The Issue Whether actions taken by the Hillsborough County School Board prior to December 1, 1974, were sufficient to achieve comparability pursuant to the provisions of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended. whether budgeting and establishing positions by the School Board is sufficient to meet the test of comparability.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, through its compensatory education section, has the responsibility of administering the Title I program, as called for in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, and for dispensing federal-funds to the various school districts throughout the state of Florida. Petitioner, Hillsborough County School Board, is a large urban school district of over 100,000 children. It has some 11,000 employees and 6,000 instructional employees. Employees are allocated on the formula of a per pupil basis, and numerous adjustments must be made after the fall opening of the schools because of major shifts of pupils over a summertime. Allocations, in order to comply with Title I, is a task which requires a great deal of attention, particularly in the fall of the school year. The following sequence of events are pertinent: The Hillsborough County Title I application for FY '75 was approved initially on the basis of the assurance which was signed by the District School Superintendent indicating that comparability existed in the Hillsborough County Title I schools and would continue to be maintained throughout the 1974-75 school year. A memorandum dated September 27, 1974, was signed by Halley B. Lewis, Jr., Administrator, Compensatory Education, and was circulated to all local school districts in Florida confirming that the U.S. Commissioner of Education was designating October 1, 1974, as the date for collecting data on which a comparability report for FY '75 would be based. On October 7 and 8, 1974, the Compensatory Education Section in the Florida Department of Education sponsored a statewide meeting of Title I, ESEA personnel in Orlando. One of the sessions was devoted to comparability. On November 7 and 8, 1974, the Compensatory Education Section of the Florida Department of Education called a meeting for District School Superintendents, Finance Officers, Federal Program Directors and ESEA, Title I Coordinators from the eleven (11) most populous counties in Florida at the request of one (1) or more District School Federal Program Directors. One- half of the program--which amounted to one-half day--was devoted to comparability as outlined in Section 116.26 of the regulations as promulgated in the Federal Register, Volume 38, Number 124, for Thursday, June 28, 1973. On November 20, 1974, in a memorandum from Woodrow J. Darden marked "URGENT", the Respondent advised all Superintendents, the Finance Officers and Title I Coordinators that the comparability reports were due on or before December 1, 1974. A part of said memorandum stated: "If the comparability report submitted by your district did not meet the measures to determine comparability as outlined in the Federal Regulations, administrative or Board action for the purpose of reallocating resources should be taken on or before December 1, 1974, to bring the schools into compliance." On November 27, 1974, a letter from the Hillsborough County School District, dated November 26, 1974, and an original comparability report were received by the Compensatory Education Section of the Florida Department of Education. On December 2, 1974, a letter from Hillsborough County School District dated November 27, 1974, and a revised comparability report were received by the Compensatory Education Section in the Florida Department of Education. A letter, dated December 5, 1974, was forwarded to the Hillsborough County School District by the Compensatory Education Section requesting the dates that the personnel authorized by the School Board on November 26, 1974, reported for work. The Hillsborough County School District, in a letter dated December 10, 1974, submitted to the Compensatory Education Section a partial report detailing the beginning employment dates of some of the personnel authorized by the Hillsborough County District School Board on November 26, 1974, for the purpose of meeting comparability requirements. On December 13, 1974, Ralph D. Turlington, Commissioner of Education, Florida Department of Education, received a telegram from Robert B. wheeler, Acting Deputy Commissioner for School Systems, U.S. Office of Education: "This is to remind you that your agency is required under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act not to make any further payments as of December 1 to any local educational agency that has not as of that date complied with the comparability requirements in 45 CFR 116.26 and to notify each such agency not to obligate any Title I funds after that date. Compliance with this requirement is subject to Federal audit. Your continued cooperation is appreciated." The Hillsborough County School District, in a letter dated December 17, 1974, submitted a final report to the Compensatory Education Section detailing the actual beginning employment dates of personnel authorized by the Hillsborough County District School Board on November 26, 1974, for the purpose of meeting comparability requirements. The Director of the Elementary and Secondary Education Division in the Florida Department of Education notified the Hillsborough County School District that ESEA, Title I funds were being withheld from December 1 through December 16, 1974. A letter from the Compensatory Education Section was sent to the Hillsborough County School District on December 20, 1974, for the primary purpose of reaffirming the necessity to maintain comparability. The Compensatory Education Section of the Florida Department of Education, in a letter dated January 3, 1975, notified the Hillsborough County School District of accounting procedures to be followed for the period of suspension of ESEA, Title I funds from December 1, 1974 through December 16, 1974. The Hillsborough County School District sent a letter dated January 8, 1975, to Commissioner Ralph D. Turlington, Florida Department of Education, along with the documentation they used as a basis for requesting "a special hearing to appeal withholding ESEA, Title I funds for Hillsborough County schools from December 1, 1974 through December 16, 1974." On January 24, 1975, the Commissioner of the Florida Department of Education wrote the district school superintendent in Hillsborough County granting their request for a hearing to appeal the withholding of Title I, ESEA funds. Petitioner, Hillsborough County School Board, applied for and received Title I funds for the school year 1974-75. It became apparent from the memorandum marked "URGENT" from the Department of Education, dated November 20, 1974, that some reallocation was necessary. On November 26, 1974 the Hillsborough County School Board authorized additional positions budgeting funds for the positions and on November 22, 1974 filed its report choosing the option to hire additional people into the Title I schools rather than shifting personnel who were already working in the non-Title I schools. By letter dated December 18, 1974, the Respondent notified Petitioner funds were being withheld for the period of December 2 through December 16, 1974, for the reason that the additional personnel required were not hired and all did not report to work until December 16, 1974. Some $63,000 of additional local funds were required to hire the additional personnel. Funds withheld from Petitioner in excess of $153,000 are Involved in this hearing. Petitioner contends: That it acted in good faith. That the Board action on November 26, 1974, budgeting, approving and establishing the additional positions was compliance both with the federal statutes and regulations and with the requirements of the memorandum from Mr. W. J. Darden of the Department of Education dated November 20, 1974. Respondent contends: That comparability is a continuous state of being, that it not only must be achieved, but must be maintained throughout the year; That upon collection of the data on October 1, it is incumbent upon the school board not only to approve and establish the additional positions but also to see that the persons are hired and in place, on the job, on or before the filing of the report on December 1. The Respondent's position is that the last person necessary to achieve comparability was not in place on the job in Hillsborough County until December 16, 1974, and therefore it had no alternative but to withhold the funds during the period December 2, 1974 through and including December 16, 1974. The statute under consideration is 20 USCA Sec. 241(e): "(a) A local educational agency may receive grant under this subchapter for any fiscal year only upon application therefore approved by the appropriate State educational agency, upon its determination (consistent with such basic criteria as the Commissioner may establish)--... (3) That ... (c) state and local funds be used in the District of such agencies to provide services in project areas which, taken as a whole, are at least comparable to services being provided in areas in such districts which are not receiving funds under this subchapter: . . . Provided further, That each local educational agency receiving funds under this subchapter shall report on or before July 1, 1971 and on or before July 1 of each year thereafter with respect to its compliance with this clause; ..." The regulation under consideration which was promulgated to implement the statute is 45 CFR 116.26, a part of which reads: "(a) A State educational agency shall not approve an application of a local educational agency for a grant under section 141(a) of the Act, or make payment of title I funds under a previously approved application of such agency, unless that local educational agency has demonstrated, in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section, that services provided with State and local funds in title I project areas are at least comparable to the services being provided with State and local funds in schools serving attendance areas not designated as title I project areas. Such approval shall not be given unless the local educational agency also provided the assurances and the additional information required by paragraph (e) of this section with respect to the maintenance of comparability. For the purpose of this section, State and local funds include those funds used in the determination of fiscal effort in accordance with 116.45." 116.26(c) "If any school serving a title I project areas is determined not to be comparable under this paragraph, no further payments of title I funds shall be made to the local educational agency until that agency has taken the action required by paragraph (k)(1) of this section to overcome such lack of comparability." Regulation Sec. 116.26(k)(1) in part reads: "that such local educational agency has allocated or reallocated sufficient addi- tional resources to title I project areas so as to come into compliance with such requirements and has filed a revised comparability report reflecting such compliance..." The Hearing Officer further finds: That both Petitioner and Respondent have demonstrated a dedication and concern for the schools within their respective jurisdictions; That both Petitioner and Respondent have been diligent in trying to act within the provisions of the subject statute and regulations; That the personnel of both the Petitioner and Respondent are familiar with the requirements of the statute and regulation but the federal requirements are subject to different interpretations by reasonable persons. There was no meeting of the minds of the parties from the federal, state and local governmental units as to the required method of compliance with the laws.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether there is just cause to terminate Tangela Smith’s employment with the St. Lucie County School Board based upon the allegations made in its Petition for Termination.
Findings Of Fact During the 2018-2019 school year, Smith was a facilitated support teacher that had various days where she either was late or missed her scheduled classroom time. When Smith missed classroom time, those ESE students assigned to her did not receive their specialized instruction. Smith missed classroom time because she was unable to fulfill all her facilitated support job responsibilities because her job duties had conflicting times. In addition to her scheduled classroom time, she was also assigned other duties such as ESE testing or IEP preparation, which were sometimes to be performed at the same time she was to provide push-in services. Smith’s tardiness was directly attributable to her daily schedule of multiple 30-minute classroom segments of time without even a minute break between each 30-minute allotted block before Smith was to be in the next classroom providing push-in services to ESE students. No time was scheduled for Smith to walk between classes or set up for the next class. At hearing, Smith credibly testified, “I don’t have sufficient time to fulfill [the] schedule.” All Smith’s duties she performed benefitted ESE students. ESE Department Chair Spies told Smith what to do related to ESE services, and she was expected to follow his instructions. No evidence was presented at hearing that Smith misused her work time. Instead, the record only showed Smith had conflicting duties to perform at the same time. She was expected to attend her daily classroom schedule and provide ESE testing or work on IEP-related assignments at the same time. At hearing, Smith testified credibly and persuasively, “I couldn’t be in two places at one time. So, I just tried to make up the time with the students I missed.” At times, when Smith was scheduled to be with students in a teacher’s classroom, the ESE department chair instructed Smith to complete FTE forms in his office to secure payments for the District. Other times, Smith would test ESE students, and, because most ESE students had no time limits for testing, Smith would still be testing when she was supposed to be providing push-in services. When Smith was unable to make scheduled classroom times, because she was performing other job duties, she attempted to try to make up for some of her push-in services missed. However, most of the time Smith was not able to make up the time because either the teachers or her ESE students were unavailable at the new time. At hearing, Smith testified compellingly that, “I did the best I could when testing was over to try to make up time.” Smith’s schedule was so tight that she did not even have time to talk to teachers about her students. On September 11, 2018, Smith acknowledged her scheduling challenges and tried to resolve them by notifying Principal Logue that she was having problems performing her push-in duties. Smith specifically expressed her inability to talk to the teachers to get a handle on what her students were doing. By email the next day, Logue pointed to times before and after school or Smith’s planning periods, where the ESE chair scheduled Smith to attend IEP meetings, as time periods Smith could meet with other teachers. Logue also dropped in the same language from her 2017-2018 evaluation regarding his expectation that she follow a strict schedule. After Smith notified Principal Logue of her time challenges, besides the email, he did not suggest or provide Smith any extra time or adjust or change her unmanageable work schedule in order to meet with the teachers and complete her scheduled duties. Smith could not have met Principal Logue’s expectations because the strict schedule had no breaks to get from one classroom to the next classroom, and Smith also had numerous conflicting duties to perform at the same time. At hearing, Auciello testified that it was not unreasonable for Smith to arrive late to class because of the way the schedule was structured and the fact that Smith had to travel from classroom to classroom. After addressing her challenges with Principal Logue, Smith continued to try to juggle her schedule and complete all her job duties that oftentimes had time conflicts. Smith prioritized third-grade testing following the instructions of the ESE department chair who told her to make that her work priority. Principal Logue was well aware that Mariposa ESE students were missing specialized instruction because teachers were reporting and complaining to Logue that Smith was either late or failed to show up to provide ESE facilitated support. He also received complaints that Smith was testing other students at various times when Smith should have been in a particular teacher’s classroom. Auciello specifically complained to Principal Logue on two occasions that instead of Smith being in her room providing her students push-in specialized instruction, Smith was testing elsewhere. After receiving the teacher complaints about Smith, Logue never notified nor addressed the no show allegations with Smith, took any action to remedy the missed services or did anything to rectify Smith’s time conflicts to prevent any further recurrences. Logue did not even issue any orders or directives regarding her failure to show up for facilitated support. Logue’s first action regarding the allegations against Smith was to report her to human resources on September 25, 2018. Logue’s chart outlining Smith’s alleged hours of missed instruction totals 42.5 hours after removing N.G.-R. and D.H., the two students included in the original calculations not assigned to Smith. Smith has never been warned, reprimanded verbally or in writing, or suspended during her tenure with the School Board. On September 26, 2018, Smith received her first discipline when she was placed on leave while Clements investigated the allegations of her failure to follow her schedule.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Lucie County School Board enter a final order (1) rescinding its previous decision to suspend Smith without pay pending dismissal and (2) awarding Smith the back salary, plus benefits, that accrued during the administrative proceedings. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of August, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. MCKINNEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of August, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Barbara L. Sadaka, Esquire St. Lucie County School Board Legal Department 9461 Brandywine Lane Port St. Lucie, Florida 34986 (eServed) Mark S. Wilensky, Esquire Dubiner & Wilensky, LLC 1200 Corporate Center Way, Suite 200 Wellington, Florida 33414-8594 (eServed) E. Wayne Gent, Superintendent St. Lucie County School Board 501 Northwest University Boulevard Port St. Lucie, Florida 34986 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Richard Corcoran, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: During the 1986-87 school year the Petitioner was employed by the Respondent as a Compensatory Education Teacher at Lake Butler Middle School. Additionally, he served as Assistant Football Coach and Junior Varsity Baseball Coach. The Petitioner is over the age of eighteen years. During the 1986-87 school year the Petitioner possessed a temporary teaching certificate issued by the Florida Department of Education (Certificate Number 562142) disclosing "Highest Acceptable Level of Training - Bachelor's Degree." The Petitioner also possesses a permanent teaching certificate with a validity period of July 1, 1987, through June 30, 1992. Superintendent of Schools, James H. Cason, III, met with M. H. Boyd, Principal, Lake Butler Middle School and Petitioner's principal, prior to formulating his decision to recommend Petitioner to Respondent for additional year of employment. Boyd advised Superintendent Cason that she was not entirely satisfied with Petitioner's performance but that she could "live with" Petitioner's reappointment for the 1987-88 school year. Superintendent Cason also conferred with the head coach, James F. Niblack, Petitioner's supervisor for the athletic duties performed by Petitioner, prior to formulating a recommendation to Respondent concerning Petitioner's reappointment for the 1987-88 school year. Coach Niblack recommended Petitioner's reappointment for the 1987-88 school year. Superintendent Cason made a timely written nomination that Petitioner be reappointed by the Respondent in an instructional position for the 1987-88 school year. On April 27, 1987, Respondent conducted a meeting for the purpose, inter alia, of acting upon the recommendation of Superintendent Cason for personnel appointments. The Respondent voted unanimously to reject the recommendation of Superintendent Cason that Petitioner be reappointed to an instructional position for the 1987-88 school year. No reason for the rejection of the nomination of the Petitioner by the Respondent was verbally stated at the April 27, 1987, meeting nor spread upon the minutes of such meeting. During the hearing, and after conferring with the members of the board, counsel for Respondent stipulated that Petitioner met the statutory requirement to be eligible for appointment to a position with Respondent in that he is of good moral character, is over the age of eighteen (18) years and holds a certificate issued under the rules of the State Board of Education. School Board member, W. S. Howard, Jr., a cousin of Boyd, requested that Boyd prepare an evaluation of Petitioner. The record is not clear as to whether the evaluation was made before or after the Superintendent conferred with Boyd on Petitioner's reappointment. Petitioner was evaluated "satisfactory" in ten (10) of the eighteen (18) areas measured on the evaluation instrument that was utilized, "unsatisfactory" on two (2), "not applicable" was marked on two (2) criteria and four (4) were left unmarked by the evaluator. The evaluation instrument utilized by the Respondent in evaluating the Petitioner's performance was not the instrument which should have been utilized during the 1986-87 school year although such instrument was utilized by the principal for other employees at the Petitioner's school. The Respondent officially sponsors, maintains and funds the athletic programs in which the Petitioner rendered services during the 1986-87 school year. Such programs constitute an integral part of the overall educational program offered by the Respondent to children of Union County. The Petitioner's service to the athletic program conducted by the Respondent was rated satisfactory or above.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent, School Board of Union County, enter a Final Order GRANTING the Petitioner an annual contract for the 1987-88 school year and reimbursing Petitioner for any loss of wages due to his non-pay status which resulted from Respondent's rejection of his nomination. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED AND ENTERED this 27th day of August, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of August, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2536 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1.-11. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 through 11, respectively. 12.-15. Adopted in Findings of Fact 13 through 16, respectively. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5, 6 and 7. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact and 6. The fact that Boyd had some reservations concerning Petitioner's abilities to teach the compensatory education class is adopted in Finding of Fact 5, the balance of paragraph 6 is rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The fact that Niblack recommended Petitioner for reappointment is adopted in Finding of Fact 6, the balance of Paragraph 7 is rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The fact that the Union County School Board voted not to rehire Petitioner is adopted in Finding of Fact 9, the balance of paragraph 8 is rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The fact that the reason for Respondent's vote to reject Petitioner's reappointment was not verbally stated or spread in the minutes is adopted in Finding of Fact 10, the balance of paragraph 9 is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record in that the testimony of the individual School Board members lacked credibility. Rejected as being presented as an argument and not as a Finding of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald G. Meyer, Esquire Meyer, Brooks and Cooper, P.A. 911 East Park Avenue Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Bobby Lex Kirby, Esquire Route 2, Box 219 Lake Butler, Florida 32054 James H. Cason, III, Superintendent The School Board of Union Co. 55 Southwest Sixth Street Lake Butler, Florida 32054 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Sydney McKenzie, General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has served in the field of education in the State of Florida for approximately twenty-seven years. He has worked as a teacher, a dean, an assistant principal, and a principal. From 1959 until June, 1972, he worked in the Broward County, Florida school system in various capacities. Prior to the 1972-73 academic year, the Petitioner moved to Lake County where he was hired as an assistant principal at Eustis High School. He served as the assistant principal at Eustis High School during the 1972-73 and 1973-74 academic years. During those two academic years there were two assistant principals employed at Eustis High School. The school was not large enough to justify two assistant principalships; however, racial tensions at the school had placed a strain upon administrative personnel, and two assistant principals were assigned to the school for that reason. During the spring of the 1973-74 school year, it became apparent that only one of the two assistant principals would be rehired for the next academic year. The principal at Eustis High School decided to retain the other assistant principal rather than the Petitioner. This was not because of any deficiency on the Petitioner's part, but rather because the other assistant principal was black man, and the principal felt it important to maintain a black person in a high administrative capacity at the school in view of the recent tensions. During the 1972-73 and 1973-74 school years, the Petitioner was employed with the School Board on an "annual contract" basis. He was eligible for a "continuing contract" for the 1974-75 school year. The principal at Eustis High School wished to recommend the Petitioner for continued employment as an administrator; however, he did not have a position available, and he recommended that the Petitioner be hired on a continuing contract basis as a teacher. The School Board voted to place the Petitioner on continuing contract status as a teacher. During the summer of 1974 additional funds became available, and the School Board elected to keep a second assistant principal at the Eustis High School. The Petitioner was offered that position. In the meantime, however, the Petitioner had applied for a vacancy as an assistant principal at the Mount Dora Middle School, within the Lake County school system. The Petitioner was hired for that latter position. During the 1974-75 school year the principal at the Mount Dora High School was removed, and the Petitioner was assigned as the principal. He served in that capacity for the remainder of that school year, and for the 1975-76 and 1976-77 school years. For each of those two latter years, he was given an annual contract as a principal. During February, 1977, the Superintendent of the School Board advised the Petitioner at a conference that the Petitioner would not be recommended for an administrative position within the school system for the 1977-78 school year, but that the Petitioner's continuing contract status as a teacher would be honored, and that he would be recommended for a teaching position. This oral notification was followed by letters dated March 7, 1977 and March 29, 1977 advising the Petitioner of the action. Petitioner is now employed on a continuing contract basis, as a teacher at the Eustis Middle School within the Lake County school system. At all times relevant to this action, the School Board has distributed contracts to its personnel in the following manner: During the spring or early summer of each academic year, two copies of proposed contracts are mailed to personnel who the Board has decided to rehire. If the employee agrees with the contract he signs both copies and returns them to the School Board, where the facsimile signatures of the Superintendent and Chairman of the School Board are affixed. One of the copies is then returned to the employee. Prior to the 1974-75 school year, a continuing contract of employment was forwarded to the Petitioner in this manner. The contract provided in pertinent part: WHEREAS, Section 231.36, et. seq., Florida Statutes, provides for continuing contracts with each School Board for members of the instructional staff in each district school system, who are qualified by the terms of said law, and WHEREAS, the School Board has appointed and employed the Teacher for continuing employment as teacher in the Mount Dora Middle School of the district. NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual agreements, covenants, terms, and conditions herein contained, it is expressly stipulated, understood, agreed, and covenanted by and between the parties hereto as follows: The School Board enters into this contract of continuing employment with the Teacher pursuant to the laws of Florida and to Section 231.36, et. seq., Florida Statutes, and the action of the School Board heretofore taken, whereby the Teacher was appointed and employed . . . The words "(Asst. Prin.)" had been placed after the words "whereas the School Board has appointed and employed the teacher for continuing employment as teacher". The words "(Asst. Prin.)" were also crossed out. It appears that these words were inserted in the contract after Mr. Ridaught had signed it and before the proper facsimile signatures of the Chairman of the School Board and the Superintendent of Schools were affixed to the contract. The Superintendent crossed out the words before the contract was signed by the School Board personnel. When the contract was returned to the Petitioner the words "(Asst. Prin.)" were placed on the contract and were crossed out. It does not appear that the words "(Asst. Prin.)" as above have any bearing on this case, or that they were intended to be a part of the contract by either of the parties. It appears that they were inserted by clerical error and were crossed out in order to obviate the error. The School Board has, in the past, offered continuing contract status to teachers, principals, and supervisors. The School Board has not, in the past, offered continuing contract status to assistant principals, or any administrators below the level of principal. It does not appear that the School Board has ever offered a continuing contract to an administrator other than a principal. As a result of a change in the pertinent statutes the School Board now gives tenure or continuing contract status only to teachers. Neither supervisors nor principals are granted continuing contract status. Assistant principals are classified for the School Board's purposes as teachers. Their paygrade is determined from the same scale that is used for teachers. Assistant principals are given an increment in their salary for the additional duties that they perform, in the same manner that coaches, librarians, and guidance counsellors are given an increment. There is no separate salary scale for assistant principals as there is for administrators and supervisors. Although the School Board classified the Petitioner as a teacher in the continuing contract that was granted to the Petitioner in 1974, the Petitioner had not, prior to that time, ever served within the Lake County school system as a teacher. All of his service prior to then was as an assistant principal. His duties as an assistant principal included administrative duties assigned by the principal of the school. At no time did he serve as a classroom teacher. Subsequent to 1974, the Petitioner continued to serve as an administrator within the school system, and not until the present school year did he ever serve as a classroom teacher.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered denying the Petitioner's prayer that the School Board be required to consider him as having continuing contract status as an administrator or assistant principal; and denying the Petitioner's prayer for loss of wages; and dismissing the petition herein. RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of March, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Vossler, Esquire Harrison T. Slaughter, Jr., Esquire 110 North Magnolia Drive Suite 610, Eola Office Center Suite 224 605 Robinson Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Orlando, Florida 32801 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER =================================================================
The Issue Whether the Board refused to re-employ Ms. Smith as a teacher's aide for the 1985-1986 school year in retaliation for a Complaint that she filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations in January, 1983?
Findings Of Fact Ms. Smith is a graduate of a high school in the Gadsden County School system. Ms. Smith successfully completed a business education course at Gadsden Vo-Tech after receiving her high school diploma. Ms. Smith was rated qualified to work as a teacher's aide in the Gadsden County School system by the Central Administration office in 1982 and in 1984. Ms. Smith was employed as a teacher's aide at Gretna Elementary School (hereinafter referred to as "Gretna") during the 1982-1983 school year. She began her employment at Gretna in October, 1982. Ms. Smith's immediate supervisor at Gretna during the first month of her employment was the Principal, Mr. Witt Campbell. Mr. Campbell left Gretna in November, 1982. For the remainder of the 1982-1983 school year, Ms. Smith's immediate supervisor was Rosa Barkley, who replaced Mr. Witt as Principal. Ms. Smith was pregnant during the 1982-1983 school year. On January 24, 1983, Ms. Smith became ill because of her pregnancy and had to go to the hospital. Ms. Smith did not return to Gretna during the remainder of the school year. On March 14, 1983, Ms. Barkley went to visit with Ms. Smith at her home. Ms. Smith told Ms. Barkley that she would return to work approximately two weeks after her baby was born. This meant that Ms. Smith would return after the start of the 1983-1984 school year. Ms. Barkley helped Ms. Smith request a leave of absence. This leave of absence was approved by the Board on March 29, 1983. In March, 1983, Ms. Barkley gave Ms. Smith a satisfactory rating on a Gadsden County Non-instructional Personnel Assessment form which was filed with the Board. Ms. Barkley gave Ms. Smith the benefit of the doubt in completing this form because Ms. Smith had been under Ms. Barkley's supervision only from November, 1982 to January, 1983. Ms. Barkley also recommended to the Superintendent that Ms. Smith be re-employed for the 1983-1984 school year. By letter dated June 17, 1983, Ms. Barkley asked the Superintendent to terminate Ms. Smith. Ms. Barkley made this request because she wanted to have an aide that would start the school year in August, 1983 and not in November, 1983, when Ms. Smith planned to return. Ms. Barkley indicated in the letter that Ms. Smith had been absent because of her pregnancy. The Superintendent, Mr. Bishop, decided to grant Ms. Barkley's request. The decision to terminate Ms. Smith was made by the Board and not by Ms. Barkley. Although the Superintendent generally relies heavily on the recommendation of a principal, the decision to terminate Ms. Smith was that of the Board. The Board, based upon the information it was provided, should have told Ms. Barkley, that a leave of absence, and not termination, was the proper remedy to Ms. Barkley's problem. By letter dated July 27, 1983, Ms. Smith was terminated by the Board. Ms. Smith filed a Complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations on January 19, 1984, alleging sex discrimination against Ms. Barkley. Upon the filing of the Complaint the Board investigated and decided that Ms. Smith should be rehired. The Board realized that it had caused the problem and not Ms. Barkley. Ms. Smith was offered the first teacher's aide position available. The position was at Chattahoochee Elementary School (hereinafter referred to as "Chattahoochee"). Ms. Smith accepted the position and began work at Chattahoochee in March, 1984. Ms. Smith worked with fourth grade Chapter 1 children (children who have been disadvantaged with regard to their educational opportunities). Ms. Martha Downs was her teacher. While at Chattahoochee, Ms. Smith had difficulty performing her duties as a teacher's aide. Her primary area of deficiency was in math. Mr. Corbin Scott, the Principal at Chattahoochee, attempted to help Ms. Smith by having Ms. Ella Ponder, a helping teacher, assist her. Although it was alleged that Ms. Smith was required to take a Criteria Reference Test normally taken by fourth graders, the evidence failed to support this allegation. Based upon Ms. Smith's poor performance, Mr. Corbin did not recommend that Ms. Smith be returned to Chattahoochee for the next school year. Although Ms. Smith admitted that she has some problems with math she failed to accept the fact that she was not adequately performing her duties as a teacher's aide. Instead, she believed that Mr. Corbin expected her to "teach" and that he was unfair when he did not recommend her continued employment at Chattahoochee for the next school year. Ms. Smith believed that the Complaint that she filed in January, 1984, affected the way that she was treated at Chattahoochee. This unfounded belief affected Ms. Smith's attitude while at Chattahoochee and later. The Board decided that the period of time that Ms. Smith was employed at Chattahoochee (March, 1984 to June, 1984) was too short. Therefore, in an effort to be fair with Ms. Smith and to settle the dispute with Ms. Smith, the Board decided to place Ms. Smith in another teacher's aide position for the 1984- 1985 school year. During the Summer of 1984, Ms. Smith and the Board settled the Complaint which Ms. Smith had filed in January, 1984. Pursuant to this settlement, Ms. Smith dismissed her Complaint for back-pay and her re-employment at Gretna. Ms. Smith was employed at Gretna during the 1984- 1985 school year as a teacher's aide pursuant to the settlement. Ms. Barkley, Ms. Smith's immediate supervisor at Gretna, was not consulted before the Board decided to return Ms. Smith to Gretna. Principals of schools are not consulted by the Board before employees are assigned to their schools. Although Ms. Smith agreed to return to Gretna as part of the settlement of her Complaint against the Board, she believed that Ms. Barkley would not treat her properly. This belief, which was unfounded, affected Ms. Smith's attitude toward Ms. Barkley and her job during the 1984-1985 school year. Ms. Smith was assigned to assist two teachers for most of the 1984- 1985 school year at Gretna: Ms. Corine D. Palmer and Ms. Charlotte Price. Neither Ms. Palmer nor Ms. Price talked to Ms. Smith about problems which they perceived in Ms. Smith's performance. Ms. Price's attitude was that she was there to teach students and, therefore, she did not want to be bothered with Ms. Smith. Ms. Palmer's attitude was to work around Ms. Smith; she gave up trying to use Ms. Smith effectively because of Ms. Smith's lack of effort. Both ladies essentially stuck their heads in the sand and ignored the problem since neither of them were responsible for evaluating Ms. Smith. Employees at Gretna were required to sign in and sign out on a sheet provided for them at the administrative office of the school. During the school year Ms. Smith was late arriving at school a total of fifteen times. Most of those times she was late more than a few minutes. She was late seven times during 1984 and eight times in 1985. At least three other teachers' aides (Inez Morris, Ida Miller and Mary Wright) were late to school more often than Ms. Smith. While Ms. Smith received an unsatisfactory rating for punctuality for the school year, the other three aides received a satisfactory rating. Many of the times that the other three aides were late, they were late only a few minutes. When they were late more than a few minutes, they notified Ms. Barkley or someone else at Gretna that they would be late, and indicated why. Ms. Smith, on the other hand, did not always notify Ms. Barkley or anyone else that she would be late, or indicate why she was late until she was asked. During the first week of the 1984-1985 school year (August 20-24, 1984), Ms. Smith was late three times. Ms. Smith rode to school with another employee who was late getting to school. On August 27, 1984, Ms. Barkley discussed Ms. Smith's lateness with her and gave her a letter indicating that she was expected to be at school at 8:05 a.m. Ms. Smith was late once during each of the next three weeks. She corrected the problem, however, by arranging to ride with someone else. After the week of September 10-14, 1984, Ms. Smith was late only one other time during 1984. During 1985, Ms. Smith was late at least once a week during seven of the eleven weeks ending March 15, 1985. In addition to being late reporting to school, Ms. Smith was late going to her assigned classroom after arriving at school and after lunch. Ms. Smith was required to be in her morning class no later than 8:15 a.m. Her lateness was reported by Ms. Palmer and Ms. Price and was also noted by Ms. Barkley. Ms. Smith was in the employee lounge on many occasions when she should have been in a class. On October 15, 1984, Ms. Barkley spoke with all of the aides about being in the lounge in the morning when they should be in their classes. Despite Ms. Barkley's comments, that afternoon Ms. Smith was in the lounge when she should not have been, and she continued to be late to her assigned classroom in the mornings. Ms. Palmer and Ms. Price told Ms. Barkley that Ms. Smith was late to class. Both of them tended to do without her and to avoid any effort to try to correct the problem. On February 15, 1985, Ms. Barkley gave Ms. Smith a letter that indicated that Ms. Smith was in the lounge when she was not supposed to be. A similar letter was given to Ida Miller and Dorothy Smith. Ms. Miller and Ms. Dorothy Smith corrected the problem. Ms. Smith did not. Ms. Barkley rated Ms. Smith's attendance as "unsatisfactory". This rating was not based upon the number of days that she was absent. It was based upon the number of times that Ms. Smith was not in her assigned classroom. Ms. Barkley kept a notebook in which she noted the dates of some events involving employees' actions. She has kept these notes since she became a principal. Most of the notes concerning Ms. Smith did not give the reason for absences or lateness. Ms. Smith did not, however, always report the reason for her lateness. Most of the observations involved lateness and absences. The notes concerning Ms. Smith were provided to the Board because she was requested to provide any documentation concerning Ms. Smith. She did not know where her other notes were. Ms. Barkley noted the conference she had with Ms. Smith on August 27, 1984. In this note, she referred to Ms. Smith as "Ms. Attitude." This notation and a later notation that Ms. Smith was in the lounge one day "chomping" show a lack of judgment by Ms. Barkley in the manner that Ms. Barkley referred to Ms. Smith. This lack of judgment is not sufficient, however, to prove that Ms. Barkley terminated Ms. Smith at the end of the 1984-1985 school year in retaliation for the Complaint filed by Ms. Smith in 1983. Ms. Barkley's explanation for these notations is rejected. Ms. Barkley talked to teachers and other aides about Ms. Smith. Ms. Barkley did not, however, limit her inquiries to Ms. Smith. Ms. Barkley was responsible for the supervision of all of the employees at Gretna. She was very active in managing her school. She observed her employees in the halls of the school, in the lounge and in the classroom. She did not single out Ms. Smith. Ms. Barkley asked teachers and other aides about all employees and she checked up on all her employees. Ms. Smith was observed in class by Ms. Barkley. Ms. Smith was seen giving wrong answers and performing sloppy work. When Ms. Barkley talked to Ms. Smith about some of her problems, Ms. Smith's attitude was defensive. She did not believe that she had any problems and believed that Ms. Barkley was being unfair to her. She therefore did not indicate that she agreed with Ms. Barkley or that she would make any efforts to correct her problems when Ms. Barkley spoke to her about her problems. Ms. Price indicated that Ms. Smith had evidenced a poor attitude about her performance with her also. On March 15, 1985, Ms. Barkley met with Ms. Smith and informed her that she would not be recommended for employment during the 1985-1986 school year. Ms. Barkley sent a letter to the Board dated March 15, 1985, recommending that Ms. Smith not be re-employed during the 1985-1986 school year. Ms. Barkley also rated Ms. Smith "unsatisfactory" on five characteristics listed on a Gadsden County Non-instructional Personnel Assessment form dated March 8, 1985. This form was signed by Ms. Smith on March 15, 1985. Ms. Smith was given an unsatisfactory rating for utilization of time, compliance with school and district policies, attendance, punctuality and leadership. This evaluation was similar to the evaluation given Ms. Smith by Mr. Corbin. Ms. Barkley, Ms. Price and Ms. Palmer were given a Personal Reference Form for Teacher Aide Applicants by Ms. Smith. Ms. Smith told Ms. Price and Ms. Palmer that the forms were going to be used by her to apply for a job outside of its school system. Although both teachers had misgivings about Ms. Smith's ability and did not want her back as a teacher's aide, they both liked her personally and wanted to help her find a job. They also wanted to avoid any conflict with Ms. Smith. Therefore, even though they should have known better, they completed the forms giving Ms. Smith affair rating and indicating that they would employ her as a teacher's aide. Ms. Barkley completed the form given to her by Ms. Smith on April 30, 1985. She gave her a poor rating and indicated that she would not employ her as a teacher's aide. Ms. Barkley had completed a Gadsden County Non-instructional Personnel Assessment form when Ms. Smith left Gretna in 1983. Ms. Barkley gave Ms. Smith a favorable evaluation. She did so, however, because Ms. Smith had only worked at Gretna during the 1982-1983 school year for approximately four months and Ms. Barkley had only been there during three of those months. Therefore, Ms. Barkley did not believe it would be fair to give Ms. Smith an unfavorable evaluation. The Board did not refuse to re-employ Ms. Smith for the 1985-1986 school year in retaliation for any dispute between Ms. Smith and Ms. Barkley or any other person. Ms. Smith was not re-employed because she lacked the necessary job skills to work as a teacher's aide and had failed to perform adequately. On or about July 15, 1985, Ms. Smith filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations alleging that the Board had discriminated against her on the basis of retaliation. The Executive Director of the Florida Commission on Human Relations issued a "Determination: No Cause" on May 12, 1987. Ms. Smith filed a Petition for Rehearing. On or about July 13, 1987, the Executive Director entered a "Redetermination: No Cause." Ms. Smith filed a Petition for Relief. The Florida Commission on Human Relations forwarded the Petition the Division of Administrative Hearings by order dated August 18, 1987.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Ms. Smith's Petition for Relief be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of March, 1988. APPENDIX The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 2. 3 Irrelevant. 4-5 3. 6-7 22. 8 4. 9 23. 10 5. 11 12. The date of termination was July 27, 1983. 12 10. 13-14 13. 15 20-22. 16 10. 17 8. 18 9. 19 22. 20 23. 21 11. The evidence failed to prove that the Board acted solely on the recommendation of Ms. Barkley. 22 25. 23 26. 24 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 25-26 27. 27 28. 28 While Ms. Smith may have corrected the "ride problem" she continued to be late during the 1984-1985 school year. 29-31 27. 32-33 33. 34-36 Although these proposed findings of fact are correct they are irrelevant. 37 41. 38-39 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 40 Irrelevant and not supported by the weight of the evidence. 41 35. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Irrelevant. 44 35. 45-46 36. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Although it is true that Ms. Smith did improve her punctuality arriving at Gretna during 1984 she failed to continue to arrive on time during the rest of the school year. See 28. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 45. 2 21. 3 10 and 11. 4 14. 5 16. 6 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 16. 7 16-18. 8 20 and 22. 9-10 37. 11 41. 12 42. 13 28 and 33. 14 28-29 and 33. 15 45. COPIES FURNISHED TO: EDWARD J. GRUNEWALD, ESQUIRE LEGAL SERVICES OF NORTH FLORIDA, INC. 400 NORTH MADISON STREET QUINCY, FLORIDA 32351 CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON, ESQUIRE 211 EAST JEFFERSON STREET QUINCY, FLORIDA 32351 DONALD A. GRIFFIN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 325 JOHN KNOX ROAD BUILDING F, SUITE 240 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1925 DANA BAIRD GENERAL COUNSEL 325 JOHN KNOX ROAD BUILDING F, SUITE 240 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1925
Findings Of Fact An Administrative Complaint was served on the Respondent in April, 1983. Herb A. Sang, Superintendent of Duval County County Schools, was responsible for those charges. In the complaint, it is alleged that Respondent is guilty of professional incompetency in fulfilling his duties as a teacher in the Duval County School System in the years 1979-80 and 1980-81. Respondent is a tenured teacher in the Duval County School System and had held that tenure at all times relevant to this inquiry. Respondent opposed these allegations, leading to the formal Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes hearing. Respondent, who has been employed in the school system since 1954, was transferred to Duncan U. Fletcher Senior High School in 1971. Lee remained at Fletcher High through the school year 1979-80. In that year, Lee taught 10th grade English. His performance in the classroom was observed by Dr. Andrew Knight, principal at Fletcher High School, and by other professionals in the school. These observations commenced in September 1979 and continued throughout the school year. By January 30, 1980, Dr. Knight had gained a sufficient impression of the performance of the Respondent to write and inform him of areas of deficiency. A copy of that letter of evaluation may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7, admitted into evidence. In addition to setting forth deficiencies, the letter suggests techniques that might be employed to correct the deficiencies. Relevant areas of concern involved classroom management, teaching effectiveness and classroom performance. Those observations as set out in the letter of evaluation and critique of the Respondent's performance are an accurate depiction of the performance. All these items set forth relate to teacher competency and this depiction of Respondent, coupled with similar observations which were testified to during the course of the hearing, demonstrate a lack of competency on the part of the Respondent in performing his teaching duties. The deficiencies set forth in the letter of evaluation were explained to the Respondent in person. Following the interim evaluation of January, 1980, the annual formal evaluation was made on March 12, 1980. A copy of that evaluation may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 9, admitted into evidence. As depicted in this document, Respondent was still perceived in March, 1980, as giving a poor performance as a teacher. This characterization of his performance, as found in the evaluation of March 12, 1980, is accurate and those observations, together with the observations of his performance as testified to in the hearing, point to the fact that the Respondent continued to be less than competent in his teaching. Throughout that school year, classroom management was the most obvious deficiency. In particular, students were sleeping and talking to each other and not paying attention, a problem not satisfactorily addressed by Lee. As a result, the learning experience was diminished. Moreover, this circumstance was made worse by the fact that Lee's perception of how to plan for instruction and his efforts at carrying out these plans were not structured in a fashion to hold the attention of his classes and promote the goals announced in the Duval County School course Curriculum for Tenth Grade Language Arts. See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 33. Based upon his unsatisfactory evaluation for the school year 1979-80, and in keeping with the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act, Respondent was transferred to Edward White High School in the school year 1980-81. The principal at that school was John E. Thombleson. Thombleson was aware of the unsatisfactory rating that Lee had received and undertook, during the course of Respondent's stay at White High School, to observe and assist Lee in trying to improve Lee's teaching. That improvement was not forthcoming. Lee continued to have problems related to classroom management and teacher effectiveness and he was not responsive to beneficial ideas of improvement offered by Thombleson related to in-service assistance. Ideas for improvement which were posed to the Respondent include those set forth in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 11, admitted into evidence which is a memorandum concerning a conference held with Respondent by Principal Thombleson. Other exhibits admitted pertaining to observations by Thombleson and other administrators at White are found to be accurate depictions of the atmosphere in Lee's classroom related to management and teaching effectiveness. Through October, 1980, visits to Respondent's classes revealed a lack of attention on the part of students, a lack of preparedness by the Respondent, a failure to proceed in a sequence which would be commensurate with the curriculum goals set for the classes, tardiness on the part of the Respondent and students, failure to provide lesson plans to the administration observer, failure to conform to the scheduled lesson plan for the day, and failure to provide continuity between the lesson of the day and the following day's assignment. These were problems that had been observed during Lee's 1979- 80 year at Fletcher. Consequently, the required interim evaluation of October 30, 1980, was not favorable to Lee. A copy of that formal evaluation may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 18, admitted into evidence and the observations set forth therein are found to be accurate. Lee was also provided with a memorandum on that date, a copy of which is Petitioner's Exhibit No. 19, admitted into evidence. This document suggested ways to improve classroom management, teaching effectiveness and classroom performance. Both the evaluation and memorandum of improvement were discussed with the Respondent and the matters of that conference are set forth in the memorandum of October 30, 1980, a copy of which is found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 20, admitted into evidence. On November 6, 1980, Respondent's grade book was evaluated and found to be deficient, a finding which is accepted. The grade book was not properly documented, among other shortcomings. Respondent, by correspondence of November 18, 1980, a copy of which is admitted as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 24, requested Principal Thombleson to give concrete examples of expectations of the Respondent in fulfilling his teaching responsibilities. This correspondence was replied to by memorandum of December 5, 1980, a copy of which is admitted as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 25, and contains a continuing explanation of ideas of improvement which had been previously suggested by Principal Thombleson. Lee's performance did not improve after this exchange and the final evaluation at White of March 12, 1981, was not positive. A copy of that evaluation may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 27, admitted into evidence and the evaluation's conclusions are accepted. Overall, in the year 1980-81, Respondent did not perform as a competent teacher while at Edward White. Respondent did not conclude the teaching year at Edward White in 1980- In the face of an attitude which Thombleson considered to be insubordinate and the Respondent's expressed desire to be transferred, Lee was reassigned to William Raines Senior High School in April, 1981. For the remainder of that academic year he served as a substitute teacher. It was not established in the course of the hearing what quality of performance Lee gave as a substitute teacher when assigned to Raines High School and it is therefore assumed that that performance was satisfactory. In the school year 1981-82, Respondent was assigned to Raines High School and acted primarily as a substitute teacher. He remained in the high school for that school year premised upon a settlement negotiation between the Respondent and the Duval County School Board pertaining to an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint which he had filed pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. For the school year 1981-82, the Duval County school administration decided that they would not afford a performance evaluation to the Respondent and none was given. There being no evidence to the contrary, it is assumed that Respondent fulfilled his role as substitute teacher adequately. In the school year 1982-83, Respondent was reassigned to Raines school and worked primarily in the media center program in a nonteaching capacity. Lee did a limited amount of substitute teaching in that year. Jimmie A. Johnson, Principal of Raines school found his work as a substitute teacher to be acceptable as set forth in the memorandum of March 23, 1983, a copy of which is admitted as Respondent's Exhibit B. No contrary position being offered on the question of the quality of performance in the limited role of substitute teacher during that school year, Respondent is found to have performed the role of substitute teacher in a satisfactory manner. Lee's performance as a substitute teacher in the years 1981-82 and 1982-83 while accepted as satisfactory does not overcome the established fact that in the school years 1979-80 and 1980-81, when performing the role of full- time tenured teacher in Duval County, he was not a competent teacher. This performance in the substitute role, while similar, is not sufficiently so to provide a quality of rehabilitation which would set aside the present perception that Respondent is not competent to fulfill the role as full-time classroom teacher in Duval County. This finding is supported by the observations of Dr. Jeffrey Weathers, a professional educator who specializes in teacher evaluations related to their classroom performance as to subject matter and general methodologies. Although some of the tasks which Weathers observed in the Respondent's classroom both at Fletcher and White did not pertain to active instruction, to the extent that other tasks observed called upon Respondent to teach, he was not doing so in an effective manner. As Dr. Weathers described, the vital link between activity and learning could not be found in Lee's classes. Weather's observations, together with those of other professionals at Fletcher and White, coupled with the Respondent's less than cooperative attitude, results in the finding that Respondent has not removed the stigma of his incompetence as a full-time classroom teacher through his teaching in the substitute role at Raines. Finally, while the quality of performance by those students at Fletcher and White who were taught by Lee and participated in the MLST minimum skills tests were similar to students of other teachers in the aggregate, this fact is not enough to set aside the impression of the Respondent's competence. As Dr. Curtis Randolph, who was assistant principal at Fletcher in 1979-80, correctly stated upon reflecting on Respondent's performance, Lee is not competent to teach in Duval County Schools.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioners are entitled to the Best and Brightest Scholarship as established and defined by section 1012.731(3)(c), Florida Statutes (2017).
Findings Of Fact In 2015, the Legislature enacted, by way of a line item in the annual appropriations bill, the Best and Brightest Program to award cash scholarships to Florida teachers who have been evaluated as “highly effective” by their school districts and who scored at or above the 80th percentile (top 20%) on the SAT or ACT when they took the test. Ch. 2015-232, § 2, line item 99A, Laws of Fla.1/ In 2016, the Legislature enacted a stand-alone statute for the Best and Brightest Program, codifying the appropriations bill language and providing that the program is to be administered by the Department of Education (the “Department”). Ch. 2016-62, § 25, Laws of Fla., codified at § 1012.731, Fla. Stat. (2016). Rather than enacting a statutory scholarship amount, subsection (5) of the 2016 version of section 1012.731 provided that the scholarships would be awarded to every eligible classroom teacher “in the amount provided in the General Appropriations Act.”2/ The 2016 statute also explained that the Best and Brightest Program was intended to provide “categorical funding for scholarships to be awarded to classroom teachers, as defined in s. 1012.01(2)(a), who have demonstrated a high level of academic achievement.” § 1012.731(2), Fla. Stat. (2016). Section 1012.01(2) defines “instructional personnel,” including “classroom teachers,” as follows: INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL.— “Instructional personnel” means any K-12 staff member whose function includes the provision of direct instructional services to students. Instructional personnel also includes K-12 personnel whose functions provide direct support in the learning process of students. Included in the classification of instructional personnel are the following K-12 personnel: Classroom teachers.--Classroom teachers are staff members assigned the professional activity of instructing students in courses in classroom situations, including basic instruction, exceptional student education, career education, and adult education, including substitute teachers. Student personnel services.--Student personnel services include staff members responsible for: advising students with regard to their abilities and aptitudes, educational and occupational opportunities, and personal and social adjustments; providing placement services; performing educational evaluations; and similar functions. Included in this classification are certified school counselors, social workers, career specialists, and school psychologists. Librarians/media specialists.-- Librarians/media specialists are staff members responsible for providing school library media services. These employees are responsible for evaluating, selecting, organizing, and managing media and technology resources, equipment, and related systems; facilitating access to information resources beyond the school; working with teachers to make resources available in the instructional programs; assisting teachers and students in media productions; and instructing students in the location and use of information resources. Other instructional staff.--Other instructional staff are staff members who are part of the instructional staff but are not classified in one of the categories specified in paragraphs (a)-(c). Included in this classification are primary specialists, learning resource specialists, instructional trainers, adjunct educators certified pursuant to s. 1012.57, and similar positions. Education paraprofessionals.--Education paraprofessionals are individuals who are under the direct supervision of an instructional staff member, aiding the instructional process. Included in this classification are classroom paraprofessionals in regular instruction, exceptional education paraprofessionals, career education paraprofessionals, adult education paraprofessionals, library paraprofessionals, physical education and playground paraprofessionals, and other school-level paraprofessionals. In 2017, the Legislature amended section 1012.731(3) to establish that the scholarship award would be $6,000 for those classroom teachers rated “highly effective” who also had the requisite SAT or ACT scores: (3)(a) To be eligible for a scholarship in the amount of $6,000, a classroom teacher must: 1. Have achieved a composite score at or above the 80th percentile on either the SAT or the ACT based on the National Percentile Ranks in effect when the classroom teacher took the assessment and have been evaluated as highly effective pursuant to s. 1012.34 in the school year immediately preceding the year in which the scholarship will be awarded, unless the classroom teacher is newly hired by the district school board and has not been evaluated pursuant to s.1012.34. * * * In order to demonstrate eligibility for an award, an eligible classroom teacher must submit to the school district, no later than November 1, an official record of his or her qualifying assessment score and, beginning with the 2020-2021 school year, an official transcript demonstrating that he or she graduated cum laude or higher with a baccalaureate degree, if applicable. Once a classroom teacher is deemed eligible by the school district, the teacher shall remain eligible as long as he or she remains employed by the school district as a classroom teacher at the time of the award and receives an annual performance evaluation rating of highly effective pursuant to s. 1012.34 or is evaluated as highly effective based on a commissioner- approved student learning growth formula pursuant to s. 1012.34(8) for the 2019-2020 school year or thereafter. Ch. 2017-116, § 46, Laws of Fla. The 2017 amendment to section 1012.731 also added a new subsection (3)(c), providing that lesser amounts could be awarded to teachers rated “highly effective” or “effective,” even if they could not demonstrate scores at or above the 80th percentile on the SAT or ACT: Notwithstanding the requirements of this subsection, for the 2017-2018, 2018- 2019, and 2019-2020 school years, any classroom teacher who: Was evaluated as highly effective pursuant to s. 1012.34 in the school year immediately preceding the year in which the scholarship will be awarded shall receive a scholarship of $1,200, including a classroom teacher who received an award pursuant to paragraph (a). Was evaluated as effective pursuant to s. 1012.34 in the school year immediately preceding the year in which the scholarship will be awarded a scholarship of up to $800. If the number of eligible classroom teachers under this subparagraph exceeds the total allocation, the department shall prorate the per-teacher scholarship amount. This paragraph expires July 1, 2020. Id. By December 1 of each year, each school district must submit to the Department the number of eligible classroom teachers who qualify for the scholarship, as well as identifying information regarding the schools to which the eligible classroom teachers are assigned. § 1012.731(4)(a)-(c), Fla. Stat. For the 2017-2018 school year, the December 1, 2017, submission deadline was extended to January 2, 2018, due to a hurricane. The School Board’s deadline for teachers to apply for the scholarship was accordingly extended from November 1, 2017, to December 1, 2017. By February 1 of each year, the Department is required to disburse scholarship funds to each school district for each eligible classroom teacher to receive a scholarship. § 1012.731(5), Fla. Stat. By April 1, each school district is required to award the scholarship to each eligible classroom teacher. § 1012.731(6), Fla. Stat. In 2018, the Legislature amended section 1012.731 to provide that a school district employee who is no longer a classroom teacher may receive the $6,000 award if the employee was a classroom teacher in the prior school year, was rated highly effective, and met the requirements of this section as a classroom teacher. § 1012.731(3)(b)2., Fla. Stat. (2018). The Legislature did not add a similar provision stating that former classroom teachers who are still school district employees remain eligible for the $1,200 and $800 awards. § 1012.731(3)(c)2., Fla. Stat. (2018). The Legislature funds the Best and Brightest Program. The School Board had no role in creating the Best and Brightest Program. The School Board is required to determine the eligibility of classroom teachers who qualify for the Best and Brightest Program pursuant to the requirements of the statute. Petitioners in this case claim entitlement only to the $1,200 award established by the 2017 version of the statute. Brenda Troutman, director of Instructional Personnel, is the School Board employee in charge of the Best and Brightest Program application and submission process. Ms. Troutman has worked for the School Board for 17 years. She has been a junior high classroom teacher and an assistant principal and vice principal at the high school level. Though no longer teaching in the classroom, Ms. Troutman retains her certifications in math grades 5-9, exceptional student education (“ESE”), educational leadership, and school principal. When working as a high school administrator, Ms. Troutman was the master scheduler for her school, meaning that she built the schedule for every teacher at the school. This task required that she become very familiar with the School Board’s course code directory. Ms. Troutman also had to understand the certification system in order to hire and assign teachers. If a teacher asked to teach a certain course, Ms. Troutman had to know both the course requirements and the teacher’s certifications to determine whether the teacher was eligible to teach the course. As part of her current position in the School Board’s human resources department, Ms. Troutman is required to know the School Board’s various job titles and descriptions. She is responsible for replacing obsolete job descriptions and posting current job descriptions on the School Board’s website. Ms. Troutman testified as to how she manages the application and submission process of the Best and Brightest Program. She starts by making herself familiar with any changes the Legislature may have made to the program. She then issues a notice to teachers about the program and the current eligibility requirements. For the 2017-2018 Best and Brightest Program, Ms. Troutman prepared a draft email that Superintendent Addison Davis reviewed and sent to all of the school district’s teachers and administrators on September 28, 2017. The email explained that to be eligible for the $6,000, $1,200 or $800 scholarship, an applicant must meet the definition of classroom teacher as set forth in section 1012.01(2)(a). Ms. Troutman developed the School Board’s application for the Best and Brightest Program, based upon her understanding of the statutory requirements. All completed applications for the Best and Brightest Program come into Ms. Troutman’s office. Ms. Troutman testified that she received approximately 2,000 applications for the 2017-2018 award. Ms. Troutman, with the aid of her assistant, reviews and verifies the information on the applications. If Ms. Troutman has any questions about an application, she seeks the opinion of her direct supervisor David Broskie, the director of Human Resources. In some cases, they also have discussions with Superintendent Davis and School Board Attorney David D’Agata. The School Board employs two major data programs. FOCUS is the program/database that holds all student information, including attendance, grades, disciplinary actions, test information, and demographics. TERMS is the program/database that houses all employee information. When verifying information on the Best and Brightest Program applications, Ms. Troutman uses both FOCUS and TERMS, and on occasion conducts additional investigation. The School Board’s application asks for the teacher’s assignment. Because the application was titled “2017-2018 Clay County Application: Florida Best & Brightest Teacher Scholarship,” Ms. Troutman believed that the teachers were required to provide their 2017-2018 teacher assignments. As will be discussed in more detail below, the year of the teacher assignment was a major point of disagreement between Petitioners and the School Board. The application provided a checkmark system for the teacher to indicate which scholarship was being sought. The $1,200 scholarship line provided as follows: I am applying for the $1,200.00 highly effective scholarship. I have attached a copy of my 2016-2017 highly effective final evaluation (with student performance measures). The application’s language led Petitioners to believe that the 2017-2018 scholarship awards would be based on their teacher assignments and evaluations for 2016-2017. Ms. Troutman explained that this belief was incorrect. Eligibility for the 2017-2018 scholarship was based on a teacher’s assignment for the 2017-2018 school year. The plain language of the statute requires that one must be a “classroom teacher” in order to be eligible for the scholarship; having been a classroom teacher in a previous year does not suffice. Ms. Troutman stated that she verified with Mr. Broskie, Mr. Davis, and Mr. D’Agata that the School Board should base the award on the teacher’s 2017-2018 assignment. Petitioners, on the other hand, argue that the statutory language requires only an evaluation of “highly effective” for the 2016-2017 school year. The statute is silent as to whether a teacher applying for the $1,200 scholarship must be teaching in a classroom situation during the 2017-2018 school year. Petitioners argue that the School Board is reading a requirement into the statute that is not evident from the plain language. Ms. Troutman further explained that the applications for the 2017-2018 scholarships were to be submitted prior to the conclusion of the 2017-2018 school year. Therefore, as required by section 1012.731(3)(a)1. and (3)(c), the application requested the evaluation for “the school year immediately preceding the year in which the scholarship will be awarded.” Ms. Troutman testified that it is sometimes obvious from the teaching assignment that the teacher qualifies as a “classroom teacher.” If an application states that the assignment is “chemistry teacher” or “algebra teacher” or “fifth grade classroom teacher,” it is clear that the applicant meets the definition. Aside from verifying the assignment in the TERMS database, Ms. Troutman takes no further action. However, some applications require additional research before Ms. Troutman can conclude that the applicant qualifies as a classroom teacher. For example, Petitioner Abbie Andrews identified her assignment on her application as “classroom teacher.” Ms. Troutman went to TERMS and saw that Ms. Andrews was designated as an “ESE Support Facilitator” for the 2017-2018 school year. Ms. Troutman testified that ESE Support Facilitators are sometimes assigned to teach classes and therefore could be classified as “classroom teachers” for purposes of the Best and Brightest Program. Ms. Troutman examined both the master schedule and the teacher’s personal account in FOCUS to determine whether Ms. Andrews was assigned to teach any courses. Ms. Andrews had no teaching assignments for 2017-2018 in FOCUS. Ms. Andrews and fellow Petitioners Cherry Deaton, Donna Foster, and Danielle Perricelli held the position of ESE Support Facilitator during the 2017-2018 school year. The School Board concluded that these Petitioners did not qualify for the $1,200 scholarship because their schedules did not assign them the professional activity of instructing students in courses in a classroom situation, as required by the statute. It was undisputed that these Petitioners had been rated “highly effective” for the 2016-2017 school year. It was also undisputed that Ms. Andrews, Ms. Deaton, and Ms. Foster met the statutory definition of a classroom teacher for the 2016-2017 school year. The School Board’s general job description for an ESE Support Facilitator provides as follows: The teacher is responsible directly to the Principal. He/she provides for the instruction, supervision, and evaluation of assigned students on an as needed basis. He/she supports both general education and ESE teachers. He/she serves in a staff relationship with other teachers and supports and promotes ESE inclusion activities. (Emphasis added). The School Board contrasts this job description with that of “Classroom Teacher,” which provides: “The teacher is responsible directly to the principal for the instruction, supervision, and evaluation of students.” The classroom teacher is fully responsible for the “instruction, supervision, and evaluation” of the students in her classroom, whereas the ESE Support Facilitator performs those activities only “as needed.” The School Board also points out that, unlike a classroom teacher, an ESE Support Facilitator is not required to be certified in-field for the position. The ESE Support Facilitator is not the teacher of record for any particular course. Their schedule is fluid. The ESE Support Facilitator comes and goes as needed (“pushes in,” to use the teaching vernacular) in the classroom, and is expected to be wherever the ESE student assigned to them needs their services. Sometimes they push into the classroom and sometimes they pull students out of the class to work on a specific concept or skill. An ESE Support Facilitator is assigned “contact students” for whom individualized educational plans (“IEPs”) are prepared. The classroom teacher of record is responsible for giving the student course credit or a grade and is responsible for recording attendance in FOCUS. One-third of the classroom teacher’s evaluation is tied to student performance. Only the classroom teacher has default access to FOCUS in order to enter attendance and grade information for the students in the class. An ESE Support Facilitator must seek and be granted access to student’s FOCUS information. An ESE Support Facilitator is expected to meet with each contact student at least once a month; in practice, these meetings tend to occur more frequently. The ESE Support Facilitator goes over accommodations the student needs and assignments the student did not understand. The facilitator reteaches the course material if need be and stays in touch with the student’s teachers and parents, making sure all stakeholders in the student’s success are on the same page. The evidence presented at the hearing indicated that all of the students served by the ESE Support Facilitators in this case attended classes in regular classrooms, not in separate ESE classes. In such “inclusion” classes, the ESE Support Facilitator’s role is to push in and assist contact students in the regular classroom, ensuring that their IEP requirements are met and that the students are progressing satisfactorily through the course material. Based on these definitional and operative distinctions, Ms. Troutman considered ESE Support Facilitators to be “other instructional staff” as defined by section 1012.01(2)(d), rather than “classroom teachers” as defined by section 1012.01(2)(a). Ms. Andrews was employed as an ESE Support Facilitator at Middleburg High School during the 2016-2017 school year. She taught two periods of English and spent the remaining four periods fulfilling her ESE duties. She was evaluated as “highly effective.” As noted above, there was no dispute that Ms. Andrews met the definition of a “classroom teacher” for the 2016-2017 school year. During the 2017-2018 school year, Ms. Andrews was a full-time ESE Support Facilitator at Middleburg High School, not assigned to teach any courses. In FOCUS, she was assigned as the “contact teacher” for approximately 60 students, meaning that she was primarily responsible for writing their IEPs and ensuring that they made adequate progress in their classes. She met with all of her contact students on an as needed basis, at least once per month but often as much as twice per week. However, Ms. Andrews was not listed in FOCUS as the teacher of record for any class. Even though she routinely pushed into classes to support her assigned ESE students, Ms. Andrews was not the primary teacher of record. She was there to assist her contact students with whatever they needed to learn the course, but the course was not assigned to her to teach. Ms. Andrews did not have a traditional classroom. She was not the teacher of record in any course for which students received academic credit, and she did not assign grades to students for the material she was teaching. Ms. Andrews prepared IEPs that were individualized to particular contact students. She did not prepare daily lesson plans in the manner of a classroom teacher. Ms. Andrews described her job as an ESE Support Facilitator as follows: My job is to teach, mentor, challenge students to make them -- make them ready for graduation, become productive members of society. I believe that’s the same thing a classroom teacher does. I am using the Florida standards to prepare lessons for remediation if a student needs it. I am constantly having conversations with not just students, but their parents, keeping them on track or making sure their students are on track because ultimately, a parent wants that student to graduate on time as well. I believe that the questions that are asked of me as a support facilitator are the same questions that parents would ask of a classroom teacher because they are very concerned. I am not just answering questions based on one classroom. I'm answering questions based on six classes. I'm responsible for that student being successful in six classes. The IEPs that I write, they're legally binding. I am involved in the academics, behavior, discipline. I deal with discipline problems. All of these things are the same things that a classroom teacher would deal with. I do not have a schedule in Focus; however, when a need arises, I'm there, I'm in a classroom, I'm helping, and I'm doing what's needed to be done for the kids to be successful. Ms. Deaton was employed as an ESE Support Facilitator at Middleburg High School during the 2016-2017 school year. She taught two periods of English and spent the remaining four periods fulfilling her ESE duties. She was evaluated as “highly effective.” As noted above, there was no dispute that Ms. Deaton met the definition of a “classroom teacher” for the 2016-2017 school year. In 2017-2018, Ms. Deaton was a full-time ESE Support Facilitator at Middleburg High School, with approximately 60 contact students assigned to her in FOCUS. She was not assigned to teach any courses. If she pushed into a class to support her assigned ESE students, she was not the primary teacher of record. She was not designated as a co-teacher,3/ but she would assist teaching classes on an as-needed basis if she was not busy testing students or preparing IEPs. For those classes, she was provided access to view grades in FOCUS, but she did not have access to give grades. She would meet students as needed in her office, in another teacher's classroom, or in the computer lab. She did not develop lesson plans on her own, but provided suggestions and advice on lesson plans to the primary teacher. As an ESE Support Facilitator, Ms. Deaton did not have a classroom or teach a classroom full of students. She had no schedule assigned to her in FOCUS, but had contact students assigned to her in FOCUS. Ms. Foster was employed as an English/language arts and ESE Inclusion Teacher during the 2016-2017 school year. She taught four classes as ESE inclusion teacher. The remaining two periods were devoted to her position as ESE department head. Ms. Foster had a schedule in FOCUS. She had her own classroom and students, prepared daily lesson plans, and assigned grades. Students in her classes received academic credit. Ms. Foster was evaluated as “highly effective.” As noted above, there was no dispute that Ms. Foster met the definition of a “classroom teacher” for the 2016-2017 school year. Ms. Foster was employed as an ESE Support Facilitator and ESE department head during the 2017-2018 school year. She retired at the end of the school year, effective June 7, 2018. As an ESE Support Facilitator, Ms. Foster did not have a set schedule. Ms. Foster’s assigned ESE students did not receive academic credit for the services she provided, but her assistance was integral in helping them pass their courses. Ms. Foster assisted with an American history class during the 2017-2018 school year, but was not assigned as the primary teacher in FOCUS. Ms. Foster testified that she did not believe she had ever been identified as a co-teacher in FOCUS, though she thought she should have been. Ms. Foster testified that she had IEPs for the American history class that listed both the class setting and the service delivery method as “co-teach.” She explained that because the class had both general education and ESE students, the teacher had to be certified in both the subject matter and ESE. Because the primary teacher was certified only in the subject matter, it was necessary for Ms. Foster to co-teach the class. Ms. Foster testified that she split lesson plan preparation with the primary teacher. Ms. Foster believed she was not listed in FOCUS as the co-teacher because the school administration never bothered to remove the name of Kristin Heard, the ESE teacher originally assigned to the class, who was moved to a science class early in the year. Ms. Foster pursued the matter with the assistant principals at Lakeside Junior High, but nothing came of it. Mallory McConnell, the principal at Lakeside Junior High School during the 2017-2018 school year, confirmed that Ms. Foster was not listed as a co-teacher on the master schedule. Ms. McConnell testified that in 2017-2018 there were no “true co-teacher” situations, by which she meant two teachers who equally shared responsibility for the instruction and grading of every student in the class. Ms. McConnell was aware of situations in which a student’s IEP mandates co-teaching in a class, but she testified that she was unaware of any student at Lakeside Junior High School in 2017-2018 whose IEP required a co-teacher. Ms. McConnell conducted infrequent walkthrough observations of the American history class. She testified that she saw Ms. Foster providing support services to the ESE students but never saw Ms. Foster teaching at the front of the class. Ms. McConnell stated that she would not have expected to see Ms. Foster teaching the class or creating lesson plans for the class as a whole because those tasks were not her job responsibility. Ms. McConnell was in no position to state whether Ms. Foster did, in fact, prepare lesson plans and teach the class. Ms. McConnell was able to state that for at least one month during the school year, Ms. Foster administered tests to her ESE students, meaning that she could not have been co- teaching the American history class. Ms. Foster did not tell Ms. Troutman that she had assisted teaching the American history class during the 2017- 2018 school year, nor did she include such information on her application for the Best and Brightest Program, because she believed the award was based upon her position in 2016-2017 and because she believed the school administration’s failure to include her as teacher of record in FOCUS was an “in-house” issue. Ms. Perricelli was employed as an ESE Support Facilitator, ESE department head, and MTSS intervention team facilitator at Orange Park Junior High School. “MTSS” is an acronym for Multi-Tiered System of Support, a framework for providing support to students who are struggling academically or have an identified need in a specific area such as speech, language, or behavior. MTSS interventions may be used for regular education or ESE students. Ms. Perricelli testified that she was not the teacher assigned by FOCUS for any class in 2016-2017. In addition to her regular ESE duties, Ms. Perricelli taught “grade recovery” to two students in language arts, science, and math. Grade recovery is a class offered to students who have failed a course and lack the credits to move on to the next grade level. Ms. Perricelli designed lesson plans and curriculum assessments for each subject, graded papers and tests, and reported the students’ grades to the school. Ms. Perricelli testified that she was not given the authority to enter the grade recovery students’ grades into FOCUS in 2016-2017. She requested a course code but was never provided one. Ms. Perricelli taught grade recovery for two periods, one for each student. For the other four periods of the school day, Ms. Perricelli would push into classrooms and work with ESE students, usually in small groups with students who needed remediation. She had around 40 contact students and developed IEPs for each of them. Most of her contact students were in the classrooms that she was going into, so she would see them throughout the week. She would meet with her other contact students about once a week. Ms. Perricelli would work with the assigned teacher to modify the course material to meet the needs of the ESE students. Ms. Perricelli was evaluated as “highly effective” for the 2016-2017 school year, based on standard classroom teacher criteria. She was observed working with her grade recovery students and in the classrooms in which she pushed in. Ms. Perricelli testified that her assignments were the same for the 2017-2018 school year. She taught one student in a grade recovery course. Due to her persistence, Ms. Perricelli was able to get a course code from Ms. Troutman for the grade recovery course in 2017-2018. The grade recovery course was named “Unique Skills.” In 2017-2018, Ms. Perricelli was assigned around 70 contact students for whom she prepared IEPs. As department head, Ms. Perricelli oversaw 22 ESE instructors. She was the only ESE Support Facilitator at the school. Janice Tucker was vice principal at Orange Park Junior High School in 2017-2018. She testified that early in the school year, the assigned teacher for seventh grade math left for another county. A long-term substitute, Lashonda Campbell, took over as teacher of record. Ms. Perricelli testified that she developed some of the curriculum in Ms. Campbell’s math classes, which included ESE and non-ESE students. She stated that she taught the class alone once a week when Ms. Campbell started, then tapered off into pulling out small groups of ESE students who needed remediation. She worked with four periods of seventh grade math classes that year. Ms. Perricelli testified that she gave grades to students in those courses and gave them to Ms. Campbell for entry into FOCUS. Ms. Tucker testified that Ms. Perricelli was not a co- teacher for the math class. Ms. Campbell was the teacher of record. Ms. Tucker testified that when she observed the math class, she saw Ms. Perricelli working with small groups in the back of the class or at a table in the hallway, and Ms. Campbell at the front teaching the class. Ms. Tucker never saw Ms. Perricelli at the front of the class teaching. Ms. Tucker conceded that she had no knowledge whether Ms. Perricelli was involved in creating lesson plans or assigning grades for the math class. Ms. Perricelli was evaluated by Ms. Tucker for the 2017-2018 school year. Ms. Tucker observed Ms. Perricelli in the seventh grade math class and in the Unique Skills class. Ms. Perricelli was again rated “highly effective.” Ms. Perricelli testified that she did not mention teaching the math class on her scholarship application. She stated that she did not tell Ms. Troutman about the math class because at the time, the school was still attempting to get a full-time teacher for the class. Ms. Troutman obviously knew about the “Unique Skills” class, having issued the course code to Ms. Perricelli. Ms. Troutman testified that she consulted with Mr. Broskie and Mr. D’Agata as to whether having one assigned class in FOCUS should qualify Ms. Perricelli for the scholarship. They concluded that teaching one class with one student was insufficient to qualify as a “classroom teacher” for purposes of the Best and Brightest Program. Ms. Troutman testified that this conclusion was consistent with the School Board’s historic practice of considering two or more classes as the “cutoff” for a classroom teacher. Ms. Troutman believed that if an ESE Support Facilitator taught two classes, then she would qualify as a “classroom teacher.” Petitioner Easter Brown taught a fourth grade classroom at Grove Park Elementary School during the 2016-2017 school year and was rated “highly effective.” It is not disputed that Ms. Brown met the definition of a “classroom teacher” for the 2016-2017 school year. In 2017-2018, Ms. Brown was a full-time SPRINT specialist. “SPRINT” stands for Supervisor of Pre-Interns and New Teachers. SPRINT specialist is a support position for teacher trainees and new teachers, operating under an agreement between the School Board and the University of North Florida (“UNF”), each of which pays half of the SPRINT specialist’s salary. Ms. Brown taught field classes at UNF and conducted workshops for clinical educator training and professional development. Ms. Brown kept Grove Park Elementary as her home base and shared a classroom there with two other teachers. She taught UNF students in classes at the university and worked with new teachers at the school. She estimated that she spent half her time at UNF and half at Grove Park Elementary. Ms. Brown had no K-12 courses or K-12 students assigned to her in 2017-2018. She had no courses assigned to her in FOCUS. She gave grades to only UNF students. Ms. Brown did not create traditional lesson plans but did assist new teachers in writing lesson plans. Ms. Brown testified that she did some teaching in a regular classroom for purposes of modeling teaching techniques for her student teachers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Clay County School Board enter a final order: Finding that Petitioners Abbie Andrews, Cherry Deaton, and Donna Foster were not eligible for a $1,200 scholarship under the 2017 Florida Best and Brightest Teacher Scholarship Program because they were not classroom teachers during the 2017-2018 school year; and Finding that Petitioners Easter Brown and Danielle Perricelli were eligible for a $1,200 scholarship under the 2017 Florida Best and Brightest Teacher Scholarship Program because they were classroom teachers during the 2017-2018 school year, and directing staff to take all practicable measures to secure the scholarship monies for Ms. Brown and Ms. Perricelli. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of March, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 18th day of March, 2019.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Fred D. Greene, began service with the Hamilton County School Board as a teacher in August, 1965. He was employed on annual contract for three school years until he was granted a continuing contract by the school board on July 23, 1968, as a teacher pursuant to Section 231.36, Florida Statutes. After the execution of the continuing contract, Petitioner was assigned as coordinator of vocational education during the 1969-1970 school term but in addition to those duties, continued to teach five classes. As Petitioner was assigned additional duties by the Superintendent, his teaching duties were reduced. Starting in 1970 and continuing through 1973, though the continuing contract as a teacher had not been rescinded, Petitioner and the school board entered into annual contracts of employment in which Petitioner was assigned as Director of Vocational Education. On June 5, 1973, the parties entered into a second continuing contract which described Petitioner's duties as "Director of Vocational, Technical and Adult Education." At no time did Petitioner ever hold a contract as "principal" nor was he ever paid as such. His current Florida Teacher's Certificate shows him certified in, among other things, secondary administration and supervision. Both this contract and the 1968 continuing contract contained a provision that the school board was authorized, upon recommendation of the superintendent of schools, to transfer and assign the Petitioner to a "similar position in any other school" in the district, provided that "the duties shall be similar to the duties originally assigned and the salary shall be as heretofore set forth." From the time he was appointed director of VTAE until January, 1981, Petitioner served in that capacity. As director of VTAE, he considered his position as similar to that of a principal in that he reported directly to the Superintendent of Schools, he supervised the teachers who taught within his program (although he did not rate them) he was paid on the non- instructional salary schedule as is a principal he was responsible for the procurement of and administration of students including their promotion and graduation. Nonetheless, he was not classified as a principal, he served schools throughout the county, the teachers in the program were recruited from regular day teachers and additional personnel who taught only in the night program, and these teachers were rated by their day principal when appropriate. Consequently, his position as Director, VTAE, was not similar to that of a principal. At the time he left the job as Director, VTAE, to assume the office of Superintendent of Schools, he was paid a salary of $21,000.00 per year for a 12 month term and was on step 6 of the non-instructional salary schedule. He has never released the school board from the terms of the continuing contract. In January, 1981, Petitioner took office as Superintendent of Schools. At that time the function of Director, VTAE, was assigned to Ms. Scaff who subsequently also occupied several other positions within the school board system including instructional coordinator, secondary curriculum coordinator, community education director, law education director, and management information systems director. Ms. Scaff did not assume all those functions at one time. The job was built up over a period of years and while the duties changed, the title of Director, VTAE, did not. Ms. Scaff was paid as an instructional director on the non-instructional salary schedule. As Director, VTAE, Ms. Scaff, and Mr. Greene before her, occupied one of the director positions reflected in the directory of the School Board. The School Board uses the same contract form for directors and principals and the director is evaluated by the Superintendent of Schools as is a principal, but there are few other similarities between the function of principal and Director. Petitioner served as Superintendent of Schools from 1981 until November, 1984, when he was replaced as superintendent by Mr. Hinton. Several months before his term expired, in June, 1984, Petitioner recommended to the School Board that it appoint Ms. Scaff, who was at that time serving as, inter alia, Director, VTAE, to a two year contract in that position. This contract was approved by the School Board. Shortly after his defeat in the election, Petitioner allegedly told Mr. Hinton that he did not wish to displace anyone employed by the school system in order to enforce his return rights under the continuing contract he held. It was his position that he would accept a teaching position but at a salary level equivalent to that of an administrator until such time as an administrator's position within the system became open. At a special meeting of the School Board called by Petitioner on the last day of his term as superintendent, Mr. Greene nominated himself for the position as principal at NHE. This nomination, however, was tabled by the School Board upon advice of counsel so that an advisory opinion on it could be requested from the Florida Commission on Ethics. At this point it should be noted that though the position as Principal at NHE became vacant prior to Petitioner leaving his position as superintendent, he did not apply during the period that the·advertisement was open. The only person to do so was Harry Pennington who was subsequently placed in that position. When Mr. Hinton assumed the position of Superintendent of Schools, replacing Mr. Greene, he immediately assigned Petitioner to the position as teacher of business education. Mr. Greene accepted the assignment but requested that he be paid a salary equivalent to the 20th step on the salary schedule for the position of instructional director at a figure of $32,550.00 per year. The figure demanded by Petitioner was not paid, however. After conferring with the State Department of Education regarding the proposed salary for Petitioner, the School Board determined that since he held a continuing contract as a teacher, he would be employed at a salary based on the teacher position. He was given credit for four years of teaching service while serving as Superintendent of Schools which placed him at the 20 year service point. In addition, he was given credit for a master's degree and for teaching in his field of certification. His total salary, therefore, was set at $23,460.00 over a ten month term. Petitioner was not satisfied, especially since Mr. Pennington, who was serving as principal of NHE was receiving $28,100.00 per year based on a 12 month employment contract. On May 27, 1985 the school board rejected Mr. Greene's nomination of himself as principal at NHE. The board's rejection of Mr. Greene was based on the recommendation of Mr. Hinton who felt that Petitioner was not qualified for the position in that he did not hold certification in administration and supervision at the elementary level his contract was not for the position of principal he had no experience as principal or assistant principal he did not apply for the position when it was advertised and because counsel advised that filling the position based on self nomination might violate Florida law. Mr. Pennington on the other hand, was fully certified in administration and supervision for all grade levels involved at NHE. Other positions for which Respondent felt himself qualified came open during the 1984-1985 school year but he was not selected to fill any of them. Included in these were that of principal of Hamilton County High School and administrative assistant positions at both North Hamilton Elementary and South Hamilton Elementary. When Mr. Hinton took over as Superintendent of Schools, as a part of his management program and in an effort to correct what appeared to be a problem regarding the late payment of School Board obligations which existed when he took over, he recommended certain personnel changes including the creation of an office manager position. Mattie Fouraker, formerly the business education instructor at Hamilton High School, was appointed office manager to the School Board at a salary approximately equivalent to that she received as a teacher. It is to her vacant job as teacher of business education that Mr. Greene was assigned. Petitioner contends Ms. Fouraker was appointed to the position before it was ever officially created and approved by the School Board. Be that as it may, however, it becomes clear that the Superintendent of Schools intended that a problem be solved and to do so, created a position designed to correct it. He appointed Ms. Fouraker to the job on a temporary basis and as soon as the School Board met at the next scheduled meeting in December, 1984, it approved the position and confirmed Ms. Fouraker's assignment to it. This formal board action, however, served to increase her pay from that of a teacher at $23,460.00 per year to that of an administrative position at $29,700.00 per year and her position was changed from that of a 10 month to a 12 month employment, along with the benefits accruing thereto. Petitioner's salary as business education instructor was developed through a tailored formula developed with an intent to,-in the opinion of Mr. Hinton, put Mr. Greene in approximately the same position for the four years he was Superintendent of Schools. As was stated previously, Mr. Greene was given credit for his 16 years in the classroom plus his years of superintendent for a total of 20 years experience credit. Added to that was credit for a Master's degree and credit for teaching in his field of certification. When the $23,460.00 salary that was arrived at for this was compared to what it was anticipated he would have earned had he stayed as Director of VTAE, it was seen that had he remained in his position on the same salary schedule, he would have presumably earned $2,362.50 per month ($23,625.00 per 10 month school year) as an instructional director, Step 6. This is approximately $155.00 more over the school year. Had Petitioner been paid at the salary of an instructional support position, Step 6, the monthly salary would be slightly lower. It should be noted, however, that due to schedule changes during the period, this might not be a valid comparison. Positions within the school system are assigned by the Superintendent of schools on the nature of the position. Non- instructional personnel are assigned categories on the salary schedule based on an assessment of their qualifications and value to the system. Teachers, on the other hand, who are generally serving under contracts, are placed on the salary schedule consistent with the number of years experience they have plus certain other additions. It was Mr. Hinton's position that Mr. Greene should be paid as a teacher since he was serving as a teacher and once that decision was made, Mr. Greene was paid the highest amount that a person with his certificate and his experience and qualification could earn in that position. When the Florida Commission on Ethics issued its opinion on the question certified to it regarding Petitioner's recommending himself for the position of Principal of NHE, the opinion indicated the Commission could not conceive of how the Petitioner's actions in recommending himself for a position could not have constituted a misuse of public position. In other words, while not saying that it was, the Commission concluded that it probably was a violation. Thereafter, the School Board requested an Attorney General's opinion on whether a school superintendent may nominate himself for appointment of a principal. The opinion was not received as of the date of the hearing. Turning again to the issue of the function of Director of VTAE, the School Board contends that the function of Director has steadily expanded in scope. For example, Mr. Hinton urges that the work that Mr. Greene was doing as Director, VTAE prior to being elected superintendent now constitutes only 10 to 20% of the currently described duties of the position. The additional functions that Ms. Scaff performs, as described above, he contends, constitute more by far than that which Petitioner did when he held the job. In support of that position, Mr. Hinton refers to the organization and management study conducted in 1983 at the request of Petitioner when he was Superintendent of Schools. Among the pertinent recommendations of that study was the restructuring of the organization within the school district level. The position of Director, VTAE was not one of the three Director and five coordinator positions recommended by the study. Ms. Scaff indicates that when Petitioner was defeated in his bid for re-election as superintendent of schools, she indicated her willingness to step down from the position of Director, VTAE and return to classroom teaching. She does not consider the return to a position of teaching as a demotion nor does Ms. Fouraker. It should be noted, however, that both individuals received substantial increases in salary by virtue of their position changes under the Hinton administration. For example, Ms. Fouraker's promotion to the position of office manager carried a pay increase from $23,460.00 to $29,700.00 per year. Ms. Scaff now earns the same. Mr. Greene was at Step 6 on the non-instructional scale when he left the job of Director, VTAE. These scales were modified in the intervening years, and Ms. Fouraker traced Mr. Greene's position as Director, VTAE, to the new scale as if he had stayed in place. She placed him at Step 6 on the new scale at a salary of $28,350.00. Petitioner contends that he should be treated the same as Mr. Coe, Director of Personnel, who realized a large salary and step increase when the pay scales were changed. If this were done, and he was given an instructional director's position at step 20 on the non- instructional salary schedule, his salary would be $32,500.00. Subtracting that $28,350.00 from the $32,550.00 he says he should be earning, Mr. Greene indicates that he lost approximately $4,958.87 for the period starting November 20, 1984, when he began teaching, to the end of the school year. He further contends that his salary loss is continuing at the rate of $757.50 per month and in addition, he is also being deprived of other benefits of employment such as paid annual leave, sick leave, enhanced retirement benefits, and other like perquisites attached to a 12 month contract. Mr. Greene further contends that since he was involved in litigation with the school board concerning Mr. Coe's contract prior to his leaving the position of Superintendent of Schools, the School Board should have known of his entitlements under the continuing contract since it was shown that it had been established for assignments and transfers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Fred D. Greene, be assigned a non-principal supervisor/director position within the Hamilton County Schools as available that he be paid accordingly when performing in such a position but that he be denied adjustment for back pay and attorney's fees and costs. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of October, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of October, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: John D. Carlson, Esquire Gatlin, Woods, Carlson & Girtman 1030 East Lafayette, Suite 112 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Paul Hendrick, Esquire 111 South Central Avenue Suite 1 Jasper, FL 32052 Owen Hinton, Jr. Superintendent Hamilton County School Board P. O. Box 1059 Jasper, FL 32052 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32301 APPENDIX Ruling by the Hearing Officer as to the Petitioner's Proposed Findings Of Fact: Paragraphs Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted* Accepted* Accepted* Accepted Accepted except as to the veracity of the reported comment of the School Board member Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted except as to comments of Ms. Scaff as to her being a principal and signing forms as such Accepted except for Petitioner's comment that he would receive temporary certificate for Elementary Ed principal and would obtain certification in grades K-6 without much problem Accepted Accepted Rejected as irrelevant Irrelevant as a finding of fact should be conclusion of law Accepted Accepted except as to last sentence which is irrelevant unnumbered between and 23 Rejected Rejected Rulings by the Hearing Officer as to Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact (Respondent failed to number paragraphs.) The unnumbered paragraphs are therefore treated in sequence and numbered herein for purposes of identification only. Paragraphs Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted as to substance Accepted Accepted Accepted except that acceptance of the position was not meant to be acquiesed in permanent assignment Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted as it relates to teacher salaries only Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted as to the request made. As of the hearing, the opinion had not been received. It was not offered into evidence and though attached to Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order, was not considered Accepted Accepted Accepted except for the conclusion drawn in the last sentence which was not supported by evidence admitted. Accepted Accepted Accepted Rejected. Position was held by Ms. Scaff who performed the same duties performed by Petitioner when he was the encumbent, in addition to additional duties which he did not *Petitioner's terms describing the personnel changes are not necessarily dispositive of the issue.
Findings Of Fact William Haynes Gandy, for 17 years a school teacher and coach, began his most recent stretch of employment with the Santa Rosa County School Board in the fall of 1978 at Jay High School. He coached football and taught girls' physical education and math courses during the 1978-1979 school year, even though he held a teacher's certificate in physical education only, at all pertinent times. Coaching assignments entail a certain amount of prestige and entitle their recipients to a salary supplement. In Santa Rosa County, school principals make coaching assignments in their unfettered discretion. LETTER NO FACTOR On July 1, 1979, Mary Cecelia Diamond Findley, assistant principal of Jay High School during the preceding school year, became principal. During Dr. Findley's first year as principal, Mr. Gandy taught math and science courses. In the fall of the year, a student asked petitioner to write a letter on her behalf, because she had been accused of a burglary. Dr. Findley's son had also been charged with this crime. On November 30, 1979, Mr. Gandy addressed the following letter "To Whom it May Concern" and gave it to the student's parents: I, W. H. Gandy, being employed by Santa Rosa County School Board as an in- structor at Jay High School do hereby give the following statement in behalf of Karen Cooley. I have known this student for several years. She was in my class last year and was an excellent student. I found her to be very cooperative, initiative [sic] and enthusiastic young student. Her capabilities and talents are unlimited if she applied herself. I know of no past conflicts or involvements in our community or school which would reflect on her character. In working directly with young people for the past 15 years, I have found that most all students need help at one time or another. Of course, their needs vary, from personal, emotional problems, school discipline problems, to problems with the laws of our society and state. I feel Karen realized what she did was wrong and now must face the consequences. She has already been subjected to the scrutiny of her classmates at school, to the embarrassment of hurting her parents and family, and to the fact that she took part in crime and now has a record which will remain with her the rest of her life. Karen cannot undo the wrong she has done, but certainly since this is her First Offense, and she has the ability and desire to mature into a useful citizen in our community, she should be given this opportunity. I hope and pray that she will be given some kind of a probation period and given the opportunity to finish school and start a meaningful life of her own. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 He told no one other than the Cooleys and Karen's attorney about the letter, at the time. Dr. Findley did not learn of the letter until this year. Dr. Findley's decision not to reappoint Mr. Gandy as assistant football coach, more than two and a half years after the letter was written, took place after discussions with the head football coach and had nothing to do with the letter or any other exercise by petitioner of his first amendment rights. TRANSFER Beginning with the 1979-1980 school term, Mr. Gandy has been on continuing contract as a teacher for respondent. On Dr. Findley's recommendation, at the close of the 1982-1983 school year, and that of Bennett C. Russell, respondent's superintendent, respondent transferred Mr. Gandy to the Gulf Breeze Middle School. Originally he was to teach health classes there, but he was assigned physical education classes after his request for formal hearing was filed. Respondent had taught some classes out of his field every year he was at Jay High School. Before the letter on behalf of Ms. Cooley was ever written, and, according to petitioner, before there were any ill feelings between Dr. Findley and himself, he was assigned exclusively math and science courses for the 1979-1980 school year. In 1980-1981, and again the following school year, Mr. Gandy taught a single physical education class and several math classes. He taught math courses exclusively during the 1982-1983 school year. By the spring of 1983, there were five teachers at Jay High School who had taught there shorter periods than the five years petitioner had taught at Jay High School. Of these, Oliver Boone, the band director, and Deborah Walther, who was certified in art and science, were retained. Desiree Jamar, who was certified in art, was transferred; and the two other junior teachers did not have their annual contracts renewed. One of these two, Deborah Gomillion, who is certified to teach exceptional education classes, was subsequently rehired to head the exceptional education program at Jay High School. Five of the 32 teachers at Jay High School for the 1982-1983 school year were certified in physical education, but, unlike respondent, some of them were certified to teach other subjects, as well. Respondent transferred another coach from Jay High School who was certified in social studies as well as physical education. There was only one teacher certified in mathematics for the 1982-1983 school year. Respondent hired a second certified mathematics teacher for 1983-1984 who was to teach five mathematics courses and coach football at Jay High School. On July 28, 1983, respondent hired a teacher certified in physical education to teach at Pace High School. Dr. Findley and Mr. Gandy had their differences. She believed him guilty of certain improprieties never formally established. He resented a notice of non-renewal Dr. Findley, under the erroneous impression that Mr. Gandy had not yet been awarded a continuing contract, sent in response to instructions so to notify all annual contract teachers who taught compensatory classes like the math classes he was teaching at the time. The low esteem in which Dr. Findley held petitioner was a factor in her recommending that he be transferred. The superintendent was aware of the friction, but he made his decision "because we were cutting back personnel at Jay High School and we had a position available at Gulf Breeze Middle School." (T. 129) Respondent's superintendent did not accept her recommendation that petitioner be transferred just to keep the peace. Dr. Findley herself was transferred from Jay High School for the 1983-1984 school year. The continuing contract of employment between the parties does not grant petitioner the right to teach in a particular school. Joint Exhibit No. The master contract in effect between Santa Rosa County School Board and the Santa Rosa Professional Educators provides: Involuntary transfer of teachers shall be made by the Superintendent and Board based upon: l) Santa Rosa County School District needs as determined by the Superintendent and the Board; 2) certification; 3) length of service in Santa Rosa County; and, 4) any other data. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6, p. 8. Article IV of the same agreement establishes in detail a grievance procedure, but does not make it mandatory or exclusive.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent dismiss petitioner's request for hearing, without prejudice to his filing a grievance as regards his transfer. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 27th day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip J. Padovano, Esquire 1020 East Lafayette Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Paul R. Green, Esquire Post Office Box 605 Milton, Florida 32570
