The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent is guilty of violating section 1012.795(1)(c) and (g), Florida Statutes (2010), as charged in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator Certificate 806958, covering the areas of elementary education and primary education, which is valid through June 30, 2015. Respondent holds a bachelor’s degree in mass communications, a master’s degree in early education, and a post- graduate degree in early Montessori education. At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as a teacher at Hyde Park Elementary School (Hyde Park) and Gregory Drive Elementary School (Gregory Drive) in the Duval County School District (DCSD). Respondent received performance evaluations that her supervisors characterized as unsatisfactory for the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years. For the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent taught first grade at Hyde Park. She had taught at Hyde Park since the 2008- 2009 school year. Her evaluations both at Hyde Park and John Ford Elementary prior to the 2009-2010 school year all reflect satisfactory, high performing, or outstanding ratings on individual rating criteria. For each year where an evaluation was included in Respondent’s Exhibit 8, the overall rating was satisfactory. The principal at Hyde Park for the 2009-2010 school year was Angela Kasper. The 2009-2010 school year was Ms. Kasper’s first year as principal of Hyde Park, although she had been a principal at another school previously. When Ms. Kasper came to Hyde Park, the school was considered an “A” school. It is now a “D” school. Hyde Park is in an area of town known for gang violence and declining neighborhoods. Ms. Kasper was responsible for evaluating Respondent. She performed multiple classroom observations, including observations on September 23, 2009; January 19, 2010; and February 26, 2010. The assistant principal, Ronrica Troy, also performed an observation on March 19, 2010. A Teacher Assessment Instrument (TAI) is used to record the results of an observation and must be discussed with the teacher following the observation. The TAI lists Competencies A-I, with varying numbers of “indicators” under each competency. The evaluator checks those competencies that are demonstrated during an observation, and on the second page of the document, circles those competencies that have not been demonstrated sufficiently. However, there is no standard as to how many items needed to be checked in order for a teacher’s performance to be considered satisfactory. Regardless of the number checked, the ultimate determination of sufficiency was within the discretion of the rating principal. Not all competencies can be demonstrated during the observation itself. The Teacher Assessment Manuals for both the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 years recognize this fact. Both say: The TAI is also designed to measure and document possession of important skills and professional behaviors that may not be readily observable in the classroom setting. The instrument is designed to facilitate assessment of classroom performance and other teacher characteristics, which are linked to effective student instruction. The instructions to supervisors recognize this TAI feature. For each year at issue, the instructions to principals/supervisors included the following: Conduct the observation using the TAI. All competency indicators that are observed during this observation will be checked on the TAI. Complete the TAI for all competencies/indicators not completed during the classroom observation. After the instrument has been completed, review and rate the data, and prepare the report to share with the employee. The TAI for the September 23, 2009, observation indicated that all competencies are satisfactory except (A) promote student growth and performance; (B) evaluate instructional needs of students; (C) plan and deliver effective instruction; (D) show knowledge of subject matter; and (E) utilize appropriate classroom management techniques, including the ability to maintain appropriate discipline. On September 28, 2009, Ms. Kasper issued Respondent a Notice of Potential Unsatisfactory Performance advising her that she must improve in the following areas or she would receive an unsatisfactory evaluation for the school year: (A) promote student growth and performance; (B) evaluate instructional needs of students; (C) plan and deliver effective instruction; (D) show knowledge of subject matter; and (E) utilize appropriate classroom management techniques, including the ability to maintain appropriate discipline. On or about October 26, 2009, a Success Plan was created and a Success Plan Team was established for Respondent. The Success Plan team (consisting of Ms. Kasper, Assistant Principal Ronrica Troy, and Iris Burton) met with Ms. Burney on October 26, 2009; November 17, 2009; November 23, 2009; January 22, 2010; and March 17, 2010. Several strategies for improvement were included in the Success Plan. Tasks (referenced as “strategies”) included in the Success Plan were as follows: Competency A: Promote Student Growth and Performance Develop lesson plans for all content areas that demonstrate differentiated instructional practices based on student needs as determined by the principal. Plans must be current, available at all times, connected and reflect strategies that are based on Sunshine State Standards and the DCPS-Learning Schedule Maintain Data Notebook with evidence of on-going usage for lesson development and tracking/disaggregating for individual student progress Implement, with a mentor, a breakdown of grading criteria with a variety of components (ex: classwork, homework, participation, projects, tests) Provide evidence that grading is accurate and based on a sufficient number and variety of learning tasks Competency B: Evaluates Instructional Needs of Students: Create, maintain and keep current student portfolios that include multiple sources of student work that document student progress toward the standard as determined by the Principal. Assessments/data will be organized in Data Notebook and accessible during instructional time and utilized to drive lesson development (Collected data should include current: Reading, Math and Science Monitoring Forms, PMP, Safety Net tracking, DRA2, FAIR reports, running records, Scrimmage reports, emergent reader checklist, writing profiles, and Data from Riverdeep Destinations Reading/Math) Communicate individual progress with students through parent conferences with feedback from mentor. Consistently modify instruction based on assessed student performance as determined by the principal. Competency C: Plans and Delivers Effective Instruction Utilize guided questions in the delivery of instruction for all content areas to focus learning expectations, higher level thinking and understanding – questions will be highlighted in lesson plans and posted during delivery of specific content area subject matter. Read America’s Choice, “Independent Reading, Phonemic Awareness and Phonics, Writing Planning Mini-Lessons, & Conferencing/Revising Monographs Series” as a review on how to effectively deliver the workshop models in all content areas and meet with principal to discuss findings. The lesson plans will always include beginning/ending review, clearly defined learning task, specific learning expectations, corrective feedback and clarification (The Workshop Model) and the use of the Learning Schedule. The lesson presentation will demonstrate the appropriate choice of learning activities, strategies and developmentally appropriate assignments/materials that are used as they relate to student’s needs. Observe mentor and other grade level teachers in the workshop model. Consistently implement strategies learned from them. Competency D: Shows Outstanding Knowledge of Subject Matter: Read Professional books/articles readings to become more familiar with best practices (ex: planning, effective instructional delivery, differential instruction, or the workshop model (ex: Harry Wong, or Diane Heacox) Use feedback from announced and unannounced visits using various feedback forms such as TAI, FPMS, Look-Fors, and Classroom Walkthrough instruments to modify and adjust delivery if needed. Participate in Guided Reading and Differentiated Instruction workshops, and create a Classroom Instruction Plan on how you will implement what was learned. Use content area Look-For while reviewing videotaped/audiotape lessons of yourself (content area to be determined) and meet with Principal to discuss your findings. Competency E: Utilizes Appropriate Classroom Management Techniques: Develop Classroom Management Plan that addresses appropriate behavior and submit classroom management plan to Principal and make adjustments based on feedback Review list of interventions from, The Teacher’s Encyclopedia of Behavior Management by Randy Sprick, to apply age appropriate behavior management strategies for the management of student (positive and negative) behavior. Submit list to principal and make adjustments based on feedback, upon approval interventions should consistently be used in the management of student behavior. Develop, post, and follow daily class schedule to assist in effectively keeping students on task, stopping misconduct, using instructional time effectively, and maintaining instructional momentum. Demonstrate consistent and effective classroom management techniques as measured by TAI, announced and unannounced Classroom Walk-Throughs, and FPMS Behavior Management Domain 2.0 as determined by the principal. Consistently maintain a neat, clean, and organized classroom. Note: Classroom appearance and organization will be monitored during Formal, Informal observations and Classroom Walk-Throughs. Develop and implement CHAMPS activity/transition protocol with mentor. Observe mentor and other teacher’s rituals and routines. Consistently implement per Principal’s satisfaction. Ms. Burney cooperated fully with the Success Plan process. Out of this somewhat daunting list of strategies, there were only two that Ms. Kasper indicated were not completed: under Competency B, the requirement to “create, maintain and keep current student portfolios that include multiple sources of student work that document student progress toward the standard as determined by the principal”;1/ and under Competency C, “to consistently modify instruction based on assessed student performance as determined by the principal.” Ms. Kasper stated that she did not see student portfolios during a subsequent observation, but gave no real explanation for her conclusion regarding the second area achieved. As an overall result, at the conclusion of the Success Plan, it is indicated that the plan has been successfully completed but that the competencies have not been successfully demonstrated. During the Success Plan process, Ms. Kasper testified that she communicated with Ms. Burney about her progress and how she could improve. However, the nature of the communication is somewhat suspect. For example, Ms. Kasper verbally reprimanded Ms. Burney for failing to have her lesson plans on her desk at all times. In December, Ms. Burney had an extended absence due to illness and was out of school from approximately December 1 through December 11. On December 11, 2009, Ms. Kasper issued a formal letter of reprimand to Ms. Burney, stating: On October 2, 2009, I verbally reprimanded you for reporting to work unprepared to teach your students. Lesson plans were to be on your desk at all times and you were to have emergency plans with the bookkeeper. To review the events as of today, December 7, 2009, you have not provided emergency plans to the bookkeeper and lesson plans were not available today when a substitute was called in for you at the last minute. Later in the morning the bookkeeper checked her email and you did send in plans but it was too late to get them to the substitute. She had other duties that kept her away from checking her email . . . . Your failure to leave adequate lesson plans for substitute personnel is neglect of your professional responsibilities as a classroom teacher and will not be tolerated. Your first responsibility is to your students and their education. If you find yourself incapable of currently meeting this responsibility for whatever reason I would encourage you to consider taking a personal leave until matters in your personal life are resolved to the extent that they no longer interfere with your teaching responsibilities . . . . Respondent responded to the reprimand, stating: I respectfully rebut the letter of December 11, 2009 from Angela Kasper, Principal. The Step II of the Progressive Discipline Plan states “Unprepared for Students.” I unequivocally state that I met my professional responsibilities and commitments as an educator during my absence of 12/1 to 12/11. The dates and occurrences of unpreparedness that are outlined in the disciplinary letter can be refuted by my attainment of the Kelly Services call logs, my lesson plans, and emails. According to my grade level chairperson, the only occasion when the lesson plans were not available was when the Duval County School Board computers were down for the morning. The lesson plans had been sent by email the previous evening. At no time, was my grade level team responsible for providing substitute plans. Admittedly, as Mrs. Kasper stated in her letter, my lesson plans were not prepared one week in advance. However, the first week of my absence, against doctor’s advice, I went before school to set up the activities, tab the teacher editions, and provide detailed lesson plans and schedule. After the first week, all lesson plans were written and emailed the night before in preparation for the substitute. Ms. Kasper admitted at hearing that she never checked the Kelly Service call logs, did not look at the lesson plan sent to the bookkeeper, and did not recall if the school board computers were down that morning. She did not check to verify whether the computers had gone down, and acknowledged that they sometimes do. Despite this, she used the reprimand in preparing Respondent’s evaluation. On January 19, 2010, Ms. Kasper conducted a second formal evaluation. As a result of this observation, Ms. Kasper felt that Ms. Burney still needed improvement in Competencies A, B, C, and D. Ms. Burney provided a post-observation reflection in which she acknowledged that she was also disappointed in the lesson, stating in part that the directions she gave the students were inadequate, and that students who were “pulled” from the lesson for reading support left other students without partners and caused further confusion. Respondent indicated that she retaught the lesson with much improved results. Ms. Kasper, however, did not see the lesson as retaught. A third observation was conducted on February 26, 2010. For this observation, Ms. Kasper was concerned that the lesson taught was not on the learning schedule for that time period. However, the learning schedule was not provided and she did not indicate when the lesson should have been taught. Nor does it appear that she raised this issue with Ms. Burney during the pre- observation conference. Ms. Burney’s pre-observation notes indicated that she was teaching the lesson based on classroom activities focusing on everyday problems and the solutions the children were offering. Ms. Kasper did not explain why teaching the lesson was inappropriate if the teacher felt the students would benefit. Ms. Kasper felt that Respondent was improving in Competency C, but not enough to be successful. Finally, on March 19, 2010, Ms. Troy conducted an observation in Respondent’s classroom. Ms. Kasper asked her to do so in order to get a different viewpoint. Ms. Troy found Competencies A, B, and C to be deficient. There were some inconsistencies between Ms. Troy’s assessment of Respondent regarding her available documentation and the determination in the Success Plan that Respondent had completed the documentation within days of the observation. For example, the Success Plan indicated that Respondent had achieved almost all of the indicators in Competency A within five days of the evaluation, whereas Ms. Troy indicated that she saw none of them. The same can be said with respect to the data notebook and other indicators under Competency B. Ms. Kasper acknowledged that she did not talk to Ms. Troy about the documentation examined for the Success Plan, and also acknowledged that many of the things identified on the TAI are not observable based on looking at a teacher teaching in the classroom. Instead, consistent with the Teacher Assessment Manual, they have to be checked off after reviewing the materials maintained by the teacher. For example, whether a teacher is interpreting data or using it for individual diagnoses, or plans instruction based on diagnosed student needs, cannot be determined simply by observing the teacher. Student data would have to be examined. Ms. Kasper also admitted at hearing that for much of her testimony she was simply reading her notes and that her memory of events was not entirely clear. Further, and more importantly, she acknowledged that some of her notes and comments regarding Ms. Burney’s observations were more reflective of Ms. Kasper’s personal preferences about the way things should be done, such as writing center names on the board rather than in a chart; having lesson plans on the desk instead of behind or in the desk; and having book bags on the back of student chairs, as opposed to somewhere else. Some of her preferences were what she viewed as “best practices.” “Best practices” are not part of any stated rules or standards. As a result, it is difficult to know how much of her evaluation of Ms. Burney was a result of her personal preferences as opposed to any district expectation. On or about March 26, 2010, Ms. Kasper prepared an evaluation of professional growth for the 2009-2010 school year, which reflected an overall unsatisfactory rating. The evaluation indicated a satisfactory score in Competencies E through I; a needs improvement for Competencies A and D, and an unsatisfactory in Competencies B and C. The unsatisfactory scores resulted in negative points (two each), which resulted in an overall evaluation score of -4.00. In accordance with the Teacher Assessment Instrument used by the DCSD, this score resulted in an unsatisfactory evaluation. At the time of Respondent’s evaluation, results from the FCAT had not been received. Petitioner did not present evidence regarding what, if any advancement the students in Ms. Burney’s class made during the year they were in her class. Teachers who receive an unsatisfactory evaluation have the option to remain at the school where they received the evaluation or to transfer to another school. Respondent opted to transfer to another school, and was transferred to Gregory Drive Elementary School for the 2010-2011 school year to teach kindergarten. Andrea Williams-Scott is the principal at Gregory Drive. She has been with the DCSD for 18 years, and is in her sixth year as principal at Gregory Drive. At the time Respondent came to the school, Ms. Williams-Scott was in her third year as principal. Ms. Williams-Scott knew when Ms. Burney came to Gregory Drive that she transferred based upon a prior unsatisfactory evaluation. She reviewed the prior Success Plan but did not review the evaluations from the previous year. Instead, she met with Ms. Burney at the beginning of the year, and told her that she would conduct an observation within the first 30 days she was there, and they would go from there. Ms. Williams-Scott conducted a formal observation on September 17, 2010. She did not see any indicators for Competencies A and B; thought the mini lesson was too long; and that the picture used for a picture walk was too small for the children to see. The essential question for the lesson was posted, but not really reviewed with the children. However, Ms. Burney did a good job of explaining content to the children, and one child was able to restate the concepts perfectly. While Ms. Burney used CHAMPS, the district-wide class management model, Ms. Williams-Scott felt the classroom management was inconsistent. As a result of the observation, Ms. Williams-Scott found that Ms. Burney needed improvement in Competencies A-E. A Success Plan was created for Respondent for the 2010- 2011 school year on or about October 1, 2010. Initially, Respondent appeared reluctant to participate in the Success Plan, but was more responsive as the year progressed. Once again, the Success Plan strategies are extensive. They include: Competency A: Promotes Student Growth: Establish classroom Safety Nets for children in the academic area of reading, math, and writing Monitor and track students’ progress in meeting kindergarten standards for all subject areas Create and maintain a data notebook that shows evidence that there is continuous use of data to develop and implement lessons that will insure student growth. Notebook needs to be in place by October 22, 2010. Data in notebook should be dated and include data gathered from DRAs, running records, guided reading, FAIR, Destinations Success for reading and math, EnVisions/Math Investigations assessments, conferencing note, anecdotal notes and PMP’s. Implement and maintain an accurate grade book including a breakdown of grading criteria with a variety of components and the next steps for student instruction beginning on October 22, 2010. Competency B: Evaluates Instructional Needs of Students Create and use rubrics for formal and informal assessments to track students’ progress and assist in developing personal plans for re-teaching and mastery. This data will be reviewed monthly at each monitoring meeting. Match assessments to curriculum and standards as evidenced in lesson plans that you will create with mentor (reading) and Math Coach (math). Lesson plans (including differentiation for student needs, guided reading and guided math) are due to Mrs. Williams-Scott via email each Monday by 7:50 a.m. Create and maintain student portfolios with a variety of up-to-date student work that documents student progress towards meeting the standard as determined by the principal. Competency C: Plans and Delivers Effective Instruction Review content/performance standards, curricula expectations with mentor and math coach. Observe mentor/Math Coach conduct a lesson in your classroom. Debrief with the mentor/coach after the lesson(s) have been taught. Employ all strategies discussed in debriefing in daily instruction of students. Participate in the planning of all lessons modeled in your classroom. Co-teach lessons with mentor/math coach. Debrief with the mentor/coach after the lesson. Employ all strategies discussed in debriefing in daily instruction of students. Participate in the planning of all lessons modeled in your classroom. List and review with students essential questions for subjects taught with class daily. Write lesson plans that follow the workshop model. The components that the lesson plan should include are: Sunshine State Standard(s), essential question, mini-lesson, work-time, closing. The presentation of the content in a lesson will demonstrate the use of developmentally appropriate learning activities, strategies, and materials for use in differentiated in centers and small group activities. Teach lessons that are observed by the mentor/math coach. Debrief with the mentor/coach after the lesson(s) have been taught. Employ all strategies discussed in debriefing in daily instruction of students. Competency D: Shows Outstanding Knowledge of Subject Matter Read professional books/articles given to you by members of the support team to become familiar with best practices. After reading articles, discuss with the member of the support team your findings and questions from the article. Implement newly found strategies in your classroom after the debrief. Use feedback from all classroom visits to modify delivery of instruction to children. Participate in grade-level specific Coaching Cycle. Implement strategies covered in Coaching Cycles for your classroom. Competency E: Utilizes Appropriate Classroom Management Techniques Implement CHAMPS daily in your classroom. Read professional books/articles given to you by the support team to become familiar with effective classroom management techniques. After reading articles, discuss with a member of the support team your findings and questions from the article. Implement newly found strategies in your classroom. Post and follow classroom schedule daily to assist in effectively using instructional time and maintaining instructional focus and momentum. Develop a plan for dealing with students’ misconduct. Submit a classroom management plan. After final approval, demonstrate effective classroom management techniques in all classroom observations. Consistently maintain an organized classroom that is free from clutter and neat. Please note: Classroom appearance will be monitored via all classroom walkthroughs and formal/informal observations. Observe mentor/math coach’s classroom management techniques during model lessons. Debrief about effective classroom management behaviors observed. Implement strategies discussed in debrief. Competency F: Shows Sensitivity to Student Needs by Maintaining Positive School Environment Establish classroom rules that all children have to follow. Read and discuss the Code of Ethics with an administrator. Videotape yourself teaching a lesson. Watch the lesson and debrief with mentor. Later in the process, videotape lesson and review with mentor. Note improvements from initial video in a written reflection. Identify appropriate/negative consequences for behavior. Submit plan to an administrator. Once plan has been approved, implement the plan daily. All of these strategies were completed with the exception of three: under Competency A, “monitor and track students’ progress in meeting kindergarten standards for all subject areas”; under Competency B, “create and use rubrics for formal and informal assessments to track students’ progress”; and under Competency C, “teach lessons that are observed by the mentor/math coach. Debrief with the mentor/math coach after the lesson(s) have been taught.” With respect to the rubrics, Ms. Burney completed them but did not bring them to the Success Plan meeting for review, because of the amount of materials she was trying to bring to the media center for the meeting. When Respondent requested permission to return to her classroom to get them, she was not allowed to do so. With respect to the strategy in Competency A, Ms. Burney had DRAs, running records, and guided readings, but the documents the kindergarten teachers were using as a team were not present. While the final version of the Success Plan indicates she did not teach lessons that were observed by the mentor/math coach, debrief afterward and employ strategies discussed in the debrief, Ms. Hammette testified that she did in fact observe lessons that Ms. Burney taught and debriefed with her, and that Ms. Kannada did the same. Ms. Williams-Scott did not explain why this strategy was not met. On October 28, 2010, Ms. Williams-Scott conducted a second formal evaluation of Ms. Burney. She noted no indicators as being seen in Competencies A or B. Several indicators were checked for Competency E; all were checked for Competencies D and G; half were checked for Competencies C, F, and H; and all but one for I. The TAI included several positive comments, as well as some negative ones. Most importantly, on the second page of the TAI where deficient areas are usually circled, Ms. Williams- Scott circled nothing. Her failure to circle any deficiencies was not based upon a belief that Ms. Burney had vastly improved her performance, but rather because, since a Success Plan was in place, she felt it to be unnecessary. Standing alone, however, there was no indication on the TAI that would provide to Ms. Burney an indication that her performance had or had not improved since the prior observation, and Ms. Williams-Scott testified that evaluations are based on observations, not completion of the Success Plan. While Ms. Williams-Scott thought circling the deficient competencies to be unnecessary because a Success Plan was already in place, Ms. Kasper testified that it was important to circle competencies needing improvement so that a teacher has notice of the areas that need to improve, and that it is “absolutely critical for this evaluation process.” Ms. Kasper’s testimony on this point is credited. On January 12, 2011, Ms. Williams-Scott conducted another formal observation. Under Competency A of the TAI, she checked the indicator that Ms. Burney “integrates student performance into lesson plan,” but no other indicators were checked. Notes by Ms. Williams-Scott stated that math data was insufficient, with no groups for individual instruction, and that inventories were not complete at all intervals for all students. No indicators were checked for Competency B. About half were checked for Competency C, and as was the case for the prior observation, there were both positive and negative remarks on the form. All indicators were checked for Competencies D, F, G, and I, most for Competency E, and one out of two for Competency H. Once again, no areas were circled as not being satisfactory on the second page. On or about January 14, 2011, Ms. Williams-Scott issued to Respondent a Notice of Potential Unsatisfactory Performance advising Respondent that she must improve prior to the date of her final evaluation or she would receive an unsatisfactory evaluation for the school year. The Notice advised Respondent that she needed to show improvement in the following areas: (A) Promote Student Growth and Performance; (B) Evaluate Instructional Needs of Students; (C) Plan and Deliver Effective Instruction; (D) Show Knowledge of Subject Matter; (E) Utilize Appropriate Classroom Management Techniques, Including the Ability to Maintain Appropriate Discipline; and (F) Show Sensitivity to Student Needs by Maintaining a Positive School Environment. Given the number of indicators checked for Competencies D, E, and F, and to some extent Competency C on the previous two TAI’s, their listing on the Notice seems unsupported. Ms. Burney signed the Notice but stated that she did not agree with it. Finally, on March 22, 2011, Ms. Williams-Scott conducted another formal observation. Two indicators of five were checked for Competency A, with a note that there was a lack of documentation of student growth. One indicator, “uses multiple assessment techniques,” was checked for Competency B, with the note that running records were present for some students (but presumably not for all). Half of the indicators were marked for Competency C, all for Competency D, G, and I, most for Competency E, all but one for Competency F, and one of two for Competency H. Like the two previous TAI’s, no competencies were circled as deficient on the second page. Ms. Williams-Scott prepared an evaluation of professional growth for Respondent and concluded that for the 2010-2011 school year, Respondent had achieved an unsatisfactory rating. She was rated as unsatisfactory for Competencies A and B, needs improvement for Competency C, and satisfactory for all other competencies. Consistent with the scoring required by the Teacher Assessment System in place for the 2010-2011 school year, Ms. Burney received a score of -5.00, which resulted in an overall score of unsatisfactory. As was the case with the Hyde Park evaluation by Ms. Kasper, there was no consideration of FCAT scores or other statewide testing when Ms. Williams-Scott evaluated Ms. Burney. On or about May 10, 2011, Ed Pratt-Daniels, Superintendent of Schools for Duval County School District, wrote to Respondent advising her that she would be discharged as a teacher with the DCSD, and providing her with information regarding her right to request a hearing with respect to her termination. Respondent elected not to request a hearing and on July 27, 2011, signed an irrevocable letter of resignation as an employee of the DCSD. Teachers who worked with Ms. Burney described her as a very dedicated teacher who worked hard, came in early, and stayed late. She tutored students both through a tutoring company and on her own time, often did extra things for her students and developed positive relationships with them. One teacher who taught special education students in Ms. Burney’s classroom described her as having a special gift for bringing lessons down to the children’s level, and did not see a problem with her teaching style. After careful review of the evidence as a whole, the problems with Respondent’s performance stem not from incompetency, but from a failure to adhere to the mandates of current educational theory based in large part on data collection, maintenance, and analysis.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order finding that Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(g), Florida Statutes. It is further recommended that she be placed on probation for a period of two years, and that as a condition of probation, she be required to take six semester hours of college-level courses in areas determined appropriate by the Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August, 2014.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the School Board enter an order dismissing all charges brought against respondent by the Superintendent of Schools of St. Lucie County. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of April, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of April, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Ben L. Bryan, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 3230 Ft. Pierce, Florida 33448 Steven A. Been, Esquire FEA/United 208 West Pensacola Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Norman Behling, Superintendent School Board of St. Lucie County 2909 Delaware Avenue Ft. Pierce, Florida 33450
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner/Agency has established by preponderant evidence that there was just cause to dismiss Sakina A. Jones, the Respondent, for alleged misconduct in relation to her teaching of students in alleged violation of Rules 6B- 1.006(3)(a), and 6B-1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the Duval County Florida School District or "School Board" charged with regulating the practice standards for teachers and the manner of practice of teachers who are employed by it in the Duval County School District system. The Respondent is licensed to teach in Florida, holding Florida Educator Certificate No. 831562, effective from July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2002. The Respondent has a Bachelor's Degree in Psychology received on December 11, 1998. She has worked as a substitute teacher for the Duval County School District between approximately September 4, 1998 and August 9, 2000, after which time she became a full-time elementary teacher at Annie R. Morgan Elementary School. The Respondent has a Bachelor's Degree in Psychology. Her training and experience in the field of education beyond college, at which she had no academic training as an educator, at the point she commenced her second year of teaching at Annie R. Morgan Elementary School, in August 2002, included the following: substitute teaching experience at elementary schools. teaching ESE students at DuPont Middle School as a substitute teacher. participation in the Teacher Induction Program during the 2000-2001 school year while full time teaching at Annie R. Morgan Elementary School. having a designated mentor (Mrs. Shipley) from whom to seek guidance. completion of a college level introduction to education course while teaching full time during the 2000-2001 school year. completion of a course in "Teaching Diverse Populations" in the summer of 2001. receiving a book called "Positive Discipline." attending a faculty meeting on classroom discipline which focused on steps that could be taken in the classroom before sending a child to the principal's office. The Respondent had no training in the specifics of teaching and disciplining either ESE students or the educable mentally handicapped (EMH) students which she was teaching at times pertinent to this case. The Teachers' Induction Program in which Ms. Jones participated during the 2000-2001 school year is a program for new teachers in the District which includes assessments involving at least two classroom visits a week. Six "domains" are covered in the program including classroom management, instructional planning and testing, some of which are presented in a workshop format. The program requires a year to complete, at the end of which the principal must assess whether a new teacher has passed or failed in her participation in the program. For the 2000-2001 school year Ms. Jones accepted a position as a full-time, third grade teacher at the Annie R. Morgan Elementary School. The principal that year was Delores Milton. After about five weeks, Ms. Jones was shifted to an ESE class, an area in which she had no training. Later that year she was assigned to an EMH class which she was even less qualified to handle in terms of having any specific training in teaching and disciplining EMH students. Ms. Jones, indeed, had serious reservations about taking the EMH job because of her lack of training or experience with EMH children and she related this to her principal and they had a discussion about it. Ultimately, the principal assured her that she could go to workshops and in other ways get additional training and so Ms. Jones accepted the position because it would guarantee her a position so that she would not be on the "surplus list" (being first subject to lay-offs). Carolyn F. Davis was assigned as Principal at Annie R. Morgan Elementary School on July 1, 2001, replacing Ms. Milton. Ms. Jones' EMH teaching assignment continued into the new 2001- 2002 school year. Her class included twelve boys and two girls ranging in advancement from grade one to grade three. A teacher's assistant was assigned to her on a full time basis. The teacher's assistant, at the beginning of the year, was Tiffany Bullard. Ms. Bullard had been working with Ms. Jones as a teaching assistant the prior school year from approximately November 2000 through the end of the school year in May 2001. That had been her first experience as a teacher's assistant. Due to budgetary cuts, Ms. Bullard was "surplused" (laid-off) on September 4, 2001. Several months later she was re-hired at a different school. A second teacher's assistant worked with Ms. Jones in her classroom after Ms. Bullard departed. This was Arnette Felton. Ms. Felton had a year's prior experience as a teacher's assistant at an elementary school as well as a prior year of such experience at Annie R. Morgan Elementary School. She worked with Ms. Jones from September 5, through October 16, 2001. She asked to be relieved when she claimed that Ms. Jones threw a bottle of "white-out" at a student who ducked, such that the bottle hit Ms. Felton. The totality of the credible testimony reveals that this incident did not happen at, least in that fashion, as Ms. Jones never intentionally threw a bottle of white-out at anyone. In reality, there appears to have been some personal friction between Ms. Felton and Ms. Jones which helped to cause Ms. Felton's departure. Ms. Jones' third teacher's assistant was Brenda Medlock. Ms. Medlock has approximately one year and a half of college and had been serving as a teacher's assistant for ten years in the Duval County School system. She remained with Ms. Jones until Ms. Jones was removed from her teaching duties on or about November 19, 2001. Ms. Medlock had no prior experience with EMH students although she had worked with ESE students and had some training of unknown amount and duration in behavior management while working as a teacher's assistant at a prior school. The EMH students in Ms. Jones class were all students with below average I.Q. who function at grade levels significantly below the norm for their age. Their I.Q. range was from 49 to 69. Greater patience is required in disciplining and instructing EMH students. Relevant federal law protects them from being disciplined for reasons of their disability. In all instances with respect to such students, a determination has to be made concerning whether the conduct for which discipline is about to be meted out is a manifestation of the disability, and if so, there can be no discipline. Some of the students had limited communication skills and difficulties with memory and Ms. Jones was aware of this information concerning her students upon getting to know them. Students with a low I.Q., such as Ms. Jones' students, should not appropriately be made to write sentences repetitively as a disciplinary measure. This is because they would typically not understand and cannot practicably execute the requirement. Upon learning that Ms. Jones had made students write sentences repetitively as a disciplinary measure, Principal Carolyn Davis instructed her not to use this form of discipline at a conference the two had on October 23, 2001. Student Raymond Houston testified. He was placed in the bathroom, which was in the classroom, a number of times for a few minutes as "time out" when he misbehaved. Although the light in the bathroom may have been turned off when this occurred, no one prevented any student, being placed in the bathroom as "time out," from turning the light on. Raymond Houston (R.H.) also stated that he and several other students had to do the "duck walk" or "jumping jacks" as discipline for misbehavior on a number of occasions. He was also required to write sentences such as "I will be good" or "I will pay attention" when he had misbehaved. The teacher's assistant, Ms. Bullard, confirmed that the Respondent had placed children into the classroom bathroom for "time outs." The totality of the credible testimony reveals, however, that these sessions lasted only from three to five minutes and no student had been placed in the bathroom as long as an hour or a half-day or anything of that nature. Ms. Jones also made certain male students do pushups for disciplinary reasons, such as R.H. and T.S. In this connection, some of the calisthenics her students performed were done as part of a fitness program she instilled in her daily lesson plan, including the exercise regimen known as "Tae Bo." Most occasions, when students did exercises such as pushups, were not for disciplinary reasons. Student R.H. also was required by the Respondent to wash at the lavatory and put on a clean shirt, which she had in the classroom to give him. This was because he had not bathed in several days and had a bad odor. While some other students may have observed this, it was done for hygiene reasons and was not done in order to berate the student or expose him to unnecessary embarrassment. During the 2001-2002 school year on one occasion, student "Shaquille's" book bag was taken from him by the Respondent and she put it in a trashcan. This was not a trashcan used for refuse or garbage, however, it was simply a trashcan type receptacle where she would keep students' book bags when they did not need them or when they were not supposed to be in possession of them. Ms. Jones also instituted a system which permitted the children to go to the bathroom three times per day. This system was implemented by having the students use tokens, three apiece, which they could use when they needed to go to the bathroom. This was done to help instill order in the classroom. However, those students who were unable, for various reasons, to comply with this bathroom schedule were allowed to go on an as-needed basis. In any event, the three-bathroom-visits policy was ended by the Respondent one month into that school year. All students at the Annie R. Morgan Elementary School receive a free breakfast every morning, at the beginning of the school day. Breakfast is provided in the classrooms to the students at their desks. Ms. Jones had a rigid five-minute time limit, enforced by a timer, during which the children were to eat their breakfast. She would have the students start in unison (those that were present) and when the timer rang after five minutes, she would make the children discard any portion of breakfast not eaten. Ms. Jones was not aware that there was any prohibition against the five-minute time limit for eating breakfast and for discarding unused food. After being instructed by her principal, at their meeting of October 23, 2001, that the students should be allowed fifteen minutes for breakfast, the Respondent complied. The only exception to this, established in the record, was when student James Brown arrived at school late and missed breakfast. This, however, was involved with an agreement the Respondent had with James Brown's mother, who had informed Ms. Jones that if he were late she could assume that he had already had breakfast, because his mother would ensure that he had already breakfast. The denial of his breakfast, on the day in question, was not due to any cruelty or other violation of the rules referenced herein, but rather because she knew that his mother would have already given him breakfast on that day when he was late. Although the Respondent was accused by witness Arnette Felton of throwing objects in the classroom at students, including pencils, chalk, an eraser and a white-out bottle, the preponderant, credible testimony indicates otherwise. Although the Respondent acknowledged tossing snacks, candy, chalk or pencils to students for them to use during the course of their classroom activities, she never purposely and forcefully threw any object at students in anger or as a misguided disciplinary measure or anything of the sort. Further, although as a classroom management technique the Respondent placed students in time-out in the restroom for a few minutes when she felt it necessary to restore order and decorum in the classroom, she never instructed her assistant to forcibly hold the bathroom door shut to "lock-in" a student for disciplinary reasons. Ms. Felton maintained that she observed Kenny Brown come to Ms. Jones' desk, when told not to, so that Ms. Jones, in anger, threw his book bag in the trash, took his folder out of the book bag and threw it in the sink, getting it wet. The most credible testimony does not support that assertion. It is determined this incident did not occur in this fashion. Rather, Ms. Jones, at most, took student K.B.'s book bag from him and placed it in the receptacle for holding book bags, which happened to be in the form of a trashcan, but which was not used as a trash or garbage can, as found in the other instance referenced above. It is true that Ms. Jones criticized Ms. Felton when she was unable to change a CD disc, calling her a "dummy." This was not done in a way that the other persons or students present in the classroom could hear, however. It is also true that Ms. Jones and Mr. Felton got into a verbal altercation in the classroom for which the Respondent, Ms. Jones, received a reprimand from the principal, Ms. Davis, for engaging in an argument in front of the students. Teacher's assistant Brenda Medlock succeeded Ms. Felton as the teaching assistant for the Respondent. She observed James Brown arrive at school, missing breakfast, on October 29, 2001, which has been discussed above. Withholding breakfast may have been contrary to the principal's instruction, but in this regard it was done for a justifiable reason because, due to the understanding with the student's mother, Ms. Jones knew that he had already had breakfast when he got to school that day when he arrived at school late. Ms. Medlock also observed, on October 29, 2001, that, after the students were disruptive, the Respondent put a sentence on the board, "I will pay attention," and required all of the students to write that sentence repetitively for approximately fifteen to twenty-five minutes. Some of the students had the ability to write the sentence only a few times or only once. This episode was in violation of instructions given by the principal at the meeting she had with the Respondent on October 23, 2001. The principal had a conference with Ms. Jones on October 23, 2001, in which Ms. Jones admitted that she had placed students in the bathroom for time-out for disciplinary purposes and that she had given children only five minutes in which to eat breakfast. She was informed that fifteen minutes were allowed for eating breakfast and she was directed not to use the bathroom for time-out disciplinary purposes anymore. She refrained from doing so thereafter. She was also directed not to withhold food from a child which she complied with thereafter, with the exception of the James Brown breakfast episode, which was adequately explained by the Respondent to not involve any disciplinary or disparagement reason for its occurrence. Ms. Jones did, as found above, violate the instruction from Ms. Davis about not requiring students to write sentences repetitively, as a disciplinary measure, by the incident she caused on October 29, 2001, found above. In summary, it is significant that the only sources of factual information are the testimony of the teacher's assistants who were assigned to the Respondent during the 2001- 2002 school year. An analysis of their testimony shows that none of them had any affection for the Respondent and it appears from examination of their testimony, and the Respondent's testimony, that each had specific reasons for harboring resentment or animosity toward the Respondent. Their attitudes towards the Respondent appeared less than friendly, so that their testimony, taken together, with the instances of admissions by the Respondent show that some of the situations described happened, but did not happen in the heinous way described in the testimony of the teacher's assistants Ms. Felton and Ms. Medlock. Although some of these situations, which occurred as part of the Respondent's attempt to properly deal with her classroom environment, may have justifiably resulted in criticism of the Respondent, the statement of the Petitioner's own witnesses show that there was no formal standard and no formal definition of acceptable versus unacceptable conduct imparted to the Respondent before she embarked on her duties with this EMH class. The Petitioner's representatives acknowledge that there was no advance training or instruction given to the Respondent. The Respondent was required to seek assistance and additional training largely on her own initiative with little support from the school administration. Consequently, as the Respondent attempted to develop techniques for the management of her classroom and for the instruction of her students, numerous events occurred that were later deemed inappropriate, although she had not been instructed in advance that they were inappropriate. Some of these occurrences or events were due to poor judgment on her part as well, and the resentment occasioned in her teacher's assistants or "para-professionals" was probably partly the result of her own failure to adequately control her temper on occasions. However, the fact remains that as soon as the Respondent was notified of any perceived inappropriate behavior, or classroom or student management techniques, she modified her conduct or techniques accordingly, so as to comply with those instructions. The only time she continued behavior that had been deemed unacceptable by the principal concerned the subject of the breakfast of one student, for whom she had a specific instruction from the student's parent that the student did not need to have breakfast when he arrived late, because he would already have had breakfast. The other occasion of continued behavior that was unacceptable was the single, October 29, 2001, requirement of students to write repetitive sentences, which was directly contrary to the instructions she received from the principal on October 23, 2001. Since the only complaints were made to the administration by the paraprofessionals and the investigation therefore concentrated on those individual's statements, there is no substantial, credible evidence that the Respondent's actions rose to the level of intentional embarrassment or disparagement of students or otherwise constituted a breach of the Code of Ethics for educators, as embodied in the rules on which the Respondent's termination was based. Although the Respondent's actions were mis-directed in several instances and constituted exhibitions of poor judgment on some occasions, they have not risen to the level of a violation of the ethical requirements imposed on teachers.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the School Board of Duval County compensating the Respondent for the salary and benefits to which she is entitled from the date of her termination of employment (suspension without pay) forward to the end of the 2001-2002 School Year. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of November, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of November, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: David A. Hertz, Esquire Duval Teachers United 1601 Atlantic Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Ernst D. Mueller, Esquire City of Jacksonville Office of the General Counsel 117 West Duval Street Suite 480 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 John C. Fryer, Jr., Superintendent Duval County School Board 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207-8182 Honorable Charlie Crist Commissioner of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed against her, and, if so, whether her employment with Petitioner should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been employed by Petitioner as a teacher for 16 1/2 years. She holds a Florida teaching certificate in the areas of specific learning disabilities and educable mental retardation. Throughout her employment by Petitioner, she has been assigned to teach exceptional student education classes. For the 1995-96 school year, she was assigned to teach a varying exceptionalities class at Winston Park Elementary School. At that school, the principal and the assistant principal have a practice of visiting every classroom every day whenever possible. The visits usually consist of a general walk-through. As a result of his visits to Respondent's classroom, Assistant Principal Polakoff, an experienced varying exceptionalities teacher, became concerned about the lack of discipline in Respondent's classroom. Respondent made a large number of referrals of students to the administrators for disciplinary action. Polakoff discussed his concerns with Respondent. In late September or early October, the administration at Winston Park Elementary School requested Rene Miscio, an Exceptional Education Program Specialist from the area office to come and assist Respondent. Miscio identified concerns with Respondent's classroom performance and gave Respondent suggestions for improving her areas of deficiency. Miscio took Respondent to a different school so Respondent could observe that teacher. Respondent later advised her administrators that she was implementing the suggestions made by Miscio. On November 2, 1995, Respondent referred a student to the office. Assistant Principal Polakoff went to Respondent's classroom and observed for 30 to 40 minutes. He wrote detailed notes while he was in Respondent's classroom and later discussed his observations with Principal Smith. They determined that Respondent's performance was deficient in three areas: behavior management, classroom management, and lesson presentation. By letter dated November 2, Assistant Principal Polakoff advised Respondent that she was moved from the development phase to the documentation phase of the Instructional Personnel Assessment System (hereinafter "IPAS") because deficiencies had been identified. In the documentation phase strategies are formulated for remediating the identified deficiencies. The goal is to provide the teacher with strategies to become successful in helping students learn. Principal Smith and Assistant Principal Polakoff worked with Respondent in writing a Performance Development Plan. Such a Plan envisions ongoing contact between the administrators and the teacher to address the teacher's deficiencies over the course of a defined time period. Respondent was given a February 29, 1996, deadline for remediating her deficiencies. Assistant Principal Polakoff began working with Respondent to develop behavior plans for specific students because of his background in exceptional student education. The administrators also assigned the exceptional student education specialist at Winston Park to observe and assist Respondent to overcome her areas of deficiency. Principal Smith also assigned Carolyn Koesten, another special education teacher at Winston Park, to "model" in Respondent's classroom from November 27 through December 7, 1995. Koesten had "modeled" before. "Modeling" means that an experienced teacher teaches another teacher's class in order to demonstrate to that teacher classroom management skills, behavior skills, and academic skills. Principal Smith instructed Koesten to establish a classroom management system, to establish a behavior management system, and to teach the students. When Koesten took over Respondent's classroom, Respondent was on leave. Koesten assessed Respondent's class when she started her modeling. Respondent's lesson plans were sketchy, and no routine had been established in Respondent's classroom. Koesten conducted a class meeting to develop a schedule for daily activities. She, together with the students, set up a behavior management system, establishing the rules of conduct, consequences, and rewards. She experienced no problems with Respondent's students once they had established rules for that classroom. "Running reading records" was a school-wide system being implemented that year to help measure a student's progress in reading. Respondent had no running reading records when Koesten began modeling in Respondent's class. Koesten set up running reading records for Respondent's class, established a reading program using those records, and began using spelling words from the reading program. She also set up learning centers within the classroom so students who had finished an activity could begin other work rather than beginning to misbehave. Respondent did not have any learning centers in her classroom. Respondent returned to school on December 6. Koesten met with her in the morning to explain the changes which had been implemented. Respondent then spent the day observing Koesten teaching Respondent's class. At the end of the day, she again met with Koesten to discuss the reading program and learning centers which Koesten had established. On the next day, Respondent took over the class, and Koesten observed her teaching. During the time that Koesten was in charge of Respondent's class, the class ran smoothly with the classroom management system and the behavior management system she had put in place. The students liked the systems because they had participated in developing them. Neither the number of students in the class nor the mix of students presented Koesten with any problem. During the morning of February 13, 1996, Assistant Principal Polakoff received a referral on one of Respondent's students for whom they had just recently developed an individual behavior plan. He told Principal Smith about the referral, and Smith went into Respondent's classroom. Smith determined that Respondent had ignored the individual behavior plan which they had developed for that student. Principal Smith summoned Respondent to his office that afternoon to meet with him and Assistant Principal Polakoff so he could give her feedback on what he had observed regarding the deficiencies in her performance that still existed. When she arrived, Smith asked her to describe her behavior management plan, and she did. Smith then advised her that she was not following that plan when he was in her classroom. She told him she was not able to follow her behavior management plan because the children were misbehaving. Smith also told her she had not followed the individual behavior plan for the student whom she had referred that morning. Respondent became very loud, angry, and agitated while Smith was trying to discuss her failure to follow the behavior plans. She alternated between being very angry and calming herself. When she calmed herself, she sat down. When she became angry, she got up and leaned on Smith's desk and leaned toward him. Smith kept trying to focus on how Respondent could improve her classroom performance but Respondent would not discuss that subject. She began attacking Smith verbally. She told him he reminded her of her parents. She told him he was a terrible person and a terrible father. She told him she hated him and that everyone hated him. She told him she would not talk to him but would only talk to Assistant Principal Polakoff. Polakoff told Respondent she needed to talk with Smith because Smith was her boss. Smith remained very calm and "matter of fact." He did nothing to cause Respondent to become agitated. He continued to try to focus on what was needed in order for Respondent to correct her deficiencies. At the end of the conference, Respondent told Smith that he was treating her "shitty". Smith calmly responded that at that point her teaching was "shitty" and that it was "a joke". Also at the end of the conference which had lasted for an hour or more, Respondent told Smith that she was "going to get him". Smith asked her what she meant by that, and Respondent told him that he was just going to have to wait to find out, that he would not know when or where she was going to get him, but that she would. The meeting ended when Respondent walked out of Smith's office. Polakoff was so uneasy about Respondent's threats that he followed her when she left the building and locked the building behind her so she could not return. Smith was concerned for his safety, Respondent's safety, and the safety of the other employees due to Respondent's threats and her agitation level. Just a few weeks before, a Broward County employee had killed his co-workers. Smith was concerned regarding Respondent's emotional stability and whether she should be in a classroom. Principal Smith telephoned his supervisor, Area Superintendent Dr. Daly, and told her what had transpired. She gave him an oral reprimand for using the word "shitty" and told him to call Director of Professional Standards Ronald Wright. Wright also orally reprimanded Smith for using that word and told him to send Respondent a memo asking her to clarify what she meant by her statements that she was going "to get" Smith and that he would not know when or where. Wright also explained to Smith the procedures for requesting that an employee undergo a psychiatric and/or psychological evaluation to determine fitness to remain in the classroom. Principal Smith wrote such a memo to Respondent the following day. Two days later, Respondent replied in writing and stayed out of school for the next several days saying she was too depressed to function. Her written explanation is not accurate, does not reflect the tone of her voice or her anger, and is not believable. On February 14, 1996, Principal Smith initiated the procedure for requiring Respondent to undergo psychological and/or psychiatric testing. He also re-assigned her so that she would assist in the school's media center and not return to her classroom until completion of the psychiatric evaluation. While Respondent was assigned to the media center, she was very disruptive. She kept trying to involve students and parents in her anger toward Principal Smith. On Friday, March 1, Respondent initiated a conversation with Josetta Royal Campbell who was in the media center. Although Campbell was a fellow teacher, she had no personal relationship with Respondent. Respondent asked Campbell if she had been evaluated by Principal Smith, and Campbell replied that she had been. Respondent asked if Campbell had heard that Respondent had received a bad evaluation, and Campbell replied that she had not. Respondent followed her to Campbell's classroom. Inside Campbell's classroom, Respondent became very excited and loud and was easily heard by the custodian cleaning the classroom. Respondent told Campbell that she and Smith had a big argument, that Smith was "out to get" her, and that she was going to kill him. Respondent said she thought Polakoff was her friend but he was a "backstabber" and that Koesten was also "out to get" her. She told Campbell that she was "going to get them all", that Smith had ruined her life, and that "everybody involved would pay for it". She also said that she could not return to her classroom until after she had undergone psychological testing but that since she had been under psychological treatment for ten years, she could pass the test with "flying colors". Over the weekend Campbell thought about what Respondent had said. She was concerned about the threats Respondent had made toward Principal Smith and the others. She took Respondent's threats seriously. On Monday she wrote a letter to Principal Smith telling him what had happened. On March 6, Principal Smith re-assigned Respondent to temporary duty with pay in her own home. Respondent selected a psychiatrist from a list given to her by the Director of Petitioner's Instructional Staffing Department. She selected Dr. Fernando Mata and was evaluated by him on March 7, 1996. After seeing Respondent on that date, he recommended that she undergo psychological testing. Respondent was given a list of psychologists to choose from, and she selected Dr. Jack Singer. He evaluated her on March 22, conducting a personal interview and administering the Minnesota Multi-Phasic Personality Inventory II, the Thematic Apperception Test, and the Holtzman Inkblot Technique. Dr. Singer concluded that Respondent is unstable and unpredictable. He opined that Respondent cannot safely handle a classroom full of children at this time. Upon review of Dr. Singer's report, Dr. Mata issued a supplemental report agreeing with Singer's opinions and concluding that Respondent "should not be returned to a classroom setting at this time". A conference was held with Respondent, her union representative, Petitioner's Director of Personnel, Petitioner's Director of Professional Standards, and Petitioner's Director of Instructional Staffing to discuss with Respondent the options available to her under Petitioner's policies and the union contract due to the medical report determining that Respondent was not fit to teach at that time. Respondent was advised that she could elect: (1) family/medical leave of up to 12 weeks; (2) disability leave for up to two years; or (3) a personal leave of absence. The financial impacts of each type of leave were explained to Respondent. Respondent declined all leave options. By letter dated May 15, 1996, Petitioner's Director of Professional Standards wrote to Respondent asking her to confirm that she still declined all leave options. By letter dated May 22, 1996, Petitioner's Director of Professional Standards again wrote to Respondent confirming that they had spoken on May 20 and that Respondent still declined all leave options and that Respondent understood that her refusal to take any type of leave would force Petitioner to terminate her employment. Petitioner does not second-guess medical opinions. When Respondent declined all leave options, Petitioner had no choice but to initiate termination of Respondent's employment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED THAT a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint and dismissing her from her employment with Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this day of November, 1997, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day of November, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Eugene K. Pettis, Esquire Haliczer, Pettis & White, P.A. 101 Northeast Third Avenue Sixth Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Francisco M. Negron, Jr., Esquire Tom Young, Esquire FEA/United 118 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1700 Dr. Frank R. Petruzielo, Superintendent Broward County School Board 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-3125
The Issue Whether Respondent's employment as a teacher by the Miami- Dade County School Board should be terminated for the reasons specified in the letter of notification of suspension and dismissal dated June 20, 2013, and the Amended Notice of Specific Charges filed on October 2, 2013.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is a duly constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Florida Constitution Article IX, section 4(b), and section 1001.32, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was employed as a special education ("SPED") teacher at Mandarin Lakes K-8 Academy ("Mandarin Lakes"), a public school in the Miami-Dade County Public School District, pursuant to a professional services contract. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent's employment with Petitioner was governed by Florida law, Petitioner's policies and procedures, and the collective bargaining agreement between Miami-Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade. Respondent's Classification During the 2012-2013 school year, it is undisputed that Respondent was classified as a SPED teacher. Petitioner's Amended Notice of Specific Charges avers that Respondent was employed as a SPED "inclusion teacher." Respondent, in his Proposed Recommended Order, also maintains that, during the 2012- 2013 school year, he was a SPED inclusion teacher. Petitioner's witnesses, however, presented conflicting evidence regarding whether Respondent, for the 2012-2013 school year, was charged with the duties and responsibilities of an inclusion teacher or a "co-teacher." Inclusion teaching occurs where "two or more teachers are assigned to a group of students, but one of the teachers is responsible for only one student or a small group of students in the classroom." See § 1003.03(5)(c)2., Fla. Stat. "Co-teaching" is when "two or more teachers are assigned to a group of students and each teacher is responsible for all of the students during the entire period." See § 1003.03(5)(c)1., Fla. Stat. Moreover, in the co-teaching setting, "each teacher is responsible for planning, delivering, and evaluating instruction for all students in the class or subject for the entire period." Id. The undersigned ultimately finds that, during the 2012- 2013 school year, Respondent was a SPED inclusion teacher. As such, Respondent was responsible for providing support to a small group of special education students within the general education classroom.1/ The Events Giving Rise to this Proceeding Petitioner alleges, in its Amended Notice of Specific Charges, that,"[d]uring the 2012-2013 school year, school administrators observed Respondent in his capacity as a SPED inclusion teacher and noticed issues with his teaching ability." In April 2013, Angela Fleites, the principal of Mandarin Lakes, formally observed Respondent in the classroom. Principal Fleites broadly enumerated Respondent's responsibilities to include: (1) ensuring the children were on point; (2) following and processing instruction; and (3) having success in the particular lesson. Principal Fleites observed that Respondent was not focused on the task at hand and was not paying attention to the needs of the special education students. Specifically, she observed Respondent "walking aimlessly" around the room without direction or specific purpose. During the April 2013 formal observation, Respondent provided Principal Fleites with a copy of his lesson plans. While the lesson plans were appropriate, Principal Fleites, without offering any specificity, opined Respondent was not implementing the lesson plans. Principal Fleites also observed Respondent failing to re-direct off-task behavior of special education students. Based on the facts recounted above, Principal Fleites opines that Respondent did not address the individual learning needs of his SPED students. In a follow-up formal observation conducted in May 2013, Principal Fleites observed that Respondent was paying more attention to the primary teacher than the needs of the special education students. Again, Principal Fleites observed Respondent walking around the classroom aimlessly and providing very little, if any, redirection to the students demonstrating off-task behavior. Respondent, as requested, provided his lesson plans to Principal Fleites during the May 2013 observation. Again, she opined that while the lesson plans were appropriate, Respondent failed to implement the same. Principal Fleites, however, could provide no greater detail on this point other than "the lesson plan clearly talked about the individual needs of students and meeting those individual needs, and that was not happening. . . ." Based on the above observation, Principal Fleites opined Respondent was not addressing the academic needs of his students. Principal Fleites is familiar with Petitioner's procedure regarding a fitness-for-duty exam.2/ Despite her familiarity, she never asked or requested that a fitness-for-duty determination be conducted for Respondent. She did however, on two occasions, recommend Respondent to the Employee Assistance Program; however, Respondent did not present himself to same. In December 2012, Renita Lee, an assistant principal at Mandarin Lakes, formally observed Respondent in the classroom. During this 30-minute observation, Ms. Lee recalled Respondent simply standing in a corner in the back of the classroom. On that occasion, Respondent did not have lesson plans available for review. During this observation, Ms. Lee noticed several students who were off-task; however, Respondent did not address the behavior. Ms. Lee's recollection was that at least two of the off-task students were special education students. Based upon the aforementioned facts, Ms. Lee opined that Respondent failed to address the students' individual learning needs during the 30-minute observation period. Ms. Lee again observed Respondent in the classroom in January 2013. On this occasion, Ms. Lee observed, over a two- hour period, Respondent walking aimlessly around the room. She testified that Respondent neither assisted nor re-directed the students. Based on the above-observation, Ms. Lee opined that Respondent did not address the academic needs of his students. Ms. Lee noted that Respondent was "supposed to focus on students that are in need of assistance for a particular benchmark." A benchmark, as defined by Ms. Lee, is "a set of objectives that students are expected to know to where they were going to actually be tested on for FCAT." Ms. Lee acknowledged that, through testing and available test results, one can determine whether Respondent's students have met the particular benchmarks. At times, Ms. Lee observed that Respondent had fallen asleep while sitting upright in a faculty meeting. Kenneth Williams, an assistant principal at Mandarin Lakes during the 2012-2013 school year, formally observed Respondent in the classroom in March 2013. Mr. Williams observed that Respondent was "in a daze" and not paying attention to the needs of the learners. Mr. Williams testified that Respondent did not redirect two students who were displaying off-task behavior.3/ During the same observation period, Mr. Williams received a piece of paper from Respondent; however, the same was not a typical lesson plan in that the document did not outline Respondent's duties and instructions for the SPED students on that occasion. John Soderholm, an eighth-grade science teacher at Mandarin Lakes, perceived Respondent as a "co-teacher" in his classroom. With that belief, Mr. Soderholm was critical of Respondent's engagement with the classroom population as a whole. Specifically, on two occasions Mr. Soderholm requested Respondent to lead the entire class; however, Respondent did not accept the invitation. Concerning the special education students, Mr. Soderholm observed Respondent making "minimal attempts to walk around and be in the classroom"; however, he opined that Respondent never truly engaged. Haronique Durham, an eight-grade teacher at Mandarin Lakes, perceived Respondent's role as an inclusion teacher and a co-teacher in her classroom. According to Ms. Durham, Respondent did not interact with the students, but rather, "usually walked back and forth in the back of the room pacing and he either looks up to the sky and covers his mouth and walks back and forth." According to Ms. Durham, Respondent never helped the students in her class and never taught a lesson. Ms. Durham acknowledged that special education students have an Individual Education Plan ("IEP"), which, among other things, sets forth specific goals for the individual student. Ira Gardner, a physical education teacher at Mandarin Lakes during the 2012-2013 school year, on more than one occasion observed children "hanging out of the third floor window" of a classroom. On one such occasion, upon entering the classroom, he observed that Respondent was the only teacher in the classroom, and admonished Respondent that "[y]ou got to look at everybody" and that "[t]hese kids are all over the place." Mr. Gardner, Assistant Principal Williams, Assistant Principal Lee, and Principal Fleites credibly testified that Respondent, on one or more occasions, appeared to be engaged in an audible conversation with himself.
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 dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S TODD P. RESAVAGE 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 31st day of January, 2014.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Raphu Williams, presently holds Florida Teacher's Certificate Number 3436, Life Graduate State, Rank 3, and is employed in the public schools of Dade County, Florida. By way of background, Respondent was a teacher employed in the public schools during 1937 through 1942 and from 1961 to the present time. He attended Tuskegee Institute, where he received a Bachelor of Science degree. Respondent is presently certified in the fields of Auto Mechanics, Industrial Arts, Business Administration, and Guidance and Counselling. During his educational pursuit, he attended Boston University, Pittsburgh State, FAMU, Harvard, Suffolk Law School, and the University of Miami. When Respondent was re-employed as a teacher during 1961, he taught at Mays for approximately five years and returned to Booker T. Washington High School, where he was employed through school year 1970. At the end of the 1970 school year, he was transferred to Riviera Junior High School, where he remained until 1975. Throughout his career, he always taught "trainable" students. This, according to Respondent, is a student classification based on students whose IQ's range from 55 down to 30. During the 1975-76 school year, he served as an itinerant teacher receiving assignments from his supervisor, Mrs. Wylamere Marshall. Pauline A. Young, an educational specialist for Dade County for approximately eight years, met Respondent while he was employed at Riviera Junior High School. Miss Young was called upon to observe the vocational unit as a liaison from the area office; and in her opinion, Respondent's performance was inadequate. This opinion rested upon her observation that when she visited the Respondent's classroom, he was asleep. She observed the Respondent asleep on two occasions. On the first occasion, she awakened him and the second time, she browsed around his room for several minutes; and he never knew that she was there. She testified that the students were "just milling round the room -- doing nothing in particular". She testified that when she awakened the Respondent on the first occasion, he acknowledged the fact that he was asleep, and Respondent said "What can you expect? They can only do so much". The Respondent was then teaching trainable mentally-retarded students. While observing Respondent's class, Miss Young requested that Respondent show her his lesson plans, whereupon he responded that he had no lesson plans, his plans were in his head and that he had no plans for Mr. Jones, Mr. Whigham, or Mr. Turner. Respondent advised Miss Young that the "white man owed him this salary and that he was going to continue to stay on even though he made more money on other jobs and, in fact, did not need this job". Miss Young further testified that when Respondent was presented with new reading techniques, he resisted change. Respecting Respondent's classroom contact with students, Miss Young observed that Respondent opened the class by calling the class roll and thereafter, he had no structured format to conduct his class. Miss Young observed Respondent criticizing a student, Darlene Mickens' dress complaining that "she should not wear tennis shoes because she was black and further that because she was black, she need not look bad". In Miss Young's opinion, the student was neat and appropriately dressed. Finally, she testified that she never observed Respondent doing anything productive during her observation of him during his classes. Dora Whitaker Wright, an instructor employed by the Dade County School Board for approximately 21 years and presently the Assistant Principal and teacher at Richmond Heights in charge of guidance, testified that she has known the Respondent for approximately two years. During this period, she visited Respondent's classroom to observe on one occasion, and she also noted that his classroom was unsupervised on approximately three occasions. She further testified that the Respondent failed to report for duty when scheduled. On the three occasions in which Respondent left his class unsupervised, she remained with the students for approximately 15 minutes on the first occasion; approximately 20 minutes on the second occasion; and on the third occasion, the students were left unsupervised and roamed the halls without a pass. She examined Respondent's lesson plans and noted that they contained little, if any, guidance in which to advise emergency substitute teachers or administrators what the teacher (Respondent) was teaching his students. She, thereafter, gave the Respondent sample lesson plans that were submitted by other instructors as a guide to prepare his lesson plans. When Mrs. Wright advised Respondent that he would be held accountable for the return of the classroom books, he rebelled in front of students complaining that it was not his responsibility to account for books given to students. He also contested Mrs. Wright's authority stating that he, like Mrs. Wright, had a Master's degree and had taught as much as she. He further remarked that he had more teaching experience than anyone presently teaching in that school. Among other things, Mrs. Wright's duties include the proper classification and testing of "trainable students" and to ascertain that the instructors are utilizing proper teaching methods. When she discussed the "core" lesson plans systems with Respondent and the teaching guidelines that were published and approved by the school district, the Respondent objected to the use of such plans. Additionally, she testified that he refused to accept the textbooks for each student based on his position that he would not be held accountable for the textbooks under any circumstances. She testified that the School Board, although desirous of giving each student an individual textbook, instructional level, lacked the funds for such an expenditure. Respondent threatened to hurt a student (Lorenzo Richardson) if he was not removed from his class. When cautioned that the supervisor would be visiting his classroom on various days, Mrs. Wright testified that the Respondent rebelled, stating that "he would teach things the way he wanted". Respondent advised Mrs. Wright that he was hit with a soda can while he was laying his head down on his desk. She testified that during her observance of the Respondent, she noticed him playing checkers with students and offered them one dollar if they beat him in a game of checkers. Helen Gentile, the curriculum secretary, who is responsible for calling substitutes, maintaining inventory records, ordering materials and maintaining emergency lesson plans, testified that she received two complaints from substitute teachers regarding the failure of Respondent to provide adequate emergency lesson plans. She examined the Respondent's lesson plans and the only thing contained therein was "personal philosophies of what Respondent noted about each student, with no direction for course structure for students". She recalled Respondent being tardy on at least three occasions and that he failed to call to advise that he would be late. She testified that from time to time, it was necessary that she call upon instructors to cover for classes during the "free period" but that when she would ask Respondent to do this, he yelled at her, stating that it was not his responsibility to cover classes. She did, however, testify that after Respondent shouted to her, he later apologized. Zackery Lee Hagen, a 14-year-old student of Respondent for approximately two years, testified that he was struck by a desk that was pushed by Respondent. Hagan recalled incidents in which the Respondent slept in class and recalled one instance in which he awakened the Respondent by banking on his desk. He also recalled the Respondent using profanity, such as "damn" in class. Hagen testified that his reading skill level had improved under the Respondent's teaching. Jane Boyer, secretary to the principal, Lonnie Coleman, testified that the Respondent failed to follow the established policy of the School Board. Specifically, she testified that he would not timely call to advise of his absence which created hardships in locating substitute teachers. She recalled instances in which students were locked out of their classrooms and were sitting in the hall approximately eight to ten times. On the other hand, she testified that when Respondent wanted requests, he wanted an answer the very instant in which the request was made. Mrs. Boyer observed the Respondent using profanity on at least two occasions. On one occasion, she recalled the Respondent using profanity while escorting a student to Mr. Coleman's office, and the second occasion occurred during a telephone conversation with a parent. She testified that the Respondent, on the second occasion, was talking to a neighbor of a parent and wanted the neighbor to summon the student home "before he killed him". She testified that the Respondent indicated to her that the student had struck the Respondent with a book, whereupon the Respondent called the student a "little bastard". Cynthia Grace, a 13-year-old student of Respondent, also recalled instances in which the Respondent used profane language when the class was unruly. Students, Charles Gardner and Oscar Bryant, also recalled the Respondent using profanity during his teaching. Gardner also confirmed earlier testimony that the Respondent was asleep when he was struck on the head by a coca-cola can. Mitchell Watson, a student, also recalled an instance in which the Respondent fell asleep in class. He testified that the Respondent observed a fight between two students and made no attempt to control the situation or to halt the fight. Clarence H. Gilliard, an instructor and department chairman for special education at Richmond Heights, explained his difficulty in receiving emergency lesson plans and Respondent's failure to accept responsibility for textbooks. He also testified that the Respondent continuously balked when requested to follow established procedures set forth by the school board. Donald Helip, an Assistant Principal at Richmond Heights Junior High School, was called upon to try to resolve the differences which Respondent was having in following procedures. He testified that in so doing, he observed the Respondent's classroom; and on several occasions, the students were left unsupervised. When he cautioned Respondent regarding this problem, the Respondent balked. He testified that after repeated requests, Respondent ultimately turned in emergency lesson plans which were inadequate inasmuch as they only contained "philosophical statements", as opposed to directives that substitute teachers could follow during the Respondent's absence. He recalled one instance in which the Respondent reported late for work and his students had to be reassigned to another instructor. Immediately thereafter, he passed the teacher's lounge and the Respondent was there talking to another instructor. Mr. Helip counselled the Respondent about this problem whereupon the Respondent advised that "he was new and a nice guy and that he should not be used by the system". He further cautioned Mr. Helip that he should not "cross him or if he did, he would be crushed". Mr. Helip perceived these remarks as a threat. Finally, the Respondent advised Mr. Helip that he should advise what kind of flowers he liked so that he would receive them if he, in fact, got hurt. Mr. Helip also voiced his opinion that the Respondent was not an effective school board employee inasmuch as he (1) failed to report timely for work, (2) enjoyed a poor relationship with students, including sleeping while on duty, and (3) based upon his failure to follow established procedures. Lonnie C. Coleman, the principal of Richmond Heights Junior High School for approximately three years, testified that the Respondent was assigned to his school as an itinerant school teacher (surplus) during the past school year. During October, he was assigned classes. Coleman testified that Respondent repeatedly balked at assignments and due to his repeated protests, he removed him from the class due to the number and magnitude of problems he encountered from Respondent. Specifically, he testified that the Respondent averaged two to three disciplinary referrals to him daily and Respondent continuously ejected students from his class because they did not have writing paper. He testified that when this problem increased, he had to issue a directive to Respondent that students were to be kept in class despite the fact that they did not have writing paper. He testified as to the inadequacy of the Respondent's emergency lesson plans which were submitted only due to repeated requests from his department head. He testified that when the Respondent was provided a sample lesson plan as a directive in preparing his plans, the Respondent refused and based on the repeated problems from Respondent, he requested and was granted permission to remove him from the classroom. He termed the Respondent's attendance as being "spotty" and recalled an instance in which the Respondent attended a meeting away from his assigned area without permission. Based thereon, in his opinion, the Respondent's effectiveness had been reduced and should not be permitted to remain an instructor in the Dade County School System. He denied that he and respondent had any personal problems or personality clashes and, in fact, testified that when he confronted the Respondent with procedural problems and afforded the Respondent an opportunity to correct such, the Respondent failed to take any corrective action. Wylamere Marshall, area director and coordinator for the Guidance Division, testified that she offered Respondent a position in order that the could tap his resources as an employability skills teacher to work with special education students. Initially, she assigned the Respondent as an itinerant teacher and experienced problems with him reporting to duty as assigned. She indicated that the Respondent was generally irresponsible and repeatedly slept on the job. She testified that the Respondent requested and was, in fact, granted a transfer during 1975-76 to Richmond Heights Junior High School. She testified that some of the deficiencies in the Respondent's performance included his failure to plan or supervise class activities. He also permitted students to randomly select class assignments. She testified that although the Respondent had numerous shortcoming as a teacher-educator, she felt that he was an able administrator. As to her opinion of Respondent as a teacher, she testified that he was totally inefficient and was not an effective teacher in the educable mentally-retarded program (special education). Bennie Pollock, a Social Studies teacher at Richmond Heights Junior High School during the school year 1975-76 and the beginning of the school year 1976-77 and presently employed as a bargaining agent representative for United Teachers of Dade, testified that he met Respondent during his tenure at Richmond Heights Junior High School. He testified that during the fall of 1976, while the Respondent was serving as a surplus teacher, he had a conversation with Lonnie Coleman regarding the Respondent. He had been approached by the United Teachers of Dade to accept a position which he ultimately accepted around October 13, 1976. He testified that Coleman told him "Bennie, I've got a problem, they want me to take Ralphu (Respondent) in another teacher's place, who had recently resigned (Diana Hunt). I don't want the man. I am going to do everything I can to get rid of him if they make me take him." Pollock responded "We have a contract; it's not a buffet table. There are ways of doing things." He testified that Coleman indicated to him that "We might have to clash on this", whereupon Mr. Pollock replied "Make sure you've got yourself right and do it because if, you know, I'll go by the contract 100 percent." The Respondent expressed his opinion that he was not an administrator but was, rather, a teacher, a profession which motivates him. He recalled that one instructor, Diana Hunt, also had no teaching plans. He testified that, initially, he conducts an orientation in his class to determine the category in which students should be placed. He prefers individual assignments for each student, as opposed to the "core" system, wherein all students are taught around the "core". While he agreed that students are permitted to come in class a certain way, for example, wearing jeans, sneakers, etc., he wanted students to come to school looking and smelling clean before he could teach them. He also indicated that he wanted three or four instructional level texts for each student, whereas the county only gave one book to each student. He expressed his opinion that this thwarted growth and did nothing to stimulate students to read. He expressed the belief that he was being singled out because he was called in without exception to report his lateness. He recalled only one instance in which he was "tied up" and, therefore, called in late. He testified that during school year 1976-77, while assigned teaching duties, he was absent approximately four days. Respondent voiced the opinion that there was no difference in the emergency lesson plan submitted by him as compared to that of instructor Gilliard, who is also an instructor at Richmond Heights Junior High School (Respondent's Exhibit Nos. 2 and 3). Respondent was evaluated by Mr. Coleman for the school year 1975-76, at which time he received an average score of 3.8 out of a possible 5.0. See Respondent's Exhibit No. 1). Based upon the evidence adduced herein, including the conflicting testimony of the various witnesses, I find that there is sufficient substantial and competent evidence to conclude that the Respondent, on numerous occasions, failed to follow established guidelines and, therefore, ran afoul of the dictates of Chapters 232.27 and 231.09(2), (3), (4), and (6), Florida Statutes. Additionally, by striking the student with the desk, he ran afoul of Chapter 232.27, Florida Statutes, respecting corporal punishment, and he failed to follow Chapter 231.28, Florida Statutes, by his failure to follow State Board of Education Rules contained in Chapter 6B-5, which are entitled "Standards for Competent Professional Performance". Numerous witnesses testified that the Respondent was asleep in his classroom on various occasions. Chapter 231.28, Florida Statutes, provides that an educator's certificate may be revoked or suspended on several different grounds. The evidence here reveals that the Respondent repeatedly refused to follow written directives from administrators regarding corporal punishment, the filing of lesson plans, his use of abusive language during his classroom instruction, the use of threatening language to other instructors and/or administrators, and the striking of another student, apparently innocent, with a desk, and his eviction of students from his classroom constitute conduct from which sanctions should flow based on the department's rules. It is true that almost all of the student witnesses who testified indicated that their reading level had improved under the Respondent's instructions. They all consistently testified that he used abusive and profane language during class time and fell asleep during class periods. I have also considered the Respondent's contention that he is a victim of a disparity of treatment in that other teachers file similar lesson plans without criticism by administrators. However, in proving a case of disparity, it must be shown that other instructors were permitted to file plans and that they were not counselled and failed to take other corrective steps to remedy the stated deficiencies. In this regard, no such showing has been made and, therefore, the proof falls short. I shall, therefore, recommend that the Respondent be found guilty of unprofessional and unethical acts and conduct based upon testimony which revealed that he pushed and hit a student in an effort to evict a student from his classroom in violation of Subsection 232.27, Florida Statutes, and 6B5.07.1 and (4) of the Rules of the Board of Education. I shall further recommend that the Respondent be found guilty of using abusive, inappropriate, profane and threatening language, as set forth in detail above, in violation of Chapter 239.09(2), (3), (4) and (6), Florida Statutes, based on conduct set forth in detail above. In consideration of the Respondent's total dedication to the teaching profession and his educational pursuits, I shall only recommend that his teacher's certificate be suspended for a period of two years.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, I hereby recommend: That the Respondent's teacher's certificate be suspended for a period of two years. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire 101 E. College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida Elizabeth J. DuFresne, Esquire 1809 Brickell Ave., Ste. 208 Miami, Florida Honorable Ralph Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Tom Benton Professional Practices Council 319 West Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida
The Issue The issue in this matter is whether the Department of Children and Families should revoke Respondent’s license to operate a child care facility.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with regulating providers that are licensed or registered to provide child care in the state of Florida. See § 402.305(1), Fla. Stat. Ms. Wright is the owner and operator of Little Learners. On January 9, 2017, Ms. Wright completed, signed, and submitted an application to the Department for Little Learners to operate as a child care facility in the state of Florida. Section E of the application is entitled “On-Site Director Information.” Section E instructs the applicant to identify the director of the child care facility. Section E further states that, “An On-site Director holds a Director Credential and is responsible for the day-to-day operation of the facility and is required to be on-site the majority of operating hours.” On her application, Ms. Wright wrote in the name of Shavol Spaulding as the director for Little Learners. Just above the applicant signature line, the application states: Falsification of application information is grounds for denial or revocation of the license to operate a child care facility. Your signature on this application indicates your understanding and compliance with this law. Based on the information contained in the application, the Department determined that Little Learners met all the requirements necessary to receive a license to operate a child care facility. Therefore, in January 2017, the Department issued a license to Little Learners. However, in or about May 2017, the Department received information that Ms. Spaulding never worked for Little Learners as its on-site director. Consequently, in June 2017, the Department initiated this action to revoke the license it issued to Little Learners in January 2017. The Department alleges that Ms. Wright misrepresented on the application that Little Learners had hired Ms. Spaulding to serve as its director. At the final hearing, the Department presented Christina Bryant, its Childcare Regulations Supervisor. In her role, Ms. Bryant reviews child care license applications. Ms. Bryant testified that in order for a child care facility to receive a license from the Department, the facility must employ a credentialed, on-site director.4 A director with the appropriate credentials assures the Department that someone who is trained in the required child care standards is overseeing the facility. Requiring the director to remain “on-site the majority of operating hours” ensures that the facility will provide the safest environment for the children who attend. The Department will not issue a license to a facility that does not identify a director or indicates that the director position is pending. Ms. Bryant relayed that around May 2017, the Department received a report from the Early Learning Coalition that Ms. Spaulding was not the director of Little Learners. Subsequently, on May 15, 2017, the Department obtained a letter signed by Ms. Spaulding confirming this fact. As a result, Ms. Bryant initiated an investigation to determine whether the Department appropriately issued a child care license to Little Learners. In the course of her investigation, Ms. Bryant contacted Ms. Wright. Ms. Wright expressed to Ms. Bryant that Ms. Spaulding was the director of her facility. However, Ms. Wright was not able to provide any documentation to Ms. Bryant verifying Ms. Spaulding’s employment as Little Learners’ director, such as personnel records, time sheets, or sign-in sheets. Consequently, Ms. Bryant concluded that Ms. Spaulding was not, in fact, the director of Little Learners. Ms. Bryant later learned that Ms. Spaulding was actually employed as the director of another child care facility. Ms. Bryant asserted that a credentialed child care director is required to be present at a single facility during a majority of the operating hours. Consequently, a director is not permitted to serve in such a capacity at more than one facility. Ms. Bryant conveyed that, rather than immediately initiating an action to revoke Petitioner’s license, the Department elected to allow Ms. Wright additional time to hire a director. Therefore, on May 19, 2017, the Department issued Little Learners a six-month, provisional license.5/ During this time period, Little Learners was allowed to operate without a designated director. Whitney Ricks, a Family Services Counselor, also testified for the Department. As part of her responsibilities, Ms. Ricks inspected the Little Learners facility in January and April 2017. Ms. Ricks reported that she met with Ms. Wright during both inspections. However, she never observed nor saw Ms. Spaulding at the facility. Ms. Ricks commented that Ms. Wright specifically represented to her that Ms. Spaulding did work at Little Learners, but was not present at the time of either inspection. Ms. Spaulding testified at the final hearing. Ms. Spaulding declared that she has never served as the director for Little Learners. Ms. Spaulding explained that, in October 2016, she applied for a director position with Ms. Wright. However, she never heard back regarding the job after her interview. Consequently, she never worked for Little Learners in any capacity. Ms. Spaulding confirmed that she wrote a statement in May 2017 informing the Department that she was not the director of Little Learners. Ms. Spaulding also stated that she currently works as the director of another child care facility, and did so on January 9, 2017, as well. Ms. Spaulding represented that she holds the required credentials to work as a child care director. She repeated Ms. Bryant’s testimony that a child care facility is required to employ a credentialed, on-site director in order to obtain a license to operate in the state of Florida. Ms. Spaulding also acknowledged that a child care director may only be employed by one facility at a time. Ms. Wright testified on behalf of Little Learners. Ms. Wright purchased the Little Learners center in October 2015. She was new to the child care business and has had to learn how to operate her facility as she gained experience. Ms. Wright insisted that, contrary to Ms. Spaulding’s testimony, she did hire her as Little Learners’ director. Ms. Wright further declared that she believed that Ms. Spaulding was serving as Little Learners’ director on January 9, 2017, when she applied for a child care license. Ms. Wright claimed that she did not find out that Ms. Spaulding was not working for Little Learners until three days after she submitted her application. It was then that the Early Learning Coalition notified her that Ms. Spaulding was employed as the director of another facility. Ms. Wright stated that she asked Ms. Spaulding to serve as Little Learners’ director within weeks after she opened Little Learners in October 2015.6/ Ms. Wright expressed that Ms. Spaulding started working for Little Learners shortly thereafter, and she saw Ms. Spaulding at her facility every day. Ms. Wright also asserted that Ms. Spaulding never told her that she was working for another child care facility. Ms. Wright further testified that she paid Ms. Spaulding $300 in cash every week since October 2015 for her director services. However, Ms. Wright did not retain (or produce for the Department) any employee documents, bank statements, pay stubs, tax forms, or other written records supporting her claim that Ms. Spaulding worked for Little Learners at any time between 2015-2017. Ms. Wright relayed that, after the Department contacted her, she confronted Ms. Spaulding about her work status. Ms. Wright attested that Ms. Spaulding apologized to her and told her that she had been caught working as the director of another child care business. Ms. Wright claimed that Ms. Spaulding offered to repay the money Ms. Wright had given her. Ms. Wright turned down Ms. Spaulding’s proposal because she did not believe that Ms. Spaulding could pay her back. Ms. Wright revealed that currently Little Learners has no director, no children to care for, and is essentially no longer operating. Ms. Wright explained that she attempted to hire another person as Little Learners’ director during the time she held the provisional license, but the person she sought out did not accept the job. In its Administrative Complaint, the Department alleges that Ms. Wright misrepresented the qualifications or credentials of Little Learner’s child care personnel (i.e., that Little Learners employed a director named Shavol Spaulding). The Department categorized Ms. Wright’s action as a Class I violation of section 402.319(1)(f)3. The Department seeks to revoke the license it issued to Little Learners in January 2017, as well as fine Little Learners in the amount of $500. Based on the competent substantial evidence presented at the final hearing, the clear and convincing evidence in the record establishes that Ms. Wright misrepresented the fact that Little Learners had a credentialed, on-site director on the date she submitted her application to the Department. Accordingly, the Department met its burden of proving that Little Learners’ application for a child care license should be revoked under section 402.319.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Families enter a final order revoking Respondent’s license to operate a child care facility. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of December, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER 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 7th day of December, 2017.
