The Issue The issues are whether Respondent is guilty of the alleged misconduct and, if so, whether such misconduct constitutes just cause for Respondent's termination, pursuant to section 1012.33(6)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Introduction Respondent has been teaching for 30 years. At all material times, she has held a professional service contract, pursuant to section 1012.33, Florida Statutes. For the past 13 years, Respondent has taught at Northport K-8 School. She taught at this school until she was suspended without pay, pending termination, for the incidents of March 20, 2013, which are the subject of this case. During second period on March 20, 2013, Respondent was teaching a seventh-grade class. One of the students, R. W., misbehaved. Respondent cautioned him to sit down and be quiet. Instead of doing so, R. W. asked her, "How do you know that I'm the only one talking?" Respondent again instructed him to be quiet, to which the student replied, "I wish I could cuss a teacher out right now." Respondent did not reply. Several nearby students heard this exchange and nothing more of significance. After the bell rang, R. W. proceeded to his next class, which was taught by Sandra Tyndale-Harvey, whose classroom is in the same hallway as Respondent's classroom. During the three-or four-minute interval between second and third periods, Respondent visited another teacher, Kalyn Nova, whose classroom is between the classrooms of Respondent and Ms. Tyndale-Harvey. "Inappropriate Language" and Three Alleged Failures to Act Respondent told Ms. Nova about the incident involving R. W. during the previous period. Although she was speaking in a whisper, she was upset and was overheard by D. S., an eighth-grade student in Ms. Nova's third-period class. According to D. S., he overheard Respondent tell Ms. Nova that R. W. had said to her: "If you don't shut the 'F' up, I'm going to beat the shit out of you," or words very close to that effect, including the abbreviated swear word, the unabbreviated swear word, and the threat of violence. Ms. Nova and Respondent recalled the statement differently from D. S., but similar to each other. Ms. Nova testified that Respondent stated that R. W. had said, "If you don't stop talking to me, I'm going to beat the shit out of you." Respondent testified that R. W. had said, "If you say my name one more time, I'm going to slap the shit out of you," implying that this was what Respondent told Ms. Nova that R. W. had said. The differences in language among all three statements are immaterial. All three versions capture a threat to physically beat Respondent and a hair-trigger precondition to the beating: failing to stop speaking or saying R. W.'s name one more time. All three versions also use the word, "shit." Respondent's use of this vulgarity was not inappropriate for three reasons. First, Respondent was merely recounting what she understood that R. W. had said to her. Based on this record, Respondent was wrong; R. W. never said anything like this to her. But Respondent is not charged with fabricating this statement. Although R. W. did not say it, Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent intentionally misquoted the statement, such that her use of "shit" in Ms. Nova's classroom might have been inappropriate. It is at least as likely that Respondent misunderstood R. W. to have threatened Respondent using the word, "shit." Second, Respondent was visibly upset when she recounted what she had thought R. W. had said to her. And third, despite the fact that she was upset, Respondent took a reasonable precaution--i.e., whispering--to avoid being overheard by other students, even though she was unsuccessful in this effort. Perhaps because she was upset, Respondent's speech was loud enough for a nearby student to overhear it. After recounting R. W.'s statement to Ms. Nova, Respondent walked over to D. S. and M. B., who were seated next to D. S. D. S. knew Respondent because he had taken a class from her the previous school year. Respondent asked D. S. if he would talk to R. W. because he and R. W. were friends and see what was going on with him. The incident during second period was not the sole reason that Respondent might have wondered what was going on with R. W., whose behavior and academic performance had been deteriorating recently. By this time, the bell had rung, and Respondent was walking toward the classroom door to return to her classroom. D. S. and M. B. asked Ms. Nova if they could go to the restroom. Ms. Nova said that they could, so D. S. and M. B. exited the classroom directly behind Respondent, who held open the classroom door for them. Hallway camcorders recorded much of what followed. The camcorders of main interest are identified in the video as Cameras 5 and 6. Located in close proximity to each other, these cameras display opposite ends of the same hallway. Thus, a person walking toward one camera will eventually walk off the bottom of the frame, only to appear at the bottom of the frame of the other camera. A small portion of the hallway, directly beneath both cameras, is not covered by either camera, so a person would not instantly appear in the frame of the other camera as soon as she left the frame of the first camera. The video is timestamped to thousandths of a second, and, at least at the level of seconds, the times for the two cameras are closely synchronized. If the cameras are out of sync at all, it is by no more than a couple of seconds. The video from Camera 6 reveals that Respondent held open the door for D. S., who passed through the door immediately ahead of Respondent. Respondent released the door, but, before it had swung closed, M. B. passed through the door a few steps behind D. S. Both boys walked in the direction of Ms. Tyndale-Harvey's classroom. Rather than proceed in the opposite direction, toward her occupied classroom, Respondent stopped in the middle of the hallway and then followed the two boys for about six seconds, as they approached and stopped at the door of Ms. Tyndale-Harvey's classroom. Both boys looked directly at Respondent, who, for two to three seconds, might have talked to the boys, but it is impossible to know for sure because her back was to the camera. Respondent suggests that she counseled the boys not to run in the hallway, but clearly they were not running. Also, considering that third period had already begun, it is unlikely that, even if two eighth-grade boys were running down the hall, Respondent would so diligently supervise them, even to the extent of following them down the hall for six seconds in the opposite direction of her classroom, and completely ignore the needs of the classroom of her students awaiting her arrival. It appears, then, that Respondent said something to the boys, and it had nothing to do with not running in the hallway. Just before the boys entered Ms. Tyndale-Harvey's classroom, Respondent turned around and started to walk up the hall toward her classroom. Seven seconds after entering Ms. Tyndale-Harvey's classroom, D. S. and M. B. reentered the hallway with R. W. By this time, Respondent was out of range of Camera 6, but she was within range of Camera 5. The video from Camera 5 reveals that Respondent did not immediately enter her classroom. Instead, for about ten seconds, Respondent stared down the hall in the direction of Ms. Tyndale- Harvey's classroom. Based on the timestamps on the two videos, Respondent saw D. S. and M. B. leave the classroom with R. W., and she saw the boys walk R. W. across the hall, where one of the eighth-grade boys opened the door of another classroom, which was occupied at the time. At this point, Respondent entered her classroom, so she did not see what followed in the hallway. The circumstances under which R. W. left Ms. Tyndale- Harvey's classroom are difficult to establish. D. S. testified that he asked to talk to R. W., but he did not say whom he asked. R. W. testified that two boys--D. S. and A. S.--entered Ms. Tyndale-Harvey's classroom and asked the teacher if they could take R. W. because Respondent needed to talk to him. An especially reliable student witness, S. W., testified that she heard the boys tell R. W. that Respondent needed him, and he thus left the classroom with them. Ms. Tyndale-Harvey testified that, by the time that she took attendance toward the beginning of third period, R. W. was not in her classroom. When she asked if anyone knew where he was, several of the students said that he was talking to Respondent. The hallway was clear when the boys and R. W. left Ms. Tyndale-Harvey's classroom, so third period had started, but it is possible that the teacher had not yet taken attendance by the time that R. W. had left. Given the statements of the other students and presence of D. S. and M. B. in the classroom for a total of only seven seconds, it is more likely than not that they persuaded R. W. to join them in the hall without informing or asking Ms. Tyndale-Harvey. The video from Camera 6 reveals that no one left the second classroom to join D. S., M. B., and R. W. in the hall. The three boys went down the hall, still within range of Camera 6, but no longer being observed by Respondent. D. S. or M. B. ducked into a third classroom, from which, in short order, four students joined them in the hall. Up to this point, R. W. was being escorted, but did not appear restrained. While standing in the hall at the door of the third classroom, R. W. stood by himself, only two or three steps from his classroom, but making no attempt to reenter his classroom. However, almost immediately after the four boys joined D. W. and M. B. in the hallway, several of the boys physically confronted R. W., who tried to escape up the hall. One of the boys grabbed him after only a couple of steps and R. W. stumbled. Now surrounded by five or six boys, R. W. kneeled on the floor as the boys grabbed at and pushed him. One of the boys removed his cloth belt and swatted at R. W.'s lower torso seven times, as three of the other boys held R. W. against the wall. The evidentiary record does not establish that R. W. suffered any physical injuries as a result of this incident, whose intensity is impossible to describe. The boys are relatively far from Camera 6, and any views of R. W. are intermittent due to the movement of him and the other boys during the incident. Clearly, though, whatever level of intensity that the incident attained, tapered off considerably after about 30 seconds. About one minute after the start of the incident, the media specialist, who has worked at the school in her present position and as a teacher for 28 years, entered the hallway and walked right by the boys. She gave them a look, but noted nothing out of order--besides, one hopes, the presence of six students loitering in the hall in the middle of third period. The media specialist continued walking up the hall. The students followed her five or six steps behind. At this point, two students were holding R. W., possibly by his backpack, which had remained in place during the hallway incident. As these three boys approach Camera 6--and thus were clearly depicted right in front of the lens--the boys' grasp of R. W. is light, and R. W. is smiling. The other four boys are trailing the first three and are talking in pairs, paying no attention to R. W. Based on the foregoing, Petitioner proved that Respondent was aware that D. S. and M. B. left Ms. Nova's classroom and headed toward R. W.'s classroom, departed Ms. Tyndale-Harvey's classroom with R. W., and walked across the hall with R. W. and opened the door of another, occupied classroom. Petitioner also proved, of course, that Respondent never intervened with the boys during these actions. Petitioner proved that Respondent had just asked one of the boys to talk to R. W. before he left the classroom to visit Ms. Tyndale-Harvey's classroom. Even in a preponderance case, it is impossible to infer that Respondent knew or reasonably should have known that D. S.'s walking to and into Ms. Tyndale-Harvey's classroom meant that he was going to act on her request. But this is a reasonable inference as soon as D. S. emerged from the classroom with R. W., especially given the proximity in time between Respondent's request and D. S.'s action in retrieving R. W. from class. Seeing D. S. and M. B. walking R. W. across the hall and open the door of another occupied classroom establishes the inference that Respondent knew or reasonably should have known that the boys were not merely going to talk to R. W. about what might be wrong. D. S. and M. B., as well as all of the other eighth-grade boys, were much larger than R. W., so D. S. and M. B. did not need allies in order to talk to R. W. safely. More likely, the presence of allies was at least for intimidation, or worse. The Petition alleges a duty to act based on Respondent's having just heard one or both of the students ask if they could confront R. W. The evidentiary record does not establish such a request. However, Petitioner's opening statement predicates the duty to act on Respondent's instruction to one of the boys to talk to R. W. (Tr. 15) As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the point here is that Respondent has established a specific basis for notice and a heightened duty to act on Respondent's part, and basis alleged in the Petition--D. S.'s asking Respondent if he may confront R. W.--is close in time and content to the proved basis-- asking D. S. to talk to R. W. Interlude The media specialist who had passed the boys in the hall was headed to Respondent's classroom to schedule an author visit. The media specialist entered the classroom and, four or five seconds later, so did the six students and R. W. The media specialist remained in Respondent's classroom for a little over one minute. About 20 seconds after she left the room, so did the six students and R. W. The boys urged R. W. to apologize to Respondent. He did so once, but laughingly. Urged by the boys to apologize again, R. W. did so, the second time more sincerely. Respondent thanked R. W. for the apology, but said that she was still going to have to write a referral. Respondent said nothing else to R. W. The boys escorted R. W. down the hall, past his classroom, and into an adjoining hall, where they walked him into a restroom. From the video, it appears that one of the boys locked the door behind them. The boys remained in the restroom for less than one minute. R. W. then walked out of the restroom. About 15 minutes after the boys had left Respondent's classroom, the Dean's clerk went by the classroom and informed Respondent that R. W. had told her that he had been "jumped in the boys' bathroom" by six boys. The clerk added that R. W. had told her that the boys had attacked him on Respondent's instruction. The clerk told Respondent that she was taking R. W. to the front office so he could tell administrators what had happened. Three Alleged Instances of Student Witness Tampering Within three minutes after the clerk and Respondent parted, the six eighth-grade students involved in the hallway incident (plus another student who does not appear to have been involved) entered Respondent's classroom. They met with Respondent in a separate planning room that was in the back of the classroom. Respondent testified that she asked what had happened, and the boys told her about the incident in the hall--with one boy saying that he had removed his belt, but he had hit the floor with it. Respondent testified that they would have to tell the Dean what they had done. About five minutes after entering Respondent's classroom, the six students left it. On this record, it is impossible to find that that Respondent said anything more to the boys. It is thus impossible to find that Respondent tried to influence or interfere with these students in terms of what they would tell school investigators. The second alleged instance of interfering with student witnesses involves Respondent's third-period class, which witnessed the eighth-grade students' production of R. W. before Respondent. One student from this class, D. D., testified that, after Respondent had finished meeting with the boys in the planning room, she asked the class what would R. W. have looked like if he had been beaten up, and the class responded with suggestions. Although this student testified that R. W. did not look as if he had been beaten up, he did not testify that Respondent ever followed up with the obvious question of whether W. looked as if he had been beaten up to the students. Another student from this class, M. C., testified, but was not asked what Respondent had said to the class after talking to the boys in the planning room. The only other student from this class called as a witness, V. S., was also not asked about any comments that Respondent made to the class after talking to the boys in the planning room. It appears that, at hearing, Petitioner decided not to press the second alleged instance of interference with student witnesses. Any implication by Respondent that R. W. did not look beaten up while he was in her classroom was no more an attempt to influence the students than a statement asking them to remember when R. W. was in the classroom: both statements were true. Petitioner thus failed to prove any attempt by Respondent to influence student witnesses on these first two alleged occasions. However, at lunch on the day of the incident, Respondent visited some of her second-period students in the cafeteria. Five students concerning this incident were called as witnesses: W., C. T., K. H., L. J., and J. R. All of them were in R. W.'s second- and third-period classes. S. W. was an especially impressive witness. She also appeared to be quite fond of Respondent. S. W. testified that Respondent approached her and some friends while they were eating and asked if R. W. had said that he had been hurt, and S. W. replied that he had not. Respondent also asked if S. W. or her friends had heard R. W. say during second period, "If she opens her mouth one more time, I'm going to beat the shit out of her." Neither S. W. nor her friends could recall that; S. W. recalled that R. W. had said only, "Sometimes I wish I could curse out a teacher." C. T. was at lunch when Respondent approached him and asked if he and his friends remembered when R. W. had said, "If this bitch won't shut up, I'm going to knock her on the floor." Neither C. T. nor his friends recalled this statement. C. T. testified that R. W. said in second period, "I wish I could cuss out a teacher right now." K. H. testified that Respondent approached him at lunch and asked if he had heard R. W. say that "he wished he could knock that bitch the fuck out." K. H. replied that he not heard any such statement. K. H. testified that R. W. said that he had wished he could cuss out teachers, or words to that effect. L. J. testified that he did not recall anything, except that Respondent approached him during lunch and asked if R. W. had said "anything about he was going to beat the shit out of me." J. R. testified only that Respondent approached him at lunch and asked if he recalled that R. W. had used a curse word at her in class. Petitioner has proved that Respondent asked leading questions to each of these five students. Although the leading questions framed what Respondent apparently had understood R. W. to have said, not a single witness recalled any such statement from R. W. Under the circumstances, including the fact that Respondent had no role in conducting an investigation of her acts and omissions, the leading questions constituted improper influencing of student witnesses. Despite what Respondent understood R. W. to have said, the leading questions suggested to these student witnesses that R. W.'s statement was physically threatening, when it was not, and used one or more swear words, when it did not.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the above-cited violations of the Principles of Professional Conduct and School Board policy and terminating her employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of February, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 12th day of February, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark S. Wilensky, Esquire Dubiner and Wilensky, LLC Suite 103 1300 Corporate Center Way Wellington, Florida 33414-8594 Leslie Jennings Beuttell, Esquire Richeson and Coke, P.A. Post Office Box 4048 Fort Pierce, Florida 34948 Dena Foman, Esquire McLaughlin and Stern, LLP Suite 1530 525 Okeechobee Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Pam Stewart, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Matthew Carson, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael Lannon, Superintendent St. Lucie County School Board 4204 Okeechobee Road Ft. Pierce, Florida 34947-5414
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent, Mr. Alain Sanon, violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2013), and implementing administrative rules,1/ as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact The Commissioner is responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct against individuals holding educator's certificates. Mr. Sanon holds Florida Educator's Certificate 1010405, covering the area of mathematics, which is valid through June 30, 2019. At all times relevant to the complaint, Mr. Sanon was employed as an intensive math teacher at John F. Kennedy Middle School in the Miami-Dade County School District. Mr. Sanon was born in Haiti and lived there most of his life. He came to the United States in 2003. His native language is French. He also speaks Creole and is fluent in English. In August 2017, Mr. Sanon taught a seventh-grade intensive math class during fifth period. About 50 percent of this class was Haitian-American, and some students in the class spoke French and Creole. Student A.R. testified at hearing that, on August 27, 2013, Student N.R. was laughing and talking with some other students who did not quiet down after Mr. Sanon asked them to. Student A.R. testified that Mr. Sanon asked them if they were gay. At this question, many of the students in the class started laughing. Student A.R. testified that Mr. Sanon then said, "This is a no homo zone." Student A.R. testified that Mr. Sanon said these things in a playful, not hostile manner, as a joke. Student A.R. testified that Student N.R. looked embarrassed. Mr. Sanon, in his deposition and later at hearing, admitted that he used the word "gay," but denied that he used it to refer to anyone as a homosexual, even jokingly, but rather used it in the sense of "happy." He testified that it was all a misunderstanding stemming from his question in French to Student N.R. and his companions: "Why are you so happy today?" Mr. Sanon explained that the French word for happy is "gaie" and that, when other students in the class heard that word, they began to say that Mr. Sanon had made an allusion to the boys' sexual preferences. Mr. Sanon testified that students were becoming excited and things were beginning to get out of hand, so he then said, "You know what? This is no homo calling. Nobody is calling anybody names in this classroom." He denies ever saying, "This is a no homo zone." The testimony of Student A.R., as supplemented by the written statements of other students, is more credible than that of Mr. Sanon, and Student A.R.'s testimony is credited. Student N.R. was removed from Mr. Sanon's class. The other fifth-period students remained with Mr. Sanon for the rest of the school year. It can be reasonably inferred, from Student A.R.'s testimony and the fact that Student N.R. was subsequently removed from Mr. Sanon's class, that Student N.R. was embarrassed by the incident. This is corroborated by Student N.R.'s written hearsay statement. Mr. Sanon has been employed at the Miami-Dade County School District for about 12 years. He has never before had any discipline imposed against his license.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Mr. Alain Sanon in violation of section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, through his violation of Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.081(3)(a) and 6A- 10.081(3)(e), and issuing him a letter of reprimand. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of March, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 8th day of March, 2017.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent held active Teaching Certificate 485203 with certification in Political Science and History. She is a hard worker, who, when orphaned, put herself through school, achieving a Master's Degree in Social Justice from Lewis University. Respondent was employed by Petitioner School Board as a social studies teacher at Miami Central Senior High School for the 1981-82, 1982-83, and 1983- 84 school years. During Respondent's first year with the Dade County school system, 1981-82, she was formally observed by her principal, Mr. Hal Guinyard, and other administrators. Respondent had problems with discipline of tardy students, absenteeism, classroom management and noise level control in the classroom and with devising and carrying through variations of instruction. On Respondent's annual evaluation for 1981-82, Respondent was recommended for employment but was found lacking in the area of classroom management. The specific observations leading up to this evaluation were that: Several students entered and left the room at will, other students remained in the halls during class time, some students in the classroom disturbed others in Respondent's class and even nearby classes with irrelevant and extraneous discussions and excess noise. There was excess noise from the late arrivals and those in the halls, too. The Respondent rolled on copy work from the chalkboard or text book with minimal student conversational feedback. Mr. Guinyard suggested to Respondent that she minimize busy work, create an orderly classroom environment, and explore alternative instructional techniques. On October 26, 1982, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Assistant Principal William Matlack, using the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS) of objective analysis. Mr. Matlack rated Respondent as unsatisfactory in the area of techniques of instruction. Excessive time was used by Respondent in preparing her students to take a test. Mr. Matlack prescribed help for Respondent in the area of techniques of instruction by assigning Respondent to observe three effective teachers and list four teacher activities, three student activities, and to analyze the time spent in organizing the class and in instructional activities. He also suggested that she read the TADS chapter on acceptable classroom procedures and teaching techniques and attached 33 pages of reading material to her evaluation, giving suggestions for classroom management, effective planning, techniques of instruction, and techniques of student-teacher relationships. He further advised Respondent of an in-service course in techniques of instruction. While Mr. Matlack did not rate Respondent as unacceptable in classroom management, he found that she still did not control her class for all the reasons previously noted by Mr. Guinyard. Rather than rate her as unacceptable in this area, he directed a memorandum dated October 29, 1982, to Respondent's attention indicating problem areas that could lead to further discipline problems if uncorrected. One of the problems was that Respondent was selling doughnuts for the athletic department between classes, and Mr. Matlack made her aware of the fact that students would be tempted to eat in other teachers' classes and that this was against the school rules. Respondent also was admonished concerning the security danger existing in her leaving money and keys lying about. On February 28, 1983, Respondent was again formally observed in the classroom by Mr. Matlack using the TADS and was found to be deficient in the areas of knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction, assessment techniques, and teacher-student relationships. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of the subject matter because the topics were not covered thoroughly and there was too much digression. There were 11 topics discussed and few were related to each other. Some of the areas were irrelevant, e.g., the importance of obtaining a good lawyer if one is going to win a lawsuit, how to obtain a house in Chicago, and the five black Presidents in the United States. Only 6 minutes were spent on how a bill becomes a law. Only 25 minutes were spent on the prescribed curriculum topics of cabinet duties, income tax, social security, Veterans' Administration, Federal Housing Authority, Health and Rehabilitative Services, and the Equal Rights Amendment, and the irrelevant topics already mentioned. Techniques of instruction was rated unacceptable because Respondent presented the material in a lecture form. The assignment on the board was very similar in technique (copy work for listing and defining terms, outlining a chapter) to what was used during the October 1982 observation; content was, however, different. The students were not ready for the assignment. There appeared to be no scope and sequence to the lesson. The lesson was very disjointed. The students were not involved when questions were asked, and their response was minimal. No effort was made to identify those students not participating or off task nor to involve all of them in the lesson. One or two students carried the class. Respondent did not appear to be effectively using the suggestions made by Mr. Matlack during his prior observation. Mr. Matlack explained to Respondent the need to create inspiration, create interesting presentations, move around the classroom utilizing various techniques and media, direct questions for the purpose of involving students, and for motivational use of questions geared toward individual abilities of respective students. He recommended Respondent re-read the TADS booklet that he had prescribed before. Respondent was rated "improved" in keeping grades for a variety of types of assignments in her grade book, but she still was not making informal assessments of her students' learning. Respondent was rated unacceptable in teacher-student relationships because she was not involving the students in instruction. The students appeared to do as they pleased. The classroom still did not present a neat and orderly atmosphere. The students seemed surprised at Respondent's attempt to enforce rules and regulations. This indicated to Mr. Matlack that the control was for his benefit, being implemented only for the instant period of observation. At the conclusion of the 1982-83 school year, Mr. Guinyard recommended Respondent for continued employment, but rated her overall unacceptable. He found her unacceptable for the year in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. She would continue on prescription (prescribed remediation efforts). Mr. Guinyard testified that he gave Respondent an extra year on prescription and brought in more help so that she might yet improve. During the 1982-83 school year, Mr. Guinyard recommended that Respondent observe other teachers and that she contact Mr. Hanson for help, which she did. Mr. Hanson is the Social Studies Supervisor for Dade County Schools. Mrs. Felicia Accornero (hereinafter Mrs. Mendez), is Assistant Principal for Curriculum (APC). She is not a trained social studies teacher but is certified to teach biology, chemistry, and gifted children. She is certified to work as an administrator, supervisor, or guidance counselor. Additionally, Mrs. Mendez discussed social studies concepts with other social studies teachers in an effort to be of more assistance to Respondent. On October 18, 1983, Respondent was officially observed in the classroom by Mrs. Mendez. Using the TADS analysis system, Mrs. Mendez rated Respondent deficient in the areas of knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. Mrs. Mendez rated Respondent unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because there were substantial errors in her presentation: incorrect spellings, incorrectly defined terminology, and unnecessary use of lay terms rather than formal terms. Mrs. Mendez' perception was that neither the students nor she, personally, understood the lesson as represented by Respondent. Mrs. Mendez recommended that Respondent work with her. Mrs. Mendez also prescribed particular pages from the TADS prescription manual, which included a detailed subject matter inventory. This was a checklist so that Respondent could understand the different areas where she could become knowledgeable so that her subject matter would be more accurate and more relevant to the students. Mrs. Mendez discussed subject matter with Respondent and discussed one lesson a week with Respondent prior to its presentation. At this time, Mrs. Mendez also rated Respondent unacceptable in classroom management because there were too many delays in the class due to the same deficiencies observed previously by Messrs. Guinyard and Matlack, specifically repetitive tardies, disruption by tardies noisy off-task irrelevant extraneous discussions among students during teaching, 50% of the time spent in opening and closing class and other non-instructional activities, lack of discipline, disorganized classroom and disorganized lesson presentation by Respondent. The lesson plan which was in Respondent's 1982-83 lesson plan book for October 18, 1983, was not the one which Mrs. Mendez observed in the classroom. She was give a separate lesson plan. Mrs. Mendez prescribed a TADS chapter on structuring classroom time so that the teacher moves from one activity to another without delay. Mrs. Mendez suggested that Respondent work with both her and the department chairman, Mrs. Consuelo Pino, to improve Respondent's classroom management. Mrs. Mendez rated Respondent unacceptable in techniques of instruction because Respondent was not following a sequence, was not clarifying directions and explanations when necessary, did not give students background information that was necessary for them to understand the topic, and did not perceive when her students did not understand the lesson. Mrs. Mendez prescribed reading a section from the TADS chapter on sequencing lessons and also prescribed help from herself and Mrs. Pino. Mrs. Mendez worked with Respondent to help her place her lesson plans in an understandable sequence. At least weekly for the next ten weeks, Mrs. Mendez helped Respondent. Mrs. Mendez provided Respondent with a book on questioning techniques, helped Respondent organize her room, showed her how to position her desk so that she would have a better view of the students, explained how a seating chart would help her keep accurate attendance quickly, explained how to utilize student folders so that materials would be easily accessible and so that the classroom and instructional techniques and procedures would accordingly be better organized. The prescription deadline was extended to accommodate Respondent. On November 8, 1983, a conference for the record was held with Mr. Mathew V. Lawrence, Mrs. Mendez, and a field representative of United Teachers of Dade. Mr. Lawrence had been Assistant Principal the first two years Respondent taught at Miami Central Senior High and became Principal there for the 1983-84 school year. The purpose of the conference was to discuss the October 18, 1983 observation and the continuing deficiencies. The prescriptions were discussed. The ramifications of continued deficiency were discussed. Respondent's responsibility for basic skills such as reading and spelling was discussed. Respondent was reminded that she was responsible not only for her subject matter, (history, social studies, political science) but for students' basic skills (reading, writing, spelling, grammar). 24.. On November 12, 1983, Mrs. Mendez again formally observed Respondent in the classroom using the TADS analysis technique. Respondent was aware that she would be observed that day. Respondent showed some improvement over the prior observation in that she presented some accurate information for most of the period; however, Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, and techniques of instruction. Mrs. Mendez rated Respondent unacceptable in preparation and planning because her objective was too simple and she did not list activities and assessment techniques, as required. Thereafter, Mrs. Mendez worked with Respondent on writing lesson plans and helped her write lesson plans. Mrs. Mendez found Respondent unsatisfactory in knowledge of the subject matter because Respondent made inaccurate statements, used incorrect grammar, and gave opinions rather than presenting both sides of an issue to students. Mrs. Pino made the same observation. During some parts of the lesson, it appeared that Respondent did not know what she was talking about. While the students appeared to understand most of the lesson, at times they did not. Mrs. Mendez also concluded that Respondent was not adhering to a structured plan but for this formal observation for the last formal observation Respondent had prepared lesson plans for observation days separate and apart from her normal procedure/plan for non-observation days. To improve Respondent's knowledge of subject matter, Mrs. Mendez recommended that Respondent review and study the textbook chapters prior to teaching the lesson because it did not appear that Respondent was doing this. Mrs. Mendez also gave Respondent the opportunity to prepare lessons and to explain them to Mrs. Mendez ahead of the time Respondent would present the material to the class so that Mrs. Mendez could monitor whether or not the information would be clearly presented to the class. Mrs. Mendez rated Respondent unacceptable in techniques of instruction upon much the same grounds as she used to substantiate the unacceptable rating for the categories of preparation and planning and knowledge of the subject matter, all essentially relating back to inadequacy of Respondent's lesson plans, or that the lesson plans were created solely for observation or to satisfy a prescription and were not for actual use. Petitioner's Exhibit 12 does not reflect a specific written prescription in this category, but Mrs. Mendez' oral testimony indicated further emphasis and helpful work on lesson plans was initiated. Respondent was next formally observed by Mr. Matlack on January 19, 1984. Respondent showed improvement this time but Mr. Matlack noted that Respondent needed to record her students' grades in her grade book more promptly as she received them. He also rated her unacceptable in classroom management primarily because of continued disruptions from tardy arrivals. Mr. Matlack directed Respondent to establish rules and regulations for students about coming into the class on time, bringing the needed materials, staying until the period ends, and prohibiting visitors into the classroom. He gave her specific suggestions on how to make these improvements and provided her with a memorandum outlining the deficiencies and prescribed help. Respondent's lesson plan for January 19, 1984, in Respondent's 1983-84 lesson plan book was only partially covered in the period observed that day by Mr. Matlack. On February 8, 1984, Mr. Lawrence rated Respondent unacceptable in classroom management on her midyear annual evaluation for 1983-84. On February 10, 1984, Mr. Lawrence held a second conference for the record with Respondent to discuss her performance assessments to date and his recommendation that she not receive a fourth year of annual contract. He also advised her that if she cleared her deficiencies, he would rescind his recommendation and would recommend a continuing contract. Respondent agreed to a fourth year annual contract. On March 13, 1984, Mr. Lawrence made his first official classroom observation of Respondent according to the TADS and found her to be very deficient. He felt that no teaching and learning were taking place. He observed her to be deficient in the areas of knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. Mrs. Lawrence found Respondent unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because the definitions she gave for vocabulary words were not accurate and not appropriate. The students did not seem to understand the class work. Respondent was not gearing the lesson for all of her students. The lesson plan in Respondent's 1983-84 plan book for March 13, 1984, was not the plan Mr. Lawrence observed being implemented that date. Mr. lawrence prescribed for Respondent to prepare lesson plans for five days that detailed the sequencing of concepts and how each concept would be explained and implemented. Respondent was to include a minimum of five ideas and concepts and give the cognitive levels covered in each area. Mrs. Mendez and Mrs. Pino were recommended as resources. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because students were coming to the room late and being admitted without any evidence they had been detained elsewhere and without reprimand or punishment by Respondent. There was no evidence the students had any knowledge of the correct procedure. Step by step instructions for correcting her classroom management in this area were given to Respondent by Mr. Lawrence. Mr. Tom Shaw later helped her in this area. Mr. Lawrence rated Respondent unacceptable in techniques of instruction because the only two methods she used during the class period were writing definitions for 10 minutes and answering questions from the end of the chapter in the textbook for 45 minutes. The questions at the end of the chapter were unrelated to the vocabulary work. Respondent gave no introduction to the material. There was no evidence of the students understanding the materials, and no opening or closure to the lesson. In order to aid Respondent to improve her techniques of instruction, Mr. Lawrence recommended that Respondent develop a list of at least 10 teaching techniques or suitable teaching methods. He directed her to utilize a minimum of two methods permitting students to actively participate. He directed her to prepare lesson plans for a week that demonstrated these methods and how the students would be involved. He suggested that Mrs. Mendez and Mrs. Pino be used as resources. Respondent was rated unacceptable in assessment techniques based on four student folders selected at random, each of which contained only five test cares and one or two additional sheets of work. The work in the student folders was not representative of what should have been there so late in the school year and therefore students' work was not accurately documented and could not be properly assessed for grading the child. The help that Mr. Lawrence prescribed for Respondent was to prepare two written assessment items per week for three weeks. Each test was to contain a variety of at least three types of questions. He wanted other corrected items such as homework and class work to be contemporaneously placed in student folders. He assigned Mrs. Mendez and Mrs. Pino to help Respondent. Pursuant to Mr. Lawrence's March 13, 1984 prescription, Mrs. Mendez explained to Respondent in a memorandum what was required in the student folders. Subsequently, when Mrs. Mendez reviewed the student folders, she found a student paper consisting of one incomplete sentence fragment graded "A". The student's grammar was not graded (p 14). This one example was clearly contrary to the criteria established by Mrs. Mendez and contrary to the criteria established by Mrs. Mendez and contrary to the instructions for the assignment outlined by Respondent but it still had been graded "excellent." At hearing, Respondent denied that she gave the paper an "A" and asserted that she would require from this particular student two examples the next day. On April 24, 1984, Respondent was formally observed simultaneously by two administrators (Mrs. Mendez and Paul Hanson) and was found by both administrators to be unsatisfactory in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. Respondent had lesson plans and objectives based on the county curriculum, but was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because her plans were not effectively implemented. She did not fill the allocated class time although only about 10% of the planned material was covered. One of the nine listed topics was "Communism." Section 233.064, Florida Statutes, spells out the content and mandates 30 hours for curriculum in "Americanism vs. Communism." On eleven different occasions, Mr. Hanson noted students were totally off task, disruptive and loud, and discussing topics that were not relevant to the lesson on Communism. The students were talking in little groups and in Mr. Hanson's opinion nothing academic was learned by the students during the period and consequently the students might thereby fall short of the statutorily required 30 hours. As a means to help Respondent, Mrs. Mendez suggested that Respondent prepare lesson plans for one week and check with the Assistant Principal who would observe the class to see if the plans were implemented. She recommended that Respondent seek help from both herself and Mrs. Pino. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because the information that she provided concerning Communism was not accurate. There were a number of errors made by Respondent during the course of the lesson. Mr. Hanson prescribed help for Respondent by working with Dan Jones, Social Studies Specialist, during the week of May 11, 1984. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because of the numerous disruptions, extraneous conversations, and constant movement. Student tardiness was noted yet again. Respondent appeared frustrated but was not able to effectively control the situation and did not take any steps to correct or penalize the tardy students. As a means of helping Respondent, Mrs. Mendez suggested that Respondent work with Mr. Shaw who is the assistant principal that generally monitors attendance and discipline problems. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she did not deliver the instructional program acceptably in many areas. Also, upon the same grounds, Mr. Hanson prescribed help from Mr. Jones on this element. By memorandum dated May 7, 1984, Mr. Lawrence changed his recommendation for extended annual contract to dismissal because Respondent had failed to remediate her deficiencies and she was now more deficient than when he had observed her in March. Pursuant to Mr. Hanson's prescription of April 24, 1984, Mr. Jones worked with Respondent on May 17, 1984. He brought her material to use and discussed a number of areas: lesson planning and format, techniques, the Dade County balanced curriculum objectives, the possibility of his visiting one of her classes to provide feedback to her about her techniques of instruction, a possible policy of limiting hall passes, a technique for engaging students in group activities, and the need for having at least two activities per class. He brought three books for her to use, Ideals and Ideologies, The Russians, and Practical Methods for the Social Studies. He assisted with her lesson planning for the week of May 21-25, 1984. On May 24, 1984, Mr. Lawrence completed the annual evaluation of Respondent, rating her as deficient in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. This constituted three more unacceptable areas than on her midyear evaluation. Mr. Jones returned to help Respondent on June 4, 1984. Based upon his visitation, he wrote several suggestions for Respondent. Subsequently, when Mr. Jones observed the class, Respondent was attempting to implement some of the recommendations he had made but the presentation was not well structured or organized. Approximately fifty percent of the class period was lost in digressions and expounding of Respondent's personal opinions. Mr. Jones testified that it is appropriate for teachers to get students to express their opinions; however, those opinions should be based on knowledge of the course concepts and should come from the students, rather than from the teacher so as to encourage students to think independently, to make rational decisions, and to not merely absorb their teacher's opinion. In time of confusion, Respondent unduly delayed clarification of instructions. Mr. Jones opined that if he had been a student, he would have had to have asked questions also and in his opinion, the students were being deprived of a minimum acceptable level of instruction. On June 7, 1984, Respondent was again formally observed by two administrators (Mr. Hanson and Mr. Shaw) using the TADS analysis system. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships, and assessment techniques. Respondent's performance had declined since Mr. Hanson's prior observation. She now was rated as having one acceptable category out of six. Mr. Hanson noted that the "students would have been better off to review without teacher's assistance." Respondent gave incorrect information and was very vague. She made several content errors and confused government forms with economic systems, using the terms synonymously. Mr. Hanson, under the impression that Respondent was still being recommended for a fourth year annual contract, recommended that she take course work over the summer in classroom management and subject matter. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because again there were at least nine interruptions of the same kinds as previously observed. However, where previously the Respondent had ignored inappropriate behavior, this time she indulged in a disruptive outburst reprimanding one student very loudly. There was a student in the room who had been withdrawn from school two weeks prior and recently readmitted. In returning this student to the office for a status check, Mr. Shaw missed several minutes of Respondent's class and his observation is somewhat impaired by this absence. It is to Respondent's credit that even during this period of suspension, this particular student sneaked into school to attend her class. At no time were more than half of the students observed to be on task. Mr. Shaw recommended that the Respondent work with Mr. Hanson to improve her classroom management. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because there were only passive activities being pursued and there was little feedback from the students. Respondent's technique was ineffective in encouraging class discussion. There was inadequate use of media. Because the lesson was not in proper sequence, it created academic confusion. Again, Mr. Shaw recommended that Respondent seek help from Mr. Hanson. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in teacher-student relationships because of the general lack of respect on the part of the students and because of Respondent's erratic reaction to the student's behavior. The observers prescribed the same help. Respondent was rated unacceptable in assessment techniques because there was no means of assessing whether or not the students were understanding the review process that was taking place. The observers prescribed the same help. In 1983 Respondent was referred to a nine-credit social studies course taught by Mr. Hanson at Nova University as part of the administration's attempts to help her master the subject matter of her course. She cooperated by taking the course but failed it. Complaints of misgraded, missing, and plagiarized papers arose among students in Respondent's classes. Administrators concluded that Respondent lacked an appropriate procedure for receiving, organizing, and monitoring papers for grading purposes. Students and parents complained that no effective teaching was going on and that the disorganization in the classroom even prevented individualized learning. On another occasion, Respondent was informally observed by administrators giving wrong information to students as to the number of municipalities in Dade County. Administrators also observed that her grammar, verb tenses and word choice were not a good example to her students. The undersigned observed this pattern at hearing. At the hearing, Respondent testified to an incorrect number of Florida counties. During her testimony, Respondent used the non-word, "malicy" instead of "malice." She used the word "connotatins" several times in contexts which more properly would have required either the word "confrontations" or "altercations." In no respect was "connotations" an appropriate word selection and Respondent defined the word "connotations" as meaning "disagreements." Respondent contended that her emphasis on rote copying from the board and reading aloud was an appropriate response to large classes the majority of whose members did not possess basic skills. Respondent explained that what her observers perceived as her poor grammar was actually "street talk" she intentionally used to reach culturally deprived students. While these may have been legitimate motivations, they do not excuse Respondent's never having progressed in the use of proper grammar and varied teaching techniques for communication with students when other teachers in the same school were able to do so. Respondent's explanation also does not ring true in light of Respondent's numerous grammatical and content errors during her own testimony. Mrs. Pino, the department head, offered additional help to Respondent during Respondent's three years at Miami Central Senior High School. She discussed classroom management, ways to diversify teaching, and other problems which came up on a daily basis. She discussed parent contacts in order to help with classroom management. She gave Respondent additional copies of some papers that Respondent has lost. She reviewed lesson plans with Respondent many times and on occasion would review a lesson plan with her prior to an administrator's observation. Pursuant to Mrs. Mendez' request, Mrs. Pino observed a whole period in order to help Respondent learn how to make smooth transitions from one classroom activity to another. Respondent testified that she encouraged students to borrow books from her even if it meant looking the other way when she knew they were removing them. Loaning or giving books away might be altruistic upon Respondent's part, and indeed, helpful to students' learning the subject matter or developing a love of history, reading, etc., but Respondent's practice of encouraging the fantasy of theft for learning's sake is hardly in the best interests of the child or the teaching profession. Respondent, a Negro, contended that it was her attempts to instill in her students pride in their Black heritage which resulted in her negative ratings. She based this primarily upon body language of Mr. Matlack she said she observed when she showed him the pamphlet "The Five Negro Presidents" (R-1). She claimed there existed a rehearsed "plot" by all the Petitioner's witnesses on the basis of either her minority heritage views or on the basis of her election as a steward in the union, United Teachers of Dade. This explanation is not credible. While "Black History" may certainly be a valid part or enrichment of a high school social studies curriculum, it cannot legitimately usurp all of the class time properly allotted to prescribed curriculum. Moreover, inaccurate history, even inaccurate Black History, serves no valid purpose. The undersigned finds that it was not this theme on a single occasion which observers were concerned with in rating Respondent, but the inaccuracy and confusion of her presentation of that theme which resulted in her negative rating on the one occasion to which she refers. Also this pamphlet was not used at every observation and cannot be attributed as the incentive for so many negative ratings by so many different observers. It is also noted that Mrs. Mendez and Mrs. Pino are of Hispanic background. Although Respondent has responded to criticism positively, was eager to improve, and cooperated readily in all of her observers' suggestions, she still never achieved the standards of competency required and expected by the Dade County School Board. This is so despite extensive efforts of her colleagues to help Respondent reach acceptable performance standards. Respondent has failed to teach efficiently and faithfully due to her failure to communicate and relate to the children in her classroom to such an extent that they were deprived of a minimum educational experience.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of face and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Dade County School Board enter a Final Order in Case No. 84-3171 finding Respondent guilty of incompetency, affirming her suspension, dismissing her from her employment with the Dade County School Board, and denying her any claim for back pay. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order in Case No. 84-3171A finding Respondent guilty of incompetency and incapacity and revoking her Florida Teacher's Certificate for ten years, subject to reinstatement as provided by law. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of March 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of March, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig R. Wilson, Esquire The Law Building, Suite 204 315 Third Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 William Du Fresne, Esquire 1782 One Biscayne Tower Two South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue Whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment as a classroom teacher for the conduct alleged in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner has been the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Both West Hialeah and Aventura are public schools in Miami-Dade County, Florida. During the 2011-12 school year, Respondent was employed as a teacher assigned to West Hialeah. Respondent's teaching assignment during the 2014-2015 school year was as a teacher at Aventura. Respondent's employment is governed by the collective bargaining agreement between Petitioner and the United Teachers of Dade ("UTD Contract"), Florida Statutes, the regulations issued by the Florida State Board of Education as set forth in the Florida Administrative Code, and the School Board's policies and procedures. Respondent's Prior Discipline During the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent was investigated for hitting an exceptional student education (ESE) student at West Hialeah. The investigation concluded that there was probable cause to charge Respondent with violating School Board Policies 3210 and 3210.01. As a result, a conference-for- the-record (CFR) was held on December 15, 2011, wherein OPS District Director, Dr. Brown, issued Respondent directives to: adhere to all School Board policies, specifically 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct; 3210.01, the Code of Ethics; and 5630, Corporal Punishment and the Use of Reasonable Force; refrain from contacting in person or by any other means any of the parties involved in the investigation; refrain from using physical means as a form of discipline; and [] conduct [herself], both in [her] employment and in the community, in a manner that reflects credit upon [herself] and the district. Respondent signed on January 3, 2012, that she was in receipt of these directives. Although the charges against Respondent relating to physical aggression against a student merited a recommendation from the School Board that Respondent be terminated, the School Board took into consideration Respondent's length of service with the School Board and the fact that she had not received any prior discipline. As such, it was recommended that Respondent be suspended for 25 workdays without pay. Respondent contested this recommendation. Following a final hearing on September 24, 2012, Administrative Law Judge Stuart M. Lerner found that Respondent used physical aggression toward an ESE student and recommended that the School Board uphold Respondent's 25-workday suspension. Ultimately, Respondent was suspended for 25 workdays without pay. The September 2011 incident was reported to the Florida Department of Education (Florida DOE), and a hearing was held on October 15, 2014, to determine whether any disciplinary measures should be taken on Respondent's educator certificate. Following that hearing, conducted by the undersigned, it was recommended to the Florida DOE that "Respondent be placed on probation for 90 days with a letter or reprimand to be placed in her certification file." The Recommended Order provided that, "[t]his penalty takes into account that Respondent's conduct, in striking the student, was inappropriate under any circumstances, but also places the conduct in perspective in relation to Respondent's otherwise incident-free teaching career." The September 17, 2014, Incident Respondent later began working as a teacher with ESE students at Aventura beginning in the 2012-2013 school year. During the 2014-2015 school year, Respondent worked as an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) teacher. M.C., who suffers from ASD, was a student in Respondent's class during the 2014-2015 school year. M.C. and his family are from Argentina and the 2014-2015 school year was the first year M.C. attended a public school in the United States. Initially, M.C. could not take instruction in class. Respondent worked with him to develop the skills to take instruction by demonstrating actions, repeating instruction and praising the student for doing things correctly. Respondent taught M.C. how to write his name, catch a ball, and hold a pencil. Respondent shared a classroom with fellow teacher, Ms. Stubbs. Ms. Stubbs had her own set of students with varying exceptionalities. Ms. Stubbs had six middle school students and Respondent had six elementary school students. Ms. Pollard acted as Respondent's paraprofessional, helping Respondent with her students. Additionally, Ms. Charles would assist Respondent with M.C. for a few hours each day. Respondent's planning period was during the time her students went to art once a week on Wednesday. Respondent voluntarily gave up her planning period to assist the art teacher, Ms. Garcia, with the students. Ms. Garcia worked as an art teacher at Aventura for six (6) years. On September 17, 2014, Ms. Garcia was teaching art to Respondent's students. After Ms. Garcia had provided instructions for the class, she began walking around the room while the students worked on their assignment. M.C. was seated at his desk coloring with crayons. M.C. began throwing crayons on the floor and Respondent, who had been standing behind M.C. with her hands on his shoulders, grabbed M.C.'s hands and wrists and pulled him down to the floor, causing M.C. to fall down to his knees. Respondent told M.C. to pick up the crayons in a loud tone that conveyed she was annoyed. Once Respondent had M.C. on the floor, she held M.C.'s wrists, forcing him to pick up the crayons off the floor. All the while, M.C., who is non-verbal, was making noises like he was not happy. Ms. Garcia tried to help, but Respondent did not allow her, insisting that M.C. had to clean up by himself. M.C. eventually returned to his seat and then began spitting on the floor. Once again, Respondent pulled M.C. to the floor by his wrists, causing him to land on his knees. Respondent again appeared annoyed as she was forcing M.C. to wipe up the spit. Ms. Garcia attempted once more to assist in the clean-up, but Respondent did not allow her, stating that M.C. had to clean up his own mess. Although Ms. Garcia has seen other ESE students being restrained, she has never seen a teacher treat a student like Respondent treated M.C. by forcefully pulling him to the floor. There was no indication that M.C. was going to hurt himself or other students. Although Ms. Pollard did not see the interaction between Respondent and M.C., because she was busy helping the students with their assignment, she did hear Respondent yell, "Pick it up!" in a tone loud enough to be heard over the noise of the classroom. At the end of the art class, M.C. pinched another student with ASD, K., in front of Respondent. Respondent responded by instructing K. to pinch M.C. back. Ms. Garcia was only three feet away from Respondent when she heard Respondent say this. K. is a very obedient student. When Respondent told him to pinch M.C. back, K. looked confused, shrugged his shoulders and reluctantly pinched M.C. back. Ms. Garcia was shocked by what she witnessed. She verbally intervened by telling Respondent that she would not tolerate Respondent's behavior in her classroom. Ms. Garcia admonished Respondent that the students should not be taught to retaliate against each other. Respondent just stood silent and stunned during the confrontation. Meanwhile, M.C., upset at K.'s retaliation, ran off and pinched another student, R., who retaliated by repeatedly hitting M.C. back. The situation Respondent created was total chaos. Two children, K. and R., who are otherwise well-behaved, were acting aggressively towards each other. Ms. Garcia then had to physically intervene by separating the fighting children because Respondent just stood by. Ms. Pollard, who had been outside Ms. Garcia's classroom with the rest of the class, began to wonder what was taking the other students so long. When Ms. Pollard peered back into the classroom, the expression on Ms. Garcia's face startled her. Ms. Pollard asked Ms. Garcia what was wrong, to which Ms. Garcia responded, "Do you believe she [Respondent] told K. to hit M.C.?!" Ms. Pollard looked over to Respondent, but Respondent remained silent. Ms. Garcia informed Principal Bello that she witnessed Respondent handle M.C. in an inappropriate manner and that Respondent instructed another student to pinch M.C. in retaliation. Respondent denied these allegations. Ms. Garcia did not have any issues with Respondent prior to Ms. Garcia reporting the incident to Principal Bello. After the incident, Respondent stopped coming into Ms. Garcia's classroom with her students. Respondent's Post-Incident Conduct On September 29, 2014, Mr. Bello issued Respondent a letter, directing her to refrain "from contacting any complainant(s) and/or witnesses, with the intent to interfere with the investigation of the above listed allegation." In November of 2014, M.C.'s mother, S.C., received a telephone call from Respondent on a Saturday night at around 8:00 p.m. Respondent proceeded to tell S.C. that she was going to lose her job and teaching license because of S.C.'s son, M.C. Respondent asked S.C. to have her ex-husband, M.C.'s father, write a letter and backdate it to the first day of school in August 2014. Respondent's call made S.C. feel "extremely horrible" and "guilty." S.C. did not want anyone losing their job because of her son. Subsequently, Respondent repeatedly took advantage of the fact that S.C. picked up M.C. in the classroom to talk to S.C. about the allegations. Respondent cried to S.C., telling her that M.C. had behaved well on the last day of school before the Thanksgiving break because M.C. must have known it would be Respondent's last day as his teacher. Respondent's words and actions towards S.C. made S.C. question why the school was investigating or targeting Respondent and she wanted to ask the school to stop their investigation. The effect that Respondent's words and actions had on S.C. is precisely what Petitioner tries to avoid by issuing standard directives that employees being investigated may not contact witnesses with the intent to interfere with the investigation.1/ Respondent was afforded her employee and due process rights, including the opportunity to file exceptions to the investigative report and request a superintendent's review. At its regularly scheduled meeting on December 10, 2014, the Petitioner took action to suspend Respondent without pay and initiated dismissal proceedings against her. Respondent claims that allegations against her are falsified, that Ms. Garcia was "coached" for reasons Respondent could not articulate, and that her co-teacher, Ms. Stubbs, is out to get her. She also believes "the principal and his agents" conspired against her. Notably, Ms. Stubbs was not the individual who reported the incident. She did not provide a statement in support of the allegations nor did she testify at the final hearing. Respondent could not identify the alleged agents of the principal. Respondent's denial of the allegations and conspiracy theory are identical to the defenses she asserted in response to her prior incident of inappropriately touching a child for which she received a 25-day suspension and probation.2/ Respondent presented no credible evidence in support of these defenses. Respondent also claims that M.C.'s father gave her verbal permission at the beginning of the school year to teach his son "life skills" and put physical limits on his son. The father did not testify, there was no corroboration, and it was denied by S.C. Even assuming this was true, it is implausible that M.C.'s father, or any parent, would envision a scenario in which his child would be pulled to the ground forcibly by his teacher, or another student would be encouraged by a teacher to physically retaliate against his child, to teach "life skills." Findings of Ultimate Fact As discussed in greater detail below, Petitioner proved Respondent engaged in misconduct in office, gross insubordination, and violated School Board rules 3210 and 3213.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, including Respondent's prior 25-day suspension for similar conduct (inappropriate physical contact with a student) and the seriousness of these violations, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a Final Order terminating Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of June, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY 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 26th day of June, 2015.
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to have disciplinary action taken against Respondent on the basis of alleged misconduct which is set forth in a three count Administrative Complaint. The misconduct alleged consists primarily of assertions that the Respondent used various forms of corporal punishment on her students and that she also engaged in verbal abuse of her students.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent currently holds Florida teaching certificate number 151121, covering the area of elementary education. The certificate is valid through June 30, 1995. During the 1990-1991 school year and during the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent was employed as a teacher at Charles R. Drew Elementary School in the Dade County School District. In January of 1992, the Respondent threw a wooden ruler at A. S., who was a minor male student in her class. The ruler hit A. S. in the face and left a scratch on his face. This incident took place in class in the presence of other students in the class. During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent pinched A. S., a minor male student, on the ear in front of the other students in the class. During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent struck L. W., a minor female student, with a ruler on her hands and on her legs. The ruler left marks on L. W.'s hands. Student L. W. cried as a result of being struck with the ruler and she felt sad. During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent on several occasions used offensive and indecent language in the classroom, sometimes directing such language towards her students. The offensive and indecent language included such words as "fuck," "damn," "bitch," and "ass." During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent used tape to restrain M. S., a minor male student. Specifically, the Respondent taped student M. S.'s mouth closed, taped his arms to the arm rests of his chair, and taped his feet to the legs of his chair. During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent used tape on minor male student, P. B., to keep his mouth closed. Student P. B. was taped up in front of the class, which caused him to feel sad. During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent used tape on minor male student, A. S., to keep his mouth closed. During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent used tape on minor male student, T. L., to keep his mouth closed and to prevent him from talking. The Respondent also used tape to restrain T. L. Specifically, the Respondent taped T. L. to his chair. On several occasions during the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent threw a wooden ruler, and other similar objects, at students in her class. During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent struck minor male student, M. S., with a wooden ruler. This incident was observed by the other students in the class and made M. S. feel sad and embarrassed. During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent struck minor male student, P. B., on the buttocks with a wooden ruler. During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent struck minor female student, D. H., on the buttocks with a counter in class. This incident embarrassed the student. During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent stuck minor male student, T. L., on his left arm with a counter in class. This incident embarrassed the student. During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent pinched the ear of minor male student, T. L. in class. On numerous occasions prior to the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent, and all other teachers at Charles R. Drew Elementary School, had been made aware of the policies of the Dade County School District prohibiting corporal punishment. The Respondent had also been made aware of what was encompassed by the term "corporal punishment." In a memorandum dated February 12, 1991, concerning the use of corporal punishment, the Respondent was specifically instructed not to throw rulers at students.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case revoking the Respondent's teaching certificate for a period of three years and providing that any recertification of the Respondent shall be pursuant to Section 231.28(4)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of September 1993. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of September 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-6896 The following are my specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings submitted by Petitioner: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 5: Accepted. Paragraph 6: Accepted in substance, although the language used is more accurately described as indecent or offensive than as profanity. Paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13: Accepted in substance, with some repetitious information omitted. Paragraph 14: Admitted Paragraph 15: Rejected because not charged in the Administrative Complaint. Paragraphs 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 25: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details, many of which are also irrelevant. Findings submitted by Respondent: Paragraphs 1 and 2: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5: These paragraphs are accurate summaries of a portion of the allegations and of a portion of the evidence, but there was other evidence which supports a finding that Audric Sands was struck on the chin by a ruler thrown at him by the Respondent. Paragraph 6: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the persuasive evidence. Paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20: These paragraphs are all essentially correct summaries of the testimony described in each paragraph. Although there are differences in the details reported by the several child-witnesses, such differences are not unusual when several young children describe an event. There was a great deal of consistency on several relevant matters. Paragraphs 21 and 22: These paragraphs are essentially accurate summaries of the testimony of the witness referred to. Although the witness Mr. Jim Smith testified he never heard or saw any misconduct by the Respondent, I still find the testimony of the child-witnesses to be persuasive. The child-witnesses were with the Respondent on many occasions when Mr. Smith was not present. Also, Mr. Smith worked as an aide to the Respondent only from some time in November or December until sometime in late January. Paragraphs 23, 24 and 25: These paragraphs are essentially accurate summaries of the Respondent's testimony. To the extent the testimony summarized here conflicts with the testimony of the child-witnesses, I have generally accepted as more persuasive the testimony of the child-witnesses. Paragraphs 26 and 27: I have resolved the conflicts in the evidence other than as suggested here. I have found most of the child-witnesses' testimony to be credible. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory A. Chaires, Esquire Department of Education 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 William du Fresne, Esquire Du Fresne and Bradley, P.A. 2929 South West Third Avenue, Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Sydney H. McKenzie General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent, Teresa Wimmer, violated Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.080, the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida (Code of Ethics), or 6A-10.081, the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida (Principles of Professional Conduct), as alleged in the Hernando County School Board’s March 9, 2015, notice of recommendation of termination, and March 24, 2015, modification of that notice; and, if so, the nature of the sanctions.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the system of public schools in Hernando County, Florida. Art. IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const.; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Petitioner has the authority to discipline instructional staff and other school employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Respondent has been a teacher at Pine Grove for roughly 11 years. During the 2014-2015 school year, Respondent was a teacher of first-grade students, with a class of approximately 18 students. As a classroom teacher, Respondent was expected to comply with the 2014-2015 Staff Handbook. Among the provisions applicable to Respondent was the following: TOUCHING STUDENTS Employees are advised that they should not touch students in any way except for the protection of the health, safety and/or welfare of a student or for protection of themselves. Respondent has been the subject of several disciplinary proceedings over the years. In September 2004, Respondent was involved in an employee conference for grabbing a student’s arm on two occasions to correct misbehaviors, the result of which appeared to be a reprimand. The report of the employee conference was to remain in the school file for one year. In January 2006, Respondent was involved in an employee conference for making derogatory comments regarding a student and allowing classmates to do the same. Respondent was required to re-read the Code of Ethics and Professional Practice forms and write a letter of apology to the student and parents. The employee conference report closed with “[a]ny further behaviors involving embarrassment to students will result in further disciplinary action.” In September 2013, Respondent was involved in an incident that is of more direct relevance to this proceeding. In that instance, Respondent was accused of roughly handling students in her classroom. As a result, she was offered, and accepted, a Stipulation for Employee Discipline and Last Chance Agreement (Stipulation). In the Stipulation, Respondent acknowledged that she “engaged in misconduct by having inappropriate and unprofessional interactions with students in her classroom” and that such conduct “warrants disciplinary action up to and including termination.” In lieu of termination, the School Board and Respondent agreed that she would be suspended for ten days and, thereafter, serve a probationary period for the remainder of the 2013-2014 school year. The Stipulation further provided that Respondent “agrees that she will not engage in the conduct which gave rise to this Stipulation at any time or any place so long as she is an employee of the Hernando County School District. Further, [Respondent] understands that if she does engage in misconduct, it will result in disciplinary action, up to and including termination.” Respondent successfully completed the terms of her probation without incident. School principals, assistant principals, guidance counselors, and persons in similar duties are trained in Crisis Prevention Intervention (CPI), which is an approved method of restraining or transporting completely out-of-control students or removing children from the classroom. CPI training is not provided as a matter of course to classroom teachers. Respondent has not received CPI training. Holding a student’s hand is not a CPI hold. There is nothing inherently inappropriate with a teacher taking a student by the hand and walking with the student. The 2014-2015 Staff Handbook provides, in the section entitled “Return of Students to Classroom (Authority of the Teacher),” that: Teachers should follow their school’s procedure for the removal of students who are acting out. Suggestions include: having an adult accompany the student from the class or requesting an administrator to come to the class. (emphasis added). The routine procedure for removal of a disruptive or unruly student from the classroom is for the classroom teacher to call the office, whereupon Ms. Johnson, Ms. Kasten, or a guidance counselor, each of whom are trained in CPI, would go to the room, try to calm the student, and, if warranted, take the student to the office. Despite the procedure described above, Ms. Kasten testified that teachers, on occasion, “would bring the student down for me to talk to or the guidance counselor to talk to.” In such instances, “[t]hey would just walk them down” to the office. Although the teacher would usually call the office first, the evidence did not support a finding that a call was required or necessary, or that it happened in each event. Although the timing of those other events of taking students to the office was described as generally occurring “during their planning period or whatever, if they were at specials or whatever,” the preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the act of walking a student to the office, per se, does not constitute a violation of the Code of Ethics, the Principles of Professional Conduct, or the School Board Staff Handbook and that the school has not previously determined it to be so. Among the reasons for having teachers call the office for assistance with disruptive students is to limit those periods in which a teacher may leave students unattended or, as in this case, leave a co-teacher responsible for up to 36 students while the disruptive student was walked to the office. However, Ms. Tyree testified that there have been times when she would ask Respondent to “keep an eye on [her] class” while she went to attend to other things, and vice versa. There was no suggestion that asking a co-teacher to watch over a class was improper, as long as “your class is covered.” In the weeks prior to February 4, 2015, J.S., a student in Respondent’s classroom, had become increasingly disruptive in the classroom. The behaviors ranged from J.S. talking in “baby-talk” and rolling crayons on his desk, to choking another student with a lanyard. Respondent did not know why J.S.’s behavior had spiraled out of control, but indicated to Ms. Kasten that it was creating a problem for her ability not only to teach J.S., but to teach the other students in her classroom. The office was called on three occasions to deal with J.S., and Ms. Kasten went to the class to address the situations. On two occasions, J.S. remained in the classroom after Ms. Kasten’s intervention. On one occasion, Ms. Kasten removed J.S. from the classroom. On the occasion when Ms. Kasten removed him from Respondent’s classroom, J.S. was walking around the room and disturbing the other students. Ms. Kasten could not get J.S. to listen to her. Thus, she decided to take J.S. to the office. She did not employ her CPI training or use a CPI hold, but took him by the hand “with the idea of keeping him from getting away.” During the walk to the office, J.S. “was pulling a little bit” to try and get away.1/ There was no suggestion that the actions of Ms. Kasten in taking J.S. by the hand and walking him to the office were inappropriate or contrary to the Code of Ethics, the Principles of Professional Conduct, or the School Board Staff Handbook. On the afternoon of February 3, 2015, Ms. Kasten met with Respondent to discuss the behavior of J.S. in her classroom. Respondent was upset and frustrated with J.S.’s unruly behavior and wanted to know what could be done about it. Ms. Kasten suggested that the two of them could work to develop a behavior plan for J.S. and indicated that she would bring a plan to Respondent the next day for them to work on. The incident that forms the basis of this proceeding occurred on February 4, 2015. As students were entering the class for the day, Respondent heard screaming and the words “stop hitting me.” She turned and saw J.S. striking a female student with his fists. Respondent was able to verbally quell the disturbance. However, after initially returning to his seat, J.S. went to the back of the room where he began kicking table legs and other items. Respondent asserted that prior to her taking the student to the office, she called Ms. Kasten to advise her that she would be doing so and received permission from Ms. Kasten. Ms. Kasten had no recollection of having received any such call. The telephone records admitted at the hearing do not reflect that any calls were placed between Respondent’s line and the office.2/ There was no evidence to support a finding that the telephone records maintained by the school were unreliable. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Respondent did not receive prior approval before taking the student to the office on the morning of February 4, 2015. However, the issue of whether Respondent received or did not receive permission to take J.S. to the office, and whether the act of doing so violated any school policy, was not pled as a basis for Respondent’s termination. On her way out of the classroom with J.S., Respondent passed through the classroom of her co-teacher, Ms. Tyree, with whom she shared a paired classroom, and stated to her something to the effect of “[c]an you watch my class? They told me to take [J.S.] to the office.” Although not a frequent occurrence, it was not unusual for Respondent and Ms. Tyree, as paired teachers, to watch one another’s classes while the other was out for short periods. In this case, Respondent’s class was covered while she walked J.S. to the office. Respondent took J.S. by the hand and tucked his arm inside her arm. Although J.S. did not want to go to the office, his resistance was described by Ms. Tyree as “verbal like ‘I don't want to go, I don't want to go.’ But there wasn't a, like, a tug of war going on there.” Respondent indicated that she took J.S. by the hand in order to keep him safe. Given J.S.’s actions of physically assaulting a fellow student, followed by continued physical agitation at the back of the room, Respondent’s concern for safety, not only for J.S., but for the other students in her charge, was warranted. The walk to the office was captured by the school’s video system. The video covered the time from 8:33:00 to 8:33:58. Respondent and J.S. are clearly visible in the video for approximately 30 seconds, from frame 08:33:04 to frame 08:33:32. The video is somewhat grainy, and certain details are not readily observable. However, the video is consistent with Respondent’s statement that she was holding J.S. by the hand. Thus, the preponderance of the evidence supports that Respondent was holding J.S. by the hand as she walked with him to the office and not by the “wrist area,” as surmised by Ms. Johnson. At frames 08:33:12 and 08:33:13, J.S. appears to briefly resist Respondent’s efforts to take him to the office by trying to remove his hand from Respondent’s hand as they walked side-by-side. Despite his resistance, Respondent was not “pulling/dragging” J.S. during those frames. At frames 08:33:18 and 08:33:19, J.S. appears to briefly pull away from Respondent. The action was that of J.S., not of Respondent. Respondent did not release J.S., but neither did she pull or drag J.S. The action at frames 08:33:18 and 08:33:19 is entirely consistent with that described by Ms. Kasten when giving the account of her earlier walk to the office with J.S. -- which did not involve a CPI hold -- when J.S. “was pulling a little bit” to try and get away. Despite J.S.’s efforts to pull away in both instances, neither Respondent nor Ms. Kasten was “pulling/dragging” J.S. during their walks to the office. For the remainder of the walk to the office, Respondent and J.S. walked side-by-side at a consistent pace. The evidence suggests that J.S. was vocal in his reluctance to be taken to the office, consistent with the description of his verbal resistance when being taken from the classroom as described by Ms. Tyree. The verbal resistance apparently continued, as evidenced by the reaction of the boy using the walker, who comes into the picture at frame 08:33:22. However, J.S.’s verbal protestations did not involve pulling or dragging and do not form the basis of a violation of the Code of Ethics, the Principles of Professional Conduct, or the School Board Staff Handbook. Respondent’s actions, though firm, did not appear to be aggressive. They were consistent with the description offered by Ms. Tyree, who testified that, as to the Respondent’s walk through her classroom, “there wasn't an altercation of, like, dragging or, you know -- it wasn't -- she was walking, he was walking. But he wasn't happy, you could tell that he didn't want to.” As Respondent entered the office with J.S., Ms. Kasten, the elementary assistant, was in the office, though on the other side of the office. Respondent approached the office with J.S. The door to the office opens out. It occasionally slams, and Ms. Kasten has seen it slam on students. In order to ensure J.S.’s safety, Respondent placed both of her hands on his arms to move him through the door and into the office. Respondent yelled for Ms. Kasten to “take him.” Ms. Kasten observed that Respondent was trying to get J.S. into the doorway to someone who could help. Although Respondent’s calls for Ms. Kasten to take J.S. were loud, her tone of voice was not pled as a basis for Respondent’s termination. Upon their entry into the office, Ms. Kasten went over to Respondent and J.S. J.S. stopped resisting once he saw Ms. Kasten. There was no evidence that J.S. was physically harmed in any way, i.e., there were no bruises, scratches, or marks of any kind. Respondent indicated to Ms. Kasten that J.S. had come to class very angry and was physically fighting with his female cousin. Ms. Kasten’s contemporaneous statement of the incident indicated that J.S. was “very upset that he had a fight with his sister.”3/ There was no suggestion that J.S. was upset about his walk to the office with Respondent. Ms. Kasten took J.S. off to the side and talked with him. After J.S. calmed down, Ms. Kasten advised Respondent that she would handle the situation from there, and Respondent left the office. J.S. was ultimately kept in the in-school suspension room for an hour or two. Ms. Kasten reported the incident to Ms. Johnson, who was not in her office or out front and did not witness the event. Shortly thereafter, in a conversation regarding other matters, Ms. Johnson reported to Ms. Martin at the District office that Respondent “brought a student in yelling and dragging.” Ms. Johnson was instructed to immediately remove Respondent from student contact. Ms. Johnson called to Respondent’s classroom and left a message with Respondent that she needed to speak with her. The following day, a meeting was convened to discuss the incident. Present at the meeting were Ms. Johnson, Respondent, and Respondent’s union representative. The confidential secretary to the school principal, Mr. Deen, was also in attendance to take minutes of the meeting. During her February 5, 2015, interview regarding the incident, Respondent indicated that “I was keeping him safe. I was holding his hand at first and he was okay. Then he started pulling away from me and I wanted to make sure he didn't hurt himself.” Her statement is consistent with the video. During the meeting, Respondent remained adamant that she had called Ms. Kasten and received the instruction to bring J.S. to the office. In conjunction with the investigation of the incident by Petitioner, Ms. Johnson reported the incident to the Department of Children and Families. The School Board received nothing from the Department of Children and Families to suggest that it found wrongdoing on the part of Respondent. Ms. Johnson believed, based on the information conveyed to her, that there was no reason for Respondent to remove the disruptive student from the classroom and that such action did not follow the protocol for the school for the removal of an unruly student. The alleged breach of protocol involved in taking the child to the office was not pled as a basis for Respondent’s termination. On February 18, 2015, Respondent was advised of the opportunity for a pre-determination meeting to be held the following week. Respondent took advantage of the opportunity. The pre-determination meeting was held on February 25, 2015. In attendance were Respondent, Ms. Martin, labor counsel Tom Gonzales, Ms. Johnson, and Joann Hartage, who appeared to be representing Respondent. Ms. Martin’s secretary, Sherrie Kudla, was also in attendance to take minutes of the meeting. During the pre-determination meeting, Respondent gave her account of the incident and was questioned, primarily by Ms. Martin. In addition to questions regarding the walk to the office, Ms. Martin asked about interviews of Respondent’s students undertaken by Ms. Johnson, which Ms. Martin found to be “very concerning.” Among the issues raised by Ms. Martin was “their perception [] that you yell and get aggravated with students and that you’re mean to [J.S.].” Although Respondent stated that she had read the statements, she was not involved in the interviews, and had no opportunity to ascertain the accuracy of the statements. More to the point, whether Respondent yelled or was a mean teacher was not pled as a basis for Respondent’s termination. At the conclusion of the pre-determination meeting, Ms. Martin conferred with the school superintendent, and the decision was made to recommend to the School Board that Respondent be terminated from employment. By letter dated March 9, 2015, Respondent was advised that, as a result of her “pulling/dragging a student to the front office,” the District determined that she had violated rules 6A-10.080(2) and (3), rules 6A-10.81(3)(a) and (3)(e), and the School Board Policy/Staff Handbook; that she was suspended with pay; and that she had the right to appeal the recommendation of termination. On March 23, 2015, Respondent appealed the recommendation of termination. By letter dated March 24, 2015, Respondent was notified that the recommendation to the School Board would be modified to one of suspension without pay, effective April 22, 2015, and referral of her appeal to the Division of Administrative Hearings. At the April 21, 2015, meeting of the School Board, the School Board authorized that this case be referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings, whereupon this case ensued. Ultimate Findings of Fact Based upon the facts as set forth herein, Petitioner failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent engaged in an incident of “pulling/dragging a student to the front office.” The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that Respondent walked J.S. to the office and, despite J.S.’s verbal protestations and brief efforts to resist, did so in a safe and effective manner. Any “pulling” was brief and on the part of J.S., not on the part of Respondent. There was no “dragging.” The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that a teacher’s act of walking an unruly or disruptive student to the office is not, in and of itself, a violation of any applicable procedure or standard and has not been determined to be so in the past. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that there is nothing inherently inappropriate or improper with a teacher taking a student by the hand and walking with the student. Issues of whether Respondent received telephonic approval to take J.S. to the office, should have left Ms. Tyree to watch her class, spoke to Ms. Kasten in a loud voice, or was loud or mean with her students were not pled as bases for Respondent’s termination, and, thus, cannot form the basis for any disciplinary sanction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Hernando County School Board, enter a final order: dismissing the March 9, 2015, notice of recommendation of termination; reinstating Respondent to a position equivalent to that previously held with the Hernando County School Board; and to the extent there is a statute, rule, employment contract, or collective bargaining agreement that authorizes back pay as a remedy for Respondent’s wrongful termination/suspension without pay, Respondent should be awarded full back pay and benefits. See Sch. Bd. of Seminole Cnty. v. Morgan, 582 So. 2d 787, 788 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Brooks v. Sch. Bd. of Brevard Cnty., 419 So. 2d 659, 661 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of August, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S GARY EARLY 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 25th day of August, 2015.
Findings Of Fact Introduction At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Lawrence J. Ferrara, was an instructional employee of petitioner, School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida (School Board or petitioner). When the relevant events herein occurred, Ferrara was a classroom teacher under a continuing contract assigned to John I. Leonard High School (JIL) in Lake Worth, Florida. He has been employed as a classroom teacher with petitioner since August 16, 1965 and received his continuing contract of employment in June, 1969. He holds teaching certificate number 150262 issued by the State Department of Education and is certified in the areas of American Government and social studies for grade levels 7 through 12. Respondent received a bachelor of education degree from the University of Miami. His first assignment with petitioner was in school year 1965-66 at Lantana Junior High School. He remained there through school year 1967-68. At the end of that year, Ferrara was placed on a fourth year annual probationary contract because he had insufficient control of his classes. He transferred to John F. Kennedy High School for school year 1968-69, and received a continuing contract of employment at the end of that school year. Respondent then transferred to Boynton Beach Junior High School for the 1969-70 school year. Ferrara desired to teach at the high school level because he preferred to teach students having greater maturity and interest in learning. He secured an assignment to JIL in September, 1970, where he remained until his suspension in 1986. Ferrara was initially assigned to the social studies department teaching American History to the eleventh grade. He remained in that position until the fall of 1981. During this period of time, Ferrara's evaluations showed steady improvement in his performance, and Ferrara characterized the 1980-81 school year as the happiest and most enjoyable year in his teaching career. In fact, he referred only two students to the dean for disciplinary reasons during the entire year, and both were referred during the final week of school. Prior to the 1981-82 school year, Ferrara had a reputation as a good teacher, and his relationship with other faculty members was favorable. JIL sits on a forty acre campus in Lake Worth, Florida. During the relevant years the school had a student enrollment ranging in size from 2,200 to 2,850 students. Most recently its faculty numbered approximately 145. The principal is the chief administrator at JIL. In dealing with employees, the principal follows guidelines set out in the collective bargaining agreement with the Classroom Teachers Association (CTA), School Board policy, administrator's directives and the JIL Teacher and Student Handbooks. There are several assistant principals, including deans, who have been given authority to counsel with and reprimand employees. Among other things they are responsible for discipline of students. There are also guidance counselors who may counsel with other staff members and students as the need arises. The principal designates department chairmen who have authority to reprimand or evaluate teachers, and to recommend course assignments within the department. In the case at bar, Ferrara was assigned to the social studies department, which had approximately sixteen teachers. Its chairman was responsible for reviewing lesson plans of all teachers to insure that curriculum objectives were being met. This action is mandated by the School Board. At JIL lesson plans were required to be prepared one week in advance. In addition, faculty were required to prepare emergency lesson plans to be used by substitute teachers if the regular teacher was absent. Finally, the department head issued textbooks to each teacher who was obligated to turn in the books (or monies from the student) at the end of the semester or school year. According to the CTA-School Board contract introduced into evidence as petitioner's exhibit 9, and which is applicable to Ferrara's employment, Subsection A1. of Article II provides that "teachers are expected to serve on school committees, self-evaluation and accreditation committees, attend meetings and workshops . . . such service (to be) on a voluntary basis . . " Subsection A2. provides that "employees shall assume reasonable responsibility for the safe return of all school property." Subsection F4. of the same Article requires employees to "assume the responsibility for taking a positive approach to discipline and to maintain constructive classroom control." Subsection B1. of Article III prescribes a duty day for faculty at JIL of seven and one-half consecutive hours per day. Subsection B2. requires that an employee obtain approval from the principal to leave the school premises for personal reasons during the defined duty hours. Subsection E4. of the same Article provides that "the teacher shall be responsible for the preparation of daily lesson plans to be made available to the substitute in the absence of the teacher. Such plans shall be made in advance at all times." The School Board has also promulgated various "local" rules which pertain to suspension and dismissal of employees, as well as the rehabilitation process to be following once a teacher is cited for deficiencies. They apply to Ferrara's employment. School Year 1981-82 In the spring of 1981, Ferrara heard rumors that he was being reassigned the following school year from exclusively teaching eleventh graders to teaching ninth grade American Government classes as well. At the same time he learned that the teacher of an advanced history class was leaving JIL at the end of the school term. Ferrara approached the social studies de- partment head, Catherine Thornton, concerning the vacancy but was told the vacant slot had been promised to a new teacher named Martin. Ferrara then met with the JIL principal, Dr. Munroe, in June, 1981 and asked that his teaching assignment not be changed. During that meeting he criticized Munroe's selection of athletic coaches to teach in the social studies department. Ferrara considered the department as a dumping ground for coaches and other unqualified teachers. Ferrara's request was turned down and he was reassigned to teach three periods of ninth grade American Government classes and two periods of eleventh grade American History the following year. Moreover, JIL was on double sessions at that time, and Ferrara was switched from the early session (6:45 a.m. to 2:15 p.m.) to what he considered to be the less desirable second session that ran from 9:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m. He was also required to teach during the last three periods of the second session. Ferrara was extremely displeased, and felt that he was being treated as the new teacher who was typically given the lower grade assignment and the afternoon shift. In an effort to get the new assignment changed, Ferrara met with the department head and later with Dr. Munroe. After having no success, he met with the area superintendent and finally the school superintendent. Their advice was to take the assignment, be evaluated and then see what happens. Ferrara thereafter approached five of the seven members of the school board seeking their assistance in overriding the reassignment decision. This too was unsuccessful. At one of the meetings in Dr. Munroe's office on September 4, one administrator said that if Ferrara was unhappy with the new assignment then maybe he should quit. By this time Ferrara had engaged the services of an attorney, and after he and his attorney were unsuccessful in persuading the administration to change the assignment, he instructed the attorney to file a civil rights action in federal court. This was done on July 29, 1982. The lawsuit sought, among other things, the reassignment of Ferrara to his former teaching assignment in the eleventh grade. That suit has remained pending since then, and at time of final hearing, was on rehearing of an order of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals which affirmed the trial court's earlier dis- missal of the action. Charles L. Thornton (no relation to the department chairman) replaced Dr. Munce as principal at JIL in October, 1981. He had previously served as dean of boys at JIL in 1970-71 and recalled that he frequently visited Ferrara's eleventh grade class that year because Ferrara was having a "hard time" with his students. Before he left JIL in September, 1971, Thornton told the then principal of JIL that they had "problems" with Ferrara because of his inability to control his students. This was borne out by Ferrara's 1970-71 evaluation which cited Ferrara for deficiencies in no less than five areas, most of which were attributable to the fact that Ferrara was then an inexperienced high school teacher. When Thornton returned to JIL in October, 1981, he learned that Ferrara had hired an attorney to challenge the school's decision to reassign Ferrara to the ninth grade classroom. Even so, when Ferrara approached Thornton about changing his assignment, Thornton told Ferrara that no teacher assignments would be made mid-stream in the semester, but he would "revisit" the matter at the end of the semester. His denial was confirmed in a written memorandum to Ferrara. He also told Ferrara the change was not to be considered a demotion and that he would keep the same title, salary and number of work hours. At the end of the first semester, Thornton did not change respondent's course assignment because it would have disrupted the master schedule and he had some concern about respondent's performance. Unquestionably, ninth grade students are less mature and more difficult to control from a disciplinary standpoint than other students, but the subject matter of their coursework is easier than the subjects taught to higher grade levels. Although Ferrara considered his new assignment as being the most undesirable of all assignments in the social studies department, other teachers stated that it made no difference to them as to which group of students they were assigned to teach. During the batter part of the first semester, Ferrara was absent due to illness on several occasions. In the second semester he took a leave of absence for the entire semester due to illness apparently brought on by job stress. According to Ferrara, teachers assigned to the first session, which he preferred, were allowed to leave the school around 2:15 p.m. each day. Ferrara's classroom faced the parking lot and he could see them through his windows departing the school while he was required to remain there teaching until 5:15 p.m. He also acknowledged having "problems" with students during the last three periods of each day, and when coupled with the aggravation of seeing his colleagues leaving early, it induced a physical ailment which led to his taking the lengthy sick leave. During his second semester absence, Ferrara prepared no regular or emergency lesson plans for his substitute, although he was responsible for doing so for the entire year. His substitute contacted him for assistance, but Ferrara declined to offer any, saying it was the substitute's responsibility to do the work. It is noteworthy that Ferrara's substitute had some disciplinary problems when she took over his class, but after receiving assistance from the deans, she had only "minor" problems the remainder of the semester. Thornton prepared an annual evaluation of Ferrara in June, 1982, and gave him an overall rating of satisfactory. However, he found Ferrara deficient in the following areas: discipline of students, attending required extracurricular activities, teaching in a manner in which all students in the class could comprehend and relating in a more positive manner with his peers. Other than Ferrara's use of "various methods and materials," Thornton made no comments concerning Ferrara's areas of strength. The first deficiency was based upon Ferrara's inability to control the classroom environment. More specifically, Ferrara referred more students to the dean than any other classroom teacher at JIL, and for what appeared to be minor infractions. These included talking out of turn, squeaking a chair, going to the pencil sharpener without permission and leaving one's desk without permission. On some occasions Ferrara would refer entire groups of students. In all, Ferrara's referrals constituted around 25 percent of all referrals made by the 145 JIL faculty members. The dean of students was asked by Ferrara on at least three occasions to visit his classroom because his class was out of control. The dean observed that Ferrara had very little control over his students, managed the class "poorly," and concluded that very little learning was taking place. The dean discussed with Ferrara how to handle minor classroom infractions and advised Ferrara to review the JIL Handbook provisions regarding discipline. However, Ferrara was not responsive to these suggestions. Ferrara was also criticized because his students had difficulty in understanding "his approach to teaching." This was apparent from the fact that Ferrara had an extremely high rate of failure for his students. Ferrara himself conceded that his teaching performance began deteriorating in the 1981-82 school year and never again reached the level of performance achieved by him prior to that year. The evaluation noted that Ferrara did "not have an effective relationship with associates." This was confirmed through testimony that after his reassignment became effective, Ferrara would not speak to most of the members of the department, and no longer socialized with staff at the department's workroom. Even Ferrara acknowledged that after September, 1981 he became "reserved," did not talk to colleagues arid appeared unhappy and upset. Thornton required mandatory attendance by faculty at only two school functions each year: open house when parents, students and faculty met at the school, and graduation. Ferrara attended neither saying graduation was "too sentimental" and that he was always ill whenever open houses were held. Ferrara was given a copy of the above evaluation by Thornton, reviewed it and signed it on June 8, 1982. However, he told Thornton he disagreed with the contents of the evaluation. At their meeting, Thornton acknowledged to Ferrara that he had sufficient knowledge of the subject matter, and found Ferrara to be well-versed in his subjects. School Year 1982-83 Because of problems with Ferrara in 1981-82, the department chairman recommended that Ferrara be assigned to teach five ninth grade American Government classes in school year 1982-82. This recommendation was approved by the assistant principal for curriculum who draws up the semester schedule, and later by Thornton. While teaching a class in November 1982, respondent caught a student, K. B., mimicking him in class, grabbed the student by his arm and escorted him to his seat. He did so with such force that it left bruise marks on the student's arm. Ferrara was counseled by Thornton following this incident. In January, 1982, respondent gave a student an F in her coursework for disciplinary reasons. This is contrary to school board policy and resulted in the issuance of a memorandum by Thornton to Ferrara on January 21, 1983. Various former students of Ferrara during the 1982-83 school year testified concerning their impression of his teaching style and manner. Their comments included statements that he "wasn't normal" and was "different" from other teachers. It was established that he would not answer questions from many students, either ignoring them or telling them the answer was in the textbook. He called them "stupid," "immature" and "jackasses" on a number of occasions, that he `hated" teaching them, and told them he should be teaching a higher grade level but was being punished by the administration. It was further established that Ferrara frequently yelled in class, and that his efforts to discipline students were unsuccessful. After awhile, some students would make deliberate efforts to provoke Ferrara by beginning coughing, spells or squeaking their chairs, knowing that his efforts at discipline were merely a "show" and that they need not obey him. Ferrara would also frequently discuss in class his lawsuit against the school board without relating it to the subject matter. His most common teaching technique was to give students a reading assignment from the textbook and have the students answer the review questions at the end of the chapter. Only occasionally did he give a lecture. Most students indicated they did not learn a great deal in his class, and found the instruction boring. It was established that cheating frequently occurred when tests were given, and answer sheets were passed around while Ferrara was in the room. Many believed he was punishing them by keeping the windows shut and the air-conditioner turned off on hot days. Indeed, on one day in late April, Thornton went to Ferrara's class and found it extremely "hot" with the air-conditioner off and the windows closed. Ferrara was teaching the class wearing a sweater. Thornton ordered that the windows be opened to avoid having a student pass out from the heat. Ferrara justified his actions by contending the air-conditioner was frequently inoperative and that the windows often times stuck. This was disputed by the building maintenance chief. He also stated that he kept the windows closed because of traffic noises emanating from a nearby street. However, he conceded that he kept the students in a hot room on at least one occasion as punishment. Because of complaints made by parents and students to Thornton during the first semester, a conference was called by Thornton with respondent on January 28, 1983. At that time he gave Ferrara written notice that his behavior was "inappropriate," and that he must regain control of his classroom. On April 20, 1983, Thornton had a conference with Ferrara concerning an allegation that he had called a student an "ass." After Ferrara admitted this was true, Thornton told him not to call students such names again, that it would not be tolerated and that he should refer to the teacher's Code of Ethics which proscribed such conduct. On May 23, 1983, Thornton found two of Ferrara's students wandering in the hallway without a hall pass. They had been told to leave Ferrara's class, and that he did not care where they went. During the school year, Ferrara continued to disregard the requirement to complete lesson plans. On occasions when Ferrara was absent, the substitutes found no regular or emergency lesson plans available. Instead, the substitutes had to write their own plans and give assignments, without having any idea when Ferrara would return. The assignments completed by the students for the substitute teacher were thrown in the waste basket when Ferrara returned because he found them ungraded. However, substitute teachers do not normally grade papers. During the school year the dean of students continued to receive numerous discipline referrals from respondent. The reasons for referral were generally minor, which indicated Ferrara did not have proper control of his classes. In contrast, his substitute teachers did not experience this type of problem when they substituted for Ferrara. Some of the referred students were those who had no other disciplinary problems with other teachers. On some occasions, entire groups were once again referred to the dean. In short, there was no improvement in respondent's classroom management from the prior year. At the same time, the guidance counselors continued to receive numerous requests from students to transfer out of his classes. At the end of school year 1982-83, the department chairman wrote Thornton a memorandum which listed by teacher the number of textbooks missing or not returned to the teacher. Ferrara had sixty-three textbooks missing, which was far in excess of other department staff. In addition, although he returned twenty-three of forty-eight new textbooks assigned to him at the beginning of the semester for one course, seventeen were so defaced with obscenities that they were unusable. Ferrara did not deny that he lost the textbooks, but stated that some books were smaller than normal classroom size, and could be easily carried out of class in a concealed fashion by a student. He feared that if he began searching students, he would suffer possible repercussions from doing so. Despite these losses, Ferrara refused assistance from the area director of secondary education in creating a system of inventory and control for textbooks. In his annual evaluation prepared on May 26, 1983, Ferrara was cited for deficiencies in the following areas: teaching techniques, classroom environment, teacher attitudes and professional standards and work habits. In addition, Thornton attached to the evaluation a typed sheet containing specific recommendations for improvement in each of the four areas. The sheet noted that Thornton was "willing to provide (Ferrara) whatever assistance necessary in each of the . . . cited areas." Thornton also noted that Ferrara has strength in the areas of knowledge and understanding of the subject matter, appearance, educational qualifications and in adherence to the defined duty day. Thornton and Ferrara held several meetings concerning the annual evaluation. Each deficiency was discussed, and Thornton made suggestions on how to improve in those areas. However, Ferrara was not receptive to these suggestions, and complained of unfair treatment in his course assignments. He also repeatedly discussed his lawsuit. He continued to maintain he was better suited to teach the eleventh grade even though he was certified to teach both the ninth and eleventh grades. Thornton advised Ferrara he was responsible to his students no matter what other problems he believed he had, and that he should work to improve his performance. School Year 1983-84 In school year 1983-84, Ferrara's teaching assignment did not change. In fact, unlike the prior two years, Ferrara did not request a change in his teaching assignment. He also did not request a transfer to another school although these were procedures for doing so. 1/ Ferrara's failure to control his classroom continued into the new school year. During the year the assistant principal (dean) in charge of discipline visited Ferrara's classroom at least ten to fifteen times after Ferrara requested his assistance in regaining control of the classroom. On his visits the dean found a "hostile" atmosphere, and verbal exchanges taking place between Ferrara and his students. He concluded that no learning could take place in this atmosphere. The dean noted that no other regular teacher or substitute had such classroom management problems. Ferrara's referrals to the dean represented a larger number than all other faculty members combined. The dean also observed Ferrara telling his students that he did not like teaching immature ninth graders. Similar observations were made by another JIL dean. Ferrara was counseled by the dean who told him that students felt Ferrara did not like them, and that his discipline techniques were unfair. Testimony by Ferrara's students confirmed that his teaching style did not change. He continued to call them names such as "stupid" and "immature" and told them he did not enjoy teaching ninth graders. His lawsuit was also a frequent subject of class discussion. The students also complained that Ferrara refused to open the windows on hot days when the air-conditioning was inoperative because of outside noise. The latter complaint was noteworthy since Thornton had previously given written instructions to Ferrara on September 16 and 26, 1983 concerning complaints about Ferrara keeping the room too hot. During the year, a parent requested that she and her daughter meet with Ferrara and a school counselor concerning a problem the daughter was having in Ferrara's class. At the conference, Ferrara dwelled primarily on his lawsuit against the school board and did not seem concerned with the real purpose of the conference. This prompted a complaint by the parent against Ferrara. Students continued to request transfers out of Ferrara's classroom at an increasing rate. Although two guidance counselors advised Ferrara of these complaints, they observed no change in his behavior. Based upon student and parent complaints about a high failure rate, Ferrara was instructed by Thornton in October, 1983 to furnish each student with a mid-marking report (progress reports) advising them they were not performing to expectations. This report would alert students and parents that a student was in danger of failing. Although such reports are required by school board policy, Ferrara frequently did not prepare these reports. In fact, he advised Thornton he felt they were unnecessary and would not prepare them unless Thornton allowed teachers to complete them during class time. There were thirty-six weeks during school year 1983-84. All teachers were required to prepare lesson plans for each of those weeks, and to turn them in prior to the beginning of each school week. The plans were then filed, and in the event a teacher was absent, the substitute teacher would use the plans and instruct the class without a break in continuity. Ferrara was absent for three weeks in the spring of 1984. However, he left no regular or emergency lesson plans for his substitute. During his absence, the substitute had no disciplinary problems. When he unexpectedly returned to class after this absence, the students booed him, and then, according to the substitute, the "entire class went out of control." Ferrara thereafter required his students to repeat the work previously done for the substitute. Ferrara continued to ignore repeated requests by the department chairman to make lesson plans available. These requests were in the form of memoranda to all department personnel on August 25, October 5, November 17 and December 7, 1983 and January 17, 1984. As of February, 1984 he had turned in only three weeks' plans for the preceding twenty-week period. The department chairman wrote him a memorandum on February 10 requesting that such plans be filed. Even so, in June, 1984 the department chairman reviewed the lesson plans filed by department staff for the prior year. She found that Ferrara had completed plans for only five of the thirty-six weeks during the just completed school year. Of those completed most were generally unsatisfactory. Ferrara did not deny this, but pointed to the fact that two or three other department teachers were also continually tardy in filing their plans. This was confirmed by the department chairman. Ferrara began to come to work late and leave early during the school year although he was warned several times to adhere to the defined duty days. He also had the second highest rate of textbook losses for the social studies department. Because of Ferrara's continuing performance problems, Thornton placed Ferrara on a remedial program known as the Notice, Explanation, Assistance and Time (NEAT) procedure effective April 25, 1984. This procedure is designed to provide assistance to teachers having performance problems. Basically, it provides the teacher with an explanation of any deficiencies, assistance and guidance in the cited areas, and an "adequate" period of time in which to correct them. Its main purpose is to salvage an employee's career. In his letter, Thornton told Ferrara he was being placed on the NEAT procedure because of deficiencies in the following areas: inability to use acceptable teaching techniques; inability to maintain a positive classroom environment; inability to establish and maintain a professional and effective working relationship with parents, students and colleagues; and failure to submit proper records, including, but not limited to, progress reports and lesson plans, as required by the school center, the School Board and state law. Ferrara was given until October 16, 1984 to "fully correct these deficiencies." The two met in a conference May 4, 1984 to discuss the procedure and Ferrara's responsibility to correct the deficiencies by the established date. It was pointed out to Ferrara that he would be given time off to visit other personnel while seeking assistance, and that three individuals on the county staff were available for consultation on his noted deficiencies. Ferrara viewed the NEAT procedure as a "charade" and a way for the School Board to fire him. Although he admitted he resented being placed on NEAT, Ferrara stated he respected the system and did not intend to ignore it because he knew that to do so would give grounds to the Board to dismiss him. On May 30, 1984, Thornton prepared an annual evaluation reflecting the same deficiencies as were used to place Ferrara on the NEAT procedure. It also noted that Ferrara's areas of strength were his educational qualifications and his use of good oral and written language. Ferrara was given a copy of the evaluation and, although he disagreed with its contents, signed it on May 30, 1984. School Year 1984-85 On August 21, 1984, Ferrara met with Thornton and the assistant principal and discussed various types of assistance that were available to him which had not yet been provided. Ferrara told Thornton he was not interested in any assistance and walked out of Thornton's office. On October 22, 1984, Thornton advised Ferrara by letter that the following deficiencies required corrective action: continued failure to submit timely lesson plans; continued inability to establish positive rapport with staff, parents and students; continued failure to maintain a positive classroom atmosphere; and a continued deficiency in his teaching techniques. Ferrara was also told that there had been "some improvement in (his) performance," and that Thornton believed he was "making an effort to improve (his) performance, and because of this, the time for correcting his deficiencies under the NEAT procedure was being extended until the end of the school year. During the school year Ferrara's classroom management problems continued. For example, one guidance counselor observed that most of the students visiting her were students in Ferrara's classes. In fact, over half of the students she gave counseling to desired to transfer out of Ferrara's class and sought her assistance in doing so. The dean of students observed that some 35 percent to 40 percent of total disciplinary referrals by all teachers came from Ferrara, including six students at one time. This dean found most of the referrals unnecessary, and ones that could have been handled by Ferrara. In addition, she was called to Ferrara's classroom about four times each semester to calm down the class. It was established that the students deliberately "egged" Ferrara on, particularly when he made personal comments about them. Other credible testimony established that Ferrara's class was out of control on many occasions, and that this disruption affected the amount of learning that took place in the classroom. One dean suggested to Ferrara that he observe other teachers so that he might improve his classroom performance. In teacher-parent conferences, Ferrara preferred to discuss his personal problems with the school board administration rather than the problems that the student was experiencing. In other instances, Ferrara would not respond to requests by parents to contact them. On September 19, 1984, at Thornton's request, the area administrator, H. W. Berryman, visited Ferrara's classroom to observe and monitor Ferrara. This was the only teacher observation that Berryman had performed as an area administrator. On that particular day Ferrara needed some ten minutes to get the class started. Berryman noted that during Ferrara's lecture, only a few students were attentive, and that most were note-passing, carrying on conversations and creating mild disruptions which Ferrara failed to stop. However, Berryman complemented Ferrara on his knowledge of the subject matter and said his overall delivery was reasonably good. He suggested Ferrara take less time to "start-up the class, and to take steps to insure that his class was more attentive during the lecture. On October 4, 1984, Ferrara was observed by another administrator, Dr. Mona Jensen, for the purpose of assessing his teacher performance. This was also done at Thornton's request. Jensen is a consultant certified by the Florida Performance Measurement System (FPMS) and a trainer of other administrators in the use of FPMS. The FPMS utilizes a form for evaluating teacher performance by recording the types of effective and ineffective behaviors observed in four areas: management of student conduct, instructional organization, presentation of subject matter and communication skills. Dr. Jensen monitored Ferrara in these four areas and provided Thornton and Ferrara with a copy of her written report. Among other things, she observed a negative interaction between Ferrara and his students, and that there was a lack of positive reinforcement on the part of Ferrara. Some of his comments were caustic in nature, and he never smiled in class. Like Berryman, she observed students talking to one another and not participating in the activity. She recommended that improvements be made in all areas which her report addressed. On October 29, 1984, Ferrara was observed by Lois Biddix, who is also a FPMS certified state trainer. Biddix used the same type of form as did Jensen in evaluating Ferrara. On her visit, Biddix observed students talking to one another, and participating in activities unrelated to the lesson. She described the class as sedentary and lethargic, with students suffering from boredom and frustration. She attributed this to Ferrara's lack of enthusiasm and failure to introduce new content into the lesson. These observations were consistent with those made by Berryman and Jensen, and her recommendations for improvement were in the same areas as those of Jensen. Dr. Jensen returned to Ferrara's class for a second observation on January 31, 1985. While Ferrara spoke clearly and directly on that day, and had good communicative skills, Dr. Jensen found most students did not participate in the discussion. She also found a lack of positive reinforcement on the part of Ferrara. During the lecture, Ferrara demonstrated anger at a remark made by a student, and told the student that if she wanted a confrontation, he would gladly accept her challenge. Dr. Jensen's evaluation and notes were given to Ferrara after the visit. The recommendations for improvement were basically the same as those proposed by her in October, 1984. A number of Ferrara's 1984-85 students testified at final hearing. Their testimony painted a picture of continued class management problems. For example, it was confirmed that groups of students would collectively begin coughing at one time or squeaking their chairs in harmony to antagonize Ferrara or test his mettle. It was also confirmed that he continued to call freshmen "stupid" and "immature," that he told his students he hated teaching ninth graders and that the school administration was wrong in making him teach that level of students. He also discussed his pending lawsuit during class hours and referred to the school administration in a negative manner. On at least one occasion he discussed the qualifications or lack thereof of another department teacher. It was further pointed out that Ferrara refused to give credit for assignments given by his substitute teacher. There were complaints that Ferrara punished the students for talking by making them sit in a hot classroom without opening the windows or running the air-conditioning. There was also a "lot" of cheating during class even though Ferrara was present in the room. The general consensus of most students was that the class was boring, and that they did not learn a great deal in this type of environment. Ferrara was required to spend 7 1/2 hours each day on campus. 2/ During the year, he did not always arrive at school on a punctual basis or spend the required number of duty hours at school. On April 11, 1985, the department head wrote Thornton a memorandum criticizing Ferrara for his repeated tardiness, and leaving before 2:15 p.m. After Thornton notified Ferrara about this complaint, there was an improvement on his part. During the second semester of the school year, a guidance counselor, Elizabeth Konen, approached Ferrara and told him that the parents of one of his students desired a parent-teacher conference to discuss their child. Ferrara told Konen he did not have time to meet with parents. Konen found this to be the usual response of Ferrara whenever such a request was made. On another occasion, he wrote a note to Konen stating he had no time to meet with parents, but after Thornton intervened and ordered a conference, Ferrara attended. In December 1984, Thornton requested that Ferrara produce proof that he gave his students progress reports as required by Board policy. Ferrara could produce only two such reports, although he claimed four others had also been given reports. This was after Ferrara had been previously criticized on October 21, 1984 for the same deficiency. On January 8, 1985, Thornton again gave written notice to Ferrara that he give timely progress reports to all students who were failing or working below expectation. Even after this second warning, a student, S. Z., complained to Konen in February, 1985 that she had not been given a progress report by Ferrara. This was brought to Thornton's attention in a letter written by S. Z.'s mother. On March 25, 1985, Thornton wrote respondent a letter outlining his continued areas of "serious deficiencies," and his lack of improvement in those areas since being placed on the NEAT procedure. He was warned that unless there was "significant improvement," Thornton would have no choice except to recommend he be terminated. Ferrara was urged to implement the suggestions outlined in the letter, and was told that "any reasonable assistance" requested by him would be given. Despite receiving numerous criticisms for failing to turn in lesson plans, respondent did not turn in any lesson plans during the entire school year 1984-85. However, he did turn in a complete set of plans at the end of the year, but they did not indicate what part of the unified curriculum objectives had been met. On June 10, 1985, Ferrara was given his annual evaluation for the school year. It noted numerous continued deficiencies in three broad areas: classroom environment, teacher attitudes and professional standards and work habits. The only noted areas of strength were knowledge of the subject matter and use of proper grammar and written language. In his meeting with Thornton, Ferrara was told, among other things, that he should not make unprofessional remarks to his students, that he must adhere to defined duty days, that he must file lesson plans and progress reports on a timely basis, and his attitude with peers should improve. School Year 1985-86 Despite Ferrara's failure to correct all deficiencies by the end of school year 1984-85, Thornton made a decision to give Ferrara one last chance to rehabilitate himself under the NEAT procedure. On August 19, 1985 Thornton advised Ferrara by letter that the NEAT procedure was being extended until November 1, 1985 and that he must correct all deficiencies by that date. This gave, Ferrara a total of sixteen academic months under the remedial program. The letter also stated that if the deficiencies were not corrected by November 1, Thornton would make a recommendation to the Superintendent of Schools concerning Ferrara's employment status. Respondent had been criticized for giving an unusually high rate of failing grades to his students during prior years. It was established that his failure rate was substantially higher than for other teachers in school years 1981-82 and 1982-83. For example, his failure rates in 1981-82 and 1982-83 were 24 percent and 33 percent, respectively. In 1983-84, it was a little more in line (18 percent) with that of the other teachers to whom he was compared. After the first semester of school year 1985-86 had ended, Thornton reviewed Ferrara's grades and found the failure rate had been substantially reduced. Indeed, it was then slightly over 10 percent, thereby supporting Ferrara's contention that he had improved in this cited area of deficiency. On November 18, 1985, a thirty minute evaluation of Ferrara's class was conducted by Sandra Cowne, an assistant principal at JIL. Among other things, Cowne found that Ferrara still had no up-to-date lesson plan book. She noted that Ferrara was in need of improvement in four areas of performance. All other areas indicated satisfactory performance. On December 2, 1985, D:. Jensen visited Ferrara's classroom to monitor and evaluate his performance. The purpose of the visit was to determine if Ferrara had implemented the recommendations for improving instruction previously made after her earlier visits. Dr. Jensen asked to meet with Ferrara just prior to the hour of observation but he refused saying he didn't want to discuss anything. She then asked for his lesson plan and was given a plan that was too brief and had insufficient detail. During the actual observation, she found that Ferrara had not added any positive teaching behaviors to his technique although she had suggested this to him after her earlier observations. According to Dr. Jensen, Ferrara's main deficiency was that he failed to provide motivational or positive reinforcement to his students. She concluded that Ferrara was an ineffective teacher, ranking below average due to his lack of positive behaviors. A copy of her evaluation and notes was given to respondent. H. W. Berryman made a second visit to Ferrara's classroom on December 10, 1985 for a repeat evaluation. Berryman initially noted that Ferrara had heeded his prior advice from September, 1984, and had speeded up the start-up time for beginning his instruction. However, Berryman continued to be concerned with the lack of involvement by a large majority of the students in the classroom. Although he found that Ferrara had "in-depth content knowledge" of the subject matter, he concluded that Ferrara had "serious negative attitudinal problems in reacting to all of the students assigned to his classes." Several of Ferrara's students testified about their experiences in Ferrara's classroom during the first semester. They confirmed that respondent's teaching techniques had not changed from prior years. For example, it was established that the usual disruptions occurred during his class, such as students sleeping, passing notes, talking and generally being inattentive. Ferrara again called his freshmen students "immature" and "childish," and told them that he had been demoted to the freshman class because the school board could not fire him. It was pointed out that once he told the students that they were immature, Ferrara would lose control over the class. There were continuing complaints that the classroom was too hot, and that Ferrara told the students if they were unhappy about the room temperature to complain to the administration. On one occasion, he refused to move his classroom to an adjacent empty room even though a student had vomited on the floor and the stench remained after the area was cleaned. It was also established that Ferrara continued to talk in class about his pending lawsuit and the problems he was having with the school administration. During the first semester, Ferrara continued to send large numbers of students to the dean for minor infractions. He also sent as many as six at a time. Ferrara was now disciplining his students before referral by making them write repetitious sentences. However, this is considered to be an inappropriate form of discipline. This form of discipline prompted complaints from both students and parents to the administration. It was confirmed through testimony of an assistant principal that respondent's classroom control had not improved over a three- year period. This observation was concurred in by various guidance counselors who received visits from Ferrara's students. During the first semester of the school year, there was no improvement in respondent's professional relationship with his peers. He refused to speak to most colleagues, and openly expressed his disdain for the department chairman. When respondent was in the department workroom, the atmosphere was hostile and uncomfortable. Similarly, like in other years Ferrara did not attend open house. He also failed to provide adequate lesson plans as previously ordered on a number of occasions. At the end of the first semester, Thornton concluded that sixteen academic months was a sufficient time to allow Ferrara to correct his deficiencies. Finding that respondent was "damaging" his students, that no improvement in Ferrara's performance or attitude had occurred, that he was making no contribution to the school program, and that he was still besieged with student and parent complaints, Thornton concluded that disciplinary action was justified. Thornton did acknowledge that Ferrara had improved in the areas of adhering to duty hours, issuing progress reports, taking roll call and reducing the number of failures. Even so, he concluded that this was insufficient to satisfy his overall teaching performance deficiencies. Moreover, he found that Ferrara's effectiveness as a teacher had been impaired. Thornton accordingly recommended that Ferrara be terminated. Ferrara's suspension without pay became effective on February 19, 1986 and he has remained in that status since that time. Respondent's Case Ferrara traced all of his problems to what he perceived to be an uncalled for demotion to the ninth grade classroom in school year 1981-82. He felt it to be unjust, and an action which ignored the seniority he had attained over the years. He acknowledged that once the reassignment occurred he became demoralized and bitter and was never the same teacher again. Ferrara did not deny that he called students names. He also conceded that he had problems maintaining classroom discipline, but suggested he was being paid to teach, not to discipline. Ferrara further admitted he yelled at students, and sent a great many to the dean's office, but blamed much of this on a small group of students who always instigated trouble in his classroom. Ferrara asserted his classroom discipline would actually improve at times during this period, but that each time Thornton sent a note criticizing him, he became demoralized and would again lapse into his prior ways. Although Ferrara considered the NEAT procedure a means by which petitioner could fire him, he contended he attempted to correct his deficiencies. However, it was Ferrara's contention that only through reassignment to the eleventh grade could he actually improve and correct his deficiencies. He believes Thornton to be biased since Thornton is a defendant in Ferrara's lawsuit. However, independent administrators confirmed that the deficiencies cited in Thornton's memoranda were real, and that Ferrara had made no visible effort to correct most of them. Moreover, contrary to his assertions, Ferrara was accorded adequate notice, sufficient means and ample time to correct his cited deficiencies. In this regard, the School Board satisfied all regulations pertaining to the rehabilitation and dismissal of an employee. Ferrara also pointed out that Thornton prepared a special file called the "Larry Ferrara Drawer" in November, 1982 so that Ferrara's actions and performance could be documented. However, Ferrara's teaching performance was in issue by this time, and Thornton was simply conforming with various state, local and union requirements that potential disciplinary action have a well-defined paper trail. Ferrara did not deny he missed all graduations and open houses from 1981 through 1985. He justified his absence from graduation ceremonies on the ground they were too "sentimental," and stated he was always ill whenever open houses were scheduled. Ferrara denied that students were punished by keeping the room hot. He blamed the heat on an often inoperative and inadequate window air- conditioning unit in his classroom, and windows that were difficult to open. This was denied by the school maintenance chief. Various students corroborated Ferrara's claim that the air-conditioner did not always work, but it is found that Ferrara sometimes punished his students in this manner. Ferrara attempted to repudiate the testimony of former students who testified for petitioner at final hearing by offering favorable testimony of other former students. However, the latter testimony either pertained to time periods too remote to be relevant to this proceeding, or was discredited by more persuasive and credible testimony from petitioner's witnesses. Ferrara contended he prepared all required lesson plans but waited until the end of the school year to turn them in. However, even it this were true, this was contrary to school policy since such plans were required to be turned in the week before they were to be used. Ferrara suggested that most of his difficulties were caused by his creating "waves" at JIL. As noted above, he believed Thornton and the administration were biased against him because he had sued them, and because he had publicly criticized various school policies and individuals in the news media. But it was never established that such animosity existed, or if it did, that it played a role in the dismissal process. Finally, Ferrara professed a sincere desire to continue in the teaching profession, albeit at a more mature grade level. He does not wish to be terminated after a twenty-one year career. He desires to be reinstated at JIL and allowed to teach the eleventh grade as he did during the years 1970- 1981.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of incompetency (inefficiency), misconduct in office, gross insubordination and willful neglect of duties as set forth in the Conclusions of Law, and that he be dismissed as-an employee of the Palm Beach County School Board. DONE and 0RDERED this 11th day of August, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 11th day of August, 1986.
The Issue Whether the Respondent, an elementary school teacher, should be disciplined under sections 1012.795 and 1012.796, Florida Statutes (2016),1/ for inappropriately disciplining a student in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. and 5.2/; and, if so, the appropriate discipline.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds Florida Educator Certificate 1197418, covering Elementary Education, English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), Reading, and Exceptional Student Education. The certificate is valid through June 30, 2022. The Respondent began the 2016/2017 school year teaching second grade at Shingle Creek in Orlando, which is in the Orange County Public Schools (OCPS) school district. It was her fourth year of teaching there. Her teacher evaluations were satisfactory. She did not use corporal punishment, and did not yell or scream at her students. She had no disciplinary history. (She had one non-disciplinary directive for blurting out an expletive in pain when she fell in class and hurt her knee.) Shortly after the start of the 2016/2017 school year, the Respondent realized she had a student, B.K., who took things that did not belong to her. B.K. was bright and popular among the children in class, but she could not be relied on to tell the truth. From the beginning of the school year, the Respondent had to take steps to discipline B.K.’s misbehavior and try to correct it. Soon after the start of the school year, B.K. put a laptop computer in her back pack, instead of returning it to the charging cart in the classroom as all the other children did when they finished using it. At the end of the day, B.K. told the Respondent that another student put the laptop in her back pack. The other student denied it, and the Respondent was obliged to refer the matter to the school administration. An assistant principal investigated and interviewed B.K., who admitted to taking it. The Respondent also found her own personal books in B.K.’s back pack. B.K. falsely accused a classmate of putting them there. On another occasion, another teacher caught B.K. with the Respondent’s “Hello Kitty” flash drive. B.K. told the teacher that a friend had given it to her, which was false, and the teacher wrote a referral to administration. As a result of these incidents, the Respondent had a conference with B.K.’s parents. B.K.’s father reported that he had found books at home that did not belong to his daughter. B.K. admitted that she had taken them from the classroom. The Respondent was obliged to make a classroom referral. The Respondent continued to learn of other similar incidents. Once B.K. took two bags of candy the Respondent used to reward good behavior and achievement by her students. Another teacher saw B.K. distributing the candy to classroom friends outside the classroom and reported it to the Respondent, who realized it was her candy that had gone missing. After the candy incident, the Respondent again met with B.K.’s parents and decided to impose consequences in addition to the classroom referral to discipline B.K. for the theft of the candy—namely, she decided to withhold the prize she planned to give students on Thursday, October 13, for good behavior during the preceding month. (Friday, October 14, was a day off school.) She told B.K.’s parents about the consequences she planned to impose. As October 13 approached, B.K. continued to misbehave by taking things that did not belong to her, including a Post-It note dispenser and a bag of erasers. The Respondent reported to the school guidance counselor and assistant principal that B.K.’s misbehavior seemed to be escalating. During the last class period of the day on October 13, while the class was working on a science project, the Respondent called each student up to her desk individually to reward good behavior with points, prizes, candy, and to identify misbehavior to be corrected. Under the “class dojo” behavior system the Respondent was using, class participation was rewarded with points and corresponding “karate” belts. Good behavior was rewarded with candy. When it was B.K.’s turn, the Respondent explained that she was getting points and a belt for class participation but was not getting candy because of her taking things that did not belong to her, and not telling the truth. The Respondent told B.K. that she would have a “clean slate” going forward and would get points and both prizes and candy if she earned them with good behavior in the next month. Not long after the Respondent’s talk with B.K., another student said out loud that B.K. had candy that did not belong to her. The Respondent asked B.K. if she had candy, and B.K. denied it. The Respondent then asked her students to check to see if they had the candy they had just been given. One student, who sat next to B.K. and had put her candy in her desk, said hers was missing. The Respondent then asked B.K., who still denied taking the candy, to show her what was in her desk. B.K. just froze and did not comply. The Respondent repeated herself. B.K. again refused and began to get emotional. Because the desk was a “jumbled mess” of tissues, papers, food, a milk carton, pencils and other things, and because bending down low was difficult for the Respondent, the Respondent tipped the desk over enough for some of items in it to begin falling out on the floor. The missing candy was among the first several items that fell out on the floor. At this point, B.K. claimed that the student whose candy was missing had given it to her, which the other student denied. The Respondent then told B.K. that the Respondent was going to have to write B.K.’s parents a note about the incident. She also told B.K. to pick her things up off the floor and put them back in her desk. During these proceedings, B.K. became emotional and started crying. At one point, she kicked at her desk or chair. The Respondent had her sit up near the chalkboard until she calmed down. The Respondent sat down at her desk facing B.K. and told her she was very disappointed with her because of the talk they just had. Although most of the students had resumed working on their science projects, one child asked out loud if B.K. had stolen the candy. The Respondent did not directly answer the question. Instead, she said something like, “I’m not sure what you just saw and heard, but one thing we don’t do in this class is, we don’t steal, right? What don’t we do?” Some of the students who were listening repeated, “we don’t steal.” When things settled back down, the Respondent wrote a note to B.K.’s parents notifying them about the candy incident and telling them that B.K.’s behavior that day had been “in the red” (i.e., bad). B.K. went back to sitting at her desk, and the rest of the class period was uneventful. In fact, the school principal came to the Respondent’s classroom before the class period ended to deliver notices for the students to take home to their parents. Although she was not in the classroom long, she noticed nothing unusual. At home after school on October 13, B.K.’s mother asked her about the Respondent’s note. B.K. denied stealing candy. She told her parents that the Respondent gave all the other children in the class candy except her and accused her of taking a piece of candy, which she denied. B.K. then told them that the Respondent then kicked her chair, dumped her desk on the floor, made her clean it up and put her desk back in order, and made the other students line up and take turns hitting her hand hard in punishment. Her parents decided to talk to the Shingle Creek principal about it on the next school day, which was Monday. When B.K. and her parents arrived at school on Monday morning, they encountered and talked to several of B.K.’s classmates outside the school. At least two of the classmates were approached by B.K., who brought them to her parents. The evidence was unclear as to how many other classmates were involved, or how the conversations went. The language skills of the students in general were those of second-graders, and several of the children were speakers of English as a second language. B.K.’s parents speak English with a strong Haitian accent. For example, the words “hit” and “hate” sound very similar, and it is not easy to understand their spoken English. It is unclear exactly what was said, but B.K.’s parents came away from the conversations convinced that B.K. was telling the truth about what happened in class on October 13. It is also possible that the children’s memories and recollections were influenced by these conversations. B.K.’s parents then went to speak to the school’s principal. B.K. did not go to class but stayed with her parents in the principal’s office. After talking to the family, the principal telephoned OCPS’s senior manager of employee relations, who advised her to gather witness statements. The principal and several assistants began taking statements, starting with B.K. and her parents. After them, the Respondent was called to the principal’s office. Following the instructions given to all teachers by the teacher union, the Respondent declined to give a written statement without a lawyer or union representative present. She did have a conversation with her principal. The principal asked her to explain the situation with B.K. on Thursday. The Respondent told her about the candy incident, including tipping the desk to find the candy; about being very disappointed with B.K.; and about writing a note to B.K.’s parents. The Respondent recalls the principal asking if anything else happened, and she answered, no. The principal recalled the conversation a bit differently. She thought the Respondent admitted to dumping B.K.’s desk over, raising her voice, and being angry with B.K. She also remembered asking the Respondent if any of the other students hit B.K. and the Respondent answering that she did not see anyone hit her. The principal then began interviewing the Respondent’s students one by one. The interviews continued the rest of the morning and into lunch recess. Some statements were taken the next day. It is unclear to what extent the student witnesses discussed their statements among themselves during the day. The interviews were not video or audio-recorded. The interviewers thought they were asking proper, open-ended questions that did not suggest answers, but studies have shown that interviews usually are not as proper or open-ended as interviewers think they are, especially when the interviewers do not have extensive training. The training of the principal and her assistants in interview techniques was limited. Proper interview techniques help ensure that witness memories and statements are authentic, accurate, and reliable. They are especially important for child witnesses. The statements were not verbatim, or close to verbatim. Two of the statements were written with difficulty by the second- graders themselves and were not very articulate. The rest were written by the adult interviewers and signed by the second- graders so the process would go faster. These statements were written in a summary or conclusory fashion, without much detail, and were similar to one another, suggesting that they were recording the answers to questions of particular interest to the adult interviewers. The statement forms themselves had spaces designated for the “Date of Infraction” and “Location of Infraction,” and had signature blocks that said: “I swear/affirm the above and/or attached statements are true and correct. I understand that providing false information is punishable under the Student Code of Conduct.” It is doubtful that the second- graders would have understood what that meant. Fourteen (all but one) of the statements said that the Respondent told the students to hit or slap B.K.’s hand or hands. Some added that B.K. was crying; some added that the Respondent told them to hit hard, or harder. One statement said they did it because B.K. took candy, one said it was because B.K. was a thief, and one said it was because B.K. steals too much. Some of the statements were surprising because of the capabilities of the child supposedly giving it: one of the students was non-verbal and would not have been comfortable speaking to a stranger; another was autistic and unable to sequence information such as the days of the week; and another had behavioral and emotional issues that made him incapable of giving a statement. Some of the second-graders added remarkable features in their statements that were not mentioned by anyone else, or by just a few: one said the Respondent threw B.K. down to the ground; three, including one attributed to the child with behavioral and emotional issues, said that the Respondent threatened to call the police; one said that the Respondent told B.K. to put her desk by the wall; and one said the Respondent told the class to avoid B.K. During the morning on October 17, several of the Respondent’s students told her that B.K.’s parents had talked to them before school about the Respondent making them hit or slap their child on the hand, and told her that B.K. no longer was in the Respondent’s class. After the second-graders’ statements were gathered, the school principal presented them to the OCPS senior manager of employee relations, who scheduled a pre-determination meeting on October 21. His investigative report stated: 16 student statements were obtained; 15 confirmed being directed by the teacher to hit B.K. on the hand; 3 confirmed the teacher telling the students to repeat “don’t steal”; 8 confirmed the teacher yelling; 5 confirmed the teacher telling them to hit B.K. hard; 3 confirmed the teacher calling B.K. a thief; and 3 confirmed the teacher saying she was going to call the police. The investigative report also stated that the Respondent: admitted getting angry and raising her voice; admitted pouring out the contents of the student’s desk; admitted saying and having the students repeat, “what is it we don’t do in class? We don’t steal”; stated she did not recall directing the students to hit B.K.; did not know if B.K. was hit “on October 17,” but did know that B.K. lies; and did not report the incident to the school administration on October 17. Based on the investigative report, OCPS terminated the Respondent’s employment. The Respondent filed a grievance which was arbitrated under the terms of the teacher union contract. When the matter was referred to the Petitioner, another investigation was conducted. On February 17, 2017, the second- graders were interviewed again by the Petitioner’s investigator. The investigator asked the questions and wrote the answers. The second-graders were asked to confirm that the answers were written down correctly and signed their statements. Like the principal and her assistants, the Petitioner’s investigator believed she asked non-suggestive, open-ended questions. Like the principal and her assistants, the Petitioner’s investigator did not have extensive training in the proper techniques for manner of interviewing children. Like the interviews conducted by the principal and her assistants, the Petitioner’s investigator did not video or audio-record her interviews. Each student interviewed by the Petitioner’s investigator stated that the Respondent told the students to “slap” B.K.’s on the hand as hard as they could and that slapping B.K. made the student feel “sad.” One said that B.K. cried. One said the Respondent made the class stand in a circle and take turns slapping B.K. on the hand. Unlike the school principal and her assistants, the Petitioner’s investigator had the students describe how hard they were supposed to hit B.K. on a scale of 1 to 5. This question elicited several responses that they were told to hit “hard,” one that they were told to hit “as hard as we could,” and one that gave a rating of 5. In the statements gathered by the Petitioner’s investigator, several of the students mentioned that the Respondent told them to pretend B.K. was a ghost, and several said the Respondent told them not to tell anyone about what happened. Oddly, neither of these remarkable details was mentioned in any of the statements taken by the principal and her assistants. The Respondent’s grievance was arbitrated in May 2017. After a three-day hearing, the termination was upheld, despite testimony from another teacher that she overheard B.K. admit to stealing candy and to lying to get the Respondent in trouble because she was tired of getting caught stealing by the Respondent. Several of the students who gave statements testified at both the arbitration hearing and the hearing in this case. Several were deposed before testifying. The Petitioner in her Proposed Recommended Order suggested that credibility issues arising from the prior events should be ignored because they were cured by the live testimony. That is not true. Issues remain as to whether the students’ live testimony was influenced by what preceded. In addition, their testimony at the hearing was confusing and inconsistent in many respects. Two of the students testified that the students formed a circle around B.K., while three said they formed a line. One said the line was in the shape of a C or J. One specified that they hit B.K.’s hand while she was either in a corner or by a desk where the sink was located. One said B.K. was standing in front of another student’s desk. Two said B.K. was standing in the middle of the classroom. One said B.K.’s hand was held out palm down. Another said it was palm up. One said the Respondent held B.K.’s hand out. The evidence, taken as a whole, is not clear and convincing that the Respondent had her students hit or slap B.K. as punishment for taking the candy. While several children made statements that included some version of this alleged incident, they all started with B.K., who was overheard saying she was lying, and the other children’s statements are fraught with questions that make them unreliable and insufficient to prove those facts clearly and convincingly. Meanwhile, the Respondent’s version of what happened, while self-serving, is more persuasive. Her refusal to give a written statement, and her manner of answering questions, may have raised suspicions on the part of the school principal, and may have contributed to a number of misunderstandings by the principal and B.K.’s parents, but they do not prove that the Respondent was lying. The Respondent’s conduct that was proven by the evidence did not rise to the level of a disciplinable failure to make reasonable effort to protect B.K. from conditions harmful to learning and/or to her mental and/or physical health and/or safety, and did not intentionally expose B.K. to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. What the Respondent actually did was within the realm of making reasonable efforts to correct B.K.’s problem behaviors and to teach her and her classmates how to behave properly and acceptably, while at the same time trying to keep order in the classroom and continue delivering academic instruction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding the Respondent not guilty and dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of May, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 1st day of May, 2018.
