Findings Of Fact Petitioner has been employed as a teacher by Respondent for thirteen years and has taught at the Prosperity Elementary School for the past ten years. She holds a Rank II teaching certificate based on her master's degree. Mr. Johnny Collins, the Superintendent of Schools, recommended that Petitioner be placed in the position of teacher-principal at Prosperity Elementary School for the 1981-82 school year. This recommendation was initially made in May or June, 1981. Respondent School Board rejected the Saunders nomination at its July 20, 1981, meeting. The reasons for the rejection as stated in the minutes are as follows: Mrs. Saunders failure to meet the qualifications of Chapter 231, Florida Statutes; 2) Failure to satisfy the job description as set forth in the approved job description for the Holmes County School Districts, specifically that principals be courteous, diplomatic and cooperative; that principals have leadership qualities; and that principals must be positive but not autocratic in solving problems; 3) failure to cooperate with past principals at Prosperity Elementary School and contributing to the disharmony amongst the personnel; 4) statements of Mrs. Flynn Jones, Tommy Hudson, Gerald Commander and Posie Vaughn. The incumbent Superintendent of Schools and his predecessor, along with five of Mrs. Saunders' previous direct supervisors, testified as to her qualifications. This testimony established that she is a competent teacher and has the necessary leadership ability to serve as a school principal. Her teacher evaluations have, without exception, been satisfactory or above in all areas. Petitioner's supervisor in 1972, Mrs. Flynn Jones, considered her rude and difficult to work with. Mrs. Saunders and Mrs. Jones had been on good terms until Mrs. Jones was appointed interim principal. Saunders, who apparently resented Jones' appointment, thereafter withdrew from her and responded only to formal instructions. Mr. Posie Vaughn has filled the Prosperity Elementary School teacher- principal position since 1978. He and Petitioner were competing applicants for the current school term principalship. Superintendent of Schools Collins, who took office in January, 1981, did not recommend Vaughn, but selected Saunders instead. After the School Board rejected Saunders, and Collins refused to nominate Vaughn, the School Board reappointed him. Mr. Vaughn has experienced the same personal hostility and lack of willing support which Mrs. Jones encountered. Mrs. Saunders, who resented Mr. Vaughn's appointment over her, once contacted the Superintendent of Schools to complain of teacher ratings (other than her own). On another occasion she criticized Vaughn's friendship with the piano teacher to School Board members. Mr. Vaughn testified to his belief that Mrs. Saunders is a troublemaker and not qualified to be principal. However, the ratings he filed on Saunders do not reflect these negative opinions. Further, Vaughn conceded that Saunders is a competent teacher and possesses the ability to lead. Mr. Dan Padgett, principal at Prosperity Elementary School from 1973 to 1976, found Mrs. Saunders to be a capable teacher and a courteous, cooperative employee. This favorable testimony was supported by several co-workers and parents of her pupils. Mrs. Margaret Woodall testified to her dissatisfaction with Mrs. Saunders' treatment of her child. However, her complaint as to Mrs. Saunders' disciplining methods received proper attention and Saunders made the requested change in her approach to the Woodall child.
Recommendation From the foregoing, It is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Holmes County accept the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools to place Juanita Saunders in the position of teacher-principal, Prosperity Elementary School. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of October, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of October, 1981.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent, William B. Bailey, was a certified teacher in Florida employed by the Broward County School System (BCSS). He has been a teacher for 22 years and has taught at Markham Elementary School, (Markham) for 18 or 19 years. Respondent has generally had a good rapport with young boys. He has an adopted 26 year old son who was recently promoted to Captain in the U.S. Air Force. Allean Jones has known Respondent and his parents for many years. Several years ago she became the guardian of her grandson, Earl Edwards, who, for a long time, had disciplinary and behavior problems at home and at school due, at least in part, to his difficult home life with his natural mother who bore him at age 14. For some time, several years ago, Earl Edwards was a student at Markham of Respondent who developed a good relationship with him. While the student-teacher relationship existed, on numerous occasions, Earl went to Respondent's home where he swam, ate, played, and spent nights, always with Mrs. Jones's permission. She feels Respondent, who bought Earl clothes and paid his dental bills, is a good influence on him and she has offered to let Earl stay with him on a permanent basis. At no time did she object to Respondent's relationship with her grandson, and felt it to be beneficial rather than detrimental to his best interests. Unfortunately, Earl has left school since he graduated from Markham and she does not know where he is now. Mr. William Bell, who was principal at Markham at the time, heard about Respondent's relationship with Earl from two staff members and, without any investigation of the situation and without checking with Earl or his grandmother, concluded that since Respondent was an unmarried male, his off- campus contacts with a young male student were inappropriate and he asked Respondent to cease contact with his student off-campus or before or after school and on weekends. Had Respondent been married, Mr. Bell's reaction might well have been different. Mr. Bell believes that the Teacher Code of Ethics conflicts with off-campus contacts in such a manner as would interfere with teacher effectiveness, and parental approval would make no difference. This request to cease contact with Earl Edwards, in 1980 or 1981, somehow became a part of Respondent's record in the BCSS. No copy of any written request was produced by Petitioner, however, nor was any record reflecting it. Both Bell and Dr. Thomas Johnson, Associate Superintendent for Human Resources in the system, recall the incident, though. When requested to cease off-campus contacts with Earl, Respondent complied. In the Spring of 1986, the new principal, Ms. Dorothy Wooten, was approached by a teacher, Ms. Denise Wright, and the school counselor, who requested that she tell Respondent to leave some of her students alone and stop socializing with them when they should be in Ms. Wright's class. The students in question were Sedaniel Allen and Willie McCloud, who, apparently, would leave her class without permission and, she believed, go to visit with Respondent in his planning area. She believed this is where they went because, though she did not check on them to see where they were going, they told her that's where they were going when they asked her for permission to leave. She periodically gave it and therefore assumed that they would visit Respondent when they left without permission. Ms. Wooten did not investigate the situation herself, but, as a result of Ms. Wright's request, called Respondent in and spoke with him about the situation in the presence of the students in question and both complainants. Respondent seemed as though he would comply and she took no formal action. It appears, however, that the situation continued and a short while late, she talked with Respondent again about the same students and again he seemed to agree. It was after the second meeting that she wrote a memo summarizing the situation. After this second conference, she spoke with Ms. Linda Gaines, Sedaniel's mother, who indicated that Sedaniel had spent the night at Respondent's home without her permission or knowledge, and neither Sedaniel nor Respondent had called her to let her know he was there. When Sedaniel went to Respondent's home a second time without her permission, Sedaniel's step-father went to Respondent's home and got him. Further discussion of these incidents is found in paragraph 15 et seq. infra. After Ms. Wooten received this information from Sedaniel's mother, she wrote Respondent a letter on May 1, 1986 recounting the substance of the interview with Ms. Gaines and advised him she was referring the matter to the Internal Affairs Division, (IA), of BCSS. A week later, she wrote another letter to Respondent requesting that he restrict his contact with Sedaniel and Willie to the scheduled class time and "strongly advised" him to have no other contact with them. In a subsequent meeting held with Ms. Wooten, the students' parents, and Mr. Joseph Viens, an investigator with IA, at the investigator's suggestion, at least some of the parents indicated they did not want the Respondent to have any off-campus or extra-class contact with their children. At this point, Respondent indicated he would talk with his attorney before discussing the matter any further. Respondent took that position only after the investigator accusatorily pointed his finger at him and called him a faggot. Respondent strongly denies being a homosexual and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. By the same token, Respondent's recounting of the investigator's public accusation was not contested either and is found to have occurred. Having done all she felt was required by reporting the matter to IA and by advising Respondent in writing to refrain from further off-campus contact, Ms. Wooten felt she was out of the matter until one day in October, 1986 when she noticed Sedaniel and Willie loitering after school and not going home. When she looked into it, she found Willie sitting in Respondent's classroom with Respondent and another person. She called both Respondent and Willie to her office where she recalled her instructions to Respondent to avoid extra-class period contacts with these boys and again stated her requests. In response, Respondent stated Willie had been injured and he was going to take him home. Willie confirmed he had been injured one day around this time in an afternoon ball game and the following day, aggravated the injury at recess. When he reported this to his teacher, Mr. Collins, this individual did not consider it serious and refused to let Willie do anything about it. It got worse during the day and swelled up and after school, Willie went to Respondent's room where he saw Mrs. Ruise, Respondent's team teacher. Respondent was at a meeting away from the area. Mrs. Ruise saw that Willie's ankle was injured, but did nothing for him and when staff departure time came, left the school locking the classroom door and leaving Willie out in the hall. When Respondent came back to his classroom somewhat later, he found Willie curled up on the hall floor outside the room crying. Willie's ankle looked bad but Respondent nonetheless questioned him in a forceful tone to find out what had happened. Willie said he needed a ride home. After some serious questioning and initial refusals, Respondent ultimately relented and agreed to take Willie home even though he knew he was not supposed to have contact with him. He saw Willie at school the next day and attempted to talk with him about his ankle in the cafeteria, but was unable to do so. After school, during a conversation with Mrs. Ruise, he again saw Willie who once more asked for a ride home. When, upon questioning, Willie told him he had gotten a ride to school that morning because of his ankle, Respondent gave him a tongue lashing and told him to get someone else to take him home. As Willie told him there was no one else around to do it, Respondent reluctantly agreed and did take him home, but that was the last contact he had with Willie. It must be noted here that Respondent, on both occasions, agreed to give Willie a ride without checking around the school to see if someone else was available to do so. There was some question whether Willie was actually injured at this time and needed a ride. Ms. Wooten heard from other staff members that Willie did not seem to be nor did he complain of being hurt. By far the better evidence, however, clearly indicates that Willie was hurt on this occasion and needed transport and it is so found. Respondent used poor judgment in not looking for someone else to take Willie in light of the injunction he was under and in not reporting the contact after the fact. There is also some issue that Willie may have hidden in the car at Respondent's direction when Respondent drove him home. This is not established. Even according to Willie, it was his idea to hide to keep from being seen because of the fact that Respondent had been instructed not to be with him away from class. There is no evidence that Respondent attempted to conceal any of his actions with regard to Willie. As a result of all the above, on October 7, 1986, Ms. Wooten again sent Respondent a memo to advise him that all future incidents of unauthorized contact would be reported to IA. She was informed by IA that Respondent had had off-campus contacts with other students in addition to Sedaniel and Willie. These included Reggie Nixon, Andre Murray, and Trenton Glover among others. It was reported to her that Respondent would instruct them to meet him at a shopping center from which he would take them to his home where they would do chores for him there and at his nightclub. She felt this reported behavior, which she did not disbelieve, was inappropriate because (1) it was an abuse of his position as a teacher, and (2) a nightclub is no place for children. Ms. Wooten believes Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher has been adversely affected because she has heard the students are questioning his ability to control his students and are making moral judgments about his behavior in regard to Willie and Sedaniel. She has heard no specific comment by any student, however. During the period she has worked with Respondent, she does not feel there have been any conflicts which would create animosity on either his or her part. In fact, she has recommended him for several special projects which would be to his benefit. Ms. Wooten is convinced that Respondent has an ability to relate to troubled children who tend to seek him out. In fact, former students often come back to school to see him. This is both good and bad. Initially, she favorably commented on this in an evaluation of Respondent but after some of these students began making trouble, and after, at a course she took, she learned that this conduct may indicate inappropriate luring of children for improper purposes, she began to look at it differently and tried to put a stop to it. With regard to Sedaniel Allen, Ms. Gaines' dissatisfaction with Respondent arose out of an incident in April, 1986, when Sedaniel had spent the night at Respondent's home without either Respondent or Sedaniel calling to let her know he was going to do that. Prior to the weekend in question, Respondent, acquiescing in Sedaniel's request to be allowed to come over with some other boys, wrote her a note requesting permission for Sedaniel to come to his house to work for him for pay. She agreed to this and signed the permission slip but never returned it to the Respondent. Had Sedaniel returned home on Saturday night, she would not have been upset. In fact, however, Sedaniel did not come home until Sunday evening when Respondent dropped him off. Ms. Gaines and her husband were angry over this and told Sedaniel they didn't want him to go back to Respondent's house ever again. They did not pass this information on to the Respondent, however. Nonetheless, two weeks later, on a Saturday morning, Sedaniel disappeared again. When she checked around, she found that Respondent had picked him up again at the "Gate" of the housing project in which they lived. That evening, Mr. Gaines went to Respondent's house in Deerfield Beach where he found Sedaniel watching television. On this occasion, Respondent had not sent home a permission slip, but subsequent inquiry showed it was Sedaniel who initiated the visit and who had told Respondent that he had permission to be there. He had also told Respondent he had permission to spend the night on the first visit. On these visits the boys would swim, watch television, wrestle (with, on occasion, Respondent) and generally have a good time. Sedaniel indicates that he met with Respondent in his classroom after class on several occasions to discuss what would be done when he was at the Respondent's house. Some other teacher was always there when this happened. On most other occasions, Sedaniel would go to Respondent's classroom with Willie McCloud and wait while Willie would ask Respondent for a ride home. Ms. Sandra Ruise, who knew Sedaniel as one of her own students, and who was Respondent's team teacher, was frequently in the area of the room. She never saw Sedaniel in Respondent's room outside of class hours nor did she ever see any student come to have lunch in Respondent's classroom while she was there and she ate in the room with the Respondent almost every day. She knows Sedaniel's reputation for telling the truth, gleaned from discussions with other teachers and his mother, and it is not good. He has even lied about her, filing a false report about her which he subsequently recanted. Consequently, while it is clear Sedaniel did go to Respondent's home on two occasions, once without permission and once with permission for only a day visit, he was not a frequent visitor to Respondent's room outside of class hours and Respondent's relationship with him at school was not improper. As to the unauthorized visits by Sedaniel to Respondent's home, it is also clear that Sedaniel initiated the visits, begged to stay over night, and lied about having permission to be there. None of this excuses Respondent's failure to verify and have presented to him some concrete evidence of parental authorization for the visit and the length thereof, however. Sedaniel and some other boys, Willie McCloud, Andre Murray, and Trenton Glover, were with Respondent one time when he was on an errand and stopped by Club Bailey for a moment to drop something off. On that occasion, they picked up beer cans from a vacant lot and cleaned ashtrays outside the building. It well may be that the club was open at the time, a Sunday morning, (Respondent was inconsistent in his stories as to whether the club was open), but aside from Sedaniel's uncorroborated allegation that he cleaned the ashtrays inside the club, all the other testimony, including that of the other boys, indicates, and it is so found, that they did not go inside. Respondent alleges that one of the male visitors to Respondent's home on one of the occasions when the boys were there swimming made a remark to the effect that Reggie Nixon was "fine meat" or words to that effect and that Respondent immediately told this individual to keep quiet. Neither comment was heard by Reggie, though Willie and Andre allegedly did. Even if the comments were made, however, the evidence is clear that there were no approaches made to any of the boys, they were not touched or bothered in any way, and in fact, were not spoken to at all by any of the men in question, all of whom deny such comments being made. There is also no support for the allegation that one of the men asked if the boys had ever had sex with a man. What is certain, however, is that Sedaniel has a reputation for being untruthful and his report, as well as his characterization of Respondent's visitors as "faggots", is lacking in credibility. Each of the visitors identified by Sedaniel and the other boys testified at the hearing. The boys' descriptions of one or more of the men as "faggots" were based on their opinions of their hair styles, laughs, and voice patterns. This evidence is not enough to support a finding that there was anything untoward about Respondent's guests, especially in light of the youth and lack of sophistication of these boys and the unequivocal denials of Respondent and the other men. The investigation into Respondent's conduct, conducted by the school system's internal affairs division at the request of Ms. Wooten, resulted in a report incorporating much of the above information which was referred to Dr. Thomas P. Johnson, Associate Superintendent for Human Resources. Dr. Johnson referred it to a committee for evaluation which resulted in a recommendation to bring charges against the Respondent. The action here was based upon the allegations that respondent had taken students to his home without parental permission; that some of the students involved had indicated Respondent's friends were "faggots"; that there was an allegation by one of the children that they had been worked in Respondent's night club; and that Respondent had disregarded a direction from his principal to cease this activity. This all was aggravated by allegations that Respondent had been the subject of a report of similar activity several years previously which, while not resulting in disciplinary action against him, had resulted in a "Cease and Desist Order" being issued. This prior order was not offered into evidence. School officials considered that Respondent's failure to abide by the orders given him by his principal showed a lack of judgment and integrity and his invitation of the students to his home violated the ethical requirements of the Teacher's Code of Ethics. It must be noted that off-campus contacts are not, per se, improper if done with parental consent. With regard to the issue of parental consent, Respondent always sent a note home requesting permission. Sedaniel lied about having permission to spend the night on the first visit and about having permission on the second visit. If Respondent is at fault, it is in failing to insure by a phone call or by seeing the permission slip itself, that what he was told by Sedaniel was true. As to Respondent's alleged disregard of Ms. Wooten's direction to stay away from Sedaniel and Willie, the evidence is clear that Respondent attempted to do just that; that the two occasions on which he gave Willie a ride home, (the only contacts he had with Willie after the direction from the Principal), were as a direct result of Willie's initiation and Respondent's unwillingness to allow an injured boy to fend for himself. Respondent showed poor judgment here but the evidence does not support a finding of misconduct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent be reinstated to a teaching position with the BCSS and that that he be awarded full back pay and benefits. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of July, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 15th day of July, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-4727 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact (PFOF) submitted by the parties to this case. By the Petitioner Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. The witness's testimony related to Earl Edwards and was offset by Edwards' grandmother. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as a recitation of testimony, not a FOF. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as it refers to any male in female garb which does not appear in the record as represented. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. 9-11. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. 14-15. Accepted and incorporated herein. 16-19. Accepted and incorporated herein. 20. Misleading. Respondent did take students to his home and paid them to perform chores in the yard. He did go to his lounge with some students on one occasion, but did not take them inside. 21-22. Accepted as the witness' opinion. Misleading. Sedaniel Allen, a reported liar, told Respondent not to pick him up at home. This was due more to Sedaniel's manipulation than to Respondent's actions. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Accepted and incorporated herein. Respondent sent home a permission slip. The child reported he could stay. Respondent did not know he could not. Proposed FOF is incomplete and misleading. Accepted but phrased in a misleading way. Accepted as to the 1st and 2nd sentences. Accepted and incorporated herein. 31&32. Accepted and incorporated herein. This PFOF is misleading. The students went to the club once where Sedaniel cleaned some ashtrays outside while Respondent was doing something inside. The bar was closed to the public at the time and no alcohol was being served. The Respondent1s associates were at his home not at the club and there is substantial doubt as to the alleged comments. That the students were left at home unsupervised is contradicted by the Respondent who says his mother would come over and sit. In any case, this element is not in issue as to the charges. Accepted as to the facts, not the inferences. This PFOF does not make sense. Rejected. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected in that the transcript says he went to Respondent's home on 5 to 10 occasions but did not spend the night each time. Accepted as to what the witness testified to. Use of word feminine is improper. The cousins were male but were described as feminine in demeanor. Accepted. 42&43. Accepted. Accepted (See 33, supra). Accepted. Accepted. Misleading in that this student is the one who initiated all contact after the principal's directive. Accepted as the witness's opinions--the issue of comments was not established. Accepted but irrelevant. Rejected as an improper conclusion drawn from the evidence. This PFOF is incompetent in that it is impossible to determine who is being described. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence admitted at hearing. Accepted and incorporated herein. 54&55. Accepted. 56&57. Accepted. By the Respondent 1-3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 4-10. Accepted. 11. Accepted and incorporated herein. 12. Accepted. 13-15. Accepted and incorporated herein. 16-21. Accepted. 22&23. Accepted and incorporated herein. 24. Accepted. 25&26. Accepted. 27-31. Accepted. 32-35. Accepted. 36-40. Accepted and incorporated herein. 41-44. Accepted and incorporated herein. 45&46. Accepted. 47. Accepted. 48. Accepted. 49. Accepted and incorporated herein. 50-55. Accepted. 56-58. Accepted and incorporated herein. 59. Accepted. 60-66. Accepted and incorporated herein. 67-76. Accepted and incorporated herein. 77. Accepted. 78-80. Accepted and incorporated herein. 81-83. Accepted. 84-90. Accepted and incorporated herein. 91-93. Accepted. 94-96. Accepted. 97-100. Accepted. 101-104. Accepted. 105&106. Accepted and incorporated herein. 107&108. Accepted and incorporated herein. 109. Accepted. 110-115. Accepted. 116. Immaterial. 117-119. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. 124-125. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: William J. Leary, Superintendent School Board of Broward County 1320 S.W. 4th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Whitelock and Moldof 1311 Southeast Second Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Leslie Holland, Esquire Staff Counsel, FEA/United 208 West Pensacola Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Carolyn T. Smith, holds teaching certificate number 105319, issued by the State of Florida, Department of Education. Respondent is certified to teach French and Spanish through the junior college level. Respondent has been employed as a French and Spanish teacher by Petitioner, School Board of Dade County (School Board) since 1961. From 1961 to 1966, Respondent taught at Mays Junior High School, and from 1966 through 1976 at Southwest Miami Senior High School. During the 1976-77 and 1977-78 school years Respondent was on a leave of absence. In 1978 Respondent resumed her teaching career and was assigned to Palmetto Senior High School (Palmetto). Respondent taught at Palmetto until her suspension from teaching at the conclusion of the 1982-83 school year. Respondent's annual evaluations extending from the 1961-62 school year through the 1978-79 school year were acceptable. It is Respondent's performance from the 1979-80 through 1982-83 school years which is at issue in these proceedings. During the 1979-80 school year the normal work day at Palmetto was 7:20 a.m. to 2:40 p.m. Due to personal hardship, however, Respondent was granted permission to alter her schedule to an 8:10 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. work day. Despite the accommodation afforded Respondent, on at least seven occasions between September 7, 1979 and February 21, 1980, Respondent was from five minutes to one hour and ten minutes late to work. Not only was Respondent late to her first class, she occasionally missed the class entirely as well as the beginning of her next class. On February 21, 1980 Respondent was formally observed by Elaine Kenzel, assistant principal at Palmetto. Ms. Kenzel's observation specifically apprised Respondent that she had been rated unacceptable in professional responsibility because of her tardiness. Ms. Kenzel's observation noted several other areas of performance in which Respondent was unacceptable or needed improvement. These matters were reviewed at conferences with Respondent on February 26 and 28, 1980. Portions of the conferences were attended by Francis Wargo, the principal at Palmetto. Among the topics broached at the conferences were Respondent's failure to properly maintain her grade book, her failure to follow proper grading procedures, her failure to properly assess each student's progress, her failure to use assessment techniques which motivate and enable students to learn, and lack of teacher-student rapport. Respondent's grade book for the 1979-80 school year was messy and, in large measure, incomprehensible to anyone other than Respondent. The grade book failed to indicate the grading period, failed to specify the grade source, failed to weight the grades for various tasks, and was uncoded. It depicted a poor professional image and failed to fulfill its basic purpose--to enable students, parents, replacement teachers and other authorized persons to review a student's achievement. Despite repeated critiques, Respondent's grade books showed little improvement during her tenure at Palmetto. Ms. Kenzel also counseled Respondent about her obligation to maintain a representative sampling of each student's work in her student folders. These samples were necessary to assess student progress, and should include graded tests, homework, classwork and reports. At the time of Ms. Kenzel's observation, six months into the 1979-80 school year, there were few samples of any student's work. What did exist were, in large measure, short quizzes of a vocabulary nature. The student folders were inadequate to assess a student's progress. Finally, Ms. Kenzel critiqued Respondent's instructional technique. Ms. Kenzel suggested that Respondent's students should not be simply repeating lessons in rote fashion, but should be involved in a variety of activities. This would improve student attention and enthusiasm, which Ms. Kenzel perceived was lacking. Final examinations for the 1979-80 school year were scheduled to commence at 7:30 a.m., June 9, 1980. The scheduling of examinations required a rearrangement of the normal class schedule. Fifth period, which normally began at 1:30 p.m., was scheduled for 7:30 a.m. This change required that Respondent report at 7:20 a.m. on June 9, instead of 8:10 a.m. The examination schedule was published, and discussed with Respondent at a faculty meeting. On June 9, 1980, Respondent failed to report for work until 8:15 a.m., 45 minutes after her fifth period examination was scheduled to commence. Respondent's tardiness created a poor testing atmosphere and was a cause of anxiety and frustration for her students. Respondent offered no explanation for her tardiness. On June 11, 1980, a conference for the record was held between Mr. Wargo and Respondent. Respondent's tardiness of June 9, 1980 was discussed, and she was reminded that her work day for the next year would be the same as other teachers, 7:20 a.m.-2:40 p.m. Respondent was told that disciplinary action would be recommended if she failed to observe the prescribed working hours. Respondent was also reminded that school policy forbade a teacher to permit a student to hand-carry any part of an examination to the office for duplication. Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1979-80 school year recommended Respondent for continued employment, but found her unacceptable in classroom management and teacher-student relationships. It is worthy of note that this evaluation was dated June 2, 1980, and therefore predated Respondent's tardiness of June 9, 1980 and the conference for the record held June 11, 1980. The 1980- School Year The 1980-81 school year produced few observations of Respondent's performance. During that year a massive rebuilding project was underway and the administration's attention was directed toward that project and coping with the upheaval it caused. Normal classroom assignments and instruction were often disrupted. Teachers were often moved in and out of classrooms on one day's notice. Consequently, a great deal of latitude was afforded all teachers, and all were rated acceptable. That is not to say Respondent's performance was unblemished. The evidence established two definite areas of deficiency again were present. Respondent's tardiness to school and to class continued, and Respondent was again deficient in her student assessments. In November 1981, Ms. Mona Sowers visited Respondent's class to discuss the progress of her daughter, Carolyn Ann. She was concerned because conversations she had overheard between her daughter and friends left her with the impression they were not being tested. Respondent's grade book demonstrated that no testing or grades were present for Carolyn Ann. Although she inquired of her daughter's progress, Ms. Sowers was not shown any papers, or any other work, which would objectively demonstrate her daughter's progress. Respondent's sole explanation was that she tested her students orally. There were no grades in the grade book for oral or written tests, however, and Respondent was unable to recognize Ms. Sowers' daughter as one of her students until prompted by Ms. Sowers. For the 1981-82 school year, Respondent was again scheduled to work the normal 7:20 a.m. to 2:40 p.m. work day. On the first day of class Respondent was 20 minutes late. During much of the 1981-82 school year Respondent was tardy in arriving, from two to five occasions each week. Teacher tardiness impacts directly on the quantum of education offered the students. While first period is scheduled to begin at 7:30 a.m., adherence to the 7:20 a.m. arrival time is essential if the teacher is to be prepared to start class promptly. Otherwise, 5-10 minutes of class time are wasted by the teacher in organizing herself for that day's lesson. Promptness is particularly crucial for first period since daily announcements, which can occupy up to five minutes of the period, are given at that time. Since each class period is 55 minutes in duration, a loss of only 10 minutes per day equates to a loss of one day of instruction each week. Respondent's tardiness deprived her students of valuable instructional time, and left them unsupervised--a condition not helpful to their safety. Respondent was formally observed on six separate occasions during the 1981-82 school year. Mr. Wargo's observations of September 25, 1981 and November 5, 1982, and Ms. Kenzel's observation of October 12, 1981, rated Respondent overall acceptable, but each noted some areas of unacceptable performance. The deficiencies noted in these three observations were similar to those observed in preceding years. Respondent was unacceptable in classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships and professional responsibility. Respondent wasted up to 20 minutes of class time on extraneous matters, failed to establish or enforce classroom policies on decorum or procedure, and her instruction evidenced a lack of planning. Respondent's classroom was messy and disorganized. Her tardiness continued. Each of these observations was critiqued with Respondent and suggestions to improve her performance were made. She was advised to start classes promptly, establish classroom policies and enforce them, vary her methods of instruction, and visit other classes and observe other teachers' performance. Respondent was reminded that her contract work day was 7:20 a.m. to 2:40 p.m. On February 2, 1982, Mr. Wargo stopped two students leaving Respondent's room. He discovered they had been visiting other students in Respondent's classroom, and that she was unaware of their presence. Respondent was observed passing out papers during a movie, and her students were talking and walking about. This occasioned Respondent's next formal observation. On February 4-5, 1982, Mr. Wargo formally observed Respondent's classes. He rated her overall unacceptable, and unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships and professional responsibility. Apart from Respondent's continuing tardiness, which accounted for her unacceptable rating in professional responsibility, the gravamen of her unacceptable rating in the other areas was basically inadequate planning and variety. Respondent's class was dull, her voice a monotone. Students responded in rote fashion to Respondent's singular questions. There was no variety of instruction or student feedback. Mr. Wargo directed Respondent to use the prescribed lesson plan form that had been developed at Palmetto. It was his opinion that if Respondent prepared a detailed lesson plan her classroom management would improve, student confusion would be avoided, and a more stimulating and organized presentation achieved. On February 9, 1982 Mr. Wargo held a conference with Respondent, Ms. Kenzel and Ms. Patrylo, Respondent's department head, to discuss the unacceptable observation of February 4-5, 1982, the incident of February 2, 1982, and ways to improve Respondent's techniques of instruction. During the course of that meeting, Respondent was advised that Ms. Wally Lyshkov, foreign language supervisor for Dade County Schools, would observe her class on February 19, 1982. On February 19, 1982 Respondent was formally observed by Ms. Lyshkov. While she rated Respondent overall acceptable, Ms. Lyshkov was of the opinion that Respondent's presentation was "staged" for her benefit. Her opinion was formed as a result of student comments that they did not usually do what they were doing, and by the lack of smoothness that results when activities are routine. Although "staged," Respondent's presentation indicates she knows how to teach effectively if she chooses to do so. Respondent had a very detailed lesson plan for the day Ms. Lyshkov observed her. Ms. Lyshkov reviewed Respondent's prior plans and found them to be sketchy. She recommended that Respondent continue to formulate detailed lesson plans, since Respondent's success that day proved their effectiveness. Respondent's last formal observation for the 1981-82 school year occurred on March 2, 1982. Mr. Wargo observed her classes for periods 1 and 2, and Ms. Kenzel observed for a portion of the same classes. Respondent was rated overall acceptable. The results of these observations establish that Respondent is capable of presenting a good lesson when she chooses to prepare herself. The 1981-82 school year evidenced other indications of Respondent's disposition. She was late turning in emergency lesson plans, lesson plans, course outlines and grade sheets. She was late to departmental meetings and to teacher workdays. She occasionally left her classes unsupervised. Despite her previous warning, Respondent continued to permit students to hand-carry examinations to the xerox room for copying. In May 1982 Mr. Wargo issued Respondent a letter of reprimand for unprofessional conduct in calling a student "trash." During the 1982-83 school year Respondent was heard to call various students "cabbage head," "stupid," "dumb," "disgusting," "fools," and "disgusting little creature." On May 27, 1982 Mr. Wargo completed Respondent's annual evaluation and recommended her for continued employment. While Mr. Wargo rated Respondent unacceptable in teacher-student relationships, he was apparently satisfied that she was improving her other areas of deficiency. Subsequent to the annual evaluation a significant number of serious problems surfaced which reflected on Respondent's performance and which caused Mr. Wargo to seriously question his recommendation for continued employment. Respondent was absent, without satisfactory excuse or authorization, from school during the final examination period of June 14 through June 17, 1982. According to Respondent it was not until 2:00 p.m. the preceding Friday that she first learned she would have to take her son, a 12-year-old junior high school student, to Talladega College, Talladega, Alabama, to enroll him in a "Super Stars" summer program she had selected. According to Respondent, her husband could not take their son because he was "on call" at his work. Respondent's explanation for abandoning her obligations is unpersuasive. Respondent had at least four weeks' notice that her son had been accepted for the program. Ms. Patrylo, Respondent's department head, was at school the Friday before exams until 2:45-3:00 p.m. At no time during the preceding four weeks, or on the Friday preceding exams, did Respondent advise the administration or her department head that she would need to be absent that week. Instead, Respondent "fulfilled" her obligations by "informing" the principal's and assistant principal's secretaries late Friday afternoon that she would be absent and left her final examinations in the office. Ms. Patrylo did not become aware of Respondent's absence until the morning of June 14, 1982. During the course of administering the French I final examination to Respondent's first period class Ms. Patrylo discovered a number of significant problems which reflected adversely on Respondent's competence. Respondent's French I examination was a travesty. It was not a French I examination but a French II placement test the department had previously prepared to gauge at what level an incoming student should be placed. Respondent had simply taken a copy of the placement test and written "French I Final" on it. Respondent had been previously instructed that the examination was to be thorough and cover a significant amount of the year's course content. Essay questions were to be included. The French II placement test which Respondent proposed to give her students was composed of 47 questions; no essay questions - were included. Over 50 percent of the test, 25 questions, dealt with the passe' compose', yet that grammatical structure had not been extensively taught. Twenty-five percent of the examination dealt with verbs in the past tense, yet Respondent's students had not studied the past tense. Moreover, the test only required the "bubbling in" of answers on a computer card and did not require any writing. While two hours were allotted for the examination, this exam could be completed in ten minutes. Respondent's classroom was in disarray. Maps valued at $300 were abused. Respondent's closet contained flash cards, audio visual materials, food and other materials haphazardly thrown about. The room was completely disorganized. Respondent left no instructions for completing her book inventory. Consequently, 56 of her textbooks, valued at $11.00 each, were never accounted for. When school started the next year the class was short of books. On June 18, 1982, the last day of school, Respondent was due at school at 8:00 a.m. She failed to arrive until 8:45 a.m. Because of Respondent's tardiness three members of her department had to record grades for four of her classes in order to assure timely delivery of the grade sheets to the computer center. In working with Respondent's grade book to establish final grades, these teachers noted several shortcomings. Respondent's grade book contained no code for weighting of grades, it was impossible to tell which student absences were excused or unexcused, and on some lines two students' names appeared, rendering it impossible to decipher which grades belonged to which student. On June 23, 1982 a conference for the record was held to discuss the shortcomings of Respondent's performance, which were revealed during the last days of the school year. During this conference Mr. Wargo addressed Respondent's historical and current problems in record keeping, tardiness, following district, area and school policies, and classroom management. Mr. Wargo advised Respondent, by memorandum dated June 28, 1982, that he would not recommend Respondent for continued employment for the 1983-84 school year unless she showed marked improvement during the 1982-83 school year in the following areas: Accuracy and completeness of required record keeping. Strict adherence to contracted working hours of 7:20 a.m.-2:40 p.m. You will be expected to be in your classroom no later than 7:25 a.m. Compliance with district, area, and school level directives and policies. Improved classroom management procedures to insure the following: Classroom organized and neat; Attendance and tardy procedures enforced. Seating charts available and up-to-date. Rules and procedures consistently applied. Teacher-student relationships resulting in mutual respect. Consistent classroom performance resulting in continuous acceptable ratings. Respondent agreed to follow Mr. Wargo's suggestions to improve her performance, and to cooperate with the department chairperson. She stated that she would work very diligently the next year, and promised that Mr. Wargo would see considerable improvement. The observations, evaluations, conferences and suggestions made over the preceding three years, and Respondent's commitment to improve her performance and cooperation during the 1982-83 school year, proved futile. From September 1982 through April 1983, Respondent's teaching was observed on one or more occasions by her principal and assistant principal, an area director of the Dade County public schools, and the foreign language supervisor of the Dade County public schools. Each concurs that Respondent's performance was unacceptable in preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques; the same reasons she was found unacceptable in previous years. The root of Respondent's poor performance was indolence. Although proficient in her languages, Respondent demonstrated an unwillingness to change her methods or to plan, deliver and critique her lessons. Throughout the 1982-83 school year, despite numerous conferences, prescriptions, and requests, Respondent's lesson plans were submitted late and evidenced no continuity of purpose. At best, they were sketchy, disorganized and unduly repetitive. At worst, they were incomprehensible and illegible. Their content and appearance compel the conclusion they were hastily prepared to superficially comply with the requirement that she have lesson plans, but without any attention to their content or purpose. Respondent's classroom management was unacceptable throughout the school year. Frequently, less than one-half of available class time was devoted to foreign language instruction. Students were often unruly and undisciplined. They were permitted, without censure, to read novels, listen to radios, gossip, and apparently sleep during Respondent's classes. Respondent's inability or failure to manage her classroom was in large measure a product of her failure to prepare her lessons. Because of the low cognitive level at which Respondent taught, her classes were dull and conducive to student disruption. Her techniques of instruction were unacceptable. Respondent emphasized memorization, recall and drill on a purely audio-lingual basis and ignored the variety and repetitive reinforcement benefits that could be derived from reading and writing a foreign language. Respondent's assessment techniques were unacceptable. After three months into the 1982-83 school year, Respondent's grade book reflected only one written test and her student folders contained no assessment of her students' reading and writing skills. This situation did not improve over the course of the year. At no time during the course of the final hearing did Respondent concede she needed improvement in her techniques. The evidence, however, renders it painfully apparent that a serious problem did exist. Respondent testified that she practiced the audio- lingual method of foreign language instruction, which emphasizes listening and speaking, through level III of a foreign language. Repetition, she says, is essential. Accordingly, Respondent concludes, the presence of repetition in her lesson plans was essential, and the absence of many written tests in her grade book, or student papers reflecting reading and writing skills in the student folders, not unusual. Respondent's explanation ignores some very salient factors, to which she was privy. The Dade County curriculum requires that the four skills-- listening, speaking, reading and writing--be taught at each level of foreign language instruction. Further, Respondent had received unsatisfactory ratings in student assessments during the preceding three years because of her failure to properly test and her failure to document her students' progress in the student folders. By her own testimony Respondent concedes she did not teach the prescribed curriculum. Because of that failure she was unable to assess her students' skills in reading and writing since she had not developed them. By neglecting the reading and writing skills, Respondent not only deprived her students of the skills themselves, but also of the stimulation such variety in technique would have brought to her classroom, the reinforcement that would have been achieved by developing those skills, and the positive impact it would have had on class management. Respondent's attendance history during the 1982-83 school year was poor. As early as September 1982 Respondent was admonished by her principal for her failure to observe the 7:20 a.m. to 2:40 p.m work day, yet she subsequently arrived, on a number of occasions, after 7:30 a.m. During the second semester her tardiness took a new twist. During this time period, while Respondent would apparently arrive at school by the mandated 7:20 a.m. deadline, she would not open her classroom door until 7:30 a.m. While apparently in her classroom at 7:20 a.m., Respondent would not turn on any lights and, consequently, neither student nor administrator could assure her presence. Ms. Patrylo, Respondent's department head, asked Respondent to leave a light on in the room so that Respondent's students would know she was there, and so Ms. Patrylo would not have to be concerned about her absence and the need to unlock the door to admit Respondent's students. Respondent refused Ms. Patrylo's request because "she did not want to run up the electric bill for the Dade County schools." Respondent's response to Ms. Patrylo is not indicative of a cooperative attitude. It is, however, indicative of a plan to frustrate the administration in its attempt to monitor Respondent's compliance with the contracted work hours. The evidence establishes, however, that Respondent failed to adhere to her contracted work hours for the 1982-83 school year. The administration of Palmetto Senior High School, and the School Board, went to considerable lengths in the 1982-83 school year to rehabilitate Respondent. Their efforts were, however, met by little or no effort by Respondent to improve herself. Respondent asserts, rather incongruously since she acknowledges no imperfection in her teaching techniques, that the cause of her failure to improve was caused by the observations and prescriptions themselves and because she had four preparations that school year. Respondent's assertions are unpersuasive. At no time during the 1982-83 school year did Respondent render any such objections. The number of preparations Respondent had was not excessive. Respondent could have obviated the necessity of any prescriptions, and most observations, by abiding the commitment she had given Mr. Wargo at the close of the 1981-82 school year--to improve her performance in these same areas. In short, Respondent's attempt to excuse her "failures," because of the administration's statutorily and contractually mandated efforts to assist her, lacks substance. While occasional improvement in Respondent's performance was seen over the course of the 1982-83 school year, it was sporadic and short-lived. Despite counseling, prescriptions, and workshops, Respondent continued to perform at an unsatisfactory level in the same areas as previous years. It was the consensus of opinion of the professional educators and experts who observed Respondent's classroom performance that she repeatedly failed to teach effectively and faithfully as required by Rule 6Gx 13-4A-1.21V, School Board of Dade County, and failed to communicate with and relate to the children in her classroom to such an extent that they were deprived of a minimum educational experience. The evidence compels the same conclusion. Respondent's tardiness further deprived her students of the minimum educational experience to which they were entitled and her frequent absences from the classroom could have placed her students in physical jeopardy. At the conclusion of the 1982-83 school year Respondent was suspended from her position as a classroom teacher in the Dade County school system.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED That: Petitioner, School Board of Dade County, enter a Final Order in Case No. 83-3067, sustaining Respondent's suspension from her employment, and dismissing Respondent as an employee of the School Board of Dade County; and Petitioner, Ralph D. Turlington, as Commisioner of Education, enter a Final Order in Case No. 84-0149 revoking the teacher's certificate of Respondent, Carolyn T. Smith, for two (2) years. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 1985, at Tallahassee Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Craig R. Wilson, Esquire The Law Building Suite 204 315 Third Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Ellen L. Leesfield, Esquire DuFresne and Bradley, P.A. 2929 S.W. 3rd Avenue Miami, Florida 33129 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether just cause exists, pursuant to section 1012.33, Florida Statutes,2 to suspend Respondent from his employment as a teacher for ten days without pay. 1 All references to chapter 120 are to the 2019 version. 2 All references to chapter 1012 are to the 2018 version, which was in effect at the time of the alleged misconduct at issue in this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Based on the credible and persuasive competent substantial evidence in the record, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties Petitioner, Miami-Dade County School Board, is charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise free public schools in Miami-Dade County pursuant to section 1001.32, Florida Statutes (2018), and article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution. Respondent has been employed by Petitioner as a teacher since 2000. He has been employed as an art teacher at E.W.F. Stirrup Elementary School ("Stirrup") for the last 18 years, including when he is alleged to have engaged in the conduct that has given rise to this proceeding. Respondent is certified in art, graphic design, and vocational education. Notice of Specific Charges The Notice of Specific Charges ("NSC"), which constitutes the administrative complaint in this proceeding, alleges two instances of conduct on Respondent's part as the grounds for the proposed disciplinary action. Specifically, the NSC alleges that on or about September 27, 2018, Respondent told a female 5th grade student words to the effect of "get out here; I do not want you here," and forcibly pushed her away with his hand. The NSC also alleges that Respondent used profanity, spoken in Spanish— specifically, the words "mierda"3 and "pinga"4?while covering a class of kindergarten students. The complaint alleges that two adults witnessed Respondent's use of these words.5 This incident is alleged to have occurred on or about December 5, 2018. Based on this alleged conduct, the NSC charges Respondent with misconduct in office, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056(2), for having violated specified provisions of rule 6A-10.081, Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession; School Board Policy 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct; and School Board Policy 3210.01, Code of Ethics. Evidence Adduced at the Final Hearing The September 27, 2018 Incident 3 Translated into English, "mierda" means "shit." 4 Translated into English, "pinga," as used in the context pertinent to this proceeding, means "fuck." 5 As more fully discussed below, the NSC does not allege that Respondent's use of these words was directed at any students, or that any students saw or heard Respondent use these words. On September 27, 2018, S.D., a minor, was a student in Respondent's 5th grade art class. S.D. testified, credibly, that on that day, Respondent told her to "get out of his way," then pushed her away by placing his hands on her shoulders. She testified that Respondent's words and actions made her feel "embarrassed, or, like, weird." S.D. acknowledged that she had gone up to Respondent and tried to talk to him while he was talking to the president of the Parent Teacher Association ("PTA"). She tried to get hand sanitizer and Respondent said to her "not now, go away" because he was talking to the PTA president at that time. Respondent characterized S.D. as a child who "has a reputation for basically not obeying anything." He testified that when S.D. approached his desk, he was in a discussion with the PTA president, and he told S.D. to "get out of here" and "sit down." He did not recall touching her. He stated that from where he was standing, he doubted that he could have reached her to push her away, and that had he pushed her, she likely would have fallen. No other witnesses testified at the final hearing regarding this incident. The December 5, 2018 Incident On Wednesday, December 5, 2018, Respondent was assigned to cover another teacher's kindergarten class starting at 9:00 a.m., so that the teacher who regularly taught that class, Ms. Rivero, could attend an exceptional student education ("ESE") meeting regarding one of her students. For the 2018-2019 school year, Respondent was assigned a full day of planning each Wednesday. In addition, Respondent was assigned one hour of planning every other day of the school week, per the Miami-Dade School District ("District") policy of providing teachers a minimum of one hour of planning per day.6 6 Respondent was assigned a full day of planning on Wednesdays in the 2018-2019 school year. This was not a function of his having an extraordinary workload; rather, it was because on Wednesdays, the language arts classes were scheduled back-to-back and students were dismissed early, so that it was infeasible to schedule art classes on Wednesdays. As a result of this scheduling, Respondent enjoyed nearly four more hours of planning per week than the minimum planning time to which he was entitled under the District's planning policy. According to Smith-Moise, if a teacher's schedule provides more than an hour of planning per day, that teacher may be requested, from time to time, to use that additional planning time for involvement in other school activities, including covering other teachers' classes as necessary. The administration at Stirrup generally attempts to schedule substitute teachers to cover classes when a teacher is called away from his or her class; however, on December 5, 2018, another teacher's class already was being covered by a substitute teacher. Because Respondent had planning that entire day, he did not have classes, so was available to cover Rivero's class. The length of ESE meetings varies, depending on the type of ESE service being delivered and whether the students' parents agree with the school district regarding the ESE services proposed to be provided. This particular meeting was an initial ESE team staffing meeting; these types of meetings often are relatively long compared to other types of ESE meetings. Respondent covered Rivero's class on December 5, 2018, from approximately 8:35 a.m. until shortly after 1:00 p.m., when a substitute teacher was called to cover the class for the remainder of the ESE meeting. During the time he was covering Rivero's class, Respondent called the Stirrup administration office multiple times, and also called and sent text messages to a fellow teacher, Yvette Mestre, asking how long the ESE meeting would take and when it would be over. In response to Respondent's calls, Smith-Moise twice left the ESE meeting to speak to Respondent in Rivero's classroom. Both times, when she entered the classroom, she observed Respondent disengaged from the students and talking very loudly on his phone. Respondent made clear to Smith-Moise that he was very frustrated at having his planning time taken to cover Rivero's class when he had other responsibilities to attend to.7 7 Respondent testified that he had a great deal of work to do on a large mural project for his own classes that needed to be completed under a tight deadline. Shortly after the beginning of the school day on December 5, 2018, Smith- Moise had taken a student from Rivero's class to Mestre's classroom because the student was misbehaving in Rivero's classroom. A short time thereafter, Respondent began sending text messages to Mestre, asking when the ESE meeting was going to be over. Mestre, who was occupied with teaching her own class, responded that she did not know, and suggested that Respondent contact the administration office. Around 10:30 or 11:00 a.m., Respondent began calling Mestre, again asking about the length of the ESE meeting. Mestre testified that "he seemed upset because he had stuff that he wanted to plan." Mestre again responded that she did not know and suggested that Respondent contact the administration office. At some point, Mestre went to Rivero's classroom to retrieve a lunchbox for the student from Rivero's class whom she was supervising. When she entered the classroom, she observed Respondent on his phone. Respondent told Mestre that he was on the phone with his United Teachers of Dade ("UTD") representative and that he was upset at having to cover Rivero's class because it was his planning day. Mestre went to the administrative office and reported to Smith-Moise that Respondent was upset and needed assistance in Rivero's classroom. Smith-Moise directed Mestre to take Acevedo Molina, an office assistant, to the classroom so that she (Acevedo Molina) could assist Respondent. According to Mestre, when they entered the classroom, Respondent initially thought Acevedo Molina was going to take over supervision of the class; however, when Mestre informed him that Acevedo Molina was there to assist him but would not be taking over supervision of the class, Respondent became very irate, raised his voice, and used the words "mierda" and "pinga" in speaking to them.8 Acevedo Molina confirmed that Respondent used these words when he spoke to her and Mestre. Mestre and Acevedo Molina were, respectively, "shocked" and "surprised" at Respondent's use of these words. 8 Mestre testified that Respondent said, translated into English, "[t]he school doesn't understand the shit that I do," and "they don't give a fuck what I do in this school." Respondent testified that he does not recall having said those words when he spoke to Mestre and Acevedo Molina that day. There is conflicting evidence whether Respondent used those words inside the classroom, such that they were said within earshot of the students, or outside of the classroom, where the students would not be able to hear or see him use the words. Mestre and Acevedo Molina both testified that they had entered Rivero's classroom and were inside the classroom with Respondent when he used the words. Respondent claims that he had to have stepped outside of the classroom into the corridor to speak to Mestre and Acevedo Molina, because the door was locked and they would have been unable to open it and enter the classroom on their own. In any event, it is unnecessary to determine whether Respondent used these words in the classroom within the students' earshot, because the NSC only charges Respondent with having said "mierda" and "pinga" while "covering a class of kindergarten students for another teacher," and that Respondent's use of these words was "overheard by two adult witnesses." The NSC does not allege that Respondent directed the words toward any students or that any students saw or heard him use these words.9 No direct or persuasive circumstantial evidence was presented showing that any students saw or overheard Respondent use those words. Although Mestre and Acevedo Molina testified that Respondent was inside the classroom when he said the words, both testified that the words were not directed toward the students, and neither testified that any students heard or saw Respondent say those words. Thus, even if the evidence conclusively established that Respondent was inside the classroom when he said those words—which it does not—that does not prove that any students saw or heard Respondent use those words. To that point, Smith-Moise 9 Trevisani v. Dep't of Health, 908 So. 2d 1008, 1009 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)(a respondent cannot be disciplined for offenses not factually alleged in the administrative complaint); Cottrill v. Dep't of Ins., 685 So. 2d 1371, 1372 (Fla 1st DCA 1996)(predicating disciplinary action on conduct never alleged in an administrative complaint or some comparable pleading violates the Administrative Procedure Act). See Hunter v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 458 So. 2d 842, 844 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)(administrative complaint seeking to impose discipline must state, with specificity, the acts giving rise to the complaint). testified that the school had not received any complaints about Respondent's use of those words from any of the students or their parents. The UTD Contract establishes a policy of imposing progressive discipline ("Progressive Discipline Policy") when "the Board deems it appropriate, and . . . the degree of discipline shall be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense." Neither the Progressive Discipline Policy nor Petitioner's adopted policies articulate a disciplinary "scale" or penalty categories applicable to specific types of conduct. There is no competent substantial evidence in the record showing that Respondent previously has been subjected to disciplinary action by Petitioner. Petitioner did not present any competent substantial evidence establishing the factual basis for its proposal to suspend Respondent for ten days for the offenses charged in the NSC. Findings of Ultimate Fact As noted above, Petitioner has charged Respondent with misconduct in office under rule 6A-5.056(2) for having violated specified provisions of rule 6A-10.081, Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession; School Board Policy 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct; and School Board Policy 3210.01, Code of Ethics. Whether an offense constitutes a violation of applicable statutes, rules, and policies is a question of ultimate fact to be determined by the trier of fact in the context of each violation. McKinney v. Castor, 667 So. 2d 387, 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)(whether particular conduct violates a statute, rule, or policy is a factual question); Langston v. Jamerson, 653 So. 2d 489, 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)(whether the conduct, as found, constitutes a violation of statutes, rules, or policies is a question of ultimate fact); Holmes v. Turlington, 480 So. 2d 150, 153 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)(whether there was a deviation from a standard of conduct is not a conclusion of law, but is instead an ultimate fact). Charged Conduct and Rule Violations The September 27, 2018 Incident Based on the foregoing, it is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent pushed S.D. on September 27, 2018. There was no justification for Respondent to place his hands on and push S.D., even if she interrupted him while he was speaking with another person. Respondent's conduct in pushing S.D. constituted misconduct in office, as defined in rule 6A-5.056(2). Specifically, Respondent's conduct did not comport with rule 6A-10.081(1)(a), which provides that his primary professional concern must be for the student, and requires him to exercise best professional judgment. In pushing S.D., he did not treat her as his primary professional concern, and he did not exercise best professional judgment. Additionally, Respondent's conduct did not comply with rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. or School Board Policies 3210 and 3210.01. Specifically, in pushing S.D., Respondent did not make a reasonable effort to protect her from conditions harmful to her mental and physical health and safety. Although S.D. was not physically injured, she was embarrassed by Respondent's conduct in pushing her. Respondent's conduct also did not comply with rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)5. or School Board Policies 3210 and 3210.01. Respondent's conduct in pushing S.D. was intentional and it exposed her to embarrassment. Because Respondent's conduct in pushing S.D. violated rules 6A- 10.081(1)(a)1. and (2)(a)1. and 5., and School Board Policies 3210 and 3210.01, it is found, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent committed misconduct in office, pursuant to rule 6A-5.056(2). Pursuant to the UTD Progressive Discipline Policy, it is determined that Respondent's conduct in pushing S.D. was sufficiently serious to warrant suspending him without pay for five days. There was no justification for him having pushed her. Although S.D. was not physically injured as a result of Respondent's conduct, the potential existed for her to have been injured had she fallen, and, in any event, Respondent's intentional action subjected her to embarrassment. The December 5, 2018 Incident Based on the foregoing findings, it is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent used the words "mierda" and "pinga," which are profane words, when speaking to Mestre and Acevedo Molina on December 5, 2018. However, for the reasons discussed above, it is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent did not direct those words toward the students or that any students heard or saw him use those words.10 Respondent's use of profanity in speaking to Mestre and Acevedo Molina did not comport with rule 6A-10.081(1)(c). In using profanity toward his colleagues, Respondent did not strive to achieve and sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct. Mestre and Acevedo Molina both testified to the effect that they viewed his conduct as inappropriate in that professional setting. Respondent's use of those words when speaking to Mestre and Acevedo Molina did not comply with the requirement in School Board Policy 3210 to refrain from the use of profane or abusive language in the workplace. Respondent's use of those words when speaking with Mestre and Acevedo Molina also did not comply with the standard set forth in School Board Policy 3210.01, which requires the employee to show respect for other people. In sum, Respondent's conduct in saying "mierda" and "pinga" while speaking to Mestre and Acevedo Molina violated rules 6A-10.081(1)(c) and School Board policies 3210 and 3210.01. Accordingly, Respondent's conduct constituted misconduct in office under rule 6A-5.056(2). As discussed above, there is no competent substantial evidence establishing that Respondent has ever been subjected to discipline by Petitioner prior to this proceeding. Although Respondent's conduct in using profanity when speaking to two adult colleagues violates certain policies, in light of the UTD Progressive Discipline Policy, such violation is not sufficiently serious to warrant suspension without pay. Therefore, it is determined that, consistent with the concept of progressive 10 Further, as discussed above, the administrative complaint does not charge Respondent with using those words toward students or charge that any students saw or heard him use those words. discipline, Petitioner should issue a verbal reprimand to Respondent for his conduct in using profanity when speaking to his colleagues. Because Respondent was not charged with, and the evidence did not prove, that he directed profanity toward any students or that any students saw or heard him use profanity, Petitioner may not impose discipline on Respondent on that basis. Just Cause Based on the foregoing, it is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that just cause exists to suspend Respondent. Recommended Penalty Based on the foregoing, it is determined that Respondent should be suspended for five days without pay for having pushed S.D. Based on the foregoing, it is determined that Respondent should be issued a verbal reprimand for using profanity when speaking to Mestre and Acevedo Molina and Respondent should receive five days of back pay for the balance of the ten-day period for which Petitioner proposed to suspend him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that, consistent with the foregoing, Petitioner enter a final order suspending Respondent from his employment as a teacher for five days without pay, issuing a verbal reprimand to Respondent, and awarding Respondent back pay for five days. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of June, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 June, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher J. La Piano, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132 (eServed) Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761-1526 (eServed) Cristina Rivera, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132 (eServed) Carlos M. Sanjurjo Apartment 214 14907 Southwest 80th Street Miami, Florida 33193 Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami-Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Richard Corcoran, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue The issue posed for decision herein is whether or not the Respondent, Alfreda Grady, should be terminated from her employment as an instructional employee with the Broward County school system.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, post-hearing memoranda and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact. By its six count Petition for Dismissal, Petitioner, through the person of its Superintendent of Schools, William T. McFatter, seeks to uphold its recommendation that Respondent, Alfreda Grady, be dismissed from employment in the Broward County school system. Respondent, Alfreda Grady, was an instructional employee at the School Board of Broward County until she was suspended with pay from her duties at the close of the workday on January 27, 1983. Respondent holds a continuing contract of employment and holds teaching certificates in both guidance and elementary education. During the course of the 1982-83 school year, Respondent was assigned to the position of guidance counselor at Attucks Middle School. This assignment was made by Mr. Thomas Wilson, Assistant to the south area Superintendent of the Broward County School Board. Ms. Grady was later assigned to teach sixth grade orientation and social studies. On January 27, 1983, Respondent was placed on emergency suspension and a PETITION FOR DISMISSAL from the Broward County school system was filed based on charges of incompetency, misconduct in office, immorality and gross insubordination. A request was made for a formal evidentiary hearing pursuant to Chapter 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The matter was thereafter assigned to the undersigned hearing officer to conduct the instant hearing. On August 19, 1982, Respondent was assigned the position of guidance counselor at Attucks Middle School. Prior to this assignment, the position of guidance counselor had been assigned to Ms. Ricci Mandell, a teacher previously employed at Attucks. This assignment was made by Taft Green, principal at Attucks Middle School. Both Ms. Grady and Ms. Mandell were retained in the Guidance Department. Approximately two weeks into the school year, Respondent was assigned to teach one sixth grade orientation class. It is not unusual for a teacher to be assigned teaching duties in more than one subject area. (TR Volume 1, p. 193) By letter dated September 1, 1982, Mr. Green informed Respondent that she would begin teaching the orientation class on September 7, 1982. Respondent was also informed by Mr. Green that Ms. Friedman, a reading teacher at Attucks, would supply the necessary material and a course syllabus. Ms. Friedman had previously taught the orientation course during the 1981-82 school year. Respondent was advised that principal Green and the other instructional employees were available to assist her, as needed. Although Respondent never contacted Ms. Friedman for either assistance or to obtain the material, Ms. Friedman supplied the Respondent with a variety of materials to be used in teaching the orientation course including the course guide for middle school orientation and two instructional television books. (TR Volume 1, p. 166) Respondent refused to teach the orientation course. The class was used as either a study hall or the students watched programs such as "The Today Show" and "Good Morning America." On September 15, 1982, Respondent was assigned to teach two sixth grade social studies classes. A memo reflecting this assignment was sent both to Respondent and Ms. Mandell, dividing the guidance position between them and assigning them each three classes. (Petitioner's Exhibit P) Mr. Green divided the counselor duties between Respondent and Ms. Mandell based on budgetary considerations. That is, Attucks could not afford three guidance counselors and instead of terminating one instructional employee, the guidance counselor assignments were divided. (TP Volume 1, pp. 204 - 205) On November 3, 1982, Mr. Green began, via a memo, to change Respondent from a guidance position to a teaching position reciting in the memo that the change was based on a report from Rod Sasse, an educational guidance specialist for the Petitioner. Mr. Sasse conducted a study of the Attucks Guidance Department and determined that the Department needed to be restructured. He determined that two full-time counselors were more effective than one full-time and two part- time guidance counselors. Thus, Respondent was assigned a teaching position without any counseling duties. Respondent has refused to perform her assigned duties by Mr. Taft Green citing, inter alia, that the course materials provided her were inadequate or incomplete; that she was not educationally trained and therefore unqualified to teach the assigned duties; that she received no help or assistance from other instructional employees at Attucks and that she was not interested in taking the needed steps to either become qualified or otherwise competent to teach the assigned social studies and orientation classes. Prior to her November 10, 1982 assignment by principal Taft Green, Respondent was afforded one (1) week to prepare for the assigned classes. Additionally, she was given two TDA's (temporary duty assignments) to prepare for the social studies classes. Additionally, Respondent received a course syllabus and other material from other faculty and staff and offers of help from supervisory employees. (Testimony of Green; Carole Fischer, Social Studies Department Head; Mark Thomas, author of the course guide for middle school orientation and Dr. Benjamin Stephenson, Associate Superintendent for Personnel) Respondent made repeated statements, oral and written, to students, other instructional employees, supervisors, principal Green and the press evidencing her lack of interest in performing the assigned duties of teaching social studies and/or orientation. Respondent also cited as one of the reasons of her inability to teach the assigned classes was due to the fact that her students were not functioning at the same level of achievement and therefore it was impossible for her to teach students who are functioning at different progress levels. It is hereby found that it is indeed normal for students to function at varying progress levels and that teachers who are at all interested in performing the duties of an instructional employee, readily adjust to the varying progress levels of students and welcome the challenge of such an adjustment. As stated, Respondent repeatedly refused to perform her assigned duties as an instructional employee for the orientation and social studies classes. Based on this refusal to teach, Respondent assigned 148 out of 150 students a grade of incomplete or "I." Respondent was repeatedly directed to provide grades for her students by principal Green including written demands on January 19, 20, 21 and 25, 1983. On the last two demands on January 21 and 25, 1983, Respondent was further advised that her failure to assign grades to students would be regarded as gross insubordination. Respondent would not and, in fact, refused to teach her students any of the subject areas to which she was assigned by principal Taft Green. A typical day spent in the Respondent's classroom consisted primarily of the students either performing independent work which usually was in the form of preparing for other classes or doing homework which was assigned by other instructional staff or in the case of the orientation class, students would watch programs such as "Good Morning America" and "The Today Show." Respondent performed some minimal teaching including map and globe assignments. However, in the normal day, Respondent would permit students to perform either independent work or repeatedly view film strips. As a result of such repetition, students became bored. A number of Respondent's students expressed a desire to learn skills in the social studies classes which they were attending. It is also found that the Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher has been severely damaged due to the wide notoriety that this case has received, the public statements and/or admissions by the Respondent denoting her lack of interest in teaching the assigned classes and the expressed concern of other staff and parents concerned about entrusting their children to Respondent's class in view of her admitted lack of care and disregard for the educational and social welfare of the students in her class.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, School Board of Broward County, enter a Final Order dismissing the Respondent, Alfreda Grady, from employment with the Broward County school system. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of November, 1983.
Findings Of Fact Background Respondent is a teacher certified in English, which he has taught while employed by Petitioner. He was first employed by Petitioner during the 1984-85 school year. In 1987, he was awarded a professional service contract. He has six years' teaching experience outside Highlands County. Principals or assistant principals routinely conduct annual teacher evaluations. The evaluation form contains two sections. Section 1 contains 14 categories that are marked based on one or more classroom observations. Section 2 contains 15 categories that are marked based on classroom observations and experience with the teacher. The back of the evaluation form explains the marks as follows: Mark Description Commendable (C) Indicates exceptional performance of the identified behavior(s). Satisfactory (S) Indicates satisfactory performance of the identified behavior(s) Needs Improvement (NI) Indicates a need for the employee to strengthen/improve performance of the identified behavior(s). Must Improve (MI) Indicates a need for the employee to remediate deficient behavior(s). If the deficiency is not corrected, the employee's contract status could be affected. The back of the evaluation form explains the "NEAT Procedure/Due Process": When an employee is evaluated as Must Improve, remediation procedures must be implemented as follows: Notice--The employee has the right to receive full written notification of the identified deficient behaviors. Explanation--The employee has the right to receive a full explanation for the reason behaviors are considered deficient. Assistance--The employee has the right to receive assistance in remediating the deficient behavior. Time--The employee has the right to a reasonable amount of time to achieve remediation. Various documents exist to normalize the evaluations of teachers. However, a degree of subjectivity necessarily remains in the evaluation process. Petitioner has prepared a booklet entitled, "Performance Appraisal System for Instructional Personnel" (Appraisal Booklet). The Appraisal Booklet introduced into evidence is dated October 5, 1992, but, judging from the cover letter from the superintendent, was in effect for the entire 1992-93 school year. The Appraisal Booklet contains, at page 12, a section describing the assessment process. The booklet states in part: When a competency or behavior is marked "NI-Needs Improvement," the appraiser shall provide counseling and/or resources whereby improvement may occur. For each competency or behavior which is marked "MI--Must Improve," a remediation procedure must be designed and implemented. The procedures will be described in a Professional Development Plan, as called for in the NEAT procedures. Each deficient item shall be addressed in a separate [Professional Development Plan]. The plan shall include the following: Area to be improved: specify the identified problem. Specific desired improvement: write as a measurable goal or objective. Action to be taken: describe action the involved parties will complete to achieve desired improvement. Assistance plan: List and describe who will provide assistance, showing role of each participant. Time line: specify dates for each activity to be completed and evaluated. Evaluation: describe how and when evaluation of progress or success will occur. Consequences: specify consequences if improvement is not achieved satisfactorily. The Appraisal Booklet contains, at page 15, a section entitled, "Use of Assessment Data for Personnel Decisions." This section requires written comments for every C, NI, or MI. Under a subsection entitled, "Unsatisfactory Ratings," the Appraisal Booklet states in its entirety: For every MI assigned, the assessor will conduct a follow-up of the Professional Development Plan to determine if the appraisee accomplished the required improvement and/or when that competency will be reassessed. Failure to improve within the expected time may be grounds for returning to annual contract for an employee holding a Professional Service Contract or a Continuing Contract. If the deficiency is not corrected during the second year, it may be grounds for non-renewal. (See NEAT) If the appraisee receives two consecutive unsatisfactory annual evaluations, the superintendent shall notify the Department of Education as required by statute. On [the evaluation form] three or more ratings of MI . . . will constitute an "unsatisfactory annual evaluation" for purposes of reporting to the DOE. The Appraisal Booklet discusses C's. Nothing in this section of the booklet explicitly addresses NI's except, as noted above, that comments must accompany each NI. The contract between Petitioner and the teachers discusses evaluations, but not in such detail as to address the meaning of NI's and MI's. Concerning remediation, the contract states: Where deficiencies are brought to the teacher's attention by his/her supervisor, the teacher shall be responsible for taking the necessary steps for improving his/her skills to an acceptable level as determined by the principal. Assistance shall be offered the employee and such assistance for improvement shall be noted in writing and a signed copy be retained by the appropriate supervisor and the employee. Following remediation, reassessment shall be accorded the employee in compliance with the procedures of Article XI. If the final assessment report fails to note specific deficiency, it shall be interpreted to mean adequate improvement has taken place. The professional judgment of the evaluator shall not be subject to the grievance procedure. The contract acknowledges that it shall not be interpreted to abridge or in any way usurp the authority or power of [Petitioner] as established by constitutional provisions or state Board of Education regulations or statutes existing at the time of the [contract]. And further, [Petitioner] shall be relieved of compliance with any term or condition of this [contract] if such compliance is contrary to any constitutional provision or state Board of Education regulation or statute in effect or enacted subsequent to the signing of this [contract]. Petitioner has no clear written or unwritten policy regarding whether a performance deficiency evidenced by an MI is corrected by an NI, rather than a C or an S. The determination whether a teacher has corrected performance deficiencies depends on the circumstances. The Lake Placid Teacher Handbook for the 1992-93 school year, a copy of which was given to Respondent at the beginning of the year, notes that teachers are to administer their assertive discipline plan and enforce all school rules. Regarding student control, "teachers must not argue with students, use profanity or sarcasm, and must keep hands off students." Petitioner's Code of Student Conduct for the 1992-93 school year describes the teacher's role in the maintenance of discipline as starting with the preparation of a classroom assertive discipline plan, which outlines a series of increasing consequences for disciplinary problems. Under the first step, the teacher will follow his or her plan, which may contain consequences such as withholding a privilege, isolation, counseling, detention, extra work, task assignment, or a parent conference. Under the second step, if the misconduct is repeated, the teacher shall try to contact the parent and record the result. Under the third step, the teacher will refer the matter to the social worker, school nurse, Guidance Committee, or School Attendance Review Committee for positive intervention. Under the fourth step, if the problem persists or the misconduct becomes a major disruption, the teacher will complete a student disciplinary referral form and a school administrator will determine the appropriate punishment. Evaluations Prior to 1991-92 School Year Respondent's evaluation dated November 13, 1985, contains all S's with the exception of an NI for circulating and assisting students. The evaluation was prepared by Donn Goodwin, an assistant principal at Sebring High School where Respondent was then teaching. Respondent's evaluation dated March 5, 1986, contains all S's except for C's in demonstrating friendly, positive attitude toward all students; maintaining academic focus; using effective questioning techniques; providing for practice; dependability; and punctuality/attendance. The evaluation contains one NI for parent/community relations. The comment accompanying the NI is obscured, but suggests that Respondent did not schedule enough parent conferences, although he did a good job with those that he conducted. The evaluation was prepared by James Bible, the principal of Sebring High School. Respondent's evaluation dated September 4, 1986, contains all S's except for C's in demonstrating effective communication skills, presenting subject matter effectively, maintaining academic focus, arranging physical features of the classroom for a safe learning environment, dependability, work attitude, and commitment. A note at the bottom of the evaluation states that Respondent maintained an "excellent class." The evaluation was prepared by Michael Agner, an assistant principal at Sebring High School. Respondent's evaluation dated February 25, 1987, contains all S's except for C's in maintaining academic focus and maintaining effective classroom control and an NI in using specific academic praise. The evaluation was prepared by Mr. Bible. Respondent's evaluation dated April 6, 1988, contains all S's except for C's in demonstrating effective communication skills, having materials ready, maintaining academic focus, using effective questioning techniques, punctuality/attendance, quantity/quality of work, commitment, and professional behavior/ethics. The evaluation was prepared by Mr. Bible. Respondent's evaluation dated February 28, 1989, contains all S's. A comment under parent/community relations notes: "Need to continue working in this area. Parental support helps your teaching." A comment under student/staff relations adds: "Need to be mindful of backing students in corners with no alternatives." The evaluation was prepared by Mr. Bible. Respondent's evaluation dated October 17, 1989, was obscured in the copying process. It appears to contain all S's with some C's in Section 1. The evaluation was prepared by Thomas Knowles, an assistant principal at Sebring High School. Respondent's evaluation dated October 3, 1990, contains all S's. The evaluation was prepared by Ruth Hatfield, then an assistant principal at Sebring High School. Respondent's evaluation dated February 20, 1991, contains all S's except for C's in having materials ready and circulating and assisting students and NI's in punctuality/attendance, student/staff relations, personal appearance, and receptiveness. Among the comments under Section 1 is that the observer did not see Respondent's assertive discipline rules posted. Section 2 comments are that Respondent was often late and "very defensive--refuses criticism." Under student/staff relations, the comment is: "Alienates students. Backs up kids in corners. Need to be aware of this." Another comment suggests a need to dress more professionally. The final comment states: "Need to work on areas that deal with students and parents." The evaluation was prepared by Mr. Bible. A letter dated May 13, 1991, memorializes a conference that took place on May 9, 1991, between Respondent and Rebecca Clark, another assistant principal at Sebring High School. The letter states that Ms. Clark had noticed Respondent leaving his class while two guest speakers were making a presentation. Upon questioning, Respondent said that he had to run a quick errand and would be right back. Ms. Clark remained in the classroom until the end of the period, at which time Respondent returned. The letter warns Respondent that he must remain with his class and may not leave campus without prior authorization from an administrator. Evaluations During 1991-92 School Year A new principal, Calvin Smith, replaced Mr. Bible at Sebring High School for the 1991-92 school year. Mr. Smith conducted Respondent's next evaluation, which was dated December 2, 1991. Based on an observation taking place during a 50- minute period on November 26, 1991, Respondent received all S's in Section 1 except for a C in presenting the subject matter effectively and an NI in using specific academic praise. In Section 2, Respondent received S's in only five categories: keeping accurate records, punctuality and attendance, initiative, student evaluation, and professional growth. Receiving no C's in Section 2, Respondent received three NI's in personal appearance, receptiveness, and commitment and seven MI's in dependability, work attitude, parent/community relations, student/staff relations, quantity/quality of work, planning, and professional behavior/ethics. The comments for the NI's are brief and in handwriting. Under receptiveness, the comment is: "seem[s] to be afraid of dealing with a problem. I am only trying to make you a better teacher." The comment under commitment states: "dedicate yourself to your job. You have too much talent to waste." Each MI is treated in a separate Professional Development Plan. The Professional Development Plans, which are attached to the December 2 evaluation, consist of several parts: "area to be improved," "desired improvement," "action to be taken," "who will provide assistance," "time line for achieving objectives/goal/improvement," "evaluation process to determine improvement," and "consequences if improvement is not satisfactorily achieved." Under parent/community relations, the desired improvement is: "When dealing with parents you must exhibit an air of professionalism but be understanding." The action to be taken is: "Schedule parent conferences as needed to resolve situations with students. Apologize for your actions if need be and start over with the situation." Under dependability, the desired improvement is: "Should show he is able to be counted on without constant badgering." The action to be taken is: "Submit lesson plans on time. Supply I[n] S[chool] S[uspension] students with work when requested. Meet with parents without being directed to do so. Learn to deal with students as an adult rather than getting into shouting matches, etc." Under student/staff relations, the desired improvement is: "Show you understand students by working with them in correcting deficiencies." The action to be taken is: "Don't get in students['] faces and yell at them. Don't allow things to go on and then establish a rule of the next one goes to the office. Learn to deal with student problems rather than expecting the office to handle the problem." Under work attitude, the desired improvement is: "Show that you like what you do. Turn students on to your subject. Work on faculty relations." The action to be taken is: "Be cooperative in dealing with parents, students, and faculty members. Present an atmosphere of enthusiasm that is contagious and infectious to those around you." Each Professional Development Plan states that assistance or training would be provided if requested by Respondent. For student/staff relations, the plan states: "Inservice will be provided by administrators as requested and a workshop may be recommended." Similar language is contained in the plan for work attitude. Under time line for achieving objectives/goal, improvement, each Professional Development Plan states: "Should show some immediate improvement but enough improvement must be shown prior to evaluation in 92/93 school year to remove the MI." Each Professional Development Plan describes the evaluation process to determine improvement as: "List kept of ineffective behaviors. [Respondent] will be given a copy of each item placed in folder." Each Professional Development Plan warns that, "if improvement is not satisfactorily achieved," there will be a "recommendation to place [Respondent] back on annual contract." By letter dated December 16, 1991, Mr. Smith refers to the evaluation and the evaluation conference that took place on December 5, 1991. The letter notes that one of the Professional Development Plans required Respondent to supply in-school suspension students with work when requested. The letter acknowledges that Respondent had said at the conference that he would take care of all of the MI's. The December 16 letter notes that Respondent had already failed to provide make-up work for five named students who had been sent to in-school suspension. Students punished by in-school suspension are prohibited from attending their classes, but are sent to another part of the school. It is important for their teachers to provide their assignments, so the students can study the same materials that the teacher is presenting to their classes. The December 16 letter concludes: "Repeated cases of this problem will lead to my recommendation to the superintendent that you be suspended without pay for five (5) days for gross insubordination." Respondent received a second evaluation from Mr. Smith during the 1991-92 school year. Dated March 3, 1992, the second evaluation is slightly worse than the first. Section 1 contains the same C for the presentation of the subject matter and NI for using specific academic praise. A new NI appears in Section 1 for demonstrating friendly attitude toward all students, and a new MI appears for maintaining effective classroom control. The new MI rating appears to be based in part on Respondent's allowing several students to have food and drink in the classroom after telling one student to dispose of his food or drink. In Section 2, Respondent received five S's, as he did in the first evaluation, as planning went from MI to S and punctuality/attendance went from S to NI. Work attitude improved from MI to NI, but personal appearance and receptiveness went from NI to MI. A written comment states that dependability improved some, but not enough to remove the MI. The MI's on the March 3 evaluation are again the subject of attached Professional Development Plans. Under dependability, the desired improvement is: "Show you are able to be counted on without constant badgering." The action to be taken is: "Learn to deal with students without being sarcastic or getting into shouting matches. Student and parent complaints are numerous." Under parent/community relations, the desired improvement is: "Exhibit an air of professionalism in meetings with parents." The action to be taken is: "Schedule parent conferences as needed to resolve situations with students. Apologize for your actions if need be and start over. Show parents you care about their child." Under student/staff relations, the desired improvement is: "Work with students in correcting deficiencies." The action to be taken is: "Learn to deal with student problems. Be more friendly. Be consistent in your discipline but be fair." Under receptiveness, the desired improvement is: "Be able to listen to constructive criticism and follow suggestions made by administration." the action to be taken is: "Follow rules and regulations established for personnel and students at Sebring High School rather than defying directions given by an administrator." Each of the Professional Development Plans states that the administration will provide assistance or training if requested to do so by Respondent. The time line for achieving objectives/goal/improvement is now "immediate" for the cited areas. There is no longer any mention of the removal of MI's, except that the Professional Development Plan for student/staff relations requires: "Immediate improvement--MI must be removed prior to October 92 visitation." The consequence of Respondent's failure to remove the MI's remains returning him to annual contract. The March 3 evaluation is followed by a letter dated March 9, 1992, from Mr. Smith to the superintendent. Mr. Smith writes that Respondent has not improved since the December 2 evaluation and recommends that Respondent be placed on annual contract for the following school year. The Grievance Process On March 13, 1992, Respondent filed a grievance seeking a list of specific remedies for each MI in the March 3 evaluation, adherence to the NEAT procedure, a reconfirmation of the deadline stated in the December 2 evaluation of 1992-93 "for remediation," withdrawal of the recommendation that Respondent be returned to annual contract, and transfer of Respondent to another position where he could be evaluated by someone not part of the current Sebring High School administration. Mr. Smith responded to the grievance with two documents, both dated April 7, 1992. In a three-page memorandum, Mr. Smith recounted the December 2 evaluation, noting that Respondent's "statement to all of this (as he signed the assessment and the PDP's) was, 'You mean all I have to do is correct these and I will get satisfactories?'" The April 7 memorandum notes that the March 3 evaluation was worse than the December 2 evaluation. Despite the fact that, with one exception, the March 3 evaluation did not equate correction with the removal of MI's, the April 7 memorandum states: "[Respondent] still has until the 1992-93 assessment to remove the MI's from his assessment. However, if he does not, he will be notified of non-renewal of a contract for 1993-94." Attached to the April 7 memorandum are "Specific Remedies for Must Improve." These remedies track the areas receiving MI's in the evaluations and discussion in the Professional Development Plans. Under maintaining effective classroom control, the April 7 attachment informs Respondent that he is to ensure that his students follow the rules. Under dependability, the April 7 attachment gives 12 examples of assignments that Respondent must perform. These include timely providing grades for meetings of the School Attendance Review Committee, remaining current with printed attendance sheets, submitting in-school suspension assignments when requested, arriving and leaving on time, not leaving the classroom unattended, and not allowing the students to break the rules. Under parent/community relations, the April 7 attachment states that Respondent should meet with parents at his initiative rather than waiting until irate parents demand a conference after hearing their child's complaints. Also, the attachment advises Respondent to be "gentle" with parents and not be negative. The attachment suggests that Respondent return parents' telephone calls. Under student/staff relations, the April 7 attachment warns Respondent not to back students into a corner. The attachment notes that many reports indicate that Respondent uses sarcasm with students and then disciplines them when they reciprocate with sarcasm. The attachment recommends, "Work on your personality to be more accepting and understanding of students." Under quantity/quality of work, the April 7 attachment suggests that Respondent spend more time on grammar rather than literature alone. The attachment suggests that Respondent should become involved with students' activities so that they know that he cares about them, as well as about what they learn. Under receptiveness, the April 7 attachment notes a lack of desire by Respondent to change his attitude about the providing in-school suspension assignments. Under professional behavior/ethics, the April 7 attachment recommends that Respondent not retaliate against students. It is unclear exactly what Mr. Smith means by "retaliate"; it may mean confront the students in class or respond to the students' sarcasm with sarcasm. By letter dated May 13, 1992, Deputy Superintendent John Martin decided the grievance by determining that Petitioner would grant Respondent a subsequent year of employment, under a subsequent year or annual contract, to correct the indicated deficiencies, and, if Respondent "corrects the indicated deficiencies," he would be given a new professional service contract. The May 13 letter also states that Respondent would be transferred, as he had requested. Respondent chose not to pursue additional grievance procedures available to him, so the grievance was resolved at this point. On May 15, 1992, Petitioner informed Respondent that he had been appointed for a "subsequent year of employment . . . on annual contract pursuant to Florida Statute 231.26(3)(e)." On June 23, 1992, Petitioner and Respondent executed a contract for a "'subsequent year of employment,' as that term is used in 231.36(3)(e), Florida Statutes . . .," for the 1992-93 school year. The 1991-92 School Year During the 1991-92 school year at Sebring High School, Respondent experienced problems in his relationship with the students and parents and in his inability to fulfill certain important responsibilities imposed on each teacher. With students, Respondent was often sarcastic. When the students returned in like kind, Respondent took offense and disciplined them, often with a disciplinary referral to the office. Mr. Smith witnessed a half dozen confrontations between Respondent and students in the main office where Respondent made derogatory remarks to the students. With parents, Respondent often failed to behave professionally in parent/teacher conferences. He walked out on one conference involving a parent who was also a teacher at Sebring High School. He often responded negatively to parents and sometimes failed to follow through on conferences or even return parents' telephone calls. Respondent was often late in fulfilling his duties. He was frequently late in getting his grades or attendance sheets to the Student Attendance Review Committee, which consisted of a guidance counsellor, an administrator, student's teachers, and student's parents who met periodically to discuss a student's attendance problems. Respondent consistently failed to submit assignments for students who had been assigned to in-school suspension. Each of the deficiencies described in the preceding paragraph interfered materially with Respondent's performance as a teacher. With respect to each of these deficiencies, Respondent was materially worse than his fellow teachers at Sebring High School. The resulting evaluations were the worst ever given by Mr. Smith, who describes himself as a hard evaluator. Evaluations During the 1992-93 School Year As Respondent demanded in the grievance, Petitioner transferred Respondent to Lake Placid High School for the 1992- 93 school year. He was assigned to teach English to all of the ninth grade students except those in honors and dropout prevention. On November 3, 1992, Respondent received his first evaluation at Lake Placid High School. He received all S's except for C's in demonstrating effective communication skills, and student evaluations and NI's in maintaining academic focus and maintaining effective classroom control. The evaluation was prepared by David Robinson, who was an assistant principal. On February 25, 1993, Respondent received a second evaluation for the 1992-93 school year. This evaluation, which was prepared by the principal, Roger Goddard, was worse than the first. There were no C's, and there were NI's in demonstrating friendly attitude toward all students, maintaining academic focus, parent/community relations, student/staff relations, receptiveness, and professional behavior/ethics. Under the comments in Section 1 of the February 25 evaluation, a note reads: "Needs skills in [knowing] when to use in-class discipline or office referral." The handwritten comments under Section 2 note that Respondent "had difficulty dealing with parents in conferences an/or returning phone calls" and "lack[s] rapport with students, staff, and administration." The handwritten comments state that Respondent is "many times defensive during conferences with administrators" and "needs a better procedure with make-up work utilizing school policy." By letter dated March 19, 1993, Dr. Goddard informed Respondent that he would be unable to reappoint Respondent for employment at Lake Placid High School for the following school year. Respondent asked Dr. Goddard to perform another evaluation, and Dr. Goddard did so on April 23, 1993. There were fewer NI's than in the February 25 evaluation, but the evaluation was not much better. Under Section 1, Respondent received all S's except for an NI in demonstrating a friendly attitude toward all students. An anecdotal comment adds: "There have been over 70 referrals for discipline during the year. This is as many as 20 other teachers combined." Under Section 2, Respondent received all S's except for three NI's in parent/community relations, student/staff relations, and receptiveness. Accompanying handwritten notes state that Respondent "still shows difficulty in dealing with parent conferences," "still lacks understanding of role of assistant principal [and] staff," and "many times still defensive regarding suggestions from administration." By letter dated April 26, 1993, Dr. Goddard advised Respondent that he could not change his original recommendation given on March 19. The letter states that the recommendation is based on the need for a change in the ability to handle discipline effectively within the classroom, handle parent conferences without conflict, and be receptive to administrative suggestions without a defensive attitude. By letter dated April 30, 1993, to Dr. Goddard, Respondent states, in part: . . . Some administrators are possessed by a sort of spectral indifference, and look at their fellow beings as ghosts. For them, teachers and other staff members are often merely vague shadowy forms, hardly distinct from the nebulous background of such a life, and easily blended with the invisible. But you, Dr. Goddard, are an honorable man and I believe, from our conversations, that you really care about the parents, staff, and students of our school. . . . Respondent's letter to Dr. Goddard discusses the preceding evaluation and asks for an opportunity to continue teaching. By letter dated May 25, 1993, Superintendent Richard Farmer states that Dr. Goddard had informed Mr. Farmer that Respondent had not successfully removed all deficiencies from his evaluation. The letter advises Respondent that his annual contract was expiring, Dr. Goddard had decided not to issue Respondent another annual contract, and, according to Section 231.36(4), Florida Statutes, Petitioner would not issue him a new professional service contract. By notice to the Florida Department of Education dated June 2, 1993, Dr. Goddard advised that, after two consecutive unsatisfactory annual evaluations, Respondent's employment with Petitioner was being terminated or not renewed. The 1992-93 School Year Despite the absence of MI's on the 1992-93 evaluations, the problems Respondent had experienced with students, parents, and administrators in 1991-92 worsened in 1992-93. With respect to relations with students, the basic problem is that Respondent reverted to sarcasm at Lake Placid High School, and his students reciprocated, just as his students at Sebring High School had done the prior year. Sarcasm bred sarcasm, which bred disciplinary referrals--125 of them in fact. Respondent outdistanced his nearest competitor in disciplinary referrals by 2.5 times. On two separate days, Respondent submitted more than 10 disciplinary referrals--more than most teachers submitted all year. As Dr. Goddard's comment notes, Respondent issued more disciplinary referrals than a score of his colleagues. The huge number of disciplinary referrals did not mean that Respondent was maintaining firm control of his classes. To the contrary, he was not able to maintain firm control of his classes, partly due to the atmosphere of mutual disrespect that his sarcasm engendered. The number of disciplinary referrals indicated that Respondent had lost control of the situation and tried to shift to the administrators the job of regaining control of his classroom. A major part of the problem, in addition to Respondent's sarcasm, was his inability to adhere to his own assertive discipline plan. Respondent's assertive discipline plan, which was duly posted in his classroom, contains the following consequences in increasing order of severity: warning, contact parents, detention, and office referral. Sometime during the school year, Respondent switched the second and third consequences, so that he would place a student on detention before he would contact the parents. This change was duly posted in the classroom. Respondent's assertive discipline plan is satisfactory, but he never adhered to it. Sometimes he gave detentions, but then failed to appear at the location where the students were to serve the detentions. Sometimes Respondent simply placed the offending students in the hall where they remained, unsupervised, in violation of school rules. Sometimes Respondent gave warnings, and often he gave disciplinary referrals. But he displayed an aversion to parent/teacher conferences by almost invariably omitting the step that required him to contact a parent. Nearly all disciplinary referrals were made prior to this step taking place, and many were made prior to giving the student a detention. Respondent clung doggedly to his sarcasm despite all efforts to free him from this habitual behavior. Dr. Goddard intervened at one point during a parent/teacher conference and prevailed upon Respondent to stop using sarcasm against the student who was the subject of the conference. Respondent's response was to post a sign in his room indicating a "moratorium" in the use of sarcasm--intentionally implying that the cessation in sarcasm would be temporary. At times, Respondent lashed out at students with hurtful remarks lacking even the thin veneer of humor. He told one student that he would be a serial killer. He told another student that he would never be rich and successful. He repeatedly referred publicly to one student as a witch and asked if she had taken her Midol. In front of another student's mother, as well as other teachers and Mr. Robinson during a parent/teacher conference, Respondent referred to a girl as "bitchy." Respondent refused to accommodate valid student needs, such as the unusual demands placed on one child by a disabled brother. The regressive effect on students of Respondent's embittered and embittering classroom presence was unwittingly reflected in another student's class journal. His early entries demonstrated an emotional vulnerability as he depicted his simple, rural lifestyle; his later entries were defiantly copied out of textbooks, magazines, or encyclopedias. As a result of Respondent's poor relations with students, more than one student quit Respondent's class, even if it meant taking English in summer school or another school or dropping out of high school altogether. One parent checked her son out of school just long enough that he would not have to attend Respondent's class. By the end of the 1992-93 school year, morale among Respondent's students and their parents was a very serious problem. Respondent's relationship with parents was, if possible, even worse than his relationship with students, although his contact with parents was less frequent. During one meeting with a father in the main office, the parent and Respondent had a heated exchange. Mr. Robinson intervened and diplomatically tried to end the conference. After the parent had started to walk away, Respondent restarted the argument and approached the parent until their noses were touching. Mr. Robinson again broke up what had transformed from a conference into a confrontation, and again Respondent reinitiated the engagement. Again, Mr. Robinson had to break up the argument. Mr. Robinson attended another parent/teacher conference in which the mother, according to Respondent, looked at him with "eyes . . . like daggers." (Tr 541) The mother observed that her daughter had no problems in any other classes but Respondent's class. The parent charged that Respondent's class was out of control. Respondent saw that Mr. Robinson was not "going to fulfil his role as mediator," so Respondent got up, announced that "I'm not going to take this damn stuff anymore," and walked out of the conference. (Tr 542) At first glance, Respondent's relationship with the administrators seems better than his relationships with the students and parents, but this is due to the professionalism of Dr. Goddard, inexperience of Mr. Robertson, and uninvolvement of Ms. Hatfield. For different reasons, each administrator at the school responded differently to Respondent's increasingly bizarre behavior and in no case did any administrator at the school ever lose his or her composure in dealing with Respondent. Respondent believes that he has been unfairly treated by every administrator at Lake Placid High School, and at least two at Sebring High School. Interestingly, Ms. Hatfield had given Respondent his last evaluation-- in October, 1990--without an NI or MI. However, without any evident provocation, Respondent demanded that the other assistant principal, Mr. Robinson, handle Respondent's evaluations and disciplinary referrals. Respondent was apprehensive that Ms. Hatfield might be biased due to her past service at Sebring High School. In November, 1992, Ms. Hatfield had a conference with Respondent and cautioned him that she was receiving a number of student complaints about his use of sarcasm. Respondent's reaction was to request that he be evaluated by Mr. Robinson, who was in his first year of service as an assistant principal. In retrospect, Respondent's demand proved unwise. As evidenced by his treatment of another teacher, Mr. Robinson displayed a heightened sensitivity toward humor directed at students, even if the humor did not seem sarcastic at all. Thus, Mr. Robinson's concern about Respondent's sarcasm was not due to bias against Respondent, but was due to Mr. Robinson's concern that students be treated with dignity and respect. But, as noted above, even without Mr. Robinson's heightened concern about humor, Respondent's sarcasm exceeded the wildest imaginable limits. Dr. Goddard intervened after the first evaluation. Respondent's concern about bias defies reason and logic when applied to Dr. Goddard, who counselled Respondent and gave him an opportunity to discover for himself the shortcomings of his defensive style of dealing with students, parents, and administrators. To imply that Dr. Goddard's evaluations were orchestrated by individuals at Sebring High School or the district office is to ignore reality. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the very lack of coordination presents legal problems that could have easily been avoided with the smallest amount of coordination. Respondent had trouble with nearly every administrator. And Respondent consistently found himself the blameless target of unwarranted persecution. His paranoia interfered with his ability to do his job. This fact is best illustrated by the time that Dr. Goddard instructed the teachers to clean up their rooms in preparation for a visit that night by the school board. Respondent wrote the following on his chalkboard to be read by the school board members: "The fact that you're paranoid doesn't mean that they are not out to get you." In addition to problems with students, parents, and administrators, Respondent continued to display an inability to fulfill his important responsibilities. He failed to appear at ninth grade orientation at the beginning of the school year, despite the fact that he was a new teacher at the school and taught most of the ninth graders. Respondent routinely failed to supply grades to students for whom guidance counsellors were trying to prepare weekly progress reports in order to monitor the students' progress more closely than is possible with report cards. Respondent was routinely resistant to assigning make- up work. Students would have to pursue him for days to get assignments, until finally Respondent decided to write these up on the chalkboard. On more than one occasion, Respondent's solution--when pushed by parents or administrators--was to avoid the extra work imposed upon him by grading additional materials; rather than assign make-up work or tests, Respondent would simply not penalize the student for the missed assignment, such as by doubling the weight of the next grade. There is no evidence that the administration at Lake Placid High School learned of Respondent's 1991-92 evaluations at Sebring High School until Respondent mentioned them when he received his first evaluation at Lake Placid High School. There is no evidence that the actions taken by the administration at Lake Placid High School were influenced by anything except the Respondent's performance during the 1992-93 school year. Respondent was warned about his problems in evaluations going as far back as the 1980's when Respondent was evaluated by Mr. Bible. The March, 1986 evaluation identifies Respondent's reluctance to deal with parents. The February, 1989 evaluation suggests that Respondent lacked the support of parents and was placing students on the defensive. In the February, 1991 evaluation, Mr. Bible warned Respondent that he needed to improve in several areas, including student/staff relations and receptiveness to criticism from administrators. Again, Mr. Bible pointed out that Respondent was alienating students. Respondent's problems, which culminated in the exceptionally bad evaluations during the 1991-92 school year, largely represented a continuation of problems that had been identified in one manner or another for the preceding five years. But instead of correcting the problems, Respondent had allowed them to get worse. These problems were described in greater detail in the 1991-92 and 1992-93 evaluations due to the deterioration of Respondent's behavior. Petitioner provided Respondent with reasonable assistance in remediating his performance deficiencies. Dr. Goddard made numerous additional visits to Respondent's classroom, and he and other administrators routinely talked to Respondent. After the first evaluation in November, 1992, Mr. Robinson twice recommended to Respondent that he rely on his assertive discipline plan because he was referring too many students to the office. After discovering how poorly Respondent handled parent conferences, administrators ensured that appropriate persons participated in Respondent's conferences to model suitable behavior. In early February, 1993, Mr. Robinson gave Respondent a set of assertive discipline tapes to view to assist in imposing proper discipline in his class. This intervention preceded the February 25 evaluation by almost three weeks. About one week prior to the February 25 evaluation, Mr. Robinson suggested that Respondent attend a workshop on parent/teacher conferences. Respondent attended the workshop. Evidently arranged prior to the February 25 evaluation, Respondent went to a high school in another district to observe a ninth-grade English teacher. The practical effect of this assistance is attenuated by the fact that the February 25 evaluation preceded the visit, although the visit preceded the March 19 non-appointment letter, April 23 follow-up evaluation, and April 26 follow-up letter. The extent of the assistance effectively offered Respondent must be evaluated in the context of Respondent's problems. He was not an ineffective teacher due to an inadequate grasp of the course material or inability to present material imaginatively. To the contrary, Respondent is a highly intelligent, literate individual who is intellectual capable of being an outstanding teacher. If his problems were in his understanding of the material or an inability to find the methods to convey the material to his students, a program of assistance and inservice workshops probably could be designed to provide meaningful help. Instead, Respondent needed to stop disparaging students. He needed to stop confronting parents. He needed to stop ignoring administrators who were trying to stop Respondent from disparaging students and confronting parents. But Respondent simply refused to change his ways, and no amount of videotapes, inservice workshops, school visits, evaluation follow-ups, and informal discussions were going to help. Respondent was given a second chance when he was transferred to Lake Placid High School. But instead of addressing the source of the problem-- himself--he attacked students, parents, and administrators. He avoided performing rigorously all of his teaching duties, such as enforcing his assertive disciplinary plan and its graduated response to misbehavior, promptly providing make-up work, and sending interim grades when needed. Instead, he inexplicably continued to bicker with the students, provoke the parents, and defy the legitimate demands of the administrators.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Highlands County enter a final order not issuing Respondent a new professional service contract. ENTERED on January 13, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on January 13, 1993. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-6: adopted or adopted in substance. 7-8: rejected as irrelevant. 9-18: adopted or adopted in substance. 19: rejected as irrelevant. 20-35: adopted or adopted in substance. 36: rejected as irrelevant. 37-39: adopted or adopted in substance. 40: rejected as irrelevant. Nothing requires that Petitioner make "every effort" to help Respondent through the means cited. 41: adopted or adopted in substance. 42: rejected as subordinate. 43-44: adopted or adopted in substance. 45: rejected as irrelevant. 46: adopted or adopted in substance. 47-48 (first three sentences): rejected as irrelevant. 48 (last sentence)-53: adopted or adopted in substance. 54-56: rejected as irrelevant. 57-59: adopted or adopted in substance. 60-61: rejected as irrelevant. 62: adopted or adopted in substance. 63: rejected as irrelevant. 64-65: adopted or adopted in substance. 66: rejected as subordinate. 67-69: adopted or adopted in substance. 70: rejected as subordinate. 71-74: adopted or adopted in substance. 75-76: rejected as subordinate. 77-78: adopted or adopted in substance. 79: rejected as hearsay. 80-85: adopted or adopted in substance. 86: rejected as irrelevant. 87-92: adopted or adopted in substance. 93: rejected as subordinate. 94: rejected as irrelevant. 95-100: adopted or adopted in substance. 101: rejected as irrelevant. In fact, to permit either student to leave the classroom would violate Paragraph 11 of the Classroom Management section of the Teacher Handbook. 102: rejected as irrelevant. Mr. Smith wore sunglasses indoors during part of the hearing. 103-04: rejected as irrelevant. 105: rejected as subordinate. 106-17 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 117 (second sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 118: rejected as irrelevant and subordinate. 119: rejected as hearsay. 120-34: adopted or adopted in substance. 135-37: rejected as irrelevant. 138: adopted or adopted in substance. 139: rejected as irrelevant. 140: adopted or adopted in substance. 141: rejected as irrelevant. 142-43: adopted or adopted in substance. 144: rejected as subordinate. 145-46: adopted or adopted in substance. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-7: adopted or adopted in substance. 8-10: rejected as irrelevant. 11-14: adopted or adopted in substance. 15-17 (first sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 17 (second sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 18-19: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 20: adopted or adopted in substance. 21-22: rejected as subordinate. 23-24: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 25-26: rejected as subordinate. 27-28 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 28 (second sentence)-29: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 30: adopted or adopted in substance. 31: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 32: rejected as subordinate. 33: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 34: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. This provision governs only when Petitioner must refer matters to the Department of Education. 35: rejected as subordinate. 36: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 37-39: adopted or adopted in substance except as to meaningful follow-up conferences. 40-41: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 42: rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Superintendent Richard Farmer Highlands County School District 426 School St. Sebring, FL 33870-4048 Commissioner Doug Jamerson Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 James F. McCollum James F. McCollum, P.A. 129 S. Commerce Ave. Sebring, FL 33870-3698 Anthony D. Demma Meyer and Brooks, P.A. P.O. Box 1547 Tallahassee, FL 32302
The Issue Respondent's continued employment with the Dade County Public Schools, as set forth in minutes of the School Board for October 19, 1977.
Findings Of Fact During the 1975-1976 and 1976-1977 academic school years, Respondent was an employee of the Petitioner as a teacher at the Richmond Heights Junior High School. (Stipulation) By order of the State Board of Education, dated September 20, 1977, the teaching certificate of Respondent, Department of Education Number 3436, was suspended for a period of two years. The matter is currently being appealed to the First District Court of Appeal. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, Stipulation) On October 19, 1977, Respondent was suspended without pay from his position by Petitioner due to the suspension of his teaching certificate by the State Board of Education. On October 31, 1977, Respondent requested a hearing in the matter. Petitioner provided Respondent with formal notice of charges on December 13, 1977, seeking his dismissal from employment with the school system. Respondent became a teacher in 1937 and has been employed in that capacity by Petitioner since 1961. He testified at the hearing to the effect that, in his opinion, the present proceedings are improper in that the action by the State Board of Education was premature and should not have been taken until the charges upon which such action was based had been considered by Petitioner in administrative proceedings. Respondent sought to introduce character testimony in his behalf by a number of witnesses, but upon objection by Petitioner, such testimony was not permitted by the Hearing Officer as it would be irrelevant to the proceedings. The proffered testimony would have shown that the witnesses had all known the Respondent for a lengthy period of time and that he is a dedicated employee of the school system who has served his community and church as an example for students. (Testimony of Anders, Respondent)
Recommendation That Respondent, Raphu S. Williams, be dismissed from employment as a teacher by the School Board of Dade County, Florida, under the authority of Section 231.36(4), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of April, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jesse McCrary, Esquire Dade County Public Schools Lindsey Hopkins Building 1410 Northeast 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Elizabeth DuFresne, Esquire One Biscayne Tower Suite 1782 Miami, Florida 33131 Phyllis O. Douglas, Esquire Dade County Public Schools Administrative Office Lindsey Hopkins Building 1410 Northeast 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of the conduct alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: Petitioner is authorized to operate, control and supervise all public schools within the School District of Dade County, Florida. At all times material to the specific charges in this case, Respondent, Norris L. Barker, was employed by Petitioner as a teacher with the Dade County school system. Pursuant to a one-year contract, the terms of which are not in evidence, Respondent was employed in September, 1987, as a math teacher at Miami Southridge Senior High School (Southridge). During the spring of 1987, prior to his employment with Petitioner, Respondent wrote to several school systems offering to donate Xerox memorywriters to the respective schools through a fund raising project which the various school systems were requested to endorse or promote. It was Respondent's goal to raise $8 million to be used to purchase the equipment. The Dade County Public Schools, through the then Superintendent, declined to endorse the fund raising project. After Respondent became employed with the Petitioner, he continued with his plan to raise money for education. Eventually, the project became known to Mr. Rodgers, the principal at Southridge, who advised Respondent that the school could not sanction the fund raising activities and that Respondent would have to obtain permission from a higher administrative source. Respondent did not receive permission to utilize the school name or the endorsement of the school district. As principal, Mr. Rodgers routinely makes informal observation visits to classrooms. These visits are intended as an informal review of the particular class or teacher. The duration of such visits is generally brief, lasting only a few minutes, and no written report or evaluation is made as a result of such visits. During Respondent's time at Southridge, Mr. Rodgers made several such informal visits to Respondent's class. Mr. Rodgers determined, as a result of the informal visits, that Respondent needed assistance with classroom management. This was indicated due to the number of students who were "off task" in Respondent's class. Mr. Rodgers felt that Respondent needed help in finding ways to keep the students working, not talking. On November 23, 1987, Respondent wrote a letter to Mr. Rodgers which expressed Respondent's concern that discipline problems among the ninth graders would adversely affect their performance on the SSAT. Apparently, Respondent believed the disruptive behavior of a few students was adversely influencing the learning conditions for the rest of the class. On November 24, 1987, William Machado, assistant principal in charge of the math department, performed a formal observation of Respondent. This observation was in accordance with the teacher assessment and development system and recorded Respondent's deficiencies in several specific areas of performance. It also provided a prescription plan for performance improvement which offered constructive comments to assist Respondent in deficient areas. Of the six areas evaluated, Mr. Machado found Respondent had problems and was deficient in four: knowledge of the subject, preparation and planning, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. Respondent was required to complete the prescription plan activities before January 11, 1988. All four of the prescription plan activities required Respondent to refer to the Prescription Manual which was available to Respondent. Further, with regard to Respondent's lesson plans, he was to seek the assistance of Jean Freedman, the math department head. Respondent talked briefly with Ms. Freedman and she offered him the benefit of her lesson book as an example of the type of plan Mr. Machado wanted Respondent to provide. As a means of further assistance, Respondent was to visit peer teachers' rooms to observe how the suggested activities might be incorporated into the teaching setting. Respondent did not submit the lesson plans in accordance with the prescription for performance improvement. There is no evidence as to whether or not he visited peer teachers' rooms. He did not observe Ms. Freedman's class as recommended. In the period immediately following Respondent's formal evaluation, he was absent from school a number of days the total of which exceeded his authorized sick leave. On December 19, 1987, Respondent climbed a 150 foot Southern Bell relay tower located on private property. It was Respondent's stated intention to remain atop the structure to raise $8 million for education. Respondent left a note stating that if the money were not raised by January 4, he would "meet God." Respondent did not have provisions for an extended stay. He was dressed in short pants, tennis shoes and a short-sleeved shirt. The weather conditions that evening were quite cool. Officer Collins responded to a call regarding Respondent's presence atop the tower. He unsuccessfully attempted to talk Respondent into coming down. When his efforts failed, Officer Collins requested negotiators who then talked with Respondent for several hours in further effort to have him voluntarily come down. These efforts also failed. After some four hours, the SWAT team came in to remove Respondent from the tower. Members of this team scaled the tower from Respondent's blind side and forced Respondent into the bucket of a fire truck extension ladder. Afterwards, Officer Collins took Respondent to the crisis intervention center where he was involuntarily committed for observation. He was released following a two day period of observation. The incident of Respondent's tower climbing was widely published in Miami newspapers and received coverage on local radio and television stations. These accounts of the incident identified Respondent as a Dade County high school teacher and, in some instances, identified Southridge. As a result of the media coverage, Mr. Rodgers received telephone calls from concerned parents and teachers regarding Respondent's conduct. On January 7, 1988, Mr. Rodgers recommended that Respondent be dismissed from employment at Southridge. The recommendation was based upon Respondent's performance in the classroom (TADS observation 11/24), Respondent's lack of professional judgment as shown by his conduct on December 19, 1987, the concerns expressed by parents and students regarding Respondent's emotional and mental fitness to regain control of students assigned to his classes, and the degree of public notoriety given to the incident of December 19. When Respondent attempted to return to Southridge on January 6, 1988, he was referred to the Office of Professional Standards and has not returned to the classroom.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the School Board of Dade County enter a final order confirming the administrative decision to terminate the employment of Respondent for just cause stemming from his misconduct in office. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 21st day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of November, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-0599 Rulings on Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Paragraph 1 is accepted to the extent that it provides Respondent was employed by a one year contract and assigned to Southridge. It is presumed the year intended was the entire 1987-88 school year. Paragraphs 2-6 are accepted. Paragraph 3 is rejected to the extent that it concludes Respondent did not try to improve. While the evidence established Respondent did not complete lesson plans as requested, there is no evidence that he did not try to do so. Also, while he did not visit Mrs. Freedman's class, he may have visited other master teachers for assistance. The record does not establish whether or not he could have met the prescriptions had he not been absent or had he been able to return after the holidays. Paragraph 8 is accepted. Paragraph 9 is accepted. Paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 are accepted. Rulings on Respondent's proposed findings of fact: Respondent's paragraphs while not identified as findings of fact will be treated as such and considered in order as presented. The first paragraph is rejected as argument, or conclusions unsupported by the record. The first two sentences of the second paragraph are accepted. The remainder of that paragraph is rejected as speculation, unsupported by the record in this cause. With regard to the numbered paragraphs the following rulings are made: Paragraph 1 is rejected. While it is clear that the evaluation cannot be considered proof of Respondent's inadequate knowledge of the subject matter, there is no evidence as to how the computation was made to reach that conclusion (the TADS criteria) nor is there evidence that Mr. Machado was "over zealous." The deficient area was one of four which Respondent would have had to work on had he chosen to refrain from other conduct which further eroded his effectiveness as a teacher. Paragraph 2 is rejected as unsupported by the record. Paragraph 3 is rejected as argument, unsupported by the record. Paragraph 4 is accepted. Paragraph 5 is rejected as, contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 6 is accepted only to the extent that it suggests the fund raiser was not done in the name of the school or the board. When a private interest is pursued, the teacher must take reasonable steps to assure that the activity is not associated with the employer. To the extent that failing to take reasonable precaution would lead to public notoriety and adverse publicity, Respondent is accountable. Paragraph 7 is rejected as comment, argument or contrary to the evidence admitted in this cause. There is, however, no finding that Respondent wrongfully utilized the school name or misrepresented the board's interest in his project. Paragraph 8 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 9 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 10 is rejected as conclusion or argument. No finding has been made to suggest Respondent suffers from a mental illness. Paragraph 11 is rejected as conclusion or argument. Paragraphs 12-17 are rejected as conclusions or argument in some instances unsupported by the record or contrary to the weight of the evidence presented. COPIES FURNISHED: Norris L. Barker 420 Northeast 18th Avenue, Unit #9 Homestead Florida 33030 Jaime Claudio Bovell 370 Minorca Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Mrs. Madelyn P. Schere Assistant School Board Attorney School Board of Dade County Board Administration Building, Suite 301 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Betty Castor Commission of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Dr. Joseph A. Fernandez Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools School Board Administration Building Annex 1550 North Miami Avenue Miami, Florida 33136
