Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Claudia W. Holland, is a teacher employed in the public schools of Broward County, Florida for a period of approximately 31 years and presently holds Florida Teaching Certificate number 13983, Post Graduate, Rank Two. She is presently employed in the public schools in a non-teaching capacity. To substantiate the allegations of the petition filed herein seeking revocation of the Respondent's certificate, the Petitioner called several student witnesses who were either students of the Respondent or were the alleged victims of the "unprofessional, unethical and unauthorized conduct" allegedly engaged in by the Respondent. My careful examination of the testimony of those witnesses revealed glaring inconsistencies in their testimony and for reasons hereinafter stated, cannot provide a basis to support the ultimate penalty of revocation of the Respondent's teaching certificate. This conclusion is based on an examination of the testimony of the numerous student witnesses who testified at the hearing. Without reciting their testimony in detail, I will summarize such testimony and at the outset point out that their testimony was inter alia, contradictory, evasive and generally uncreditable when the testimony is compared to that of other witnesses including that of the Respondent. A summary of pertinent portions of such witnesses' testimony follows. Shirley Smith, a student of the Respondent testified that on the occasion in which Respondent allegedly pushed them into the lockers and struck two students on their legs with a ruler, the incident came about when they (the affected students), admittedly showed up for class after the bell rang. Smith had trouble unlocking her locker and was unable to unlock it until after the bell rang. When the bell rang, she appeared for class along with several other students. Respondent told those students who entered the class after the bell rang to stay outside. It appears that just about the time they were leaving the classroom, an announcement came over the public address system and those late students stayed to hear the announcement. Respondent noticing that they were not leaving the classroom, struck Shirley Smith and Kim Schwab on their legs. (Testimony of Shirley Smith) Smith testified that Respondent often used a yard stick to attract students' attention when they were unruly or were unattentive. Smith testified that when she noticed Kim Schwab's bruise on her leg, it was red. (TR 70) During her testimony, Smith testified that no bruise was left on Kim Schwab's leg. In this respect, her testimony contradicts that of a statement written by her immediately after the occurrence allegedly took place. (See Respondent's Exhibit #2, TR. 71). Likewise, the testimony of Kathryn Smith, also one of Respondent's former students who was allegedly "picked off the classroom floor approximately 18 inches by her neck and thereby scuffed her shoes when she was pushed into a locker by Respondent." Throughout her testimony, Smith testified that she was unsure of the statements to which she was testifying. She testified that approximately one minute after Kim Schwab was struck by Respondent, a black mark had appeared on her leg. In this regard, her testimony also contradicts that contained in a written statement by her given immediately following the incident (See Respondent's Exhibit #1). Kim Schwab, also a student who was struck by Respondent while listening to an intercom message at the doorway of Respondent's classroom, testified that the bruise was all red until she went to the clinic where bactine was administered. Ms. Schwab testified that Respondent would call students "fools" when they would fail to do their class assignments or for example when they lost their work folders. She denied that Respondent engaged in any other name calling. She also corroborated the statements of other student witnesses to the effect that Respondent used the ruler from time to time to attract students' attention. She testified that she was struck after Kathy Smith was pushed. However, she did not see Kathy being pushed into the locker (when she allegedly scuffed her shoes) although she was standing right next to her. On the other hand, the Respondent, a teacher in the school system for approximately 31 years testified openly, frankly and candidly about her duties as a teacher and with respect to the allegations leveled against her. She admitted as charged that she occasionally used the term "nigger" and "cracker." However, she testified that she used cliches as teaching tools and at no time intended such to derogate her students or to cast racial slurs toward them. She told of how she requested her students to engage in a discussion respecting the use of the terms "nigger" and "cracker" by having them turn to the dictionary and reflect on the meaning of such terms as they relate to the races with some reflection on the connotation that such words have traditionally meant in the past. (TR. 284 -286) She also admitted to the use of the term "jackass" on one occasion to criticize a disruptive student. She denied ever calling student "fools" although she admitted to the use of the term "silly" when a student engaged in acts and/or conduct which in her opinion amounted to such. She further denied calling students "crazy" or calling a student a homosexual as alleged. In this regard, she testified that one student called a fellow student a "gay" whereupon she asked that student what he meant. That student replied that he (meaning the other student) was a homosexual. Finally, she denied throwing books, staplers, etc. at students as alleged and the testimony of other student witnesses seem to bear her testimony out in this regard. Respecting the allegation that the Respondent used threatening gestures with a meter and yard stick and a hammer while teaching, the evidence reveals that Respondent used the sticks to tap on her desk to gain disruptive students' attention and that a hammer which had been brought to the classroom to nail decorative posters on the bulletin board was used by her in the classroom one day in a gavel-like fashion. There was no testimony adduced whatsoever to so much as imply that she used the hammer to hurt students. Turning to the allegation that Respondent "administered illegal corporal punishment . . . by pushing, shoving and scratching students," the evidence falls short. Aside from the noted inconsistencies in the testimony of those students who were allegedly the victims of such behavior and/or conduct, the Respondent's version appears much more believable and creditable. For example, it is all but impossible to conclude that Respondent could even lift a student by her neck, let alone lift a student some 18 inches by her neck as testified to by the alleged victim. Moreover, it was noted that those students who were standing in the immediate vicinity of the alleged activity denied that such conduct occurred. We are therefore left with the situation where we have a substantiated allegation that Respondent either in an effort to eject students from her classroom or force them where they belong, struck one student, Kim Schwab. The Respondent does not deny that she might have struck Kim Schwab while trying to get she and other students to either take their seats or leave the classroom after the bell had sounded. In so doing however, there is no testimony indicating that she used more force than was necessary under the circumstances or that in fact her striking the student (Schwab) was intentional. Evidence reveals that after the incident occurred, the matter was called to her attention by the school administrator whereupon the Respondent could not even recall whether or not she in fact hit the student. However, that evening she grappled with the fact that she might have struck the student for several hours in an effort to try and recall all that actually happened. No similar incidences occurred during the remainder of the school year. It was noted as Respondent's counsel points out that Section 232.27, Florida Statutes, entitled "Authority of Teacher" provides, inter alia: . . . each teacher or other member of the staff of any school shall have such authority for the control and discipline of students as may be assigned to him by the principal or his designated representative and shall keep good order in the classroom and in other places in which he is assigned to be in charge of students. This statutory pronouncement as interrupted in Williams v. Cotton, 346 So.2d 1039, 1041 (1st DCA, 1977), is that: "this statute, in authorizing - in fact requiring - a teacher to keep 'good order' in his classroom necessarily implies the power to the teacher to use reasonable physical force (not amounting to corporal punishment) to do so. Without such reasonable implied power, the requirement to keep 'good order' would be meaningless". In addition, Section 232.275, F.S., entitled "Liability of Teacher or Principal" provides: Except in case of excessive force or cruel and unusual punishment, a teacher or other member of the instructional staff, a principal or his designated representative, or a bus driver may not be civilly or criminally liable for any action carried out in conformity with the state board and district school board rules, regarding the control, discipline, suspension and expulsion of students. This authority seemed to point out that the Respondent at least had the right to use reasonable force to insure the maintenance of a tranquil teaching atmosphere. Additionally, it was noted that on one occasion the Respondent was counselled regarding her teaching methods and when corrective measures were requested of her, she took appropriate action to remedy the situation. (Testimony of Respondent and Warren Smith, Principal). Chapter 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, permits the suspension and revocation of a teaching certificate when the person charged has been found guilty of personal conduct "which seriously reduces her effectiveness as an employee of the school board." Admittedly, there existed problems with respect to the Respondent's teaching practices and for which she should perhaps be reprimanded as provided in the Board's rules. However, the statutory provision upon which revocation is here sought rests on a finding that the conduct engaged in by Respondent is that level of conduct which "seriously reduces her effectiveness as a school board employee." While the evidence is clear that the Respondent, in an effort to eject several late students from her class, struck Kim Schwab, there was no showing by competent and substantial evidence in the record that this in any manner reduced her effectiveness as a teacher. (See for example Boyette v. State, Professional Practices Council, 346 So.2d 598 (1st DCA, 1977). For these reasons, I conclude that the Petitioner failed to meet its quantum of proof in the manner required to warrant suspension of the Respondent's teaching certificate. I shall so recommend.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, I hereby recommend that the petition filed herein be dismissed. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of November, 1977. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire Post Office Box 1572 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mr. Tom Benton Professional Practices Council 319 West Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Ronald G. Meyer, Esquire 5401 West Kennedy Boulevard Suite 990, Lincoln Center Tallahassee, Florida 33609 Mr. Edward Kuhn Broward County Courthouse Room 248 201 Southeast 6th Street Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent should be suspended, without pay, and terminated from all employment with Petitioner for the offenses set forth in the Notice of Specific Charges.
Findings Of Fact No dispute exists that, at all times material hereto, Ms. Hankerson was an instructional employee with the School Board. Ms. Hankerson has been a teacher with the School Board for 11 years, beginning as a teacher with the School Board in 2000. She was first assigned to Renick Education Center. Subsequently, Ms. Hankerson was transferred to Barbara Goleman High School (Goleman) in Miami Lakes, Florida. During the 2009-2010 school year, she taught science to exceptional student education (ESE) students at Goleman. At the beginning of the 2010-2011 school year, Ms. Hankerson was advised that her department was being eliminated and that she needed to find another school at which to work if she desired to continue her employment with the School Board. She sought other schools and received an email from Howard McMillan Middle School (McMillan) to come for an interview. She accepted a teaching position at McMillan, effective September 20, 2010. While working at Goleman in Miami Lakes, Florida, Ms. Hankerson resided in Miami Shores, Florida. Her residence was in close proximity to Goleman. She had three children and was able to get her children to school and report to Goleman in a timely manner throughout her tenure at Goleman. Ms. Hankerson's travel time to McMillan was significantly greater than to Goleman due to McMillan being located further south than Goleman.2 During the 2010-2011 school year, all teachers at McMillan were required to report to work at 8:30 a.m. Professional meetings, which consisted of team meetings and department meetings, were held from 8:30 a.m. until 9:00 a.m. Team meetings were held three days a week. Department meetings were held two days a week, where teachers meet by department to discuss curricular activities and requirements. Faculty meetings were held every other Tuesdays, and, when faculty meetings occurred, no professional meetings were held because the faculty meetings replaced the professional meetings. At 9:00 a.m., teachers went to their respective classroom to meet their students, who began arriving at 9:00 a.m. Instruction began at 9:10 a.m., with homeroom followed by advisement, where the Comprehensive Research Reading Plan was implemented, and ended at 9:46 a.m. First period began at 9:56 a.m. School ended at 3:50 p.m. Ms. Hankerson was assigned a homeroom class. The students in her classroom consisted of eighth grade students, who were not performing at grade level in reading and were FCAT Level 1 students in reading. Ms. Hankerson's first period (Period 1) was a seventh grade civics class. Her students consisted of ESE students, with varying exceptionalities. She was the sole teacher. Ms. Hankerson was a co-teacher for four periods of the remaining school day, teaching science. The students for the four periods consisted of general education students and ESE students. Ms. Hankerson was the ESE teacher, and the other teacher was the general education teacher, who generally took the lead in the classroom. The second period (Period 2) was a seventh grade science class; the third period (Period 3) was an eighth grade science class; the fourth period (Period 4) was a sixth grade science class; and the sixth period (Period 6) was a seventh grade science class. Her fifth period (Period 5) was a planning period. No dispute exists that Ms. Hankerson's employment with the School Board is subject to, among other things, a professional service contract, a collective bargaining agreement (Agreement) between the School Board and the United Teachers of Dade (UTD), and policies and procedures of the School Board. School Board Policy and the Agreement provide teachers with one sick day of leave every month. At the beginning of each school year, each teacher is given, up front, four days of sick leave that the teacher can use. However, the accrual of sick leave is one sick leave day per month for the ten-month period that a teacher is employed with the School Board, totaling ten sick days of leave. During the ten-month period, if a teacher takes leave exceeding the ten days and does not have leave that is "banked," which is leave that is carried over from one school year to the next, it results in leave without pay, unauthorized. In a medical situation, if a teacher knows that he or she will be absent for an extended period of time, the teacher would apply for leave. If the absence will be over 30 days, the teacher would apply for medical leave and can use leave that is banked. However, if no leave is banked, it results in leave without pay, unauthorized. If a teacher is going to be absent from work, the teacher is required to call into a dedicated-absence telephone line at least one hour before the start of the workday. On the day that the teacher is absent, the teacher is also required to call his or her school 30 minutes prior to the scheduled student dismissal time, indicating whether he or she will report to work on the next workday in order for the school to make arrangements for a substitute teacher. A teacher, who is absent without prior approval, is deemed to have been willfully absent without leave, except in a situation of sudden illness or an emergency situation. Immediately upon beginning at McMillan, Ms. Hankerson began arriving late and using her sick days. Eight days after beginning at McMillan, on September 28, 2010, she took a sick leave day; on October 1, 2010, she took one day of leave without pay, unauthorized; and on October 13 and 19, 2010, she took one sick leave day and one-half sick leave day, respectively. On October 21, 2010, while she was at McMillan, allegations, unrelated to the instant case, involving inappropriate conduct and remarks were made against Ms. Hankerson. Effective October 22, 2010, she was removed from McMillan and placed at the School Board's Region office, pending an investigation. A substitute teacher was hired to take over Ms. Hankerson's classes. The allegations were referred for investigation to the School Board's Civilian Investigative Unit. Ms. Hankerson was assigned to the Region office from October 22, 2010, through February 22, 2011. While at the Region office, Ms. Hankerson continued her pattern of absences. Between October 22, 2010, and February 22, 2011, she accumulated an additional 18 days of absences: five and one-half days of leave without pay, unauthorized; seven days of leave without pay, authorized; and five and one-half days of sick leave. The investigation into the allegations was concluded. At a Conference-For-The-Record (CFR) held by the School Board's Office of Professional Standards (OPS) on November 29, 2010, memorialized in a Summary of CFR dated December 3, 2010, Ms. Handerson was advised that probable cause existed for violations of School Board rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties, and 6Gx13-4A-1.213, Code of Ethics. At the CFR, the OPS provided her with a copy of the School Board rules; The Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida; and a document titled "How to Use Common Sense and Professional Judgment to Avoid Legal Complications in Teaching." Additionally, the OPS issued her directives, including adhere to all the School Board's rules and regulations; and comport, both at the workplace and in the community, in a manner that reflects credit upon herself and the School Board. By letter dated February 10, 2011, Ms. Hankerson was notified that the School Board had taken action, at its meeting on February 9, 2011, to suspend her without pay for five workdays from February 10, 2011, through February 16, 2011. Further, the letter notified her to report to work at McMillan on February 17, 2011. However, Ms. Hankerson did not serve the suspension from February 10, 2011, through February 16, 2011. The suspension was rescheduled to February 22 through 28, 2011, with her return to McMillan on March 1, 2011. Having served her suspension on February 22 through 28, 2011, Ms. Hankerson failed to return to McMillan on March 1, 2011. Moreover, she failed to call the dedicated absence telephone line at McMillan, the Absence Reporting System (ARS), one hour prior to the workday on March 1, 2011, to state that she would not report to work that day; and failed to call 30 minutes before the scheduled student dismissal on March 1, 2011, to state whether she would report to work on March 2, 2011. On March 2, 2011, Ms. Hankerson reported to McMillan for work and, also, reported ten minutes late, at 8:40 a.m. That same morning, McMillan's principal, Hilca Thomas, met with Ms. Hankerson and advised her that she (Ms. Hankerson) was required to report to work on March 1, 2011, not March 2, 2011; and that March 1, 2011, would be reported as leave without pay, unauthorized. Ms. Hankerson blamed the arrival on March 2, 2011, instead of March 1, 2011, on a miscommunication between her and the UTD representative. Further, Ms. Thomas reminded Ms. Hankerson of the hours of work and the attendance procedures, including communicating absences using the ARS. Ms. Hankerson stated that she would "not make it in at 8:30"; that she would "be late almost every morning because of [her] children and [she] live[s] far [away]"; and that being late was "unavoidable." Additionally, Ms. Thomas advised Ms. Hankerson that her (Ms. Hankerson's) undergarment was exposed and that she was not wearing appropriate attire. Ms. Hankerson abruptly left Ms. Thomas' office stating that she was going to UTD's office downtown. Shortly thereafter, around 9:15 a.m., Ms. Henderson returned to Ms. Thomas' office, but a substitute teacher was already deployed to Ms. Hankerson's classroom. As a result, Ms. Thomas advised Ms. Hankerson that she (Ms. Hankerson) could leave for the day and directed Ms. Hankerson to report back to McMillan for work on March 3, 2011. The events on March 2, 2011, were memorialized in a memorandum from Ms. Thomas to Ms. Hankerson on that same date. Ms. Hankerson acknowledged receiving a copy of the memorandum. The evidence demonstrates that the directives to Ms. Hankerson from Ms. Thomas to report to work at 8:30 a.m. and to follow the procedures for absences were reasonable. Further, the evidence demonstrates that Ms. Thomas had the authority to give the directives. Ms. Hankerson failed to report to work at McMillan on March 3, 2011. Also, she failed to report to work on March 4, 2011. Both days were reported as leave without pay, unauthorized. Ms. Hankerson reported to work at McMillan on March 7, 2011, the next school day, at which time she was issued an Absence from Worksite Directive by Ms. Thomas. The Absence from Worksite Directive advised Ms. Hankerson, among other things, that attendance and punctuality were essential functions of her job and that, since September 20, 2010, she had accumulated 25.5 absences.3 The absences were reflected as four absences within her first month at McMillan (September 20 through October 22, 2010); 17.5 absences when she was assigned to the Region office during the investigation; and four absences when she was to report back to McMillan between March 1 and 4, 2011. Additionally, the Absence from Worksite Directive instructed Ms. Hankerson on the proper procedures to obtain authorized leave of absence. She had failed to avail herself of the proper procedures to obtain authorized leave of absence. Further, the Absence from Worksite Directive advised Ms. Hankerson that her noncompliance with the directives would be considered a violation of professional responsibilities and insubordination. On March 7, 2011, Ms. Hankerson acknowledged receiving the Absence from Worksite Directive by signing the document. The evidence demonstrates that the directives issued to Ms. Hankerson by Ms. Thomas in the Absence from Worksite Directive were reasonable. Further, the evidence demonstrates that Ms. Thomas had the authority to issue the directives. Ms. Hankerson failed to abide by and comply with the directives. On March 10, 2011, three days after receiving the Absence from Worksite Directive, Ms. Hankerson arrived at McMillan late, 9:50 a.m. Ms. Thomas met with Ms. Hankerson on the same day of the tardiness and reminded her (Ms. Hankerson) of the directives. Additionally, Ms. Thomas advised Ms. Hankerson that she (Ms. Hankerson) was inappropriately dressed. Ms. Thompson reported the absence as a half-day leave without pay, unauthorized. On March 11, 2011, Ms. Hankerson arrived at McMillan late, 8:50 a.m. Ms. Thomas met with Ms. Hankerson on the same day of the tardiness and advised her (Ms. Hankerson) that, because she (Ms. Hankerson) had failed to call-in to the ARS, a substitute had been hired for the day. Ms. Thompson reported the absence as one day leave without pay, unauthorized. On March 21, 2011, Ms. Hankerson failed to report to McMillan. Additionally, she failed to call-in to the ARS to state whether she would be reporting to work on March 22, 2011, and, as a result, Ms. Thomas hired a substitute for March 22, 2011. Ms. Thomas met with Ms. Hankerson on March 22, 2011, and reviewed the absence with her (Ms. Hankerson); reported Ms. Hankerson's absence as unauthorized; and advised Ms. Hankerson that a substitute was hired for the day. Ms. Thompson reported each absence as one-day leave without pay, unauthorized. On March 29, 2011, Ms. Hankerson left McMillan approximately an hour early, at 2:45 p.m., without prior approval and without signing-out. Also, she failed to attend her class at Period 6. Ms. Thompson reported the absence as a half-day leave without pay, unauthorized. The next day, March 30, 2011, Ms. Hankerson did not report to McMillan. Ms. Thompson reported the absence as one day leave without pay, unauthorized. The following day, March 31, 2011, Ms. Hankerson left McMillan approximately 30 minutes early, at 3:20 p.m., without prior approval and without signing-out. Additionally, she failed to attend her class at Period 6. Ms. Thompson reported the absence as a half-day leave without pay, unauthorized. The next day, April 1, 2011, Ms. Hankerson left McMillan at 12:30 p.m., without prior approval and without signing-out. Also, she failed to attend her classes at Periods 4 and 6. Ms. Thompson reported the absence as a half-day leave without pay, unauthorized. On April 4, 2011, Ms. Hankerson left McMillan at 10:47 a.m., without prior approval and without signing-out. Ms. Thompson reported the absence as one day leave without pay, unauthorized. The following day, April 5, 2011, Ms. Hankerson arrived at McMillan a little over one-half hour late, at 9:03 a.m. Ms. Thomas met with Ms. Hankerson, regarding the attendance, and informed her (Ms. Hankerson's) that the early departures from McMillan would be reported as leave without pay, unauthorized. Further, Ms. Thomas provided Ms. Hankerson with notification of a CFR to be held on April 8, 2011. The next day, April 6, 2011, Ms. Hankerson did not report to McMillan. Additionally, she failed to call-in to the ARS to state whether she would be reporting to work on April 7, 2011, and, as a result, Ms. Thomas hired a substitute for April 7, 2011. The CFR on April 8, 2011, was scheduled for 3:00 p.m. Even though Ms. Hankerson had reported to McMillan for the workday, she did not appear at the CFR at the scheduled time. When an "all call" was made over the public address system for her at 3:20 p.m., Ms. Hankerson responded and was informed that should report to the CFR. However, she did not arrive at the CFR until 3:49 p.m. and informed Ms. Thomas, among other things, that the CFR should proceed without her (Ms. Hankerson) because her (Ms. Hankerson's) children were home alone and she (Ms. Hankerson) was leaving at 3:50 p.m., the end of the workday. Ms. Hankerson left, and the CFR proceeded without her. The attendees at the CFR included Ms. Thomas; the assistant principal; and the UTD Representative. The purpose of the CFR was to address Ms. Hankerson's insubordination regarding previously issued attendance directives, and her noncompliance to School Board rules 6Gx13-4E-1.01, Absences and Leaves, 6Gx13- 4A-1.213, Code of Ethics, 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties; and to review her record and future employment status with the School Board. A Summary of the CFR was prepared by Ms. Thomas on April 18, 2011. The Summary for the CFR included a delineation of Ms. Hankerson's absences, reflecting that, since the issuance of the Absence of Worksite Directive on March 7, 2011, through April 15, 2011, Ms. Hankerson had accumulated one-half day absence of leave without pay, authorized; 10.5 days absence of leave without pay, unauthorized; one temporary duty day; and one personal day.4 Furthermore, the Summary for the CFR reflected that, as of April 15, 2011, for the 2010-2011 school year, Ms. Hankerson had accumulated a total of 46 absences.5 The Summary for the CFR contained directives to Ms. Hankerson. The directives included: adherence to School Board rules 6Gx13-4E-1.01, Absences and Leaves, 6Gx13-4A-1.213, Code of Ethics, 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties; to report to work and depart from work daily at the scheduled hours; be in regular attendance at the worksite and on time; adhere to attendance directives previously issued; communicate any intent to be absent directly to the principal and by calling the ARS; the reporting of future absences will be leave without pay, unauthorized, unless documentation showing qualification under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) or other leave of absence is provided; and for imminent absences, leave must be requested and procedures for School Board approved leave implemented, and the FMLA or Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, if applicable, must be complied with. Ms. Hankerson was advised that failure to comply with the directives would lead to further review for disciplinary action and would be considered gross insubordination. Further, the Summary for the CFR advised Ms. Hankerson that she would be issued a letter of reprimand. Ms. Hankerson acknowledged receipt of the Summary for the CFR on April 18, 2011, by signing the Summary for the CFR. The evidence demonstrates that the directives to Ms. Hankerson from Ms. Thomas at the CFR and the Summary for the CFR were reasonable. Further, the evidence demonstrates that Ms. Thomas had the authority to give the directives. On April 18, 2011, Ms. Thomas issued Ms. Hankerson a Reprimand. The Reprimand was based on Ms. Hankerson's failure to comply with the previous directive issued to Ms. Hankerson regarding attendance and professional responsibilities. Additionally, the Reprimand advised Ms. Hankerson that any recurrence of the noncompliance might lead to disciplinary action and would be considered gross insubordination. Ms. Hankerson acknowledged receipt of the Reprimand on April 18, 2011, by signing the Reprimand. Ms. Hankerson failed to comply with the directives issued in the Summary for the CFR. On the same day of the Reprimand, April 18, 2011, Ms. Hankerson was absent one-half day, reported as leave without pay, unauthorized. Two days thereafter, she was absent for three consecutive days, April 20 through 22, 2011, each day being reported as leave without pay, unauthorized. Having worked the next school day, April 25, 2011, Ms. Hankerson was absent one-half day on April 26, 2011, reported as leave without pay, unauthorized; absent one-half day on April 27, 2011, reported as leave without pay, unauthorized; and absent one day on April 28, 2011, reported as leave without pay, unauthorized. Additionally, she was tardy for work on April 27, 2011. From April 18 through 28, 2011, she had a total of five and one-half absences. Due to these recent absences and tardiness, on April 28, 2011, Ms. Thomas issued Ms. Hankerson a Continued Failure to Comply with Re-Issued Directives memorandum. The absences and tardiness were listed in the memorandum, and Ms. Hankerson was advised that the absences were reported as leave without pay, unauthorized. Further, Ms. Hankerson was advised that she had continued to be absent, tardy, and insubordinate; that her continued failure to comply with the reissued directives resulted in gross insubordination; and that, therefore, the memorandum would be forwarded to OPS for gross insubordination and further disciplinary action. She acknowledged receipt of the Continued Failure to Comply with Re- Issued Directives memorandum on April 18, 2011, by signing it. The evidence demonstrates that the re-issued directives to Ms. Hankerson from Ms. Thomas were reasonable. Further, the evidence demonstrates that Ms. Thomas had the authority to give the directives. Ms. Hankerson's absences, tardiness, and early departures continued. On May 2 through 4, 2011, she was absent one day each date; May 5, 6, and 13, 2011, she was absent one- half day each date; and May 16, 2011, she was absent one day; totaling five and one-half days of absences, which were reported as leave without pay, unauthorized. Also, Ms. Hankerson was tardy seven times, on May 5, 6, 10 through 13, and 17, 2011, which were unauthorized. Additionally, she departed McMillan early two times, on May 6 and 13, 2011, which were unauthorized. Due to these recent absences, tardiness, and early departures, on May 17, 2011, Ms. Thomas issued Ms. Hankerson a Continued Failure to Comply with Re-Issued Directives memorandum. The absences, tardiness, and early departures were listed in the memorandum, and Ms. Hankerson was advised that the absences were reported as leave without pay, unauthorized. Further, Ms. Hankerson was advised that she had continued to be insubordinate; that her continued failure to comply with the reissued directives resulted in gross insubordination; and that, therefore, the memorandum would be forwarded to OPS for gross insubordination and further disciplinary action. She acknowledged receipt of the Continued Failure to Comply with Re- Issued Directives memorandum on May 17, 2011, by signing it. The evidence demonstrates that the second re-issued directives to Ms. Hankerson from Ms. Thomas were reasonable. Further, the evidence demonstrates that Ms. Thomas had the authority to give the directives. At the time of the Continued Failure to Comply with Re-Issued Directives memorandum on May 17, 2011, Ms. Hankerson had accumulated 57 absences. Additionally, she had multiple instances of tardiness and early departures. A CFR was held by OPS. Persons in attendance included the Director of OPS; Ms. Thomas; and Ms. Hankerson and her UTD Representative. At the CFR, Ms. Hankerson was provided an opportunity to respond. OPS recommended termination of Ms. Hankerson's employment for gross insubordination and violation of School Board's rules concerning Responsibilities and Duties, Code of Ethics, and Absences and Leaves. After the CFR at OPS, Ms. Hankerson reported for work at McMillan only on June 7, 2011, and June 9, 2011, which was the last day of the 2010-2011 school year. On June 9, 2011, she arrived late, signed-in, and left McMillan shortly thereafter, not remaining at work the entire time set-aside for the last day. From the time that she began at McMillan until the time of the recommendation by OPS, Ms. Hankerson had accumulated 57 absences during the 2010-2011 school year. Of the 57 absences, 18.5 absences occurred during the time that she was assigned to the Region office, not in the classroom. Ms. Hankerson's absences and tardiness negatively impacted the role of Ms. Thomas as the principal and leader of McMillan. Often times, due to Ms. Hankerson's tardiness, Ms. Thomas had no choice but to take over Ms. Hankerson's homeroom class; and when she (Ms. Thomas) was unable to do so, she (Ms. Thomas) had to find another teacher to cover the homeroom class until Ms. Hankerson arrived. Additionally, when Ms. Thomas had no notice that Ms. Hankerson would be absent, Ms. Thomas had no choice but to take over Ms. Hankerson's homeroom class until a substitute, who had to contacted at the last minute because of no prior notice, arrived; and when she (Ms. Thomas) was unable to do so, she (Ms. Thomas) had to find another teacher to cover the homeroom class until the substitute arrived. As a result of the recommendation of OPS, the Superintendent recommended to the School Board the suspension, without pay, and termination of the employment of Ms. Hankerson. At its regularly scheduled meeting held on June 15, 2011, the School Board took action to suspend, without pay, Ms. Hankerson and initiate dismissal proceedings against her from all employment for just cause, including, but not limited to: misconduct in office; gross insubordination; attendance-to-date; and violation of School Board rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties, 6Gx13-4A-1.213, Code of Ethics, and 6Gx13-4E-1.01, Absences and Leaves. Ms. Hankerson does not refute the absences, the tardiness, or the early departures. For the instances of tardiness, Ms. Hankerson testified at hearing that she would call-in before 8:30 a.m. and state that she was en-route and would be late. The School Board did not refute her assertion. Despite her calling-in, Ms. Hankerson admitted that Ms. Thomas did not tolerate her (Ms. Hankerson's) tardiness and took the action previously mentioned. Ms. Hankerson's testimony is found to be credible. On March 2, 2011, Ms. Hankerson informed Ms. Thomas that arriving late for work at McMillan was unavoidable because she (Ms. Hankerson) took her (Ms. Hankerson's) children to school and she (Ms. Hankerson) lived so far away from McMillan. Additionally, around April 2011, Ms. Hankerson informed Ms. Thomas that she (Ms. Hankerson) was going through a divorce. At hearing, Ms. Hankerson testified that, during March, April, May, and June 2011, she was having marital problems and living sometimes at home and sometimes with her mother in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, which was approximately 28 miles from McMillan. Ms. Hankerson took her children to school, but, when she lived with her mother, she would not leave them at their school in the mornings alone if it was dark. She testified further that she was being investigated by the Department of Children and Families regarding allegations of neglect and being an unfit mother. Additionally, she testified that she was having financial problems. Ms. Hankerson's testimony is found to be credible. However, she did not provide these details to Ms. Thomas. Further, Ms. Hankerson testified that, for April, May, and June 2011, she considered taking leave using the FMLA and contacted her UTD Representative. Ms. Hankerson decided not to take leave using the FMLA. The UTD Representative did not testify at the hearing. Ms. Hankerson's testimony is found to be credible. Again, Ms. Hankerson did not provide this detail to Ms. Thomas. Ms. Hankerson testified that the circumstances that she indicated caused her absences, tardiness, and early departures have been resolved. Her testimony is found to be credible. Before working at McMillan on September 20, 2010, Ms. Hankerson had no prior disciplinary action taken against her by the School Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order suspending Lavonda Hankerson, without pay, for the 2011-2012 school term and under other terms and conditions deemed appropriate by the Miami-Dade County School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of November, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 7th day of November, 2011.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent failed to accommodate exceptional education students, directed derogatory comments to students, and disclosed test grades in class in violation of Subsections 1012.795(1)(c), (f), and (i), Florida Statutes (2000), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e); and, if so, whether the proposed penalty is reasonable. (Statutory references are to Florida Statutes (2000). References to rules are to rules promulgated in the Florida Administrative Code in 2000.)
Findings Of Fact Respondent is authorized to teach physical education in Florida pursuant to Florida Educator's Certificate Number 666407. The Certificate is valid through June 30, 2007. The Pinellas County School District (the District) employed Respondent as a physical education teacher at Gibbs High School (Gibbs) during the 2000-2001 school year (the school year). Respondent's students included students in the exceptional student education program at Gibbs (ESE students). Faculty and staff at Gibbs had tested ESE students in Respondent's classes, identified them as disabled, developed an individual education plan (IEP) for each student, and placed each student in a special education program. The IEPs for some students allowed the students to leave the classroom during testing for a learning lab or other supervised environment. Respondent refused to allow several ESE students to leave the classroom during testing. The students are identified in the record as A.A., A.S., J.T., and J.F. in order to protect their confidentiality. Respondent sometimes afforded ESE students an opportunity to hear their tests read to them at the front of the class. That opportunity violated each student's IEP. Respondent did not have discretion to deviate from an IEP. Some ESE students transferred from Respondent's class. Other ESE students refused to enroll in Respondent's class because of Respondent's reputation among ESE students for refusing to accommodate ESE students during testing. A number of parents complained to school officials about Respondent's failure to accommodate ESE students. Faculty and staff attempted to correct Respondent's behavior through informal conferences. A varying exceptionalities specialist, a teacher assistant, and an administrator with the Office of Professional Standards (OPS) each met with Respondent. Respondent answered an allegation and complaint from one parent by stating to a Gibbs administrator that the student was not an honor roll student, so Respondent's refusal to accommodate the student did not make a difference. Respondent complained to an assistant principal at Gibbs that, "They are ESE students. What are they doing here [in Respondent's class]? They shouldn't be here anyway." Respondent made derogatory comments to students during the school year. The derogatory comments included terms such as: fat, little slacker, stupid, sorry bunch of kids, Gomer Pyle, and Dutch Boy. Respondent asked one of her students, "What's a black boy doing with a Dutch last name?" Respondent asked another student if the student was tired from walking the streets at night and called her "sleeping booty." Respondent directed derogatory comments to students identified in the record as D.V., M.F., J.I., and A.W. Respondent referred to D.V., an African-American, as Dutch Boy because D.V.'s last name sounded Dutch to Respondent. Respondent suggested that D.V. should change names with a white student having a last name that Respondent believed was more appropriate for an African-American. Respondent used the terms "fat" and "stupid" when referring to M.F. and other students in M.F.'s class. Respondent used the term Gomer Pyle to refer to J.I. because J.I. was in the Reserve Officers' Training Corps. (ROTC) program at Gibbs. Respondent told A.W. that larger people don't belong in the physical education class. The derogatory comments degraded students, embarrassed them, were inflammatory to some students, and violated District policy. Respondent violated the Code of Ethics and the Principles of Processional Conduct for Educators by making embarrassing or disparaging remarks and by failing to make reasonable efforts to protect students from mental harm. Respondent has made derogatory comments to students in previous school years. During the 1997-1998 and 1998-1999 school years, an assistant principal received complaints from students about Respondent's use of derogatory comments toward students. The assistant principal held a conference with Respondent on September 15, 1997, and completed a Conference Summary that instructed Respondent to use better communication with students and parents; and to be more professional in addressing students. The complaints against Respondent continued. On September 30, 1997, an assistant principal held a formal conference with Respondent to discuss Respondent's use of derogatory comments to students. The assistant principal again instructed Respondent to refer to students only by their given name and use more professionalism in addressing students. An assistant principal met with Respondent on October 1 and 7, 1997; and on February 13, April 1, and May 4, 1998. In addition to several "walk-throughs," the assistant principal visited Respondent's classroom for an evaluation on March 31, 1998. The annual evaluation for the 1997-1998 school year rated Respondent's judgment as an "I," meaning that improvement was expected in addressing students. The "I" on Respondent's annual evaluation required school administrators to prepare a "Success Plan" to help Respondent address the issues that resulted in the "I" rating. The Success Plan that Respondent signed required Respondent to use positive comments that enhance the self worth of students. Respondent's use of derogatory comments toward students continued during the 1998-1999 school year. An assistant principal held conferences with Respondent on: October 12, 26, and 27, 1998; November 11, 1998; and January 28, March 11, Aril 15, May 3, and May 4, 1999. The assistant principal visited Respondent's classroom on: November 3, 1998; and January 28, March 1, March 11, and April 7 and 15, 1999. Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1998-1999 school year contained more "Is" than the previous evaluation. Respondent received an "I" rating for: (1) Instructional Strategies Conducive to Learning and Critical Thinking; (2) Assessment of Students; and (3) Judgment and Professional Ethics. During the school year at issue, the OPS administrator and Respondent discussed a letter from a parent regarding Respondent's use of derogatory comments. The parent complained that Respondent asked H.T., the parent's daughter, if H.T. was going to be a dentist. H.T.'s last name is related to a dental term. Respondent denied she ever made the comment and then told the OPS administrator, "I can look at her mouth and tell you no." Respondent subsequently told H.T. not to go running to H.T.'s mom if H.T. had a problem with Respondent. Respondent read student grades aloud in class without the permission of the affected student in violation of District policy. Respondent also read the names of students receiving a grade of "A," "B," or "C" thereby disclosing the names of students with lower grades. Disclosing the grades of students in class without the permission of the student invades the privacy of the student and exposes the student to embarrassment. Respondent has a history of disclosing student grades in class. On May 17, 2000, the OPS administrator issued a letter of reprimand to Respondent for disclosing student grades during the 1999-2000 school year. In relevant part, the letter of reprimand stated: I advised you that one concern was related to your announcing student grades of students in front of the entire class. You said that the Governor had given schools grades and that you could tell students their grades. I advised you that was not so; that student information was protected and confidential and I directed you to refrain from the practice. You said that you didn't read all of the grades. I noted that students said you read grades of students who had A's, B's, and C's. I said that some students who had lower grades were embarrassed. I again reiterated that you should cease reading the grades. Respondent continued to disclose student grades during the school year at issue. Respondent read to the class the grades of A.A., A.S., A.W., C.A., and M.F. Each had failing grades. Respondent passed a test completed by A.S. down a row of students so that each student could see the test score on the front of the test and stated audibly that the only thing A.S. "got right" on the test was the date. The comment embarrassed, upset, and humiliated A.S. The District placed Respondent on administrative leave in October 2000. After Respondent returned from her administrative leave, the OPS administrator received more complaints about Respondent's behavior, and issued another letter of reprimand to Respondent on April 27, 2001. Respondent wrote the following message on the letter prior to returning the signed copy to the OPS administrator: "This is BS. Thank you [OPS administrator]." The District transferred Respondent from Gibbs to a school where Respondent works with another teacher. The transfer shows that Respondent had lost her effectiveness at Gibbs, but not as an employee. The District had a lot of complaints at Gibbs about Respondent. There were issues with Respondent's effectiveness at the school. The District determined that a transfer to another school might help Respondent "get a new start."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of violating Subsections 1012.795(1)(c) and (f); guilty of violating Subsection 1012.795(1)(i) and Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e); suspending Respondent's Florida Educator's Certificate during the summer session after the current school year; and, on the date of the Final Order, placing Respondent on probation for two consecutive years, including the period of suspension, subject to the conditions prescribed in Petitioner's PRO. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of October, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Kelly B. Holbrook, Esquire Broad and Cassel 100 North Tampa Street, Suite 3500 Post Office Box 3310 Tampa, Florida 33602-3310 Robert F. McKee, Esquire Kelly & McKee 1718 East 7th Avenue, Suite 301 Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street 1244 Turlington Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Magda R. Cenal (Cenal) has been employed by Petitioner, School Board of Dade County (School Board) as a music teacher for primary grades since 1972. On November 19, 1986, the School Board suspended Cenal from her position, and sought her dismissal for excessive absenteeism for the school years 1975-76 through 1985-86. Cenal contests the School Board's action, and contends that she has a right to job protection under her contract of employment when on approved leave and that all her absences were duly approved. The proof is uncontroverted that during the school years 1975-76 through 1985-86 Cenal was absent from her employment for protracted periods of time, and that such absences impaired her effectiveness in the school system and deprived her pupils of a minimum educational experience. The proof is also uncontroverted that Cenal was repeatedly directed to improve her attendance, but failed to do so. Resolution of this case is, however, dependent on whether Cenal's absences were consistent with the terms of her contract of employment (approved). If consistent, she is entitled to employment protection, and the impact of her absences is not relevant. Article XIV of the contract between the School Board and the United Teachers of Dade, prescribes the leaves of absence available to teachers employed by the School Board, as well as the accrual and use of sick leave. If an employee's absence is in accordance with the provisions of this contract it is deemed approved, and their employment rights are protected. In the instant case Cenal avers that all her absences were approved. The School Board concedes that at no time was Cenal absent without approved leave and, notably, did not contest the propriety of a single absence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Magda R. Cenal, be reinstated with back pay, and all other benefits to which she is rightfully entitled. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of August, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 25th day of August, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-4804 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Addressed in paragraph 1. Not necessary to result reached. 3-6. Addressed in paragraph 2-4. 7-10. To the extent relevant, addressed in paragraph 2. Mr. Renuart's evaluation of Respondent during the 1978-79 school year and his recommendation that she be dismissed was not acted upon by the School Board. Other than her absence record, there is no competent proof that she suffered any deficiencies noted by Mr. Renuart in subsequent years. 11-17. Addressed in paragraphs 2-4. 18-19. Addressed in paragraph 2. 20-22. Not necessary to result reached. 23-24. Addressed in paragraph 2. 25. Not supported by competent proof. 26-32. Addressed in paragraph 2. 33. Not necessary to result reached. 34-37. To the extent relevant, addressed in paragraph 2. Addressed in paragraph 2. Addressed in paragraph 4. Addressed in paragraph 2. Not necessary to result reached. Also see paragraphs 1-4 of recommended order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: To the extent relevant, addressed in paragraph 1. Respondent's absenteeism is addressed in paragraph 2. The interrogatories filed in this case are not, however, probative since they were not introduced into evidence. Addressed in paragraph 2. Addressed in paragraph 4. Addressed in paragraph 3. Addressed in paragraph 2. Also see the address to petitioner's proposed findings of fact 7-10. COPIES FURNISHED: Johnny Brown, Esquire 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 301 Miami, Florida 33132 William DuFresne, Esquire 2929 Southwest Third Avenue Suite C Miami, Florida 33129 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 301 Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue Whether it was appropriate for Petitioner, Pinellas County School Board, to terminate the employment of Respondent, Curtis Brown, under Section 1012.34, Florida Statutes (2007), due to his failure to correct performance deficiencies after having been placed on Professional Services Contract Probation for 90 days, in violation of School Board Policy 8.25(1)(t); his "incompetence," in violation of School Board Policy 8.25(1)(u); his "insubordination," in violation of School Board Policy 8.25(1)(u); and his failure to comply with "School Board Policy, State Law or the Appropriate Contractual Agreement," in violation of School Board Policy 8.25(1)(x) and Section 1012.33, Florida Statutes (2007).
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner operates, controls, and supervises the public schools of Pinellas County, Florida. It has entered into individual and collective agreements with the teachers it employs and publishes policies that control the activities of its teaching professionals. Respondent is employed by Petitioner as a math teacher at Johns Hopkins Middle School and has a Professional Services Contract. Petitioner employs a formalized teacher evaluation process that assesses 25 teaching "expectations." These "expectations" are grouped in three related categories: Highest Student Achievement, Safe Learning Environment, and Effective and Efficient Operations. Each "expectation" receives one of four ratings: Exceeds Expectations, Meets Expectations, In Progress, and Not Evident. Assessments are made on specific and detailed indicia during observations, interviews, and review of data regarding student achievement. Depending on the number of indicia observed for each of the "expectations," a teacher receives a proficiency rating of Level 1 through 4, with Level 4 being the highest. Below a Level 1 is considered unsatisfactory. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory for school years 2006-07 and 2007-08. There are approximately 8,000 teachers in Pinellas County. Of the 8,000, 23 were rated unsatisfactory for the 2007-08 school year; only three were rated unsatisfactory for both 2006-07 and 2007-08. A state requirement of teacher appraisal includes student performance and learning gains for each student in a teacher's class. The Florida Comprehensive Achievement Test ("FCAT") is probably the most notorious student achievement data source in Florida. Unfortunately, the FCAT scores become available in July. Most annual teacher assessments are completed in April of each school year. However, there are other student achievement data sources that can be appropriately used in assessing student performance and learning gains. They include teacher-made pre- and post-tests, district developed assessments, student grades, and curriculum developed assessments. A teacher may offer any of these data sources during his or her evaluation. Because Respondent had received an unsatisfactory rating for the 2006-07 school year, administrators at his school and from the district office provided special attention and direction during the first months of the 2007-08 school year designed to help Respondent improve his teaching performance. The efforts of the administration were not successful. Respondent was placed on a 90-day probation period on January 14, 2008. He was advised of his unsatisfactory performance. At the same time, he received a revised "success plan" and a copy of Section 1012.34, Florida Statutes. Respondent received several formal observations and critiques during the probation period. Petitioner provided the requisite assistance, direction, and on-going assessment. During the 90-day probationary period, Respondent did not respond to specific corrective direction given him by administrators regarding a myriad of basic administrative details, teaching techniques, and methodology. Respondent's annual evaluation took place on April 24, 2008, after the conclusion of the 90-day probation. Even though requested, Respondent failed to provide any documentation of positive classroom results. Even though Respondent failed to present any evidence of positive classroom results, the evaluator (the school assistant principal) had monitored potential classroom progress through various data available to him. He failed to note any positive trend. Respondent received 19 "Not Evident" ratings in 25 "Expectations" and an unsatisfactory rating. Respondent's performance problems were increasing in spite of a concerted effort by the administration to correct the trend. In the 2005-06 school year, he received six "Not Evident" ratings; in 2006-07, 14 "Not Evident" ratings; and in 2007-2008, 19 "Not Evident" ratings. Over the several years contemplated by the testimony of school administrators who had supervisory authority over Respondent, he failed to teach the subject matter assigned, failed to complete lesson plans correctly and timely, failed to use a particular math teaching software program (River Deep) as required, failed to take attendance, and did not use the required grading software. In each instance he was encouraged and, then specifically directed, to comply with established policy regarding these areas of teaching responsibility; and yet, he failed to do so. Respondent's teaching record contains memos regarding the following: Two formal conferences regarding use of excessive force (12/6/02 and 10/29/03); A formal conference regarding growing number of parent concerns over penalizing students on academic work for behavioral problems and giving students F's for assignments that they couldn't complete due to lost work books (11/3/2004); A formal conference summary involving several issues including instructional methodology, leaving students unsupervised in class and leaving campus early (1/24/2005); Three reprimands for disparaging remarks made to or about students (1/19/05, 2/16/05, 4/02/07); A 15-day suspension for falling asleep in class and again leaving students unattended in class (7/12/2005); A formal conference summary for again leaving students unattended in the classroom and unsupervised outside of the classroom door (2/9/2007); and A formal conference summaries for missing a meeting and not turning in lesson plans and IPDP's (12/04/07, 1/29/08, 3/03/08).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Curtis Brown's, Professional Services Contract be terminated. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of January, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of January, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Julie M. Janssen Superintendent of Schools Pinellas County School Board 301 Fourth Street Southwest Largo, Florida 33770-2942 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Laurie A. Dart, Esquire Pinellas County Schools 301 Fourth Street Southwest Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 33779-2942 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761
The Issue The main issues in this case are whether, as the district school board alleges, a teacher has given the district just cause to terminate his employment contract for incompetency, and, alternatively, whether the teacher failed to correct performance deficiencies during a 90-day probationary period, which would constitute separate grounds for dismissal if proven true.
Findings Of Fact The Broward County School Board ("School Board"), Petitioner in this case, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Broward County Public School System. At all relevant times, Respondent Christopher Marshall ("Marshall") was employed as a math teacher in the Broward County school district, a position which he had held for some 15 years before this proceeding began. During that period, Marshall taught at a few different schools, the latest being McArthur High, where he worked for several years up to and including the 2013-14 school year. Marshall's teaching career, sad to say, has been mediocre. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that, at least as early as 2002, Marshall was identified by administrators and colleagues as a teacher of marginal ability. More than once over the years Marshall was placed on performance probation due to concerns about his unsatisfactory performance. Rather than terminate Marshall's employment, however, the district transferred Marshall from school to school, and somehow he managed to muddle through, doing enough to be rated "satisfactory" and avoid getting the sack. One of Marshall's defining characteristics has been the remarkably high percentages of Fs and Ds that his students consistently have earned, year in and year out. Frequently more than half of his students took home final grades lower than a C——and sometimes quite a bit more than 50 percent fell into this category. This was true across grade levels (Marshall taught grades nine through 12) and without regard to degrees of subject-matter difficulty (Marshall taught advanced as well as basic classes; he was not assigned only struggling students). It was not uncommon for Marshall to fail between one-quarter and one-third of his students. In the 2013-14 school year, for example, 31 percent of Marshall's Liberal Arts Math 2 students received a failing grade; 25 percent of his Math College Readiness students failed; and ten percent of his Algebra 2 students got Fs. This was consistent with a decade-long pattern. Needless to say, a teacher whose students in large numbers routinely get Ds or worse in his classes attracts attention from students, colleagues, parents, and administrators. In Marshall's case, students complained to other teachers——and to their parents. Parents, of course, complained to administrators and demanded that their children be placed in other classes. Often, to placate angry parents, Marshall's students were transferred, with the result that Marshall's classes were small, and other math teachers had to squeeze in additional students. Teachers complained about this. It must be acknowledged that poor grades are not necessarily a reflection of the teacher's ability or lack thereof. Certainly, as a general rule, each student bears substantial responsibility for his or her own grade, and no one should expect a teacher simply to hand out high marks that are unmerited and unearned. Sometimes, to be sure, an F or a D is as richly deserved as an A or a B. That said, the sheer persistence of Marshall's grade distribution under different conditions and through changing student populations implies that something other than resistance or indifference to learning, poor study habits, or lack of intellectual ability must be at work. The undersigned has combed the record for an explanation of his students' poor grades that might exonerate Marshall but can find none. There is no persuasive evidence, for example, that Marshall is a demanding teacher who sets the bar high for his students, administering tough but fair tests that are difficult for the unmotivated or unprepared to pass. To the contrary, Marshall had his students spend time on rote exercises, such as copying definitions and formulas from the textbook, which have little educational value. Nor did Marshall's students tend to excel in their next math classes. Rather, after being taught by Marshall, his students often had difficulty in their subsequent courses because they had not learned the prerequisite material. For years, administrators have tried to cajole or compel Marshall to reduce the number of students receiving Fs and Ds in his classes, not by the expedient of grade inflation, but by implementing different pedagogical techniques and strategies. Marshall, however, has ignored these importunings and directives, and nothing has changed. Marshall's apparent imperviousness to criticism has been an ongoing source of frustration to his colleagues and administrators. Marshall considers himself to be an "awesome" teacher, and therefore he concludes that anyone who has a different opinion——which unfortunately seems to be nearly everyone with whom he has worked——is either mistaken, lying, or treating him unfairly. This has led Marshall to file numerous grievances and complaints against his supervisors, none of which has been successful. He is not, however, confrontational, discourteous, or abusive in his workplace relationships. Rather, Marshall engages in passive-aggressive behavior. Faced with a demand or a directive, Marshall does not argue (although he might politely disagree); he simply does not comply. The greater weight of the evidence persuades the undersigned to find that the bad grades Marshall's students consistently have received are a symptom of Marshall's inability to teach. Although he knows his subject, Marshall lacks the skills necessary to impart his knowledge to his students, who consequently do not learn math in his classes. It is not that Marshall is deliberately trying not to succeed. He is not being insubordinate in this regard. He is simply not suited to the job of teaching high school math. In 2011, following a legislative directive then recently enacted, the school district adopted a teacher evaluation system known as the Broward Instructional Development and Growth Evaluation System ("BrIDGES"), which is based on Dr. Robert J. Marzano's strategies for educational effectiveness. When rating a teacher's classroom performance using BrIDGES, an evaluator inputs his or her observations into a database by filling out an electronic "iObservation" form. The iObservation tool contains 60 "elements," each of which represents a discrete strategy, action, or skill that a teacher might employ as appropriate: e.g., "Using Academic Games," "Identifying Critical Information," and "Displaying Objectivity and Control." The elements are organized under four separate "domains" as follows: Domain 1: Classroom Strategies and Behaviors (Elements 1-41) Domain 2: Planning and Preparing (Elements 42-49) Domain 3: Reflecting on Teaching (Elements 50-54) Domain 4: Collegiality and Professionalism (Elements 55-60). The 41 elements of Domain 1 are further subdivided into nine Design Questions, DQ1 through DQ9. On October 8, 2013, the school district and the Broward Teachers Union entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") setting forth their agreements regarding the use of BrIDGES to evaluate teachers for 2013-14. Pursuant to the MOU, each classroom teacher was to receive at least three observations, including one formal (30 or more minutes), one informal (15-25 minutes), and one snapshot or walkthrough (3-10 minutes) observation. During an observation, the subject teacher receives a "datamark" (prescribed number of points) for each element that the evaluator chooses to rate. For 2013-14, the datamarks were as follows: Innovating (Highly Effective), 4 points; Applying (Effective), 3 points; Developing (Effective), 2.5 points; Beginning (Needs Improvement), 2 points; and Not Using (Unsatisfactory), 1 point. Each teacher was to receive at least 45 datamarks, comprising at least 25 datamarks in Domain 1 and 10 within Domains 2, 3, and/or 4. A weighted average of the datamarks assigned to a teacher's performance as recorded on the iObservation forms became the teacher's Instructional Practice Score ("IPS"). The IPS was equal to 0.68X plus 0.32Y, where X was the average of the teacher's Domain 1 datamarks and Y was the average of the teacher's datamarks for Domains 2, 3, and 4 combined. The IPS was reported as a number having three decimal digits, to the thousandths place. This created a false precision, for the calculated result could not possibly have been more precise than the number having the least number of significant figures in the equation, which would always be a one-digit integer (unless the teacher happened to receive strait 2.5s——possible, but unlikely, and not the case here). In other words, the numbers to the right of the decimal point in the teacher's IPS were mathematically insignificant, spurious digits, because the original data could not support a measurement beyond the precision of one significant figure. The IPS should have been (but was not) rounded to a single-digit integer to avoid reporting insignificant digits. For 2013-14, the BrIDGES Overall Evaluation Score equaled the sum of the teacher's IPS (weighted as 49%), Deliberate Practice score (weighted as 1.0%), and Student Growth score (weighted as 50%). Teachers at McArthur High (including Marshall) for whom no individual student data were available automatically received a Student Growth score of 3.0 for that school year, and all teachers (including Marshall) who completed a self-assessment received a Deliberate Practice score of 3.0. The Overall Evaluation Scale for 2013-14 was Highly Effective (3.450-4.000), Effective (2.500-3.449), Needs Improvement (2.000-2.499), and Unsatisfactory (1.000-1.999). As of February 4, 2014, Marshall had received eight observations: three formals, three informals, and two walkthroughs. He had received 56 datamarks in Domain 1 and five datamarks in Domains 2, 3, and 4. His weighted IPS, to that date, was 2.145 (but this computed score was precise to no more than one significant figure and therefore should be understood as a 2 after rounding off the spurious digits), or Needs Improvement. Pursuant to the MOU, once a teacher receives an average IPS of Needs Improvement or Unsatisfactory among other conditions that Marshall had met as of February 4, 2014, a Performance Development Plan ("PDP") may be written for that teacher. Accordingly, in early February 2014, a PDP was written for Marshall. As well, on February 12, 2014, the principal of McArthur High placed Marshall on performance probation for 90 calendar days, delivering to Marshall a notice of "less than effective performance" ostensibly pursuant to section 1012.34(4), Florida Statutes. The statute, however, authorizes 90-day performance probation only for a teacher whose performance is unsatisfactory, and Marshall's performance was not unsatisfactory; it was Needs Improvement. Needs Improvement is, to be sure, less than Effective performance, but it is better than Unsatisfactory. Indeed, none of the levels of performance besides Unsatisfactory denotes unsatisfactory performance and thus, logically, all teachers rated Highly Effective, Effective, or Needs Improvement fall within the range of satisfactory performance. In any event, between February 28 and May 7, 2014, Marshall received 12 more observations, which added 75 datamarks to his total in Domain 1 (making 131 in all) and six additional datamarks in Domains 2, 3, and 4 (for a grand total of 11). The iObservation forms for Marshall's last six observations, incidentally, are not in evidence. As of May 7, 2014, Marshall's IPS was 1.963. This number, by itself, would be Unsatisfactory on the Overall Evaluation Scale. Given, however, that the initial numerical data was captured (mostly) in single-digit integers, together with a handful of 2.5s, the decimal places are spurious in this result; there is no meaningful distinction between "1.963" (which is a textbook example of false precision) and "2" (which is what 1.963 should be rounded up to, to avoid the fallacy of overprecision). Thus, if the insignificant figures are ignored, Marshall's IPS, by itself, is actually Needs Improvement. But more important, Marshall's IPS was not his Overall Evaluation Score, and therefore it is improper and unfair to deem his performance Unsatisfactory on the Overall Performance Scale based on an IPS of 1.963 as the School Board wants to do. Marshall's Overall Evaluation Score, as calculated by the School Board, was 2.492 — Needs Improvement.1/ Again, Needs Improvement is less than Effective and clearly not ideal, but it is not Unsatisfactory. To the contrary, Needs Improvement is one of the levels of satisfactory performance. Going a step farther, if Marshall's IPS were rounded to 2, as it should be to eliminate the false precision, and his Overall Evaluation Score recalculated absent the spurious decimals, then his final score would be 2.51, which in turn should be rounded to 3 to avoid overprecision, but which equals Effective performance regardless. The point is, based on a final score of 2.492, Marshall's overall performance can as correctly be deemed Effective as Needs Improvement, for there is no real difference between 2.492 and 3 based on the original data used to make these calculations.2/ (To repeat for emphasis, computations cannot make the original data more precise.3/) Determinations of Ultimate Fact The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Marshall is guilty of the offense of misconduct in office, which is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056(2).4/ The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Marshall is guilty of incompetency,5/ which is just cause for dismissal from employment. A preponderance of the evidence establishes that Marshall's performance as measured in accordance with the BrIDGES evaluation system was not Unsatisfactory during the 2013-14 school year. Therefore, the evidence does not support the termination of Marshall's employment contract pursuant to section 1012.34(4). The evidence does not support a determination that Marshall independently violated section 1012.53, apart from his incompetency, which affords a sufficient basis (as "just cause") for dismissal. The evidence does not support a determination that Marshall independently violated School Board Rule 4008(B), apart from his incompetency, which affords a sufficient basis (as "just cause") for dismissal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order dismissing Marshall from his employment as a teacher in the Broward County Public Schools for the just cause of incompetency as a result of inefficiency. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of March, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of March, 2016.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Lake County School Board Policy 2.71 as described in letters from the Lake County Superintendent of Schools dated January 2, 2007, and January 7, 2007, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The School Board of Lake County is the corporate body politic responsible for the administration of schools within the Lake County School District. At all times material to this proceeding, Paul Ogles was employed as an English/speech teacher at the Curtright Center of Eustis High School in the Lake County School District. Mr. Ogles, a Caucasian male, has been employed as a teacher for the District for nine years. At all times material to this proceeding, Ms. Bernetta McNealy, an African-American woman, was employed as a teacher at the Curtright Center of Eustis High School. Ms. McNealy's classroom is adjacent to Mr. Ogles' classroom. During the 2005-2006 school year, Ms. Tess Rogers was an assistant principal at Eustis High School and one of Mr. Ogles' supervisors. Mr. Michael Elchenko was Principal at Eustis High School during this time, and Ms. Rebecca Nelsen was the Director of Compensation and Employee Relations for Lake County School District. Mr. Ogles' first teaching position was as a teaching assistant with Project Outward Bound at Morris Brown College, a historically black college in Atlanta, where he prepared high school students for college. Mr. Ogles returned to teaching twenty years later after running his own textbook company. Mr. Ogles has received excellent evaluations during his employment by the Lake County School District. Once a teacher receives a rating or twelve (the highest rating possible) for two consecutive years, the educator may choose to participate in a PG-13 Appraisal of Professional Growth/Career Development instead of receiving the normal educator evaluation. Mr. Ogles qualified for this type of evaluation and successfully participated in the PG-13 appraisal process for several years. Mr. Ogles has sponsored or assisted with many school organizations such as the Beta Club; the Chess Club; the Key Club; the High Q Club; and the Speech and Debate Club. He used personal funds to support the students' activities, including paying $300.00 to rent a bus so students could attend a competition. Mr. Ogles was one of two Team Leaders on campus and in that capacity worked with the assistant principal to try to upgrade the quality of the school and to increase interaction between students and teachers. He also volunteered for bus duty before and after school. While performing bus duty, it was often Mr. Ogles' responsibility to enforce the school's dress code as students arrived on campus. Eustis High School has a policy of prohibiting students from wearing clothing with symbols or messages that may be considered disruptive to the learning environment. Students are not necessarily disciplined for wearing such clothing, but are requested to remove the offensive clothing, turn it inside out so as to hide the offensive message, put other clothing on over it or call home to have alternate clothing provided. The Confederate flag is one such symbol that is not allowed to be displayed on clothing worn to school. Dixie Outfitters is a line of clothing that sometimes bears the Confederate flag. Mr. Ogles was aware that the school policy forbade the wearing of the Confederate flag and he often was involved in enforcing the policy against students wearing the symbol. On or about May 19, 2006, Mr. Ogles was using his computer to search for project ideas for the following year while his students were taking a test. He was looking at a website called www.cagle.com, a political website from which he has gotten cartoons in the past. Several cartoons from this website are posted in his classroom, and there was no evidence presented to indicate that anyone had ever complained about their display. While viewing the website, he saw a cartoon that depicted a Confederate flag. However, instead of the traditional "stars and bars," the cartoon showed black arms crossed, with stars imprinted on them. The hands were extended beyond the flag, with the wrists shackled. The cartoon was originally published in approximately 2000, as a means of protesting the consideration by several southern states to display the Confederate flag at state buildings. When Mr. Ogles first saw the cartoon, he thought that it was "strong art" depicting the Confederate flag as a symbol of racism. In between classes, he showed the cartoon to Ms. McNealy. He asked her if she was familiar with students wearing Dixie Outfitters clothing. She indicated she was not. He stated that perhaps this cartoon could be placed on a new line of clothing for black students to wear in response to the "heritage" argument white students used to defend the wearing of the Confederate flag. The conversation was very short, as the bell was ringing for the next class to begin. Ms. McNealy did not respond to Mr. Ogles or give him any indication that she was offended or bothered in any way. There is also no evidence that she ever discussed her feelings about the cartoon with Mr. Ogles at any later time. Mr. Ogles testified, and his testimony is credited, that he believed that because the cartoon advocated a position against the display of the Confederate flag, that it would support what he believed to be Ms. McNealy's position on this issue. It is his view that African-Americans have as much ownership of the Confederate flag as anyone else, and should be able to use the image to express their views. While Ms. McNealy did not tell Mr. Ogles that she was offended by the cartoon, she did make her feelings known to Ms. Rogers, the assistant principal and Michael Rivers, a guidance counselor at the Curtwright Center, almost immediately. Ms. Rogers is Caucasian and Mr. Rivers is African-American. Both found the cartoon to be offensive. After speaking with Ms. Rogers and Mr. Rivers, Ms. McNealy left campus for the day. About an hour after he showed Ms. McNealy the cartoon, he was asked to come to the office and was informed by Ms. Rogers and Mr. Jones, another administrator, that Ms. McNealy was upset about the cartoon and had left campus. Mr. Ogles did not realize that Ms. McNealy would be offended by the cartoon and had he realized she would be offended, he would not have shown it to her. On May 22, 2006, Mr. Elchenko, the Principal of Eustis High School received a written complaint from Ms. McNealy about Mr. Ogles' showing her the cartoon.1/ Mr. Elchenko determined Mr. Ogles' conduct to be unprofessional and issued a Professional/Personal Action Report Relating to Work Experience (Appraisal II form) and Prescription/Assistance Form to Mr. Ogles. Both documents directed him to stop giving materials to co-workers that could be considered offensive. Mr. Ogles has complied with these directives. After Mr. Elchenko completed his investigation, Mr. Elchenko reported the allegations to the School Board's District office because he believed the allegations in Ms. McNealy's complaint rose to the level of racial harassment. Rebecca Nelsen conducted an investigation on behalf of the School District. Mr. Ogles was reassigned from his teaching position at Eustis High School to the County Copy Center by letter dated July 17, 2006, and remains in that placement today. Ms. Nelsen determined that Mr. Ogles' conduct created an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment on the basis of race, which is prohibited by School Board policy. Ms. Nelsen recommended to the Superintendent that Mr. Ogles' employment be terminated. A separate investigation was conducted for the School Board by a private entity called the Robert Lewis Group. The findings and recommendations of that investigation are not part of this record. By letter from the Superintendent dated January 2, 2007, Mr. Ogles was suspended without pay for the period from January 8, 2007 through January 12, 2007, and was directed to receive cultural sensitivity training for violating School Policy 2.71. There is no evidence submitted to indicate that the Superintendent's decision was approved or ratified by the Lake County School Board. Mr. Ogles served his period of suspension and successfully completed cultural diversity training. Before this incident, Mr. Ogles had never been accused of making any appropriate racial remarks and was not considered to be a racist individual. He had expressed the view that racism should hold no place in education. His principal did not question his competence as an educator.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing the charges against Respondent, and rescinding all discipline previously imposed. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 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 June, 2007.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession, specifically Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a) and 6B-1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him pursuant to Section 231.2615(1)(i), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The evidence presented at final hearing established the facts that follow. Chavero holds a Florida Educator's Certificate that is currently valid. Chavero was employed as a public school teacher in the Dade County School District at all times pertinent to this proceeding. In the 1999-2000 school year, Chavero taught English and math at Braddock. All of his students were enrolled in an Alternative Education Program known as the STARS Program. The STARS Program is offered as a last resort to students who, because of bad behavior, poor grades, or other problems, need extra assistance and attention to remain in school. If a student in the STARS Program fails to perform satisfactorily, he or she may be expelled. Chavero believed that student misconduct and a general lack of discipline at Braddock (and other schools) were preventing pupils from learning and teachers from teaching. Consistent with his pedagogic philosophy, Chavero aspired to teach his students not only the content of a course but also such social skills as proper behavior, dress, and manners. Braddock's Principal, Dr. Donald Hoecherl, disagreed with Chavero's view that behavior and social skills should be taught in the classroom. Principal Hoecherl told Chavero not to teach his students how to conduct themselves in socially acceptable ways. Apparently, the principal's admonition reflected the administration's sensitivity to the perceived "low self-esteem" of students in the STARS Program. Chavero was expected to be flexible and to refrain from confronting students or "coming on too strong" with them. This type of teaching was completely out of character for Chavero. Predictably, he was not able to abandon the authoritarian style that suited his personality and beliefs. As a result, Chavero developed a reputation as a strict disciplinarian — but "nothing out of the ordinary," in the words of V. D., a former student who testified against him at hearing. Transcript ("T-") 49. Indeed, according to this same student, Chavero's classroom rules were "pretty much the same" as other teachers'. T-49. Students began to complain, however, that Chavero was making too frequent use of a form of punishment called an “exclusion.” An exclusion is a temporary in-school suspension that the teacher may impose when a student is disrupting the class. Upon being excluded, the misbehaving student must leave the classroom and spend the remainder of the period in detention at another location. Assistant Principal Jane Garraux investigated the student complaints and concluded that Chavero’s use of the exclusion was excessive. She also determined that most of Chavero’s students (as many as 70 percent) were failing his classes. By comparison, other teachers in the STARS Program were giving passing grades to between 80 and 95 percent of their students. Following her investigation, the assistant principal initiated an evaluation of Chavero in November 1999 that led to the identification of performance deficiencies in the area of classroom control. He was placed on a 90-day performance probation and, as a result, needed to correct the identified deficiencies within that period or face termination of employment. See Section 231.29(3)(d), Florida Statutes. While on performance probation, Chavero was observed and evaluated several times. In the opinion of his assessors, Chavero’s performance continued to be unsatisfactory. In February 2000, he resigned. 2/ The Commissioner sought to prove that, in the months leading to his resignation, Chavero: (a) refused, on occasion, to answer students’ questions about lessons and assignments; (b) used the exclusion tool excessively, in relation to other teachers in the STARS Program; (c) demanded more from his students in terms of academic performance and classroom decorum than his colleagues were requiring; and (d) became angry and raised his voice in class at times. This is not a proceeding to terminate Chavero’s employment, however, and poor performance does not constitute a basis for discipline under Section 231.2615, Florida Statutes — not, at least, without more than has been shown here. 3/ Therefore, even if all the general deficiencies in Chavero’s performance that the Commissioner attempted to prove at hearing were found to have existed, none amounts to a violation either of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) or of Rule 6B- 1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code. There were, however, two specific occasions on which Chavero allegedly lost his temper and threatened the physical safety of a student or students. Together, these particular instances are the heart of the Commissioner’s case against Chavero and therefore require closer scrutiny. The First Period Incident On January 27, 2000, Chavero gave his first period class a mid-term examination. Near the end of the period, Chavero allowed the students who had completed the test to talk quietly, provided they would not bother the few who were still working. V. D. and J. A., who were sitting together in the back of the room, began conversing with one another. The class soon began to get loud, and Chavero told the students to be quiet. He held up V. D. and J. A. as an example of how he would like the class to behave, saying: "Why can't you guys whisper like J. A. and V. D." The class momentarily calmed down but quickly became noisy again. Chavero began to get angry. He told the students to lower their voices. V. D. continued to talk, and Chavero yelled at her to be quiet. Instead of obeying, V. D. denied that she had been talking loudly, which caused Chavero to yell at her some more. V. D. asked Chavero not to scream at her; he did not stop. At some point during this exchange, V. D. said to Chavero: “What the f*** is your problem?” Enraged, Chavero slammed his fist on a desk and moved quickly toward V. D. Some students, including V. D. and J. A., recall that as Chavero approached V. D., he raised his open hand, palm facing forward, as if to strike her. A number of other students, however, in written statements prepared on January 27, 2000, made no mention of the teacher’s raised hand. For his part, Chavero adamantly denied having raised his hand against V. D. V. D.’s immediate reaction suggests that she was not intimidated or frightened by Chavero’s rapid approach, regardless where his hand was. V. D. testified that she “lost [her] temper,” “got up and . . . exchanged a few words” with Chavero. T-55. More important, it is undisputed that Chavero did not touch V. D. Rather, he returned to his desk at the front of the class to write a “referral” — that is, a written account of V. D.’s misconduct that would be provided to the assistant principal for further handling. V. D. gathered her belongings and left the room. The Commissioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Chavero intended either to hit V. D. or to cause her unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement; that V. D. suffered any physical or emotional injury or felt embarrassed or degraded; or that V. D. was in danger of likely being harmed in Chavero’s classroom on January 27, 2000. As a result, it cannot be said without hesitancy that the conditions in Chavero's classroom that day were harmful to learning or to a student's mental or physical health or safety. The Third Period Incident R. G. was a student in Chavero’s third period math class. R. G.’s academic performance was extremely poor, and he frequently was excluded for bad behavior. He was defiant and aggressive, openly challenged Chavero’s authority, and, on at least one occasion, threw staples at the teacher. One day — the precise date of this event is not clear, but it apparently occured after January 27, 2000 — R. G. was in Chavero’s class, sitting in the back, not doing his assignment. Because R. G. was refusing to do his schoolwork, Chavero wrote a referral to send him to the assistant principal. R. G. testified that before Chavero wrote the referral, he had insulted R. G. by saying that his (R. G.’s) mother was raising an animal. However, another of Chavero’s former students named F. V., who witnessed this particular incident and testified at hearing on the Commissioner’s behalf, did not hear Chavero make this remark to R. G. Indeed, F. V. testified that he had never heard Chavero make rude or disrespectful comments to his students, nor had he observed Chavero become angry with the class. Chavero denied having insulted R. G., and the evidence supports his denial. After Chavero had filled out the referral, R. G. rose from his seat and approached Chavero’s desk. R. G. reached out to snatch the referral from Chavero’s hand in a manner that, according to F. V., was apparently intended “just to . . . annoy” Chavero. T-93. Specifically, as R. G. grabbed for the referral, he made a feint toward Chavero’s grade book. As F. V. explained, it was well known that Chavero “didn’t like it when people touched [his] grade book.” T-93. In the process, R. G. may have hit Chavero’s hand, although he denied having done so. Reacting to R. G.’s provocative act, Chavero slapped R. G.’s hand away. R. G. was neither injured nor embarrassed by this. Rather, he became angry and began yelling and cursing at Chavero, insulting him. Both R. G. and F. V. recalled that Chavero then said to R. G., “Oh, hit me if you’re a man,” or words to that effect. Chavero, however, testified that his exact statement to R. G. was: “[I]f you try to be physical you’ll get in trouble.” T-124. Chavero was the most credible witness of the three. After Chavero warned R. G. not to become physical, R. G. left the classroom. The Commissioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Chavero intended either to harm R. G. or to cause him unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement; that R. G. suffered any physical or emotional injury or felt embarrassed or degraded; or that R. G. was in danger of likely being hurt in Chavero’s classroom on the day of the third period incident. To the contrary, it appears that R. G.’s aggressive and provocative behavior may have threatened Chavero’s physical safety. Consequently, it cannot be said without hesitancy that the conditions in Chavero's classroom that day were harmful to learning or to a student's mental or physical health or safety.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent Armando M. Chavero. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of February, 2001.
