The Issue Whether Respondent's employment should be terminated based on the allegations contained in the Notice of Specific Charges.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner has been a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Article IX, Florida Constitution, and Section 1001.32. Petitioner has continuously employed Respondent since 1992 as a custodian at Melrose Elementary School, one of the public schools in Miami-Dade County. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Cynthia Gracia was the principal of Melrose Elementary School. Respondent is a non-probationary "educational support employee" within the meaning of Section 1012.40, which provides, in pertinent part, as follows: As used in this section: "Educational support employee" means any person employed by a district school system . . . who by virtue of his or her position of employment is not required to be certified by the Department of Education or district school board pursuant to s. 1012.39. . . . "Employee" means any person employed as an educational support employee. (2)(a) Each educational support employee shall be employed on probationary status for a period to be determined through the appropriate collective bargaining agreement or by district school board rule in cases where a collective bargaining agreement does not exist. (b) Upon successful completion of the probationary period by the employee, the employee's status shall continue from year to year unless the superintendent terminates the employee for reasons stated in the collective bargaining agreement, or in district school board rule in cases where a collective bargaining agreement does not exist . . . At the times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a member of the AFSCME collective bargaining unit. AFSCME and Petitioner have entered into a CBA, which provides in Article XI for discipline of covered employees. Article XI, Section 4 provides that covered employees who have been employed by Petitioner for more than five years (such as Respondent) may only be discharged for "just cause." Article XI, Section 4 of the CBA pertains to types of separation from employment. Article XI, Section 4(B) pertains to excessive absenteeism and abandonment of position and provides as follows: (B) An unauthorized absence for three consecutive workdays shall be evidence of abandonment of position. Unauthorized absences totaling 10 or more workdays during the previous 12-month period shall be evidence of excessive absenteeism. Either of the foregoing shall be grounds for termination. . . . School Board Rule 6Gx13-4E-1.01 provides as follows: Except for sudden illness or emergency situations, any employee who is absent without prior approval shall be deemed to have been willfully absent without leave. Pursuant to Section 1012.67, a school board is authorized to terminate the employment of an employee who is willfully absent from employment without authorized leave, as follows: Any district school board employee who is willfully absent from duty without leave shall forfeit compensation for the time of such absence, and his or her employment shall be subject to termination by the school board. Petitioner's leave policies do not permit a leave of absence for an incarcerated employee, unless the employee can demonstrate that he or she was wrongfully incarcerated. At the times material to this proceeding, Respondent was not wrongfully incarcerated, and he was not eligible for a leave of absence under Petitioner’s leave polices. School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 states in pertinent part that: All persons employed by The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida are representatives of the Miami-Dade County Public Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct themselves, both in their employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system. On September 25, 2002, Respondent was charged with assault and battery (domestic violence) involving his then girlfriend. Those charges were pending at the time of the final hearing. On or about November 14, 2002, Respondent appeared at a court hearing. Because he had missed an earlier court date, Respondent was incarcerated in the Miami-Dade County jail. Shortly after he was arrested, Respondent attempted to contact Ms. Gracia at Melrose Elementary School. Respondent testified he tried to call the school five or six times on the day he was arrested, but the call from jail was long distance and the school would not take a collect call. That same day, Respondent called his new girlfriend (Leanne Perez), told her that he was in jail, and asked her to tell Ms. Gracia that he was in jail. On November 14, 2002, Ms. Perez told Ms. Gracia by telephone that Respondent had been detained. When questioned, Ms. Perez explained that Respondent was in jail, but she did not provide any additional information. Respondent returned to his job site on December 16, 2002. Between November 14 and December 16, Respondent was absent from work without authorized leave. Neither Respondent nor anyone on Respondent's behalf contacted or attempted to contact Ms. Gracia between Ms. Perez's telephone call on November 14 and Respondent's reappearance at the job site on December 16. Prior to his incarceration, Respondent had absences from work without authorized leave. From April 11, 2002, to December 16, 2002, Respondent had 29.5 days of unauthorized absences from the worksite. Respondent's unauthorized absences impeded the provision of the custodial services that are necessary to keep a school clean and safe. During Respondent's unauthorized absences, the other members of the custodial staff had to perform their duties and had to perform extra work to cover for Respondent's absence. On December 5, 2002, Ms. Gracia wrote a memorandum to Respondent styled "Employment Intention." After listing the dates Respondent had been absent between October 10, 2002, and December 5, Ms. Gracia wrote as follows: These absences have caused the effective operation of the worksite to be impeded, and/or efficient services to students to be impeded. I am requesting your immediate review and implementation of any of the following options: Notify the worksite of your intended date of return; or Effect leave procedures (request for leave [form] attached); or Implement resignation from Miami-Dade County Public Schools. (Resignation letter attached.) You are directed to notify the worksite within 3 days of the date of this memorandum as to your employment intention. Your absences will be considered unauthorized until you communicate directly with this administrator. Ms. Gracia's memorandum was mailed to the address Respondent had given Petitioner as his residence, and a relative of Respondent, who was not named at the final hearing, signed for the mailing. Respondent testified, credibly, that he did not receive the memorandum until after he got out of jail. Respondent did not respond to the memorandum. Respondent testified, credibly, that he did not intend to abandon his employment. Respondent worked between December 16, 2002, and April 9, 2003, the date Petitioner suspended Respondent's employment without pay and instituted these proceedings to terminate his employment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order that adopts the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth in this Recommended Order, sustains the suspension of Respondent's employment without pay, and terminates that employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of October, 2003.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Petitioner has sufficient grounds to support dismissal of Respondent from employment.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was a duly- constituted School Board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida (“School District”), pursuant to Article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution, and section 1012.23, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed as an elementary school teacher by the School Board and currently holds a professional services contract. He began working for the School District on or about March 2007, in the middle of the 2006-2007 school year. His first assignment was at Holmes Elementary School where he worked on a “waiver,” since he did not have an elementary education certification. The principal asked him to get his certification in elementary education, which he did. According to Respondent, he was asked to start working early because the principal did not have enough teachers. During that year, he was evaluated as meeting standards in all areas of evaluation and was rehired for the 2007-2008 school year. Prior to becoming a teacher in Miami-Dade County, Respondent served in the United States military from 1978-1985, and had worked as a registered nurse. He holds an associate’s degree from Miami-Dade College, a bachelor’s degree from Florida International University (“FIU”), two master’s degrees from FIU, an academic certificate in gerontological studies from FIU, and an academic teaching certificate from FIU. For the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent worked at Little River Elementary School (“Little River”). The principal at Little River asked Respondent to work on another “waiver,” this time for teaching English as a Second Language students (“ESOL”). After completing the necessary coursework, Respondent received an ESOL certification. Respondent remained at Little River through the 2008-2009 school year until he was involuntarily transferred to Scott Lake Elementary School (“Scott Lake”) for the 2009-2010 school year. During the latter two years at Little River, he was evaluated as meeting standards in all areas. According to Respondent, he was transferred to Scott Lake because the administration of Little River objected to the number of student discipline referrals (“SCMs”) he was writing on students. Respondent reports having written somewhere between 600 and 700 SCMs on students over the years. Respondent freely admits he wrote many SCMs at every school he worked at and highlights that fact as an excuse for why he performed poorly. During Respondent’s first three years of employment at Holmes Elementary and Little River, he was evaluated across the board on his annual evaluations as “Meets Standards.” During this period of time, the only other rating an employee could receive was “Does Not Meet Standards.” During the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent’s principal for his first year at Scott Lake was Valerie Ward. During the 2009-2010 school year, the School District made changes to the teacher performance evaluation system. Use of the Instructional Performance Evaluation and Growth System (“IPEGS”) was implemented. The IPEGS Summative Performance Evaluations (“SPEs”) were now comprised of eight Performance Standards, where a teacher could be rated “Exemplary,” “Proficient,” “Developing/Needs Improvement,” or “Unsatisfactory.” In her first year with Respondent, Ms. Ward rated him “Proficient” in all eight standards. At the end of the 2009-2010 school year, Ms. Ward placed Respondent on a 90-day performance probation pursuant to section 1012.34. During this 90-day probation process, he was observed by administration on at least five different occasions, was put on several improvement plans, and had several meetings with administrators. The 90-day probation process is very time- consuming for both the subject employee and the employee’s administration. In other words, it is not the preferred task of a busy principal, unless he or she must, and then only when it is warranted by poor performance. Respondent believes Ms. Ward placed him on performance probation to retaliate against him because he complained about the temperature in his classroom. This is the first of many excuses and justifications Respondent has offered to explain criticisms of his performance by administrators. For the 2010-2011 school year at Scott Lake, Respondent was again evaluated as proficient in all areas. On or about April 2012, Principal Lakesha Wilson- Rochelle assumed Ms. Ward’s role at Scott Lake. Principal Rochelle signed off on Respondent’s summative evaluation during the 2011-2012 school year, but did not fill it out, since it had already been completed by someone else. The score placed Respondent in the “needs improvement” category. She signed it only because she was required to do so, and the summative evaluation rating she gave him for the next school year was even worse by several points. It was also during the 2011-2012 school year that IPEGS underwent another change. Now there were seven professional practice standards on which teachers were evaluated and one standard that was based on actual student data. Use of IPEGS IPEGS was approved by the Florida Department of Education (“FDOE”) for all years relevant to this case. The IPEGS processes from the 2013-2014 school year forward consisted of the following: Each teacher that had been teaching for more than two years received one formal observation. If during that observation the teacher’s performance was sufficient, nothing more need be done, outside of a summative evaluation at the end of the year. However, informal feedback is given to teachers throughout the year after classroom walkthroughs and through other means. If a teacher was observed to be deficient in one or more standards during the formal observation, the teacher and administration would engage in something called “support dialogue” in which support in various forms is provided to the teacher, so that the deficiencies can be remediated. If the teacher still exhibits performance deficiencies after the support dialogue, they are placed on the 90-day performance probation. While on performance probation, the teacher is observed another four times after the initial observation. After the second, third and fourth observations, if the teacher has not remediated, the administration develops an improvement plan, which must be followed. The improvement plan gives the teacher assignments and assistance to aid him or her in remediating any deficiencies. Also, each teacher, regardless of whether placed on performance probation, receives an SPE, as well as a Summative Performance Evaluation Rating (“SPE Rating”) of either “Highly Effective,” “Effective,” “Developing/Needs Improvement,” or “Unsatisfactory.” In addition to the seven professional practice standards, a data component is also factored into the SPE Rating known as the VAM. The VAM As explained by Director of Research Services Dr. Aleksander Shneyderman (“Dr. S”), the VAM is a statistical model that attempts to measure a teacher’s impact on student learning growth through the use of a multi-level lineal regression. Dr. S has been working with the VAM, since its inception in 2010-2011. He has studied it and keeps abreast of Florida’s rules and regulations of how to calculate it. Dr. S and his office calculate what is called “Local VAM” for the School District. He also provides trainings to School District employees on the use of the VAM. Dr. S was tendered and accepted in this proceeding as an expert in VAM calculation. Local VAM is usually calculated in September/October by his office after the previous year’s testing data become available. Various assessments are used to create the Local VAM. It is calculated in compliance with state statutes, and the methodology is approved each year by FDOE. Also, the methods for calculating the Local VAM are bargained for and ratified by the United Teachers of Dade (“UTD”) teacher’s union. The Florida VAM is calculated by the State using a model that is approved by the Florida Commissioner of Education. The results of the Florida VAM are given to Dr. S’s office by the State. The Florida VAM is created using the Florida Standards Assessment (“FSA”). In the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 school years, Respondent’s Local VAM scores were calculated by Dr. S’s office and based upon his students’ results on the Stanford 8 Achievement Test, 10th edition. UTD approved the methodology in VAM calculation for both of these years. For the 2015-2016 school year, Respondent’s VAM score was the Florida VAM in English language arts for fifth grade. The goal of the VAM is to measure a teacher’s effectiveness on student learning growth. In order to do this as accurately as possible, students are compared to similar students for an “apples to apples” comparison. Only students with the same demographic characteristics, as well as the same prior year’s test scores are compared to one another. The demographic factors considered are English Language Learner (“ELL”) status, gifted status, disability status, relative age (which considers whether a child was retained in a previous grade), and attendance (which was added in 2014-2015). Student demographics and the prior year’s test scores must be exactly the same. Based on these demographics and past scores, an expected score is created for each student. If the student exceeds that score, the credit for that success is given to the teacher. The School Board and Dr. S concede that the VAM does not account for every possible student performance variable, because, simply put, this would be impossible, since there are a limitless number of factors that could be considered. Moreover, certain factors are forbidden to be used by the Legislature, including socioeconomic status, race, gender, and ethnicity. (See § 1012.34, Fla. Stat.). Respondent argues that because not every imaginable factor that might affect a student’s grade is captured, that the VAM is not useful. Respondent claims that factors beyond the teacher might be causing poor performance, for example: lack of parental engagement. While levels of parental engagement could impact student performance, the School Board states that it is following state statutes to the letter and doing the best it can within the applicable statutory framework. Moreover, just as factors outside of consideration might hurt student performance, other factors might enhance performance, and the teachers receive those possible benefits as well--for example, if parental engagement is good. Those benefits would flow to the teacher, despite not having earned them through his or her personal efforts. Moreover, the VAM score ranges that are used to classify teachers are bargained for with UTD. The ranges have confidence intervals developed through the application of margin of error calculations that mitigate uncertainty to protect and “safeguard” teachers from unfair classifications. In many instances these safeguards give the teachers the benefit of the doubt to make sure they do not fall into the lowest category, which is “unsatisfactory.” Noticeably absent from these bargained for “safeguards” is any mention of how much instructional time a teacher must have with a class before those students’ data can be used to calculate a teacher’s VAM score. UTD has not bargained for any special rules designating when teachers can and cannot be held accountable for their class’ data based on the time they have instructed that class. As such, the only relevant inquiry is whether those students are with that teacher during the FTE period in February. Also, the law (see § 1012.34, Fla. Stat.) makes no mention of any minimum length of instructional time necessary to hold a teacher accountable for his or her students. The 2013-2014 School Year at Scott Lake Refusal to teach basic Spanish In May 2013, near the end of the 2012-2013 school year, Principal Rochelle advised Respondent that he would be teaching a kindergarten class for the 2013-2014 school year and that he would be required to teach them one hour of introductory Spanish. In an email to Principal Rochelle, Respondent asserted that he believed he was being assigned to teach Spanish to the kindergarteners in retaliation for his extensive reporting of student SCMs. In that same email, he advised her that he did not want to teach Spanish. Prior to being advised of this assignment, the School District conducted a language proficiency assessment for Respondent with both a written and verbal component, which he passed. Principal Rochelle had personally seen Respondent speak fluent Spanish to her school secretary and the art teacher. Because Respondent spoke fluent Spanish, or, at least, “conversational” Spanish (as admitted by Respondent’s counsel in his opening), she gave him the assignment. Moreover, as a principal, she had the right to assign Respondent as she saw fit. School Board Policy 3130 - Assignments reinforces this assertion stating, in relevant part, “Instructional staff members may be reassigned to any position for which they are qualified in order to meet needs of the District and pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement.” In order to teach the one-hour basic Spanish component of the class, Respondent did not need to be certified to teach Spanish. He only needed an elementary education certification, which he had. He even attended a training class on the implementation of the Spanish program. Respondent admits he can speak Spanish, write basic Spanish, has taken Spanish classes and passed the School District’s proficiency exam. Curiously, he objected to them giving the proficiency exam to him based on the grounds he was “singled out” for having a Hispanic last name, having been overheard speaking the language, and because he is not from a Spanish-speaking country. These are not reasonable objections when the School District explained the objective reasons listed above regarding Respondent’s qualifications to provide the basic- level Spanish instruction. Respondent persisted in his belief that he is “not qualified” to teach kindergarten Spanish despite all the evidence to the contrary. Respondent simply refused to do something that he was entirely capable of doing and that was within his ambit of responsibilities. He described one of the lessons he was allegedly incapable of teaching as follows, “You put a CD in the player. The kids sing songs in Spanish. The kids cut out pictures of objects and match them to a picture with the word in Spanish.” The kindergartners in his class did not speak Spanish; they spoke English. The Spanish component of the class was very basic and involved things like vowels, colors, puppets, basic books, and vocabulary words. Contrary to Respondent’s assertions, no complex grammar or sentence structure was involved. Such things are not even part of ordinary English kindergarten instruction, as admitted by Respondent. Moreover, he was provided with materials from which to draw the instruction. Principal Rochelle does not speak Spanish herself, yet believes she could teach the Spanish component, as it is a “piece of cake.” Respondent filed a grievance regarding the Spanish assignment. In order to appease and accommodate Respondent, Principal Rochelle eventually sent a Spanish teacher to his room to teach the Spanish component. However, Respondent then complained that the grades she was entering still had his name attached to them in the computerized grading system. Finally, the principal decided to move him to a first-grade class in early November 2013. Undoubtedly, the requests of Respondent led to this assignment change. Formal IPEGS observation On March 11, 2014, Principal Rochelle performed her formal observation of Respondent pursuant to IPEGS. On that day, no performance deficiencies were noted. However, throughout the year, Principal Rochelle had conducted many informal observations and walkthroughs of his classroom and had already provided him feedback regarding his performance and her expectations. Examples of that feedback can be found in an August 27, 2013, email from Principal Rochelle to Respondent. Moreover, according to Principal Rochelle, teachers tend to be on their best behavior during these observations–-which makes sense, because they know the boss/evaluator is watching. The formal observation is also only a snapshot in time of the teacher’s performance on a particular lesson; it is not a reflection of the entire year’s performance. Respondent has argued that Principal Rochelle has retaliated against him. If that were the case, this observation would have been a perfect opportunity to retaliate against him. However, she found no deficiencies in his performance on this day. Scott Lake SPE—Professional Practice Throughout the rest of the school year, Principal Rochelle made other credible observations regarding Respondent’s performance. Despite her counseling that he meet with parents, he refused to do so. He refused to participate in activities, including field trips, school celebrations, and award ceremonies. Other teachers actually had to hand out awards for him at the ceremony. He refused to implement group instruction techniques and did not take advantage of the presence of reading and math coaches. He refused to implement progressive discipline and “red, green, yellow” behavior management techniques. He refused to implement various discipline strategies laid out in the Student Code of Conduct and school-wide discipline plan prior to writing SCMs on students. Principal Rochelle recalls that he wrote approximately 25 SCMs on one student within the first nine weeks of school and made no attempt to address the behavior issues with the student’s parents. At one point Principal Rochelle accommodated his request to have a student removed from his class. Since this was only Principal Rochelle’s first full year as principal of Scott Lake, and she was still new to the school, she tended to give the teachers the benefit of the doubt when completing their SPEs. She also had a few teachers who had to be terminated for lack of professionalism that were more of a priority for her than Respondent. As such, she rated Respondent as “effective” in six standards on his SPE and as “developing/needs improvement” for the Communication standard. In her view, “effective” is akin to a “C” grade, whereas “highly effective” is “A plus/high B” status, “developing/needs improvement” is a “D,” and “unsatisfactory” is an “F.” When asked what Respondent would have rated himself in these seven standards, he testified he would have given himself five “highly effectives” and two “effectives.” He believes Principal Rochelle rated him lower than she should have as a result of retaliation against him for him not wanting to teach Spanish. This is Respondent’s second claim of retaliation against Principal Rochelle, and third claim of retaliation overall. Principal Rochelle’s denial of such retaliation is credited based upon her testimony at hearing and the exhibits offered in support. Despite the fact that Respondent’s 2013-2014 SPE seemed adequate to a casual observer (with the only obvious blemish being the “developing/needs improvement” in the Communication standard), when compared to his peers, a different story emerges. His professional practice points total put him in the bottom .8 percentile for all teachers district-wide and in the bottom 2.6 percentile for all first-grade teachers district-wide. Without belaboring the data, Respondent’s professional practice scores are at the bottom of the barrel, regardless of how you spin them. Scott Lake VAM and overall SPE Rating Respondent’s Local VAM score for learner progress points was 12.5 points–-the lowest possible score. He was one of 11 first-grade teachers district-wide who scored the bare minimum, putting him in the lowest (0) percentile. His overall SPE Rating for the 2013-2014 school year was “Needs Improvement.” Only 29 percent of his first-grade students met or exceeded their performance expectations. Respondent’s VAM was based on the performance of his first-grade students. Respondent believes that, since he was moved to the class in early November 2013, and the SAT exam was given in April, he should not be held accountable for their performance. In order for him to have a fair shake, he claims he would have had to be there instructing the students on week one. Respondent says the amount of time he was given was not fair because, “if I’m the lowest teacher in Miami-Dade County, and here for termination, no, sir, I don’t think it was fair.” If the rule Respondent proposes were implemented as policy, any teacher could simply avoid responsibility for their student’s performance by requesting a transfer sometime after the first week of the year. It is also not uncommon for teachers to have students added or subtracted from their classes throughout the year for a multitude of reasons. This is a fact of life that teachers have to be able to cope with in the ordinary course of business for the School District. Moreover, and somewhat ironically, if another teacher had been teaching Respondent’s students for a portion of the year, based on his SPE Ratings and student achievement data, Respondent probably would have had better scores. The students would likely have been getting a more effective teacher than he. Respondent also claims Principal Rochelle gave him a lower functioning group of students, who were behind in their learning. He explained that he knew they were low-functioning because he gave them “STAR tests” to gauge their ability levels. When pressed on cross-examination, Respondent admitted that he only tested his own students and never anyone else’s. Therefore, it would be impossible for him to know whether his students were any lower-functioning or further behind than any other teachers’ students. Respondent’s doubtful claim is further undercut by Principal Rochelle’s credible testimony that she selected the members of his first-grade class at random from overcrowded classrooms. Respondent’s claims that he was robbed of instructional time by field trips and fundraising activities, matters that are required of all teachers, are unconvincing excuses for his students’ poor performance. The 2014-2015 School Year at Norwood Shortly after the start of the 2014-2015 school year, Respondent requested a hardship transfer to Norwood Elementary School (“Norwood”) because the school day at Scott Lake was going to be increased by one hour. Despite the fact that he would have been compensated approximately $4,500.00 for this time, he chose to transfer schools. Principal Kevin Williams (or Dr. Williams) had a teacher on leave so he assigned Respondent to fill that gap. Respondent started teaching a kindergarten class, but was moved to a second-grade class during the first week of school. Prior to conducting a formal IPEGS observation of Respondent, Dr. Williams had performed several walkthroughs of his classroom. Based on these walkthroughs, Dr. Williams advised Respondent that he was not properly implementing the school discipline plan. Respondent also refused to implement “grouping” of the students during instruction time. Dr. Williams also had a reading coach model lessons for Respondent and assigned him a teaching assistant. Respondent was the only teacher who received this level of assistance. Dr. Williams even went so far as to have two meetings with UTD prior to his formal evaluation of Respondent in order to help him. By October 2014, Dr. Williams had already explained his expectations to Respondent. Formal IPEGS observation On October 1, 2014, Principal Williams performed the formal IPEGS evaluation of Respondent. Principal Williams noted no deficiencies on that day. Generally speaking, Principal Williams does not view these observations as punitive. Over the years, Dr. Williams has conducted approximately 240 observations of teachers, and, generally, the employees are “on point” when being watched. Moreover, like Principal Rochelle, Dr. Williams views these observations as a snapshot of teacher performance while the SPE captures the year- long performance. In the report of the observation, Dr. Williams suggested that Respondent promote interactions with students, encourage more student participation, connect to prior student knowledge and interests, and present concepts at different levels of complexity, among other items. Norwood SPE—Professional Practice After the formal observation, Dr. Williams continued to conduct walkthroughs of Respondent’s class. He observed the same issues with refusing to use “grouping” and refusing to properly implement the discipline plan. Respondent never took advantage of the modeling techniques that were provided for him. He also was not implementing differentiated instruction. Dr. Williams himself held a professional development class on campus for the school discipline plan, which, instead of attending, Respondent attended a social studies class off campus. Instead of following the prescribed discipline plan, Respondent was trying to control the behavior of his students with treats. Similar to his time at Scott Lake, he refused to participate in field trips, staff gatherings, award assemblies, and student activity days. Respondent had lesson plans, but did not always follow them. He would spend an inordinate amount of time on vocabulary. He gave some tests, but would refuse to grade other tests. The pattern of his teaching was inconsistent, at best. On his SPE, Principal Williams rated Respondent as “effective” in five standards, “highly effective” in one, and as “developing/needs improvement” for the Learning Environment standard. Dr. Williams’ rating for Learning Environment was lower because Respondent failed to implement appropriate discipline strategies despite being told to do so. In eight years of being a principal, this was the first time he had ever given a teacher a “needs improvement” rating. He mostly gives his teachers combinations of “highly effective” and “effective,” if they do what they are supposed to do. Nevertheless, Dr. Williams testified he still went easy on Respondent because he was new to the school. In terms of his SPE professional practice points, Respondent scored in the bottom two percentile for second-grade teachers district-wide and was the worst rated second-grade teacher at Norwood. Instead of following the discipline plan, Respondent was using the emergency call button, writing SCMs, and writing to the superintendent to have ten students removed from his class. Another teacher at the school, Mr. W, had the exact same set of students as Respondent, only he taught them in the afternoon and not in the morning. He had none of the same behavior management issues Respondent had with this same group of children. Respondent claimed that Mr. W was able to manage the children better because, like the students, he was African-American. When asked how Respondent would have rated himself in these seven SPE standards, he would have given himself six “highly effectives” and one “effective.” He believes Principal Williams rated him lower than he should have as a result of retaliation against him for writing SCMs and because he complained about the size of his initial kindergarten class. This marked Respondent’s fourth claim of retaliation overall. Principal Williams credibly denied such retaliation at the hearing. Norwood VAM and overall SPE Rating Respondent’s Local VAM score for learner progress points was 8.75 points-–the lowest possible score, again. He was one of 50 first-grade teachers district-wide who scored the bare minimum putting him in the lowest (0) percentile. His overall SPE Rating for the 2014-2015 school year was “Needs Improvement.” Only six percent of his second-grade students met or exceeded their performance expectations. Respondent believes that his VAM points from Norwood should not be considered because of his students’ behavioral issues. He also stated he did not have enough textbooks to send home with students. Much like at Scott Lake, he believes he was intentionally given bad students. This is peculiar for two reasons. First, Dr. Williams first tried to assign Respondent another class, but Respondent complained that one was too big. To accept this argument, the viewer would have to believe Dr. Williams knew Respondent would reject the larger class, and the principal had another one in the wings filled with “bad” students to make Respondent look ineffective. Second, Mr. W had none of the same problems Respondent did with this same group of students in the afternoon. To accept this contention, Principal Williams’ plan only “worked” on Respondent, since he was singled out for retaliation. This line of argument is nonsensical, at best. The 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 School Years at Aventura Waterways K-8 In looking for the right fit, Respondent was sent to Aventura Waterways K-8 (“AWK8”) for the 2015-2016 school year. He remained there for the 2016-2017 school year until he was dismissed from his employment in March 2017. As at his previous school assignments, the administrators at AWK8 tried to work with Respondent and the UTD to let him know their expectations prior to the formal observations. During these two school years Respondent was observed formally by Principal Luis Bello and Assistant Principal Ileana Robles on no less than nine occasions. In both years, during his initial observations, his performance was found to be deficient; and he was immediately placed on support dialogue and, eventually, 90-day performance probation. During these two probationary periods, he was provided assistance through improvement plans and completed all his improvement plan assignments. The goal was to help him remediate his deficiencies. The only change he ever implemented was switching from block to weekly lesson plans. Both his instructional delivery and the learning environment never improved. During these observations, Principal Bello and Assistant Principal Robles both observed the same repeated deficiencies, which they described in meticulous detail at the hearing. Summarizing their testimony, the issues concerning Respondent were: Pacing. Respondent spends too much time on issues and did not complete entire lesson plans. Questioning students. Respondent only uses basic, easy to answer questions; does not ask enough questions; or is dismissive of questions. Failing to properly explain concepts to students or to activate prior knowledge. Respondent fails to prompt students in order to generate interest in the subject matter and holds no conversations about the material in class. Not using challenging enough material. Respondent’s material was so basic that parents were concerned their children were getting grades they did not deserve and not learning grade- appropriate material. Principal Bello described Respondent’s instruction as “robotic” and lacking any semblance of “passion.” AWK8—Professional Practice On his SPE, Principal Bello rated Respondent as “effective” in two standards, and “unsatisfactory” in five standards. Principal Bello’s ratings were in line with the repeated deficiencies discussed above. He awarded Respondent “unsatisfactory” ratings because Respondent never remediated his deficiencies. Principal Bello credibly stands by his SPE Ratings as honest and admits to spending a great deal of time on them. In terms of his SPE professional practice points for 2015-2016, Respondent scored in the bottom (0) percentile for fifth-grade teachers at AWK8, all teachers at AWK8, fifth-grade teachers district-wide, and all teachers district-wide. When asked what Respondent would have rated himself in these seven standards, he would have given himself seven “highly effectives.” He believes Principal Bello rated him lower than he should have been rated, but could not say why. AWK8 VAM and overall SPE Rating Respondent’s State VAM score for learner progress points was 8.5 points-–the lowest possible score, for the third year in a row. He was the only one of 98 fifth-grade teachers district-wide who scored the bare minimum, putting him in the lowest (0) percentile. His overall SPE Rating for the 2014-2015 school year was “Needs Improvement.” Only 32 percent of his fifth-grade students met or exceeded their performance expectations. Respondent believes that his VAM points from AWK8 are not legitimate for a variety of reasons, none of which relate to his own shortcomings. Respondent’s excuses and the reasons not to credit those excuses are as follows: Respondent argues that his VAM cannot be counted against him because his afternoon class of fifth graders were ELL, and they spoke a variety of languages, including French, Russian, Hebrew, Portuguese, Spanish, and Turkish. His theory was that they performed poorly because of their poor grasp of the English language. For VAM scoring purposes, this excuse should not be credited because the VAM already takes into account their ELL status by comparing them only to other ELL students with identical demographics and prior test scores; and they are not expected to perform as well as non-ELL students. However, by Respondent’s own admission his afternoon ELL class was the best class he had had in ten years of teaching. He said they had emotional balance, presence of mind, and good parental engagement. He even explained how his ESOL certification assisted him in understanding how to teach them. According to him, by the end of the year, the students were at the level where they would be having conversations. Respondent also had another ESOL-certified teacher assist him for a portion of the year, which was a standard practice. Finally, ELL students, who are brand new to the country, are not calculated into the VAM because there are no prior year scores for which they can be compared “apples to apples.” Respondent himself testified that the lowest level ELL students did not get graded. This makes sense because Respondent testified that his afternoon ELL class was 31 students-–yet only 15 ELL students were factored into the data used to calculate his VAM score for 2015-2016. In sum, the grades of the lowest English language functioning students were not even held against him. Respondent next argues that the numbers of students in both his morning and afternoon classes at AWK8 exceeded class size restrictions. Respondent “believes” his morning class had 24 or so students, but only 18 after the special education students were removed. When the student data is examined, it appears that Respondent only had 15 non-ELL students factored into his VAM score. As for the afternoon ELL class, otherwise considered by him the best class he has ever had, Respondent claims there were 31 in that class. Even assuming Respondent’s numbers are accurate (and they do not seem to be, given the VAM data), these class sizes do not run afoul of class size restrictions and are commonplace at AWK8. The School District operates on averages for class size compliance and everyone teaching fifth grade at AWK8 had similar class sizes. None of those other teachers had the same problems Respondent did. Moreover, Respondent reported the alleged class size violations to the FDOE, and they did nothing about it. Respondent further argues that his morning group of students was once again a “bad” group that did not give him a “fair shot.” According to Respondent, he had a student who would sit in a garbage can and another that would tell him “F_ _k you” every day. He had behavior concerns with four to five students in the morning class. Eventually, the student who sat in the garbage can was removed from the class. Respondent then testified that these behavior issues were exacerbated by his absence from the classroom when he was performing his improvement plan activities. He now appears to be placing his behavior concerns on the administration for doing their job by trying to assist him and by remediating his deficiencies. Behavior management is integral to being a teacher. A teacher must not be allowed to escape his or her own responsibility for performance shortcomings by blaming it on the students. At every school where Respondent has taught, he has admittedly written a large number of SCMs, had behavior issues with his students, and believes he was purposely given “bad” students. The only common thread among these schools is Respondent. Nevertheless, he refuses to acknowledge that he might possibly be even a part of the problem and believes he has done nothing wrong. Respondent also blames his poor VAM on the fact that fundraising activities, book fairs, student activity days, and dances all detracted from instructional time at AWK8. This is the same excuse he used for his poor VAM at Norwood and holds no weight, since these are activities that all teachers at all schools must cope with as part of the instructional process. Respondent’s Termination by the School Board Respondent’s case was the first of its kind brought pursuant to section 1012.33(3)(b) (“3-year provision”), since this was the first time the School District had the requisite number of years’ data available. Of the thousands of teachers working for Miami-Dade County Public Schools, Respondent was part of a singular group of seven to nine teachers who fell into the three-year provision of the statute having the necessary combination of “needs improvement” or “unsatisfactory” final overall SPE Ratings. Of that handful of teachers, Respondent was the single worst. Respondent’s performance actually declined each year despite the assistance provided for and made available to him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order terminating Respondent’s employment as a teacher. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of March, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 15th day of March, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. Suite 110 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North Clearwater, Florida 33761 (eServed) Christopher J. La Piano, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board Suite 430 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 (eServed) Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board Suite 912 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132-1308 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Pam Stewart, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been employed by the School Board of Dade County, Florida, as a continuing contract teacher for some years. The contract between the Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade, introduced as Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, contains the terms and conditions of Respondent's employment. The contract states that the superintendent has the authority to assign or reassign the Respondent to any school within the system. The superintendent or his designee may, when deemed in the best interest of the school system, involuntarily transfer a teacher. Before a teacher is involuntarily transferred a conference shall be held with the area superintendent or his designee or appropriate division head, except where such transfers are the result of a legal order. The contract further provides for the filing of grievances by employees concerning the application or interpretation of the wages, hours, terms, and conditions of employment as defined in the contract. The contract defines a grievance as a formal allegation by an employee that there has been a violation, misinterpretation or misapplication of any of the terms and conditions of employment set forth in the contract. Respondent was involuntarily transferred from a sixth grade teaching position at Edison Park Elementary School to a first grade teaching position at Primary C Elementary School. Prior to the transfer he was afforded the opportunity of a conference with a designee of the Area Superintendent at which time he unsuccessfully challenged his transfer. The Respondent believes that the conference which was held was a sham and was not meaningful. Respondent continued to be dissatisfied with the transfer and continued to seek a solution to his problem by engaging in subsequent conversations with the Area Superintendent and others within the Dade County School System. Respondent did not follow the provisions for grievance filing contained in the contract but rather reported for duty on August 25, 1976. On or about that date, he notified his principal and Mr. Steve Moore, the Assistant Superintendent for Personnel, that he would not and did not intend to remain at his assigned position. Respondent worked on August 26, 1976, but then departed, calling in sick for the work days up to and including October 8, 1976. This period of absence constituted authorized sick leave. On October 8, 1976, Respondent advised Dr. West and other members of the school system administrative staff that he was available for assignment to another school but would not report to work at Primary C Elementary School. Up to and including the date of the hearing, Respondent has failed and refused to report for duty at his assigned work location and has in fact performed no duties as a teacher during that time. The school system administration has at no time authorized Respondent's absence from duty from October 8, 1976, to the date of the hearing.
Findings Of Fact Trayvis Taylor entered Miami Lakes Junior High School for the summer school session 1983. On August 17, 1983, he was seen throwing rocks at another student. When the counselor intervened, his glasses were broken in the scuffle. For the remainder of the 1983-84 school year and for that portion of the 1984-85 school year that Trayvis attended Miami Lakes, he was involved in numerous incidents of insubordination, lack of self-control, disrespect, disruptive behavior, fights, skipping class, tardiness, failure to follow class and school rules, lying, feeling girls' buttocks (twice), using socially unacceptable language, rudeness, and defiance. He did not make friends and appeared to lack the social skills to do so. He received unsatisfactory (D-F) grades in most classes. School administrators and teachers met with Trayvis' parents and counseled Trayvis in an effort to assist him. School officials have used progress reports in an attempt to communicate Trayvis' progress to his parents and to foster a cooperative effort. They have also made teacher changes and schedule changes in an attempt to help Trayvis' school adjustment. School officials have assigned detentions, indoor suspensions, and outdoor suspensions. They also recommended psychological testing, but Trayvis' mother rejected this. Trayvis has been placed in smaller remedial classes for reading, language arts and social studies. These efforts have been unsuccessful. On December 19, 1984, Trayvis was administratively assigned to Jan Mann Opportunity School, an educational alternative program. Mrs. Taylor objected to this placement and in January 1985, unilaterally enrolled Trayvis at the Academy for Community Education ("Academy"), an experimental, semi- private, educational alternative program administered by the Dade County Public School System. Trayvis has shown improvement since his enrollment at the Academy. He is in a self-contained room with the same teacher for all of his academic subjects. He is taught totally on a remedial level in this highly structured, closely supervised classroom. He participates in a behavior modification program and is demonstrating progress. His attitude has improved, and he is now doing predominantly C work and has begun to make friends.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order identifying Respondent as a disruptive student and assigning him to an educational alternative program; provided, however, that he be permitted to remain enrolled at the Academy for Community Education so long as he meets the requirements of that institution. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of July, 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esq. 1450 N.E. Second Avenue Suite 301 Miami, Florida 33132 Mitchell Horwich, Esq. Education Advocacy Project Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc. 149 West Plaza, Suite 210 7900 N.W. 27 Avenue Miami, Florida 33147-4796 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools Board Administration Building 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issues are whether the allegations of the Petition for Termination of Employment are correct, and, if so, whether the Lee County School Board (Petitioner) has just cause for terminating the employment of Valarie Strawder (Respondent).
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent was employed by the Petitioner as a food service worker at Riverdale High School. On May 16, 2008, the Respondent became involved in an altercation with a 15-year-old male student ("J.T.") enrolled in the Riverdale Middle School. At the time of the incident, the middle school and high school were co-located on the same campus. For several years prior to the altercation, the Respondent had been the girlfriend of the student's father. According to the uncontroverted testimony of the Respondent, the situation became tense after the man fathered a child by another woman, but the Respondent remained involved with him. The Respondent testified also without contradiction that for various reasons involving the other woman, her boyfriend's school-aged children did not like the Respondent and engaged in routine harassment of the Respondent. There was evidence that both the Respondent and the children had complained about each other to school officials. J.T. was described by one of the school's teacher's as "mouthy." The Respondent also testified as to physical damage that had occurred to her automobile, but the evidence was insufficient to attribute the cause of the damage to the children. The Riverdale cafeteria was designed to separate the dining areas from the combined kitchen and food service areas ("kitchen"). Doors from the kitchen to the dining area were locked from inside the kitchen to prevent unauthorized entry by students. Food was served through openings between the dining and kitchen areas. The openings ("windows") could be securely covered by rolling metal shutters mounted above the windows. At approximately 12:30 p.m., on May 16, 2008, J.T. was in the dining area and, through a window, was engaged in a conversation with Ludine Waters, a food service worker who was located in the kitchen. The Respondent entered the dining area from the kitchen, walked to the open window, and pulled down the rolling metal shutter located above the window through which J.T. and Ms. Waters were talking. The Respondent testified that she saw J.T. standing at the window, but was not aware that he was talking with Ms. Waters at the time the Respondent closed the window. Immediately after the Respondent closed the window, J.T. spoke to the Respondent and called her a "rude bitch" and a "bald-headed bitch." As the Respondent re-entered the kitchen through the secured doors, she replied "your mammy" to the student, apparently intending to convey a derogatory remark about J.T.'s mother. After the Respondent re-entered the kitchen, J.T. threw a beverage bottle through a window that remained open between the dining area and the kitchen. The Respondent then observed J.T. taking off his coat and stating that he would "beat her ass," indicating to the Respondent that J.T. was preparing to fight with her. The Respondent testified that she said to J.T., "if you think you can beat me, bring it." The Respondent also testified at the hearing that she believed that J.T. was "just playing," but the Respondent's subsequent interaction with J.T. does not support the Respondent's testimony. After the Respondent told J.T. to "bring it," J.T. proceeded towards the door into the kitchen and so did the Respondent. At the time both arrived at the door, it opened and the two began to fight. The evidence fails to establish who opened the door, but given that the door locks were designed to prevent students entering from the dining area, it is reasonable to presume that the door was opened from inside the kitchen. The physical altercation between the Respondent and J.T. was brief. Both the Respondent and the student struck and hit each other, and the student pulled off the Respondent's wig. The Respondent and J.T. were separated by a physical education teacher who was in the cafeteria at the time of the incident and who, upon observing the commotion, rapidly moved to quell the disturbance by pulling the student away from the Respondent. The Respondent has asserted that she was acting in self-defense at the time of the altercation, but the evidence fails to support the assertion. In addition to the doorway where the altercation occurred, the kitchen had a second exit that connected to a staff dining room towards the rear of the kitchen. The Respondent made no effort to go to the staff dining room where she could have avoided further interaction with J.T. Additionally, there was a telephone in the staff dining room and another telephone in the cafeteria manager's office. The Respondent made no effort to call for assistance or security prior to engaging in the fight with the student.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order terminating the Respondent's employment as a food service worker. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of April, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 13th day of April, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Dodig, Jr., Esquire School District of Lee County 2855 Colonial Boulevard Fort Myers, Florida 33966 Robert J. Coleman, Esquire Coleman & Coleman Post Office Box 2089 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-2089 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Eric J. Smith, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. James W. Browder, Superintendent Lee County School Board 2855 Colonial Boulevard Fort Myers, Florida 33966-1012
Findings Of Fact Ms. Osteen is employed by the School Board as a content staffing specialist in the Exceptional Student Education (E.S.E.) program. Her duties include the placement and monitoring of students in the Leesburg area that are identified as exceptional students. Ms. Osteen is responsible for declaring she student's eligibility for the program and for effectuating placement of those students. At times, in her duties as a staffing specialist, Ms. Osteen determines the number of hours of instructions that E.S.E. students are to receive and prepares individual educational plans (IEPs). As an additional duty, Ms. Osteen is employed as a homebound teacher, carrying out those tasks after the completion of her normal work day which is from 8:00 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. She was the homebound teacher assigned to William (Billy) Vickery during February and March, 1988. Homebound teachers in the Lake County School System are compensated by submitting a monthly time sheet to the Exceptional Student Education Office. They are paid on an hourly basis cumulative over the month based upon the number of hours actually worked. Payment is only for instructional time with the student, not driving or commuting time. NOTE: PAGE 4 OF THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER IS UNAVAILABLE The composite of the four (4) different F.T.E. weeks determines the money a particular child earns in the system. Instruction of Billy Vickery by Ms. Osteen from February 17, 1988, through February 29, 1988, would have no impact on the F.T.E. count for the Lake County School System because it was after the count and the window period. There is no window period after the F.T.E. week. The entire staff is notified of the F.T.E. periods as they are published near the beginning of the school year. Teachers typically are not, however, involved in reporting the F.T.E. Nancy Vickery, Billy Vickery's mother, made a complaint to the Superintendent's office, in early February concerning Ms. Osteen's performance. Ms. Vickery explained that her concern was the amount of time Billy was receiving in homebound instruction. Ms. Vickery knew that Billy was to receive eleven (11) hours from Ms. Osteen weekly. After Ms. Vickery's conference with the school personnel, she began keeping, at their request, a record of the amount of time Ms. Osteen actually spent instructing Billy. Subsequently, Ms. Vickery created a summary of her time records and submitted it to the School Board. From February 10, 1988, through February 16, 1988, Ms. Vickery reported that Ms. Osteen spent approximately two (2) hours in homebound instruction of Billy. From February 17, 1988 through February 29, 1988, Ms. Vickery reported approximately three (3) hours by spent by Ms. Osteen in homebound instruction of Billy Vickery. After Ms. Vickery's complaint, the School Board hired an independent investigator to make a surveillance report of the number of hours that Ms. Osteen was in fact at the Vickery residence from February 17, 1988, through the end of the month. The surveillance report showed that Ms. Osteen spent two (2) hours and fifty-seven (57) minutes at the Vickery home from February 17, 1988, through the end of the month. Ms. Osteen submitted a time record to the School Board indicating that she had worked a total of forty-four (44) hours during February in the homebound program of instruction of Billy Vickery. Ms. Osteen claimed eleven (11) hours during the week of February 10, 1988, through February 16, 1988, and nineteen (19) hours from February 17, 1988, through the end of the month. Ms. Osteen admitted that she did not put in the hours claimed. In fact, she also admitted not working during the F.T.E. week, February 8, 1988, through February 12, 1988, and not giving Billy Vickery eleven (11) hours a week instruction from February 1, 1988, through February 17, 1988. The homebound teacher keeps a daily planning book, an attendance register, and a copy of the individual education plan as well as time sheets. Ms. Osteen conceded that homebound teachers are required to keep an attendance register, but that she used her register as a grade book instead. Ms. Osteen claimed that she used her plan book as an attendance registry, but acknowledged that it did not accurately reflect the days that Billy was instructed. Ms. Osteen did not keep an attendance record. Ms. Osteen's plan book is filled in retroactively, meaning that she makes entries for what she had done with Billy, as opposed to planning what she will do. The plan book does not accurately reflect the times or dates spent on the material and Ms. Osteen conceded she filled in the February plan in March with work done partly in March. Mr. Osteen made retroactive entries in the registry, coordinating it with the plan book, and the registry did not reflect what happened on any particular day. Ms. Osteen's testimony was confusing and contradictory regarding the actual instruction given Billy, especially in math. From the records presented and Ms. Osteen's testimony, it cannot be determined what actual instruction hours were given to Billy. Eight (8) witnesses testified either that Ms. Osteen's reputation was that of a truthful person or that they would believe her. Ms. Osteen was described as meticulous, conscientious, thorough and as one who follows the book. Ms. Osteen expected to be paid for the time that she turned in for February claiming that she planned to complete the work and make up the time before pay day. Ms. Osteen claimed that she did not intend to defraud the school system of any money. Ms. Vickery kept a time record for Ms. Osteen's visits to the Vickery home from March 1, 1988, through March 11, 1988, noting that Ms. Osteen made one visit for four (4) minutes and one other visit to have Ms. Vickery sign the time sheet. Ms. Osteen disputed Ms. Vickery's records, claiming that in March she had made up eight (8) hours of the time turned in for February. However, even Ms. Osteen admitted that by the end of the first week in March, she would have owed Billy the eleven (11) additional hours he was entitled to for that week. According to Ms. Osteen's own computations, she still owed Billy ten (10) hours from February. Thus, by March 10, 1988, Billy Vickery was behind twenty-one (21) hours in instruction by Ms. Osteen's own admission. Ms. Osteen's computations are, however, incredible in view of the surveillance report and testimony of Mrs. Vickery. In fact, by March 10, 1988, Billy Vickery was owed at least sixteen (16) hours of instruction for the time period of February 11, 1988 through February 29, 1988, additional hours for the F.T.E. week, and eleven (11) hours for the first seven (7) days of March. The March time records refute Ms. Osteen's claim that she intended to make up the February time. She continued instead to fall further behind with the hours of instruction due. Ms. Osteen attempted to explain her reporting of hours not spent with Billy Vickery by claiming that if she had not, the child would have been denied his entitlement and the County would have lost its F.T.E. There was no basis in fact for these assertions. Ms. Osteen may have believed this, but was incorrect. Ms. Vickery kept a child during the month of February that was ill with Scarletina. Ms. Vickery also conceded that Sandy had illnesses during the time that she taught Billy and had advised her that Ms. Osteen's son had pink eye. However, illness is not relevant to the issues of falsification of the time or attendance records. Ms. Osteen claimed that there was precedence for her falsification of the records, including the fact that she had falsified the time records before for Billy Vickery as well as for another child. Further, Ms. Osteen claimed that School Board personnel falsified records all of the time. The Lake County School Supervisor of Exceptional Student Education conceded that a teacher on occasion is allowed to swap time, but that the practice was not encouraged. Such a request must be written and signed by both the teacher and the supervisor. That was not done in this case. Homebound teachers sometimes extend the time sheet forms to include Saturdays and Sundays as well as holidays in order to accurately report hours worked. Homebound teachers are encouraged to perform the homebound instruction on Monday through Friday and to consider the educational principles that it is better to do small chunks at a time rather than one extended day on a Saturday. Ms. Osteen had turned in a time sheet the last day of school before Christmas vacation reflecting hours not given at that time for a previous student. Additionally, in 1987, Ms. Osteen had been unable to complete the last week in May for Billy Vickery but turned in the time sheet claiming the hours as she had in the past. Ms. Osteen stated that she went back in June to give the additional instruction and that this procedure was approved by her supervisor. Apparently, it was common practice in the Lake County School System for IEPs to be corrected by back-dating, obtaining signatures at a later date, and placing check marks in appropriate places. These corrections were made to reflect what actually had happened. Information known not to comport with the facts was not, however, placed on forms. While it is a common practice for employees to make corrections in forms, it is not an accepted practice to create false statements on forms or records. Witnesses testifying concerning record corrections consistently drew a distinction between falsifying documents and making corrections to reflect what had actually occurred. No falsification of documents was reported.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Lake County enter a Final Order finding Sandra Osteen guilty of the violations set forth above and dismissing her from her employment in the school system. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 7th day of November, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2029 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, SCHOOL BOARD OF LAKE COUNTY Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-16(1- 16); 18-39(17-38); 41(39); 42 & 43(40); and 44(41). Proposed finding of fact 17 is unnecessary. Proposed findings of fact 40, 45 and 46 are rejected as being argument and as relating to legal conclusions. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, SANDRA OSTEEN Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1); 2(1 & 2); 7(8); 10(17); 12 & 13(32); 19 & 20(38); and 22(39). Proposed findings of fact 3-6 and 11 are unnecessary. Proposed findings of fact 8, 9, 14-18, and 23-26 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of facts 27 and 28 are rejected as being argument and as relating to legal conclusions. COPIES FURNISHED: Walter S. McLin, III, Attorney at Law Post Office Drawer 1357 Leesburg, Florida 32749-1357 Richard H. Langley, Attorney at Law Post Office Box 188 Clermont, Florida 32711 Freddie G. Garner, Superintendent The School Board of Lake County, Florida 201 West Burleigh Boulevard Tavares, Florida 32778 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 ================================================================= SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by Petitioner under a continuing contract. The Respondent, Muriel Johnson Krueger, holds Florida teaching certificate number #0367469 issued by the Florida Department of Education covering grades K through 6. The Respondent is also certified in Florida for administration and supervision, grades K through 12. She also holds a Wisconsin teaching certificate. The Respondent taught in Wisconsin for a number of years; she taught in a one-room school house, grades 1 through 5. She began teaching in Florida in 1974 at Brooksville Primary School in Hernando County, where she taught first grade for two years. She next taught first grade at Moton School Center (Moton) also in Hernando County, for four years. She received her continuing contract in 1977. In 1979, the Respondent was appointed primary specialist at Moton; she held that position until August, 1985. As primary specialist, the Respondent was not assigned to a classroom; she worked primarily with teachers and teachers' aides. She was not responsible for drawing up lesson plans, recording grades, or developing pacing schedules, as those procedures are used in the ordinary classroom. The Respondent received favorable evaluations throughout her career in the Hernando County school system, until January, 1986. However, Respondent has never received an evaluation of her performance which would support her dismissal. In March, 1985, the Respondent was diagnosed as having certain physical and psychological problems, including diabetes and atypical psychosis. The Respondent's medical conditions, including the details regarding her psychological illness, were reported to the school system by the Respondent's doctors, Dr. Renee Haney, a psychiatrist and Dr. Joanne Pegg- McNab., a psychologist. In August, 1985, two days prior to the commencement of the school year, the Respondent was notified by the Petitioner that she would be teaching third grade at Spring Hill Elementary School (Spring Hill) during the 1985-86 school year. Previously, the Respondent had been given to understand, based on representations made to her by school administrators, that she would be teaching second grade in 1985-1986. The Respondent had prepared materials for the teaching of second grade, which she was unable to use in teaching third grade. Louise Ross, principal of Spring Hill, was aware that Respondent had not been a classroom teacher for at least four years prior to Respondent coming to Spring Hill in August, 1985. Ross was aware of Respondent's treatment for psychological illness. Prior to the students' return, the Respondent worked one week at Spring Hill. During that period, Respondent attended general meetings, and although Respondent received a packet of material during this period, it did not contain any specific instruction in regard to preparing lesson plans, grading or pacing. Respondent received specific written instruction regarding the recording of grades and pacing at a later date. Respondent did not receive any specific verbal or written instructions from Ross or any other person respecting the procedures in effect at Spring Hill in regard to grading and pacing until the memorandums of September 24, 1985 and November 19, 1985 from Ross concerning grades and pacing, and the December 16, 1985 letter to Respondent from Ross setting forth Ross' concerns about Respondent's procedures in grading, pacing, and lesson plan preparation that were covered in the meeting between Ross and Respondent on December 16, 1985. On September 24, 1985, approximately one month after school opened on August 22, 1985, Ross issued a memorandum regarding the number of grades to be recorded for each subject, and the procedure for recording the grades. On November 19, 1985 Ross issued a memorandum regarding the Ginn Reading Program (pacing student in reading). Both the memorandum and the chart attached pointed out it was a "guide" and that the primary concern was for the student to master the material. There is insufficient evidence to show that Respondent received this memorandum prior to returning to work on December 16, 1985. No documents concerning the pacing in other subjects were issued to Respondent. Pacing involves setting a pace for the teacher and the student to cover the required material in a set time and yet allow the student to master the subject matter. The failure to properly pace a class usually results in the student requiring remediation in the subject matter. Although Ross collected and reviewed Respondent's lesson plan books during the beginning of the school year and prior to Respondent going on sick leave in November, 1985, Ross did not make any suggestions or criticisms concerning pacing because when she checked the lesson plan books Ross found them sufficient. Respondent was aware of the requirement of preparing lesson plans in advance, but at Moton, where she had previously taught, the requirement was to prepare three days of lesson plans in advance, not five days as was required at Spring Hill. Spring Hill required lesson plans to be ready on the Friday immediately prior to week of the lesson plans, but Ross had allowed teachers to prepare lesson plans over the week-end for the following week. Respondent was absent from school beginning November 20, 1985 through December 16, 1985 on approved sick leave. Respondent failed to prepare lesson plans and leave them for her substitute. Respondent's illness prevented her from preparing lesson plans for the period beginning November 25, 1985 and up until Respondent returned on December 16, 1985. However, the lesson plans for November 20, 21 and 22, 1985 should have been prepared prior to Respondent's illness. On December 16, 1985, the day Respondent returned from sick leave, Ross held a meeting with Respondent to advise her of certain changes in performance expected by Ross. The expected changes were the result of Ross reviewing Respondent's grade book and determining that the grades were not recorded in accordance with the September 24, 1985 memorandum, and reviewing Respondent's lesson plan books and determining that Respondent's class (an average class) was ahead of the top class in the third grade in reading and math. Respondent was advised of how to effect the changes and that compliance was expected by the beginning of the second semester. Although Respondent's third grade class was ahead of other third grade classes during the period of school prior to December 16, 1985, the student's mastery of the subject matter covered during this period was within an acceptable range, and remediation was normal. Subsequent to returning to work on December 16, 1987, and up until the Respondent took leave on March 12, 1987, the Respondent's pacing of her students was in accordance with school policy. Respondent's grade books may have shed some light on whether Respondent had properly recorded the student's grades but the grade books were not introduced into evidence. Prior to taking sick leave on November 20, 1985, the Respondent had, in addition to those grades recorded in her grade, recorded grades on sheets of paper in the back of her grade book contrary to the instructions given in the September 24, 1985 memorandum from Ross. However, Ross permitted the Respondent to record these grades in her grade book at a later time. Without knowing that it was against school policy, Respondent allowed her aides to record grades in her grade book. Subsequent to returning to work on December 16, 1987, and up until she took leave on March 12, 1986, the Respondent's recording of grades in her grade books was in substantial compliance with school policy. Although Respondent did not totally comply with the December 16, 1985 memorandum from Ross, her compliance with the memorandum satisfied Sonia Terrelonge, the third grade chairperson, who Ross had assigned the duty of working with Respondent to bring about compliance with the memorandum. Ross did not check Respondent's plan book or grade book on a regular basis as she had indicated in her memorandum of December 16, 1985 but delegated that responsibility to Terrelonge. On March 7, 1986, Respondent escorted her students to Terrelonge's portable classroom to see a movie and, since Respondent had detention duty, she picked up the students from other third grade classes on detention and returned to her portable classroom. At lunch time Respondent returned the students on detention to Terrelonge's portable classroom and escorted her students to lunch. After lunch Respondent escorted her students back to Terrelonge's portable classroom for the balance of the movie; again picked up the students on detention, and returned to her classroom. At the time scheduled for the conclusion of the movie, Respondent returned to Terrelonge's portable classroom to escort her students back to her classroom. Upon arrival at Terrelonge's classroom, Respondent discovered that her students had left earlier with either Maria Wolf or Catherine Winemiller or Jacqueline Mitchie, the other teachers having students at the movie. Although one of these three (3) teachers would have been responsible for supervising the return of Respondent's students to her classroom since Respondent was on detention duty, there is insufficient evidence to show which one had that responsibility. Upon return to her classroom Respondent observed some of her students outside the classroom unsupervised. Some of the students were running around and some were standing on a railing attempting to rescue a shoe from the roof. Respondent summoned her students into the classroom. None of the students were injured in any way. After the movie and the shoe incident the Respondent's children were "hyper". To calm them down, Respondent decided to go to the playground rather than to the scheduled special class. Respondent notified the special class teacher of this change but, without knowledge that she was required to notify Ross, failed to notify Ross of this change. This was the only special class the Respondent's student's missed while under her care during the 1985-86 school year. Other teachers took their students out on unscheduled recess when the children would not settle down. The evidence does not reveal any written policy concerning unscheduled recesses. Respondent kept blank discipline slips and omni passes in an unlocked desk drawer, and that students had on occasions filled out these slips without Respondent's knowledge. There was insufficient evidence to show that the children were under Respondent's supervision at the time the slips were taken out of the drawer and filled out. There were a number of disruptive and behavioral problem students in Respondent's class, but the number of disruptive or behavioral problem children in Respondent's class was not shown to be greater than in any other average third grade class. During the 1985-86 school year, Ross made frequent, unscheduled visits to Respondent's classroom and found Respondent's performance, including her classroom management, satisfactory, except on one (1) occasion, March 12, 1986. As a result of the shoe incident and skipping the special class, Ross called Respondent to a meeting on March 7, 1986 with Edward Poore, Assistant Superintendent, and Cathy Hogeland, Union Representative being present along with Ross and Respondent. As a result of this meeting, Ross advised Respondent to take the rest of that day off, which was Friday, and March 10, 1986 which was Monday. Respondent complied and returned to work on Tuesday, March 11, 1986. On March 11, 1986, the day Ross returned to school her students went on a field trip but Respondent was not allowed to accompany them. During the day Respondent worked on grading, grade books and planning. Also, on March 11, 1986, Ross gave Respondent a handwritten memorandum instructing her in class management, specifically addressing the supervision of students, class discipline, the following of lesson plans and attendance of students at special classes. Additionally, the memorandum instructed Respondent that teachers were not to eat lunch in the classroom and listed those areas where Respondent could eat lunch. On March 12, 1986, around noon, Respondent met with Ross, with Joanne Knight, being present as Union Representative. This meeting occurred as a result of Ross visiting Respondent's classroom and finding the students particularly disruptive and disorderly. When Respondent indicated that she could resume teaching her class that afternoon, Ross informed Respondent that she must take a leave of absence and have a complete physical examination and psychological evaluation or Ross would recommend her termination to the school board. Respondent was also informed by letter from Ross dated April 8, 1986 that her return to work would be based on the psychologist's report which should be submitted no later than May 31, 1986. Due to Ross' demands, Respondent requested leave and signed the necessary papers which had been filled out by the school board office. Respondent was put on leave without pay for the balance of the school year. Respondent resumed seeing Dr. Haney in April, 1986 but due to Dr. Haney's, or Respondent's oversight, an evaluation was not submitted until July 30, 1986. However, on July 1, 1986, Ross had recommended Respondent's dismissal to the superintendent based solely on Respondent's failure to provide the evaluation by May 31, 1986 without any further notice to Respondent other than the letter of April 8, 1986. Respondent learned of Ross's recommendation of dismissal sometime around July 16, 1986 when Ross notified her by letter. The letter also informed Respondent that this recommendation would go to the school board on August 5 1986. During Dr. Haney's treatment of Respondent in 1986, she prescribed medication for her mental condition which had no detrimental side effects on the Respondent. Dr. Haney's report of July 30, 1986 made no recommendation as to Respondent's ability to return to the classroom but left to the school system the interpretation of her findings. Dr. Arturo G. Gonzalez, Respondent's treating psychiatrist, began treating Respondent in October, 1986. Dr. Gonzalez's opinion was that while Respondent does have a mental condition, it is treatable with medication and does not affect Respondent's ability to teach. Dr. Gonzalez prescribes the same medication for Respondent as did Dr. Haney. From his observations, the Respondent takes the medication as prescribed. It was also Dr. Gonzalez's opinion that Respondent understands the need for medication. It was the opinion of Dr. Haney that Respondent better understood the need for medication after her second hospitalization in April 1986 then she had after the first hospitalization in 1985. It was the opinion of both Dr. Haney and Dr. Gonzalez that Respondent's mental condition would not prevent her from being effective in the classroom and that her presence as a teacher would not endanger the welfare of the students. Respondent was a concerned teacher, interested in her student's welfare. There is insufficient competent evidence in the record to show that Respondent had emotional outbursts in the presence of her students. There is insufficient competent evidence in the record to show that, due to Respondent's action, the students in her third grade class were deprived of minimum education experiences. Respondent substantially performed her duties as prescribed by law. There is insufficient competent evidence in the record to show that there was a constant or continuing intentional refusal on the part of Respondent to obey a direct order given by proper authority.
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 the Petitioner, School Board of Hernando County, enter a Final Order dismissing all charges filed against the Respondent, Muriel Krueger. It is further RECOMMENDED Respondent be restored to her position as a continuing contract employee of the Hernando County School Board, and that she receive back pay for the entire period she has been in a non-pay status because of these charges. Respectfully submitted and entered this 14th day of October, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, 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 14th day of October, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2001 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 Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 and 2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 4, and 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10 as clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16 as clarified. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17 as clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17 as clarified. Adopted in Findings of Fact 11 and 12 as clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20 as clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. 11-13. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. There was conflicting testimony in this regard but the more credible evidence was contrary to the facts set forth in paragraphs 11, 12 and 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. There was conflicting testimony in this regard but the more credible evidence was contrary to the facts set forth in paragraph 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23 except for the last clause which is rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. 17-19. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. There was conflicting testimony in this regard but the more credible evidence was contrary to the facts set forth in paragraphs 17, 18 and 19. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record, except for the one occasion on March 12, 1986 which would not be described as a chaotic condition. That classroom management was discussed with Respondent is adopted in Findings of Fact 27 and 29. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. That students took discipline slips and filled them out is adopted in Finding of Fact 24, the balance of paragraph 23 is rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. 24-27. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. There was conflicting testimony in this regard but the more credible evidence was contrary to the facts set forth in paragraphs 24, 25, 26, and 27. Adopted in Findings of Fact 6, 31, 32, 33 and 34. Rejected as not being relevant or material. Rejected as not being relevant or material because that was Dr. Haney's provisional diagnosis which was changed when she made her final diagnosis. The first sentence of paragraph 31 is adopted in Findings of Fact 3 and 4. The balance of paragraph 31 is rejected as not being relevant or material in that although Respondent admitted being acquainted with those school board policies there was credible evidence that Respondent was not aware at the beginning of the school year of Ross' or the Superintendent's specific instruction in regard to maintaining attendance records, grade books, etc. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Findings of Fact 8, 10 and 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17 but clarified. Rejected as not being relevant or material. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Findings of Fact 20 and 21. 20.-21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22 as clarified. Rejected as not being a finding of fact but only a restatement of testimony. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. 25.-26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27 but clarified. Adopted in Findings of Fact 28 and 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30 but clarified. Adopted in Findings of Fact 31 and 32. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. Adopted in Findings of Fact 31 and 33. Adopted in Findings of Fact 34 and 35 but clarified. Rejected as not being relevant or material. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph E. Johnston, Jr., Esquire 29 South Brooksville Avenue Brooksville, Florida 34601 Susan E. Hicks, Esquire Post Office Drawer 520337 Miami, Florida 33152 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32300 James K. Austin, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools Hernando County 919 U.S. Highway 41 North Brooksville, Florida 33512-2997
The Issue Respondent's continued employment with the Dade County Public Schools, as set forth in minutes of the School Board for October 19, 1977.
Findings Of Fact During the 1975-1976 and 1976-1977 academic school years, Respondent was an employee of the Petitioner as a teacher at the Richmond Heights Junior High School. (Stipulation) By order of the State Board of Education, dated September 20, 1977, the teaching certificate of Respondent, Department of Education Number 3436, was suspended for a period of two years. The matter is currently being appealed to the First District Court of Appeal. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, Stipulation) On October 19, 1977, Respondent was suspended without pay from his position by Petitioner due to the suspension of his teaching certificate by the State Board of Education. On October 31, 1977, Respondent requested a hearing in the matter. Petitioner provided Respondent with formal notice of charges on December 13, 1977, seeking his dismissal from employment with the school system. Respondent became a teacher in 1937 and has been employed in that capacity by Petitioner since 1961. He testified at the hearing to the effect that, in his opinion, the present proceedings are improper in that the action by the State Board of Education was premature and should not have been taken until the charges upon which such action was based had been considered by Petitioner in administrative proceedings. Respondent sought to introduce character testimony in his behalf by a number of witnesses, but upon objection by Petitioner, such testimony was not permitted by the Hearing Officer as it would be irrelevant to the proceedings. The proffered testimony would have shown that the witnesses had all known the Respondent for a lengthy period of time and that he is a dedicated employee of the school system who has served his community and church as an example for students. (Testimony of Anders, Respondent)
Recommendation That Respondent, Raphu S. Williams, be dismissed from employment as a teacher by the School Board of Dade County, Florida, under the authority of Section 231.36(4), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of April, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jesse McCrary, Esquire Dade County Public Schools Lindsey Hopkins Building 1410 Northeast 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Elizabeth DuFresne, Esquire One Biscayne Tower Suite 1782 Miami, Florida 33131 Phyllis O. Douglas, Esquire Dade County Public Schools Administrative Office Lindsey Hopkins Building 1410 Northeast 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue Whether or not Respondent should be assigned to J.R.E. Lee Opportunity School. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURE Petitioner presented the oral testimony of Anya Cooper and Aaron Brumm and had admitted Exhibits P-1 (two pages of subpoena), P-2 (case management form 676566), P-3 (composite of Student Observation 1/12/87), P-4 (Composite Student Case Management Referral Forms), P-5 (Second Report for School Year 1986-1987), P-6 (Composite of Student Academic and Behavioral Reports), and P-7 (Individualized Education Program, IEP). Respondent presented the oral testimony of Fred Sage and had admitted R-1 (Computer printout), R-2 (Computer printout), R-3 (Child Study Team Conference Notes), and R-4 (composite of report card with progress notes of Grace Baptist Academy). Joint Exhibit A (Multi- Disciplinary Team Report) was also admitted. Due to the failure of Bonnie Edison to respond to a validly served subpoena, the parties stipulated to the taking and filing of her deposition by Petitioner subsequent to July 21, 1987. Respondent's father's August 22, 1987, letter has been treated as a Motion to Strike or Amend the Edison deposition, and the Edison deposition with attached exhibits has been admitted as amended by the Order of September 10, 1987. Petitioner filed a "Memorandum of Law on Jurisdiction, Substantial Interest, and Case or Controversy," and Respondent filed a letter styled, "Request for Ruling." These documents are addressed the Appendix to this Recommended Order, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent's parents were notified by a letter dated January 30, 1987, that Respondent had been administratively assigned to the Dade County School Board's alternative education program at J.R.E. Lee Opportunity School. Being previously aware that the recommendation for administrative assignment had been made, Respondent's parents had formally withdrawn Respondent from the public school effective January 29, 1987, and timely petitioned for formal administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. Respondent's parents are currently complying with State law by continuing their son in a private educational facility, however Respondent's substantial interest entitling him to a formal hearing continues to exist in that the parents desire their son to be enrolled in the regular program of the Dade County public school system and in that they propose to re-enroll him in that system if they prevail in these proceedings. At all times prior to his withdrawal from public school, Respondent was enrolled at Cutler Ridge Junior High School, located in Dade County, Florida. He attended summer school in the summer of 1986, and was 13 years old and in the seventh grade for the regular 1986-1987 school year. During the regular 1986-1987 school year, Anya Cooper was Respondent's mathematics teacher. In her class, Respondent performed his basic skill work below grade level. She described his conduct in her class as very "fidgety, constantly moving around, bothering other students, and talking and kicking purses." However, she also described the foregoing behavior as all done "in fun" and described Respondent's usual responses to admonishment as being, "Okay, Okay." Apparently she interpreted these responses to her correction as being in the nature of back-talk but admitted that following a smart retort, Respondent usually would not say more beyond "Okay" and often complied with her requests. Beginning September 22, 1986, Ms. Cooper kept a daily record of negative behaviors of Respondent. That day, Respondent was extremely talkative and refused to participate in boardwork. He also lied, saying a paper without a name on it which had received a grade of "B" was his own paper when, in fact, it had been submitted by someone else. When confronted with his lie, Respondent admitted the lie immediately. On September 24, he was too talkative and changed his seat. On September 26, he talked during a test and refused twice to take the test before actually taking it. On September 30, he chewed gum and was required to remove it. On an occasion in early October, he talked back to Ms. Cooper and was instructed not to talk in class anymore. On October 22, he threw a piece of staple which hit another student. Ms. Cooper counselled with Respondent about the danger of throwing staples, but Respondent interrupted her and refused to work. On October 23, Respondent kicked a female student, and on October 28, he put his foot on her arm. Ms. Cooper put him out of her class. There is no evidence that any student was ever injured. On October 27, Respondent refused to work and talked during the entire class period. Later that month, he threw a pen into the trash can, creating a loud noise and distraction. Nonetheless, despite the number of these incidents, Ms. Cooper only referred Respondent for discipline by the school administration one time. During summer school the previous summer, the Respondent had been referred by the coach to Assistant Principal Brumm for running around the cafeteria. Respondent was reprimanded and warned without being assigned to indoor or outdoor suspension. On July 22, 1986, also during summer school, Respondent had been referred to the office for disruptive and non-attentive behavior in one class. Assistant Principal Brumm sent Respondent home for one-half day as a disciplinary measure. By October 6, 1986, Respondent was in the Student-At-Risk-Program (SARP). This program assembles a special group of teachers within the school who are able to deal particularly effectively with disciplinary problems. The student members of the program are assigned their own counsellor and attend classes of much smaller size than do those students in the academic mainstream. The target goal of SARP is to identify students at risk for dropping out of school and modify their behavior so as to retain them in the school system. The testimony of Bonnie Edison, Respondent's seventh grade SARP life science teacher for the regular 1986-1987 school year, was submitted by after- filed deposition. Ms. Edison did not routinely refer Respondent to the administration for his discipline problems, nor did she involve the SARP counsellor. She addressed Respondent's disruptive behavior solely with SARP behavior modification techniques. In Ms. Edison's class, Respondent was "off task" and disruptive seventy to eighty percent of the time unless Ms. Edison addressed him on a one-to-one basis, or unless she included him in a group of no more than three students. Despite measurably high ability, Respondent's work effort was below standard ninety percent of the time. He consistently failed to bring proper materials to class but admitted he should do so. Ms. Edison counselled with Respondent a few minutes daily and occasionally for longer periods, sometimes with temporary success, but never with lasting success. Her greatest concern was that Respondent's need for one-on-one attention deprived her of teaching time and limited her time for other students. She also was concerned because, in their conversations, Respondent could name no rewards or goals she could integrate into her program at school. Nonetheless, noting that Respondent related better to plants than to people, and recognizing his very superior ability with horticulture, Ms. Edison involved him in independent study with plants as a reward. She also devised a reward system based upon Respondent's interest in wrestling as a contact sport, and upon his affection and respect for the wrestling coach who had previously referred Respondent for discipline. This coach helped Respondent study for his second grading period exam in Ms. Edison's class, and Respondent earned an "A" on this final exam. Between September 1986 and the end of January 1987, Respondent had a total of seven referrals to the school administration, although some referrals covered several incidents. The constant theme of the referrals of Respondent to the administration was that Respondent had the ability to learn, but insufficient self-discipline to allow him to learn. Respondent had been assigned to six days of CSI (indoor suspension) and one day of outdoor suspension. In the first grading period of the regular 1986-1987 school year, Respondent earned two F's, one D, two C's and one B. By January 29, 1987, in the second grading period, Respondent had earned two F's, two D's and two C's. In the second grading period, he had only been absent 2 or 3 times in each class except for math, in which he had 8 absences. There is no evidence that any teacher or administrator viewed these absences as excessive. On January 20, 1987, a teacher referred Respondent for disrupting other students in CSI by making squeaking sounds. Thereafter, a Child Study Team was convened. Each of Respondent' a teachers participated in a conference with Respondent's mother on January 28, 1987. The consensus of the team and teachers was that Respondent needed extremely close supervision. Each teacher consulted with Respondent's mother on this occasion. Although there is evidence of some parental contact due to previous disciplinary problems, it appears that January 28, 1987, when the alternative education program was being actively explored, was the first time the parents were made aware of the serious penalties attendant upon Respondent's grades, behavior, and absences. The probable explanation for the lack of prior communication is that Respondent never gave contact slips/reports to his parents, but it is also clear that there was little or no administrative follow-up on the written material sent home and that the parents also resented and reacted hostilely to two oral contacts by the administration. Mr. Brumm opined that all disciplinary and counselling techniques at his disposal had been tried but had proven ineffectual. It was Respondent's parents' position that the school had failed to adequately communicate with them concerning their son's disinterested and disruptive behavior; had failed to involve them early enough in disciplinary and academic correction of their son; and had failed to use corporal punishment to discipline Respondent. To buttress their assertion that the school had failed to adequately communicate with them, the parents asserted that since certain disciplinary reports/referrals had not been committed to writing or consigned to the computer prior to the administrative school assignment (January 30, 1987) or prior to the formal withdrawal of their son from the Dade County School System (January 29, 1987), there was little or no credibility in any of the disciplinary reports/referrals admitted in evidence and particularly no credibility in those reports/referrals dated February 6, 1987, and later. The failure of teachers and administrators to timely commit to writing the reports does not diminish the credibility of the oral testimony on the same facts by the teachers and Mr. Brumm. It does, however, render less credible the administration's assertion that adequate communication was made with the parents simultaneously with the alleged disciplinary actions. The parents' assertion that the school failed to use corporal punishment as an accepted disciplinary technique is ill-founded. The administration's failure to employ corporal punishment was consistent with established policy, and not demonstrated to be unreasonable. Respondent's exhibits of report cards and progress reports from the private school which he entered subsequent to withdrawal from the Dade County Public School System are irrelevant to the statutory issues discussed in the conclusions of law. They are also virtually unintelligible without any "key" by which they may be interpreted.
Findings Of Fact During the 1977-78 school year, the Respondent, Erma Frederick, was employed as a classroom teacher in the Dade County Public School System, assigned to Buena Vista Elementary School. On October 10, 1977, a conference was scheduled between the Respondent, United Teachers of Dade, Representative, Ms. Mattie Squire and Ms. Linda E. Stuart, Principal of Buena Vista Elementary School. During the conference, Respondent was advised that based on two years of unsatisfactory evaluations (1973-74 and 1974-75) deficiencies in her teaching performance existed which, if not corrected by December 1, 1977, would affect her status as an employee in the Dade County Public School System and which, if not corrected by December 1, a complaint of incompetency would be filed seeking Respondent's dismissal. The substance of this conference was reduced to writing by letter dated October 10, 1977, and cited the following deficiencies: Failure to maintain pupil control by establishing and maintaining discipline. Failure to file instructional plans. Failure to implement lesson plans and to present materials correctly. Failure to correctly grade student papers and maintain accurate grade books. Failure to properly maintain cumulative records and to maintain attendance and other data entries on report cards. Failure to accurately take attendance. Failure to follow class schedules. Failure to maintain supervision of pupils at all times. Based on the Respondent's failure to otherwise remedy the above cited deficiencies to Petitioner's satisfaction, Petitioner suspended Respondent from her position as an instructional teacher on March 9, 1978. Respondent, although properly noticed, failed to appear at the hearing to refute the cited deficiencies relied on by Petitioner in suspending her as an instructional employee at Buena Vista Elementary School. Based thereon, and in the absence of any evidence having been offered by Respondent to refute or otherwise negate the above-cited deficiencies, they must be, and are, considered meritorious.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent's appeal of her suspension by Petitioner be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of April, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
