if so, a determination of the appropriate penalty for such violations.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board is responsible for the operation of the public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida. At all times material to the facts of this case, the Respondent was a teacher employed by the School Board and was assigned to a public school within the district, Hialeah Senior High School (Hialeah High). The Respondent has been a teacher employed by the School Board for years. Respondent possesses a professional service contract pursuant to Section 1012.33, Florida Statutes. The Respondent is a business education teacher. Prior to the incident giving rise to this case, the Respondent had not been the subject of any disciplinary action by his employer. Prior to teaching at Hialeah High, the Respondent had been teaching adult students at another school. The adult students were highly motivated to learn and provided little in the way of classroom discipline problems. In December of 2003, the Respondent was assigned to teach English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) classes to high school age students at Hialeah High. At Hialeah High the Respondent's classes were populated primarily by students who had very limited proficiency in the English language and who, for the most part, had very limited experience in an American classroom setting. Many of the students had only recently arrived from a variety of Spanish-speaking countries, including Mexico and many Central and South American countries. These students, both because of their limited English language skills and their limited exposure to an American classroom, presented more than the usual discipline challenges. At the time of the incident giving rise to this case, the Respondent had been teaching the ESOL classes at Hialeah High for only a few weeks. A frequently recurring problem in the Respondent's classroom was that some of the students would use the classroom computers to play music CDs and would interrupt the rest of the class by turning up the volume through the external speakers on the computers. This problem apparently came to a head on January 27, 2004, when an honor student asked the Respondent if it was necessary for the class to be interrupted by the students who were playing music CDs on the classroom computers. After school on January 27, 2004, the Respondent decided to solve the music problem by cutting the audio wires that ran from the monitor to the external speakers on each of the classroom computers. The Respondent chose to cut the audio wires because the wires were hardwired into the computer monitors and could not readily be unplugged. He cut the speaker wires on at least 25 of the computers in his classroom. The Respondent's conduct in this regard was not for the purpose of damaging school equipment, but was a misguided and poorly thought out effort to prevent further music playing by the misbehaving students. The cutting of the speaker wires was an inappropriate way in which to address student misconduct in the classroom. More appropriate ways to have prevented such misconduct or to have addressed such misconduct after it occurred would have been to take such measures as implementing and enforcing classroom rules when he first began teaching the ESOL classes, making disciplinary referrals, seeking assistance from the school administration, or assigning misbehaving students to indoor suspension. Although the computers are operable, they have no external speakers and, therefore, cannot make loud sounds. The inability to make loud sounds compromises the extent to which the computers can be used for certain applications. The Respondent's acts of cutting the speaker wires were intentional acts that damaged the computers. Damage to the computers caused by intentional acts is not covered by the warranties on the computers. A representative of the Dell computer company examined the damage to the computers and stated that Dell did not make repairs to that type of damage. The best solution the Dell representative could propose was to replace all of the monitors with cut speaker wires with new monitors that had new external speakers attached. The Dell representative stated that such replacement would cost $129.00 per computer. The damage caused by the Respondent's cutting of the computer wires can be readily and inexpensively repaired. The parts necessary to repair the computers cost about $2.00 for each computer. The time necessary to repair the damaged computers is approximately five minutes per computer. The Respondent has already purchased with his own funds the parts necessary to repair all of the computers in his classroom, and he has delivered those parts to the principal at Hialeah High. The Respondent volunteered on several occasions to perform the work necessary to repair the computers he damaged. The Respondent's offers to perform the repair work were declined. For reasons not adequately explained in the record in this case, the computer technicians at Hialeah High have not yet repaired the subject computers. It would take approximately two hours of technician time to repair all of the computers in the Respondent's classroom. The damage to the computers caused by the Respondent could have been repaired within a very few days of the date on which the damage occurred. When asked about the damage to the computer wires, the Respondent readily admitted what he had done and readily acknowledged that it was a foolish and inappropriate thing for him to have done. He did not hesitate to accept responsibility for the consequences of his conduct and, as mentioned above, bought the necessary parts and offered to do the necessary repair work. Respondent’s intentional destruction of School Board property failed to reflect credit upon himself and on the school system, and showed a lack of professional judgment. On September 21, 2004, the Respondent’s principal and the assistant superintendent who had authority over Hialeah High recommended a 30-work day suspension without pay. The School Board, at its regularly scheduled meeting of December 15, 2004, took action to suspend the Respondent without pay for 30 workdays.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case suspending the Respondent without pay for one week and requiring the Respondent to pay for the cost of the repairs made necessary by his foolish conduct. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 12th day of April, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Rudolph F. Crew, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable John Winn Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Respondent was an employee of the School Board of Dade County, Florida, more particularly a Title One teacher at Miami Carol City Senior High School during the 1981-1982 school year. On May 6, 1982, John Cohn was a student in Respondent's fourth period class. Arnold Coats was a substitute teacher working with Respondent in Respondent's classroom on that day. After Respondent had given the students an assignment, Cohn requested and received permission to leave the classroom to go to the bathroom. While absent from the classroom, Cohn decided he wished to speak with Ronald Golemhieski, another teacher at Miami Carol City Senior High School. Cohn returned to Respondent's classroom to request permission. Coats came to the door and gave Cohn permission to go talk to Golembieski, but Cohn decided he should get permission from Respondent since Respondent was the teacher of the class. Cohn waited in the doorway of Respondent's classroom. When he finally got Respondent's attention, he beckoned with his finger, requesting Respondent to come to the doorway. Respondent went to the doorway, and Cohn requested Respondent's permission to go talk to Golembieski. Respondent grabbed Cohn, pulling him forcefully into the classroom. Commotion broke out in the classroom, and someone yelled for assistance. Golembieski heard the commotion, as did Victoria Bell, the hall monitor. When they arrived at Respondent's classroom, Respondent and Cohn were struggling with each other. They were face to face, and Respondent had his arm around Cohn's neck with his hand on Cohn's throat in a choking manner. Golembieski grabbed Cohn away from Respondent and, after separating them, took Cohn to his classroom to calm him down. Bell and Coats pushed the rest of the students back into their seats and restored order in Respondent's classroom. When the altercation ended, Cohn's shirt was torn and he had scratches on his chest. Just prior to Respondent's outburst, Cohn did nothing to provoke Respondent in any way and was not disrespectful to Respondent. When Cohn got Respondent's attention, Respondent both looked at Cohn and walked to the doorway in a normal manner, thereby giving no warning that he intended to touch Cohn in any way. Respondent interpreted Cohn's beckoning with his finger as an invitation to fight, although Respondent admits that Cohn said nothing to him indicating that he wished to fight.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Notice of Charges, approving Respondent's suspension and dismissing him as an employee of the School Board of Dade County, and denying any claim for back pay. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 31st day of August, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 31st day of August, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Esquire 3000 Executive Plaza, Suite 800 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Ellen L. Leesfield, Esquire 2929 SW Third Avenue, Fifth Floor Miami, Florida 33129 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1410 NE Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact On June 12, 1983, Respondent moved to Miami from Jamaica where he was in the ninth grade. He enrolled in a summer school session at North Miami Beach Senior High School in the summer of 1983, where he attended classes regularly and was successful in that program. In September 1983, Respondent enrolled at John F. Kennedy Junior High School, where he was placed in the ninth grade. Although Respondent speaks English, he was placed in a remedial English class, the lowest level English class, comprised of only approximately 20 students. On September 23, 1983, Respondent was involved in a fight with a female student in the hallway at John F. Kennedy Junior High School. After observers terminated the fight, Jimmy Dukes, an assistant principal at John F. Kennedy Junior High School, interviewed the two students involved in the fight and the witnesses to the fight. Based upon that information, Dukes suspended both students for five days. After the suspension, Dukes conferred with Respondent's father regarding the incident. On October 31, 1983, Respondent skipped his science class and left the school grounds without permission. Dukes later had a conference with Respondent about this behavior and assigned him to a three-day indoor suspension. On November 3, 1983, while Respondent was serving his three-day indoor suspension, he was reported to Dukes as having become disruptive in the suspension hall. On November 5, 1983, Dukes held a conference with Respondent and a conference with Respondent's father about Respondent's behavior at that school. A warning was given to Respondent regarding any continued disruptive behavior. On December 7, 1983, Respondent was again referred to Dukes' attention for disruptive behavior; i.e., for refusing to follow a teacher's instructions and then refusing to report to the principal's office. Respondent was again counseled by Dukes and was warned regarding his behavior. Additionally, Dukes held a conference with Respondent's father that same day. On December 13, 1983, Respondent again skipped class. A conference was held by Dukes with Respondent on December 14, and Dukes telephoned Respondent's father and conferred with him. As a result, Respondent was again assigned to the indoor suspension hall. On January 22, 1984, Respondent was truant. On January 23, 1984, Dukes held another conference with Respondent, at which time Respondent presented Dukes a note, allegedly from Respondent's father, excusing Respondent from school. Due to the spelling errors contained within that note, Dukes telephoned Respondent's father, who verified that he had not written the note. Respondent then left the school grounds and could not be found. He was later assigned again to the indoor suspension hall, and another conference with his father was held. On February 8, 1984, Respondent again skipped school. Dukes had previously advised him that skipping school again would be considered insubordination and would result in an outdoor suspension. Accordingly, Respondent was given an outdoor suspension of ten days. On February 15, 1984, Petitioner notified Respondent's father that Respondent was being reassigned to the Miami Douglas MacArthur Senior High School-North alternative education program effective immediately. On May 10, 1984, the day before the formal hearing in this cause and during a time when Respondent was assigned to the alternative program at MacArthur, Respondent was found trespassing on the school grounds of John F. Kennedy Junior High School. During the time that Respondent was assigned to John F. Kennedy Junior High School, he failed all of his classes. When Respondent first came to the attention of Dukes, Dukes conferred with Respondent's teachers and was advised that Respondent had no learning disability and was capable of performing academically. Dukes had subsequent conferences with Respondent's teachers as Respondent's behavior pattern continued and received the same information. Additionally, throughout the conferences held by Dukes with Respondent's father, Dukes asked if Respondent had any special problems or needs which required attention. Respondent's father answered in the negative. Since Respondent's attendance record and academic record had not improved at MacArthur by the time of the formal hearing in this cause, his attorney had arranged for testing by a school psychologist. However, none of that testing had been done by the time of the formal hearing in this cause.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered approving the assignment of Respondent to the opportunity school program at Miami Douglas MacArthur Senior High School-North. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of June, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 22nd day of June, 9184. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark A. Valentine, Esquire 3000 Executive Plaza, Suite 800 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Daniella Levine, Esquire Legal Services 149 West Plaza, Suite 210 7900 North West 27th Avenue Miami, Florida 33147 Mr. Rexford Foster 1371 North East 157th Street North Miami Beach, Florida 33162 Phyllis O. Douglas, Esquire Dade County Public Schools 1410 North East Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools 1410 North East Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact Respondent is Lawrence J. Ferrara. He holds Florida teaching certificate number 150262, issued by the State of Florida, Department of Education. He is certified to teach social studies, grades 7-12. He has not been assigned to teach outside of this subject area at any time relevant to this proceeding. While Respondent's performance for the school years 1981-82 through 1985-86 is at issue in this proceeding, a review of his annual evaluations for the years 1966 to 1986 indicate a continuing problem in the control of students in the classroom and teaching effectiveness. Respondent was assigned to teach at John I. Leonard High School beginning with the 1970-71 school year and remained in this assignment until his suspension on February 19, 1986. John I. Leonard High School consisted of a 40 acre campus, 145 teachers, and about 2,200 students during the 1985-86 school year. Luke Thornton has served as principal of John I. Leonard High School since October 22, 1981. In dealing with employees, he follows guidelines set out in the collective bargaining agreement with the Classroom Teacher's Association. He is also guided by district school board policy, administrator's directives and the John I. Leonard High School Teacher and Student Handbooks. Thornton has several assistant principals, including "deans", who are authorized to counsel and reprimand employees. Deans are, however, primarily responsible for discipline of students and working with parents. Guidance counselors at the high school are also known as Senior High Counselors. They provide individual and group counseling to students, interpret test results and assist students in career planning. Guidance counselors may counsel other staff members when need arises. While designated department chairpersons within the school have authority to counsel with teachers in their respective departments, the chairpersons do not have the authority to reprimand or evaluate teachers. The chairperson for the social studies department at John I. Leonard High School is Catherine Thornton (no relation to the principal, Luke Thornton). As the chairperson, Ms. Thornton reviews lesson plans of all 16 teachers in the department to assure that objectives of the unified curriculum program are covered by the teacher. This action is mandated by the school board. Teachers are required to prepare lesson plans one week in advance. They must also prepare emergency lesson plans which can be used by a substitute teacher in the event the teacher is unexpectedly absent. Course assignments within the social studies department are recommended by the chairperson and reviewed by the assistant principal assigned to that task. The entire schedule is eventually approved by the principal. Textbooks are issued to each teacher within the social studies department by the chairperson. The teacher returns the books at the end of the semester or school year. If books are not returned, the teacher must collect the cost of the missing textbook from the student responsible for it. The 1981-82 School Year During the 1981-82 school year, Respondent was assigned three 9th grade American government classes and two 11th grade history classes. Respondent's hours of work, to accommodate this teaching schedule, were normally 9:45 a.m. until 5:15 p.m. In previous years, Respondent's assignment had been all 11th grade classes and his hours were normally 6:45 a.m. through 2:15 p.m. Shortly after the beginning of the school year, Luke Thornton became principal. Respondent sought to have his assignment changed by Thornton. The principal denied the request and told Respondent the subject would be revisited at the semester's end. At the end of the semester, Thornton again denied Respondent's request for change in course assignment due to disruption that would be caused in the master schedule, concerns about Respondent's performance, and what Thornton considered to be an excessive amount of failing grades received by students in Respondent's classes during the first nine weeks of the previous semester. During the fall semester, Respondent was absent on several occasions. After the refusal of his request at the end of the semester for a change of his teaching assignment, Respondent took a leave of absence for the entire second semester. During Respondent's absences in the 1981-82 school year, Mary Sandt substituted as the teacher of his classes. Lesson plans were available during the first semester. However, no lesson plans were provided for the second semester. Respondent did not provide any assistance to the substitute teacher in this regard, although testimony of Sandt establishes that other teachers normally provided such assistance. More than any other teacher during the 1981-82 school year, Respondent referred students from his classes to the deans for disciplinary reasons. The referrals were for minor infractions such as talking out of turn, sharpening pencils, and squeaking chairs. Sometimes he referred groups of students for discipline. Earl Higgs, a dean during this school year, discussed ways of handling minor infractions with Respondent. Higgs advised Respondent to review the John I. Leonard Handbook discipline provisions. Respondent was not responsive to these recommendations. Higgs was required to review class rules with Respondent's students on at least three occasions as a result of being called to the class by the Respondent because the class was out of control. Initially, Mary Sandt had some disciplinary problems with Respondent's classes during her substitute teaching for him, but the deans provided her with assistance in gaining control. Thereafter, she was able to control the students with only minor problems. Before referring students, Ms. Sandt attempted to resolve discipline problems in the class. If unsuccessful, she documented her action on a discipline referral slip. Respondent did not follow this procedure. Luke Thornton's first evaluation of Respondent following the 1981-82 school year noted Respondent had a considerable amount of discipline problems with 9th and 11th grade students. In addition, it was noted that students have "difficulty understanding his approach to teaching." Respondent's ineffective working relationship with associates and his failure to attend open house and graduation functions at the school were also noted. The evaluation reflected no areas of strength beyond the observation that Respondent "uses various methods and materials." The 1982-83 School Year The chairperson of the social studies department recommended that Respondent be assigned all 9th grade American Government classes for the 1982-83 school year. The recommendation was approved by Assistant principal Shirley Jackson and by Luke Thornton, the principal. Respondent felt "absolutely demoralized, devastated and dehumanized" and worthless in the eyes of fellow teachers as a result of his assignment to teach 9th grade. The 1982-83 school year produced numerous complaints about Respondent's teaching. His teaching technique essentially consisted of giving students a text book reading assignment and have them answer review questions at the end of the chapter. Students completed these assignments in class time while Respondent read the newspaper or listened to the radio. Students cheated on many occasions in order to complete their work by passing answer sheets around the classroom while Respondent was present. Respondent sometimes gave lectures to his classes. Many times the lectures had nothing to do with the course content. Respondent discussed a lawsuit he had initiated against the school board without relating it to the lesson content. He repeatedly told his students they were immature, he hated them and he preferred to teach upperclassmen. Respondent would tell students to be quiet or find the answer in the book when they asked for assistance. Respondent called students names such as "jackass" and "jerk" in class. Students did not pay attention to Respondent because they found his classes boring. Respondent's general reputation among students was that he was not a good teacher; that he treated students in the same manner each year, and that he was "weird." Many of Respondent's students tried to transfer out of his class. Reasons given to Pat Konttinen a school guidance counselor, for requesting transfers included no motivation for students, inability to understand Respondent's lectures when he gave them, Respondent's failure to lecture on the subject matter, testing students on materials not covered in class, and that the class was boring. Ms. Konttinen discussed specific complaints of students with Respondent, but he did not change his teaching style. The testimony of students concerning the 1982-83 school year reveals that they have had no other teachers at the school who taught as poorly as Respondent. Respondent had the highest rate of textbook losses for the 1982-83 school year. During the first semester of the 1982-83 school year, Ms. Sandt again substituted for Respondent when he was absent. No lesson plans were available contrary to the requirement that such plans be provided. Respondent also failed to complete emergency lesson plans. Ms. Sandt wrote lesson plans and gave assignments when substituting because she had no idea when he would return. When Respondent did return, he threw assignments completed by the students in the trash because Sandt had not graded the work. Substitute teachers do not normally grade papers. The students felt the substitute teacher, Ms. Sandt, was a better teacher than Respondent. During Respondent's absences, Ms. Sandt experienced no discipline problems. Earl Higgs, in his capacity as dean, continued during the 1982-83 school year to receive numerous discipline referrals from Respondent. In each case, Higgs asked students for their side of the story and advised Respondent of actions taken on referrals. These referrals indicated that Respondent did not have proper control of his classes. Students were referred for minor disciplinary matters because Respondent did not want to handle problems on his own. Students who were referred for discipline by Respondent were either never previously referred by any other teacher, or, at most, referred one other time. Respondent continued to send groups of students to the dean. Sometimes the students would get out of control talking and laughing in class because "they could get away with it." On occasion, Respondent would shut the door to the classroom, close the windows and turn off the air conditioner as punishment for the class until the class was in control. On one particular occasion, Luke Thornton walked back to Respondent's room with four girls after they complained that Respondent would not open the room windows and the air conditioning was not working. On arrival at the room, Thornton found the room extremely hot. Respondent was wearing a sweater and the room windows were closed. The principal opened the windows to prevent students from passing out in the heat. Respondent improperly grabbed a student by the arm to discipline him during the 1982-83 school year. Bruises were left on the arm. After an investigation, Respondent was counseled concerning the incident. In his 1983 evaluation of Respondent, Luke Thornton noted that Respondent had knowledge and understanding of his subject matter, maintained an appropriate appearance, possessed appropriate educational qualifications and adhered to the defined duty day. The principal noted no other areas of strength. Numerous performance deficiencies were noted in a sheet attached to the 1983 evaluation form. Specific recommendations for improvement were cited. In regard to teaching technique, Respondent was informed he should vary methods of instruction. Consistency in discipline standards was noted as a way to improve classroom environment. Respondent was urged to strive to achieve rapport with peers and parents, as well as to timely submit lesson plans. Luke Thornton held several conferences with Respondent to discuss the deficiencies noted in the 1983 evaluation. Respondent was not receptive to suggestions. He complained of unfair treatment in course assignments and repeatedly discussed his lawsuit against school officials. Respondent continued to maintain he was better suited to teach 11th graders, although he was certified to teach 9th and 11th graders. The principal told Respondent to be responsible to his students regardless of other personally perceived problems. He also told Respondent that he should work to improve performance. While there is no significant technical difference in teaching either 9th or 11th grade, there is a difference in maturity levels of the students in each grade. Such a difference in maturity levels requires a difference in teaching style. Pat Martin, a guidance counselor, testified that ninth grade boys "get a little antsy" and have to be motivated by the teacher. This testimony was corroborated by Assistant Principal Earl Higgs who preferred to teach 9th graders but conceded they required more assistance and can be more difficult to handle. The 1983-84 School Year Respondent remained in the same teaching assignment during the 1983-84 school year. He did not request a transfer to another school, nor did he request a schedule change. Testimony of students of Respondent for 1983-84 school year was consistent with the testimony of his students from the 1982-83 school year. Respondent's teaching techniques did not vary from the previous year. Respondent's attitude remained unchanged in the 1983-84 school year as he continued to advise his students that they were immature and that he preferred to teach upperclassmen. Students requested transfers at an increased rate from Respondent's classes, indicating that Respondent was unresponsive and they did not know how they were doing in his class. Respondent was advised of student and parent complaints by guidance counselors Pat Konttinen and Melinda Wong. They observed no change in his behavior. Two written complaints were received by Ms. Wong concerning Respondent's behavior in the classroom. Respondent did not issue required progress reports to students at the proper time to advise them whether they were failing. When several students were failed by Respondent, they complained about this fact. Luke Thornton discussed this problem with Respondent. Respondent had the second highest rate of textbook losses for the social studies department. Students defaced a number of books due to Respondent's improper storage of the books. Respondent continued to ignore requests to make lesson plans available. As of February, 1984, Respondent had turned in three lesson plans for a 20 week time period. By June, 1984, Respondent had completed five lesson plans when he should have completed a total of 36 lesson plans. The lesson plans completed by Respondent were usually unsatisfactory. Respondent was on leave for approximately three weeks during the Spring semester of this school year. The substitute teacher was Robin Thomas. Respondent left no lesson plans, nor did he have emergency lesson plans available as required. Catherine Thornton, the department chairperson, provided Ms. Thomas with assistance. Thomas created lesson plans, gave assignments to students and corrected the results even though she was not required to do so. She had no problems with discipline in any of Respondent's five classes. She was 21 years old at the time. When Respondent returned to the class after his absence, the students did not want him back and told Respondent to go away. Respondent did not consider Thomas' graded assignments. Students were required by Respondent to repeat the work previously given by Thomas. Also, after returning to school, Respondent requested lesson plans from Ms. Thomas contrary to normal procedure. On several occasions, David Culp, a dean at the school, was advised by Respondent that he, Respondent, refused to teach the class. Students also told Culp that Respondent would stop teaching. Culp received numerous complaints from parents about the lack of teaching their children received from Respondent. Respondent refused to grade papers on one occasion. He also refused to sign a withdrawal slip for a student even though requested to do so by Culp's office. Both Culp and Earl Higgs received frequent discipline referrals from Respondent. Higgs, serving his last semester as dean during the first semester of the 1983-84 school year, testified that Respondent's referrals did not diminish while he was a dean. Culp became a dean beginning with the 1983-84 school year. Culp's testimony was consistent with that of Higgs concerning the type of referrals Respondent sent to him. Culp was also called to Respondent's room to assist Respondent in regaining control of the class. According to Culp, he routinely visited Respondent's class because of his personal observation that Respondent did not have adequate control of students and the atmosphere in the classroom was so hostile that learning could not take place. Culp discussed Respondent's large number of discipline referrals with Respondent. Culp, like Higgs, had many more discipline referrals from Respondent than other faculty members. Culp estimated 25 per cent of all referrals received by him were from Respondent with the remaining 75 per cent split among the remaining 139 faculty members. Students continued to complain that Respondent did not open windows or turn on the air conditioner when requested. A parent's complaint regarding Respondent's discipline techniques was filed with Luke Thornton. Respondent began to come to work late and leave early. This action was noted and Respondent was warned to adhere to the defined duty day. On April 25, 1984, Luke Thornton placed Respondent on a remedial program known as the Notice, Explanation, Assistance and Time (NEAT) procedure as a result of Respondent's continuing problems. The purpose of the program is to provide assistance to teachers with performance problems. Respondent was given a detailed written summary of all deficiencies noted in his performance and given until October 16, 1984, to correct those deficiencies. Among the deficiencies noted were failure to use acceptable teaching techniques, lack of a positive classroom environment through use of acceptable control, lack of professional and effective working relationships with peers and failure to submit proper records. Respondent believed the NEAT procedure was a "device used to get rid of tenured teachers, especially those who made waves." He characterized the "T" in NEAT for "termination," not "time". Respondent's evaluation for the 1983-84 school year noted that the same deficiencies pointed out previously still existed. The evaluation noted that Respondent possessed appropriate educational qualifications and used good oral and written language. Among other subjects, Respondent was criticized for having an inadequate variety of methods and materials, inadequate planning, using inappropriate language with students, discussion of inappropriate topics with students during class time, unwillingness or inability to work effectively with parents, unwillingness or inability to provide a positive learning environment, failure to submit proper records, failure to comply with defined duty days, and failure to have an effective relationship with colleagues. He was admonished to avoid improper language with students, to maintain appropriate standards of discipline and to promote a positive relationship between students and teacher. The 1984-85 School Year At the beginning of the 1984-85 school year, Luke Thornton asked Respondent what assistance he could offer Respondent that had not yet been provided. Respondents refused the principal's offer of assistance. Based on testimony of students who had him as a teacher for the 1984- 85 school year, Respondent's teaching methods did not vary. Students again confirmed that Respondent told them he hated 9th graders and felt they were immature. Students also confirmed that when given worksheet assignments, some students would cheat while Respondent read the newspaper, listened to the radio or looked out the window. Respondent continued to refer to his lawsuit against the school board and school officials during class time. He also discussed with his students the qualifications of another teacher in the social studies department. Respondent's general reputation among his students was that he was boring and no one liked or respected him. Instead of paying attention to Respondent, some students would sleep or "horse around." Students indicated they did not learn anything or learned very little because Respondent did not teach. Also, these students had not encountered any other teachers at the school with teaching problems like those of Respondent. Complaints by students regarding Respondent's refusal to open windows and doors for air continued. On one occasion, Respondent told the class the air conditioner was not working, but refused to open windows because the students were too loud. Respondent refused to give credit for assignments given by the substitute teacher. He refused to issue progress reports. He refused to change a student grade after being directed to do so by Luke Thornton, although such change was appropriate. Guidance counselors continued to receive requests from students seeking transfers from Respondent's class. A new guidance counselor for the 1984-85 school year, Pat Martin, received reports that Respondent constantly talked about his lawsuit during class time. Another guidance counselor also received numerous self-referrals from Respondent's students who were concerned that they were not learning American government, the course subject matter, and that Respondent was talking about his court case. Martin, who had formerly served as a social studies teacher at the school with Respondent, was unable to discuss complaints she received with Respondent. He would not communicate with her and requested she not be allowed to sit in parent conferences with him. As a result, Martin was forced to communicate with Respondent in writing. She handled several complaints of students and parents in this manner. Guidance counselor Elizabeth Konen informed Respondent of complaints from students and parents. Usually, Respondent advised Konen he had no time to participate in conferences with the parents and students. In some instances, Respondent would not respond to parents requests that he contact them. At other times in parent conferences, Respondent would discuss his personal problems with the administration rather than the student's problems. Respondent improved in this school year slightly on textbook accountability, but books and desks continued to be defaced. He also continued to disregard his defined duty hours. Respondent did not turn in any lesson plans during the entire school year. At the conclusion of the year, he turned in a complete set of plans. Those plans did not meet requirements of indicating what part of the unified curriculum objectives had been met. In addition to David Culp, who continued to receive a large number of student discipline referrals from Respondent, Sandra Cowne was assigned to be a dean. Ms. Cowne's testimony is that 35 to 45 percent of her time was spent dealing with referrals by Respondent. Cowne noted 75 per cent of those referrals could and should have been handled by Respondent. Cowne requested students who were referred by Respondent to write out the details of the incident where the student's version differed with that of Respondent. Usually, Respondent did not indicate on the referral form that any action had been taken by him, or whether he had provided instruction to his students about expected and acceptable behavior. Students admitted to administrators that they deliberately "egged" Respondent on, particularly when he made personal comments about them. They also complained that Respondent would shut the windows and make them sit in the heat for discipline, or that he would turn off the air conditioner. They complained that Respondent made them write sentences as punishment, an inappropriate method of discipline. Cowne dealt with several problems when it became apparent Respondent did not have control of his classes. She assisted Respondent in calming classes down and restoring order. The disruption caused by discipline problems adversely affected the amount of learning that took place in Respondent's classroom. Luke Thornton decided to extend the NEAT Procedure to the cover the entire 1984-85 school year. During this time, numerous conferences were held and memos provided to Respondent concerning a multitude of problems. Respondent was observed in class by three administrators. The first observation was conducted on September 19, 1984, by H. W. Berryman, an assistant superintendent and area administrator. An employee of the Palm Beach County School District for 24 years, Berryman has evaluated the performance of principals, teachers, department heads and directors. In his memo to Luke Thornton following the observation, Berryman noted that too much time was taken with roll call and students were not attentive to Respondent's lecture. Berryman was concerned that students in the class were not involved in the total learning process. Berryman stated that he foresaw Respondent "in serious difficulty in managing conduct of students and considered this his most urgent need for growth." On October 4, 1984, Respondent was observed by Dr. Mona Jensen. Jensen is a consultant, certified by the Florida Performance Measurement System (FPMS). The FPMS was designed to determine effective teaching behaviors. Jensen also trains other administrators in the use of FPMS, both locally and statewide. The FPMS utilizes a written instrument called a Summative Observation Form. This form is used to evaluate teacher performance by recording the types of effective and ineffective behaviors observed in four domains: management of student conduct, instructional organization, presentation of subject matter and communication skills. Jensen has previously observed teachers with performance problems on the NEAT procedure. The report provided by Jensen to Respondent and Luke Thornton was based on actual behaviors of Respondent which she observed. Jensen noted in the report that students were talking to one another and not participating in the activity at hand. Jensen provided specific recommendations for improvement in all the areas addressed by the Summative Observation Form. According to Jensen, the main problem with Respondent's teaching technique was the lack of several positive teaching behaviors. She offered Respondent a conference and assistance, but he rejected her offer. Respondent was also observed by Lois Biddix on October 29, 1984. She is a FPMS certified state trainer and is authorized to train administrators to observe teachers. Biddix used the Summative Observation Form in her observation of Respondent. Biddix provided a written summary to Respondent and to Luke Thornton. She observed students talking and engaging in activities unrelated to the lesson. The atmosphere in the classroom, she observed, was sedentary and lethargic. Students suffered from boredom and frustration caused by Respondent's lack of enthusiasm and failure to introduce new content into the lesson. Biddix's observation of students talking, putting on makeup and sleeping are consistent with those of Berryman and Jensen. Biddix's concern was that students were not involved in the learning process. Her recommendations for improvement were consistent with those noted by Jensen. Dr. Jensen completed a second observation of Respondent on January 31, 1985. Again, she provided a written summary of her observations to Respondent and Luke Thornton. On this occasion, Respondent was presenting a lesson and students were not paying attention or participating in the class discussion. Respondent became frustrated with a student who made a personal remark to him. Jensen's recommendations for improvement were basically the same as those proposed by her in October, 1984. She again offered to arrange a conference with Respondent to discuss recommendations and he again spurned her offer. In response to a recommendation by Earl Higgs that Respondent observe successful teachers in their classrooms, Respondent advised that he wanted to observe Catherine Thornton and Mike Lott. Respondent did not associate with these teachers professionally or otherwise. Both Lott and Catherine Thornton requested that Respondent not be allowed to observe their classes. This request was honored by Luke Thornton because he was aware that Respondent disliked these two teachers. Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1984-85 school year indicated the atmosphere in his class was not conducive to learning. He was criticized again concerning the discipline of his class. It was also noted that he continued to make unprofessional comments to his students despite warnings not to do so. Luke Thornton had reviewed specific incidents of such conduct with Respondent during the school year. The evaluation also noted Respondent's failure to adhere to defined duty days after warnings, other poor work habits (i.e., lesson plans) , and his inability to get along with his peers. The 1985-86 School Year Luke Thornton extended the NEAT procedure for Respondent through November 1985, with the hope that Respondent's performance would improve. In the August 19, 1985 letter, Thornton stated: In order to assure that you are given every opportunity to be successful, I am extending the NEAT procedure to November 1, 1985. If at that time, the deficiencies consistently noted . . . continue to exist, I will make my recommendation to the superintendent concerning your employment status with the Palm Beach County School Board. The testimony of Respondent's students for the first semester of the 1985-86 school year confirm that Respondent did not change his teaching techniques despite suggestions given to him for improvement. 9l. One student testified that on the first day of class Respondent told the students they were immature. Other students testified to Respondent's repeated statements that they were immature, childish and that he did not like them. Further, Respondent continued to discuss his problems with the administration during class time. Classroom temperature remained uncomfortable. Respondent advised students to complain to the administration. In one instance, a student vomited in the classroom, creating a foul odor. Although students complained about the smell and administrators located another available classroom, Respondent refused to move his classes. Students testified that Respondent's reputation among them was that he was a "jerk" and a bad teacher who was not liked or respected. Several students stated that they would not want Respondent as their teacher again. He had a bad attitude and they either did not learn anything or they did not learn as much as they felt they should. Respondent did display improvement in taking roll call issuing progress reports, adhering to defined duty days and reducing the number of failures in his classes. He continued to fail to attend open house and to provide adequate lesson plans. In addition to Ms. Cowne and Mr. Culp, Linda Chubbuck was assigned as dean at John I. Leonard High School for the 1985-86 school year. Chubbuck received referrals of students from Respondent which were usually for such minor infractions as talking in class, refusing to be quiet, or not writing "punishment sentences". Student and parent complaints were received by the deans as a result of Respondent continued making students write repetitious sentences. Groups of students were still referred by Respondent. On two occasions, Chubbuck was referred nine to ten students at one time. Cowne was referred six students at one time. The groups were usually referred by Respondent because the students were not being quiet, would not settle down or were otherwise causing disruption. The students who were referred to the deans described Respondent's classes as chaotic. They described Respondent as "caustic and cutting with them." Further, Respondent did not take action to control his classes and rarely instructed students concerning behavior. The deans continued to answer Respondent's requests to come to his class to settle the class down. David Culp saw no improvement in Respondent's ability to control his classes over a three year period. Respondent continued to have more referrals than other teachers, and it was difficult to support Respondent's actions. Due to the constant chaos in Respondent's classes, the deans concluded that very little learning could be taking place. The number of referrals from those classes decreased sharply after Respondent was later suspended from the school. Guidance counselors continued, during this school year, to receive the same type of complaints about Respondent as they had in the past. The only difference was the names of the students making the complaints. The guidance counselors concluded that Respondent was not benefiting students emotionally or academically. Dr. Mona Jensen conducted her third and final observation of Respondent on December 2, 1985. She observed that Respondent's pattern of instruction had not changed. She determined his lesson plan to be insufficient. Respondent had not added any of Jensen's prior recommended positive behaviors to his technique. Respondent continued to fail to provide motivational or positive reinforcement to his students. Jensen concluded that Respondent's "teaching behaviors" were ineffective, ranking Respondent below average as a teacher. Jensen testified that a teacher's behavior should not change based upon the quality of the students. Further, a professional should not allow personal problems with the administration to interfere with providing successful opportunities to students. H.W. Berryman conducted a second observation of Respondent in December, 1985. Berryman was more complimentary of Respondent than was Jensen. Berryman noted Respondent had improved in getting instruction started in the class. He also commended Respondent's knowledge of the subject matter, but noted Respondent seemed to be writing off a majority of the students in the class by allowing them to be inactive and uninvolved in the learning process. Respondent did not communicate well with other social studies teachers at any time at issue in this cause. No improvement of Respondent's behavior in this area was noted during the first semester of the 1985-86 school year. He had heated words for Catherine Thornton, the department chairperson, and expressed his disdain for her. He accused another teacher of theft of a map from his classroom. The atmosphere of the workroom for social studies teachers at the school was hostile and uncomfortable when Respondent was there. Respondent continued to perceive his assignment to teach 9th graders to be a demotion. His peers did not agree. Testimony of teachers indicates that each level of teaching has unique problems. Some teachers volunteered to teach 9th grade. Respondent had difficulty with the administration over reserved parking spaces for the deans, refusing to refrain from parking in the places reserved for them until ordered by Luke Thornton to park elsewhere. The school's security officer was asked by Respondent to investigate the theft of pens and pencils from his desk, as well the source of a stick figure drawing of Respondent. The security officer had not received similar requests from other teachers. An evaluation of Respondent on November 18, 1983, noted he did not have an up to date plan book; that parent complaints about Respondent's unwillingness to work to resolve student problems had been received; and that Respondent remained unable to have a positive relationship with coworkers. Respondent was on the NEAT procedure for a total of 16 academic months. During that time, Respondent's teaching style did not change. He continued to make disparaging remarks to students, failed to provide classroom management and failed to improve his peer relationships. He did not attend open house functions, and failed to maintain adequate lesson plans. Parent and student complaints about him did not diminish. District administrators and school personnel were unable to influence Respondent to change his behavior. Due to Respondent's inability to change and the finding that Respondent was damaging students, Luke Thornton recommended Respondent be terminated from employment. Respondent was suspended in February of 1986, and subsequently terminated from employment by the school board. In Luke Thornton's professional opinion, which is credited, Respondent performed incompetently as an educator from the fall of 1981 until his termination. Further, Respondent's personal conduct during that time seriously reduced his effectiveness as an employee of the district school board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered revoking Respondent's teaching certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of August, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of August, 1988. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS Petitioner submitted 128 proposed findings of fact. Those findings are treated as follows: 1. Included in finding 2.-3. Included in part in findings 1-3, remainder rejected as unnecessary for conclusion reached. 4.-5. Included in findings 4-5. 6. Included in findings 6-7. 7.-8. Included in findings 9-10. Included in finding 12. Included in finding 11. Included in part in finding 6, remainder rejected. Included in finding 7. Addressed in findings 13-14. 14.-15. Addressed in finding 14. 16. Included in finding 15. 17.-18. Addressed in findings 16 and 14. Included in finding 17. Included in finding 18. 21.-22. Included in findings 18-19. 23.-24. Included in findings 20-21. Included in finding 23. Included in finding 24. Included in finding 25. 28.-30. Included in findings 26-28. Included in finding 29. Included in finding 30. Rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. 34.-35. Included in finding 32. 36.-37. Included in findings 33-34. Included in finding 31. Included in finding 36. 40.-41. Included in findings 37-39. 42.-43. Included in findings 41-42. 44. Addressed in part in finding 43. Remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. 45.-55. Included in findings 44-54. 56.-57. Addressed in finding 55. Included in finding 56. Included in finding 48. 60.-61. Included in findings 56-57. 62. Included in findings 58-59. 63.-64. Included in findings 60-61. 65.-66 Included in finding 62. 67.-70. Included in findings 63-66. 71.-75. Included in findings 67-70. 76.-83. Included in findings 72-77. 84.-85. Included in finding 76. 86. Included in finding 71. 87.-94. Included in findings 77-83. 95.-128. Included in findings 85-111, except for a portion of proposed finding 122 which is rejected as unnecessary for conclusion reached. RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS Respondent submitted 145 proposed findings of fact. They were encompassed in 52 pages and are treated as follows: 1.-19. Rejected as unnecessary to conclusion reached and cumulative. 20.-24. Included in part in findings 13-14, and 21; remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. 25. Addressed in part in finding 15. Remainder unnecessary for conclusion. 26.-28. Rejected as unnecessary for conclusion reached. 29.-31. Addressed in part in finding 20. Remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. 32.-33. Included in findings 37-38. 34. Included in finding 60. 35.-36. Included in part in finding 88, remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. 37.-38. Included in part in finding 108, remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. 39.-40. Included in part in findings 3133, remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. 41.-52. Rejected as unnecessary to conclusion reached. Included in part in findings 20-22, remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion reached. Rejected as unnecessary to conclusion reached. Included in part in finding 40, remainder unnecessary to conclusion. Included in finding 23 in part, remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. 57.-63. Rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. 64.-65. Included in part in finding 93, remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. 66.-73. Rejected as unnecessary to conclusion reached. 74. Included in part in finding 113-114, remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. 75.-80. Rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. Addressed in finding 45. Rejected as unnecessary to conclusion reached. 83.-84. Included in part in finding 46, remainder unnecessary to conclusion reached. 85. Rejected, unnecessary. 86.-87. Addressed in part in findings 46 and 57, respectively; remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. 88. Included in part in finding 88. Remainder unnecessary. 89.-90. Rejected as unnecessary to conclusion reached. 91.-96. Included in part in findings 34-35, remainder rejected as unnecessary. 97.-100. Rejected as unnecessary to conclusion reached. 101.-102. Included in part in finding 14, remainder unnecessary to conclusion. 103.-107. Rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. 108.-113. Included in part in findings 58-59, and 79; remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. 114.-118. Rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. 119.-120. Included in part in finding 87, remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. 121.-123. Rejected as unnecessary to conclusion reached. l24.-125. Included in part in finding 80. Remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. 126.-129. Included in part in findings 81-84, remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. Included in part in finding 67. Remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. Included in part in finding 86, remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. Rejected, unnecessary to conclusion and cumulative. Included in part in finding 88, remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. Included in part in finding 89, remainder rejected as unnecessary. 135.-136. Rejected, unnecessary to conclusion reached. 137.-141. Included in part in findings 102-103, remainder unnecessary to conclusion. 142.-143. Included in part in finding 85, remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. 144.-145. Included in part in finding 110, remainder rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire 325 John Knox Road Suite C-135 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Thomas W. Young, III, Esquire 208 West Pensacola Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sydney H. McKenzie, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Martin B. Schapp, Administrator. Professional Practices Services Department of Education 319 W. Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Karen B. Wilde Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 =================================================================
