The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent should be suspended or dismissed from her employment with the School Board of Dade County, Florida (Board).
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses the following findings of fact are made: Respondent was employed as a first grade elementary school teacher at Fulford Elementary School during the 1988-89 school year. In September, 1988, the principal at Fulford Elementary, Mrs. Pope, asked the primary education coordinator for region 2, Mrs. Neely, to perform an observation and assessment of all primary teachers at Fulford. Accordingly, Mrs. Neely observed all classrooms for grades kindergarten through three and made recommendations to the teachers and Mrs. Pope. Mrs. Neely visited respondent's classroom on several occasions and observed the Respondent's treatment of students and her teaching methods. Respondent did not follow the lesson plan for the daily lesson, did not have a schedule to specify times for subjects to be taught, and did not have a based reading program as required by the board. When Mrs Neely attempted to counsel Respondent in order to assist her to correct these deficiencies, Respondent became hostile and argumentative. During one visit Mrs. Neely observed the Respondent chasing students around the classroom. At first Mrs. Neely assumed the conduct to be a game of some type. When the conduct continued for several minutes without interruption or comment from Respondent, Mrs. Neely realized that the class was out of control and that the Respondent was unable to restore order. Consequently, Mrs. Neely took charge and got the children into their seats. When she instructed the class to get quiet, Respondent also took her chair and refused to speak. Ultimately, Mrs. Neely taught the class for the remainder of the lesson. Respondent refused to cooperate with Mrs. Neely and did not correct the deficiencies in teaching and class management which Mrs. Neely observed. During a portion of October and November, 1988, Vincent Golden was assigned to Respondent's classroom to work as a teacher's aide. During the three weeks he was with Respondent's class, Mr. Golden observed Respondent on a daily basis. Twice during this period Respondent grabbed a student named Devon by the throat to reprimand inappropriate conduct. On another occasion Respondent grabbed a female student by the hair in order to chastise the student. In a fourth incident, Mr. Golden heard the Respondent instruct students in the class to chase down another student. This chase resulted after Respondent had thrown off her own shoes, failed at catching the student within the room, and had become frustrated the student bolted from the classroom. Mrs. Pope apprehended the errant student and Respondent's posse in the halls. During the fall of 1988, Mary Williams was employed as a systems aide at Fulford Elementary. On one occasion she observed two students outside of Respondent's classroom who were unable to open the door because Respondent and a student were holding it closed from the inside. One of the students was crying hysterically and was taken to the library to calm down. On a second occasion Respondent refused to allow a new student who was handicapped into her room. Mrs. Williams went to Respondent's classroom almost everyday to ask Respondent for her reading groups. It was Ms. Williams' responsibility to enter the reading group information into the school computer. Respondent refused to provide the reading group rosters. During the fall of 1988, Charles Mixon supervised a maintenance crew at Fulford Elementary. One day while Mr. Mixon was observing a crew mowing the lawn adjacent to Respondent's room, he saw Respondent shove two students out of the classroom. Mixon then overheard Respondent tell the students to fight outside if they wished to continue. The students were then left in the hall unsupervised. On another occasion Mr. Mixon overheard the Respondent tell a teacher to kiss her backside. Mr. Mixon watched Respondent make the comment as she pulled her dress halfway up. Lossie Jordan was an exceptional education teacher at Fulford Elementary during the 1988-89 school year. On one morning Ms. Jordan was in the office copying some materials when Respondent approached her and asked her if she had a squirrel for her. When Mrs. Jordan replied in the negative and asked Respondent why she would ask that, Respondent told her that a woman had come to her house the day before to tell her to ask Mrs. Jordan that question. No further explanation was offered by Respondent. A second incident occurred when Respondent entered Mrs. Jordan's classroom to drop students of for instruction. Mrs. Jordan was in the process of showing another teacher a new blouse she had bought. Upon entering, Respondent told the students that Mrs. Jordan was a thief and that she had stolen the new blouse. A third incident arose when Respondent, Mrs. Jordan and Mrs. Forbes, another teacher, were in the workroom waiting for the copy machine. Respondent was the third to center the room and when Mrs. Forbes told her that they were ahead of her to use the machine, Respondent shoved Mrs. Forbes against Mrs. Jordan who fell against the cabinets. Respondent then left the workroom. On still another occasion, Respondent told Mrs. Jordan to kiss her backside. On October 27, 1988, Mrs. Pope called Respondent into her office for a conference for the record. Mrs. Pope was concerned about the number of incidents which had been reported regarding Respondent's conduct. Mrs. Pope had also observed Respondent's class. During one observation Mrs. Pope watched a group of students who were sitting at a back table in Respondent's class. One student pulled another student's sweater and tied it behind his back so that the student could not use his hands. Mrs. Pope mentioned the problem to Respondent who advised her that since the student had gotten himself into the situation he would have to get himself out of it. On other occasions Mrs. Pope observed Respondent chasing students around the classroom. Respondent failed to properly supervise students in her classroom. As a result, Mrs. Pope was required to return students to Respondent's room after they wandered out into the school halls. Another unsupervised student got her arm caught in a chair and was brought to Mrs. Pope who had to contact Fire Rescue to release the child's arm. On November 2, 1988, Mrs. Pope directed Respondent to come to the office for a conference with a parent regarding allegations the parent's child had made. Respondent refused to meet with the parent. After directives from Mrs. Pope not to lock her classroom door, Respondent locked her door. After directing Respondent not to leave her class unsupervised, Mrs. Pope found Respondent's class unsupervised at least four times. Respondent had physical contact with students to administer discipline after Mrs. Pope directed her to refrain from such conduct. Respondent refused to accept a handicapped student after Mrs. Pope directed her to admit the child into her class. Following a number of the incidents described above, parents asked Mrs. Pope to remove their children from Respondent's class. Respondent's effectiveness was impaired by her behavior and her failure to properly supervise and instruct her class. Mrs. Pope directed Respondent to an employee assistance program. Ultimately, following a conference with Dr. Monroe, Dr. Poiret, a psychiatrist, performed a psychological assessment of Respondent. Following interviews with Respondent on November 22, 1988 and December 1, 1988, Dr. Poiret determined Respondent was not medically fit to carry out her assigned responsibilities. Consequently, Respondent was relieved of her teaching duties and spent the remainder of the school year on leave. During the leave Respondent was to undergo individual psychotherapy on at least a weekly basis and to have a complete physical examination. Later, Dr. Monroe requested that Respondent submit documentation regarding her psychotherapy Respondent did not do so. In August, 1989, Dr. Poiret met with Respondent again to evaluate her ability to return to the classroom. As in the prior instances, Respondent continued to be hostile, noticeably irritable and angry. Since she had made no significant improvement, Dr. Poiret determined Respondent was not medically fit to discharge her teaching duties due to a lack of emotional stability. Respondent repeatedly demonstrated a failure to effectively and efficiently manage the behavior of students assigned to her classroom. She failed to provide a curriculum of education to the students in her class, failed to communicate appropriately with her peer teachers and administrators who attempted to assist her, and failed to carry out her professional1 duties. As a result, Respondent's effectiveness in the school system has been seriously impaired. Respondent failed to take corrective measures to amend her deficiencies, failed to obey reasonable instructions given to her by the principal, and failed to present documentary evidence of her successful completion of therapy required to rehabilitate her for classroom duties.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the School Board of Dade County, Florida enter a final order dismissing the Respondent from her employment with the public school district. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of May, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-7035 PETITIONER: Paragraph 1 is accepted. Paragraphs 2 and 3 rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 4 and 6 accepted as addressed in paragraph 8, otherwise rejected as irrelevant or recitation of testimony. Paragraph 5 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 7 and 8 are rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 9 is accepted. Paragraph 10 is accepted. Paragraph 11 is rejected as hearsay. Paragraph 12 is accepted. As addressed in paragraph 5, paragraphs 13 through 15 are accepted; otherwise rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Except as addressed in paragraph 9, paragraph 16 is rejected as hearsay. Except as addressed in paragraphs 2 through 4, paragraphs 17,18, and 19 are rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 20 is accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 21 is accepted. The balance of the paragraph is rejected as irrelevant or hearsay. The first six sentences of Paragraph 23 are accepted. The balance is rejected as repetitive, irrelevant or argumentative. Paragraph 24 is rejected as repetitive or irrelevant. Paragraph 25 is rejected as recitation of testimony. Paragraph 26 is accepted to the extent addressed in paragraph 6; otherwise rejected as irrelevant, recitation of testimony or argumentative. Paragraph 27 is accepted. Paragraph 28 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 29 through 31 are accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: Paragraph 1 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Todate, Respondent has not submitted written or other evidences from a treating physician which would establish she is medically able to return to the classroom. Paragraph 2 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Irma Annette Butler Lowe 17350 N.W. 17th Avenue Miami, Florida 33056 Frank Harder Twin Oaks Building, Suite 100 2780 Galloway Road Miami, Florida 33165 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
Findings Of Fact Introduction At all time relevant hereto, respondent, Delores V Crumiel, held Teaching Certificate No. 342743 issued by the State Department of Education. The certificate covers the specialization of elementary education, grades one through six. During school years 1979-80 through 1984-85, Crumiel was employed by petitioner, School Board of Dade County, as a tenured elementary teacher at West Little River Elementary School (WIRES) in Miami, Florida. Crumiel received a bachelor of science degree in elementary education from Florida Memorial College. Except for a leave of absence during school year 1982-83 due to the death of her husband, she was employed as an elementary school teacher in Dade County for the eleven years immediately preceding her dismissal. WLRES is located in a low socio-economic area of Miami. It has qualified as a Chapter I school, which means it receives federal monies to provide supplementary instruction in basic skills for low-achieving students from the low-income areas of the community. Under this program, instruction is focused on basic skills such as mathematics, language arts and reading, and the teacher has no responsibility in content areas such as science, social studies and health. However, in order to compensate for the lack of content areas, the Chapter I teacher is required to interweave topics from the missing content areas into language lessons in order to give a "language experience" to the students. The language experience is an important part of the federal program. The size of Chapter I classes at WLRES is roughly half of a normal class, and typically numbered from thirteen to fifteen students. It was established that a Chapter I class is easier to teach than a class in the regular school program because of smaller classroom size, less discipline problems, and easier subject matter content. The lesson plans are also easier to prepare than regular lesson plans because only language arts and mathematics are included in Chapter I plans. During the relevant time period, Crumiel was assigned to teach either fifth or sixth grades. By virtue of required classroom observations being conducted by supervisory personnel, Crumiel was found to be deficient in classroom management and teacher-student relationships in school year 1979-1980, deficient in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction and assessment technique in school year 1983-84, and deficient in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction and assessment techniques in school year 1984-85. After Crumiel declined a School Board offer to relinquish her teaching job, and accept a teaching aide position, the School Board voted on October 21, 1985, to dismiss Crumiel from employment with the Board on the basis of incompetency. This action confirmed her earlier suspension effective October 2, 1985, and she has remained suspended without pay since that date. The Board's action prompted the instant proceeding. Petitioner, Ralph D. Turlington, as Commissioner of Education, thereafter filed an administrative complaint seeking revocation of Crumiel's teaching certificate on the same ground. The two matters have been consolidated for hearing purposes. School Year 1979-1980 During school year 1979-1980, Crumiel was assigned to teach in a fifth grade classroom at WLRES. At that time Dr. John Johnson, II was her principal. Crumiel was formally observed by Johnson on December 4, 1979 and February 26, 1980 when he made routine visits to her classroom to evaluate her teaching skills. On these two visits Johnson found Crumiel to be deficient in the areas of classroom management and teacher- student relationships. More specifically, Johnson observed hostility and screaming in the classroom, and found her "upset, emotional and loud." He described her as being in "total disarray." He also felt the students were "acting out." Because of this, she received an unacceptable annual evaluation for the 1979-80 school year. In an effort to assist Crumiel, Johnson assigned a systems aide to work with Crumiel in the classroom. Crumiel was also assigned to work with a master teacher during the following summer (1981). The results of this effort are noted in a subsequent finding. Dr. Johnson gave her written prescriptions to help improve her performance and asked that the assistant principal work with Crumiel. A prescription is a course of action that must be carried out by a teacher in order to remediate a deficient performance. This type of assistance continued until Johnson departed WLRES in 1983. During this period of time Johnson received numerous complaints regarding Crumiel's classroom management from other teachers, and had to go to her class on a number of occasions to calm the students. During school year 1979-80, a first-year teacher taught in the classroom adjacent to respondent's classroom. She confirmed that Crumiel's classroom discipline was very poor, and that the students were noisy and disruptive. In addition, even though Crumiel was supposedly a "seasoned" teacher, the first year teacher frequently found Crumiel seeking assistance from her regarding subject matter content and teaching techniques. Despite the unacceptable annual evaluation given Crumiel in school year 1979-80, Johnson continued to recommend Crumiel for employment. However, he noted that Crumiel's performance was going "down" as time progressed, and except for the fact that he was leaving WLRES in 1983, he would have recommended she be dismissed from the school system. C. 1980-83 During the summer of 1981, Dr. Johnson assigned crumiel to team teach with Alstene McKinney, a master teacher, so that Crumiel could learn some ideas and techniques from McKinney. They taught two regular size classes of twenty-five to thirty Chapter I students in a pod. A pod is a free standing building utilizing the open space concept where a number of classrooms are separated by partitions. At least two classrooms would share common bathrooms and water fountain facilities. McKinney observed that Crumiel has a problem with classroom management, and that her class was always noisy. On various occasions McKinney had to stop teaching and ask Crumiel's students to quiet down. On one occasion McKinney observed Crumiel instructing her students that a quarter past the hour meant 25 minutes after the hour. When she later mentioned it to Crumiel, Crumiel corrected herself and said, "I meant 20 minutes after." Crumiel's husband unexpectedly died on September 1, 1982, from injuries received in an accident. By the following spring, respondent has accumulated some forty-five days of absences, and her absences were affecting her students' progress. In addition, she developed a pattern of calling in the evening and informing the school secretary htat she would report to work the next day, and then in the morning, calling to inform the school she would be absent. At that time, Dr. Johnson referred Crumiel to the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) in an effort to aid her in coping with her family crisis. The EAP is a program designed to assist teachers having academic, personal or psychological problems. Crumiel eventually took a leave of absence April, 1983 for the remainder of the school year. She was medically cleared to return to work in August, 1983. The medical clearance noted that Crumiel did not have any medical condition that would impair or restrict her performance as a teacher. School Year 1983-84 Respondent returned to WLRES on August 24, 1983. She was given a Chapter 1 fifth grade classroom assignment on that day by her new principal, Glenda Harris. The class was to be taught in an air-conditioned pod to be shared with two other teachers, Pauline Maloof and Merrial Daniels Radford. There were a total of forty-five students assigned to the entire pod. Although the adequacy of the size of the room was questioned by one of respondent's witnesses, it is found that respondent's classroom contained adequate space for the number of children being taught. In fact, in the prior year, two teachers and sixty-four students had shared the same space. Moreover, the pod concept is common in the Dade County school system, and even today, Crumiel's former pod classroom is still set up structurally in the same manner. During this school year, Chapter I classes were restricted to a maximum of sixteen students, with the average being fifteen students. This compared with a regular class that would have from twenty-eight to thirty-five students. An essential component in the Chapter I program is the oral language development segment. Through this component, the teacher gives the children a better example of speech patterns so that students who are not proficient in the use of standard English become aware of the standard patterns and usage. This enables the students to use appropriate language when entering the job market. To improve and enhance the teacher skills in the foregoing area, all Chapter I teachers, including Crumiel, received five in-service training sessions during the school year. On November 16, 1983, Harris visited Crumiel's classroom to make a formal observation of respondent's teaching. Harris was so stunned by what she observed that she chose not to record her visit as an official observation. During the visit, it became apparent to Harris that Crumiel had no grasp of Chapter I requirements. More specifically, Crumiel was not interweaving the content areas of science and social studies into the language experience. She confused the students by accepting incorrect answers as correct and vice-versa. Crumiel also demonstrated a lack of basic English skills, making such statements as, "Is there anyone who do not understand?"; "I am sorry, boys and girls--my book do not have . . . "; "Why you think it's 'drink?'"; and "Who do not understand?" In addition, Crumiel was using an outdated reading technique (round-robin reading), and did not use the diagnostic prescriptive approach by setting up reading groups within her class. It was evident to Harris that Crumiel had not read the lesson prior to teaching the children, and was totally unprepared. Because of this, the children in Crumiel's classroom did not receive a minimal educational experience on that day. Harris asked Crumiel where her teaching aid materials were, and was told by Crumiel they were in the bottom of one of her desk drawers. Crumiel also acknowledged that she had not read them. Harris returned for a formal observation of Crumiel on November 21, 1983. She found respondent's performance to be no better than it was on November 16, 1983. It was evident that respondent had not read the lesson prior to teaching the class and did not understand the point of the story being told. The students were also having great difficulty reading. Crumiel's interpretive skills were very poor and she still accepted incorrect responses from the students and vice-versa. For example, when one student gave an example of a compound word, charcoal, Crumiel told the student that it was incorrect because "char" was not a word. Respondent continued to mispronounce words such as "jack-o-later" for "jack-o-lantern," "likeded" for "liked," and "terranium" for "terrarium." She also used very poor grammatical structure. Based upon her observations, Harris rated Crumiel as being unacceptable with specific deficiencies in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. She also concluded that the students failed to receive a minimal educational experience. After the observation was concluded, Harris and Crumiel discussed the problems Harris had noted that day. Crumiel acknowledged she had done poorly, and asked that Harris observe her another day when she would be better prepared. Harris again formally observed respondent on November 29, 1983. She was given an overall rating of unacceptable with specific deficiencies in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction and assessment techniques. Harris noted that Crumiel had not set up a reading program even though this is required in both regular and Chapter I classes. In addition, respondent's lesson plans merely listed page numbers rather than activities, materials and evaluations. Further, while she had grouped the children, she had not given them the appropriate reading books based upon their diagnostic tests. Crumiel had also failed to preview the lesson prior to teaching the class. Respondent continued to mispronounce words such as "shevel" for "shovel," and "depenable" for "dependable," and displayed poor grammar throughout the instruction. Her subject verb agreement was virtually nonexistent and she misused possessives. For example, Crumiel stated, "This machine what is called the steam shovel. . . what is the little boy name? . . . Yes it does scoops up dirt." She was unable to define a steam shovel for a student until she looked the term up in a dictionary. She continued to accept incorrect information from the children as correct and vice-versa. Finally, Harris found respondent's techniques of instruction unacceptable since Crumiel merely read directions to the class. After the observation was completed, Harris met with Crumiel and discussed all areas of her evaluation. On December 8, 1983, a conference-for-the-record was attended by Harris, Crumiel and Jack Grayson, the assistant principal at WLRES. At that time, the observations and visits of November 16, 21 and 29, 1983 were discussed. In an effort to assist Crumiel, Harris and Grayson devised a prescription designed to meet Crumiel's needs. In this case, the prescriptive plan required Crumiel to enroll in a basic English course and a Methods and Materials course in the teaching of reading. She was told to do this by the second semester of the school year. She was also told that Grayson would give her assistance with her reading plans, and visit her classroom on December 13, 1983 to become more familiar with her classroom style. In addition, Harris offered to make available further training in the Dade County Diagnostic Prescriptive Reading System. She was asked to set up a schedule of visitations to other classrooms so that she might learn teaching techniques from other faculty members. Finally, Crumiel was given a set of procedures to be used in critiquing her own plans and presentations of lessons. After the conference, Harris and Grayson spent an hour- and-a-half showing Crumiel how to set up her reading program. They were surprised when they found that respondent, despite having taught for eight or nine years in the system, did not know how to do this. Respondent was next formally observed by Grayson during a lesson on invitations on December 13, 1983. Respondent was given an overall rating of acceptable. However, Grayson later discovered that another teacher, Merria1 Radford Daniels, had actually written the lesson plan, and had demonstrated to Crumiel how to teach that day's class. She did so after Crumiel came to her seeking help before Grayson's visit. Daniels had made displays for Crumiel, and had written the lesson on Crumiel's blackboard with the key words to be used. She also demonstrated the lesson in Crumiel's presence. Daniels then had Crumiel demonstrate the lesson for her, and told respondent to go home and practice in front of a mirror. Respondent admitted this to Grayson. Respondent was informally visited by Harris on January 23, 1984. Although the students were supposed to be in their seats and ready to begin at 8:30 a.m., Harris found them up and out of their seats at 8:58 a.m. when she entered the classroom. Crumiel had not prepared a lesson for that particular class, so she taught a lesson originally scheduled for another time. Even so, she merely read instructions and handed out materials. Harris found no evidence that respondent was carrying out the prescription previously given to her on December 8, 1983. She concluded that the children did not receive a minimally acceptable educational experience that day. Respondent was again formally observed by Harris on June 5, 1984. At that time she was given an overall rating of unacceptable with specific deficiencies in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. Although respondent had developed lesson plans for the class, the classroom activities did not reflect evidence of effective instructional planning. More importantly, Harris did not see any progress by Crumiel since she had been given the prescription on December 8, 1983. She found Crumiel still reading directions to the students rather than teaching them subject matter content. A large part of the classroom instruction was taken up by students performing meaningless exercises. Respondent still lacked a basic understanding of the subject matter, abbreviations. This was evidenced by respondent's inability to answer questions from students indicating when abbreviations are to be used. For example, she could not answer why the abbreviation for doctor is capitalized, or why the abbreviation for ounces is oz. rather than oun. She still continued to use improper English such as "Be sure your name and date is on all your papers." On June 6, 1984, Grayson revisited Crumiel's classroom to conduct a formal evaluation of Crumiel's mathematics class. Grayson rated respondent's performance as unacceptable with a specific deficiency in the area of techniques of instruction. He found the lesson too simple for the students and therefore a waste of their time. Crumiel's instructions and directions were confusing, and she was unable to clarify them for the students' benefit. Crumiel was again observed by Harris on June 8, 1984. Respondent had asked Harris to return after her prior visit on June 5 because she had learned something in a class she was taking and wanted to demonstrate it to Harris. After observing respondent Harris rated her as unacceptable with deficiencies in the areas of planning, knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. She was found barely acceptable in classroom management. Although Crumiel had a lesson plan, it was not effective and was inappropriate for students of the fifth grade level. Moreover, her classroom management appeared to Harris to be staged and practiced as in a performance. At hearing, Crumiel contended the pod was a poor environment in which to teach, and stated her class was frequently disrupted by outside students coming in to her area to use the restroom and drinking fountain. However, during school year 1983-84, Crumiel voiced no complaints to the administration about teaching in a pod, or that she experienced the disruptions she described. Indeed, no such disruptive activity was ever observed by the administrators who made classroom evaluations or by other teachers in the pod. If such activity did occur, it was only after someone inside the classroom unlocked the door since Crumiel's door was always kept locked. During the school year, the disruptive children were always evenly distributed between Maloof, Daniels, and Crumiel. After Harris became aware of Crumiel's classroom management problems, several students with behavioral problems were reassigned from Crumiel's classroom to that of Maloof and Daniels. Moreover, Crumiel received the highest academic level in the three groups. On her annual evaluation for the 1983-84 school year, Crumiel was rated unacceptable in the areas or preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. However, Harris refrained from recommending Crumiel for termination, choosing instead to write another, more detailed prescription in the hope that Crumiel could improve over the summer. On June 21, 1984, another conference-for-the-record was held by Harris, Crumiel, Grayson and a teacher union representative. At that time, Harris outlined the prescription and asked that Crumiel continue with the EAP. Crumiel had previously participated in the EAP but had ceased attending, Crumiel was told to prepare her lesson plans in behavioral terms and was given various reading materials to help her with this task. She was further given an excerpt from the teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS) manual on techniques of instruction. In addition, she was directed to take certain courses offered by the Teacher Education center (TEC) to assist her in deficient areas. However, Harris suggested that the outside course work could be postponed until the fall so that she could spend a restful summer. Finally Crumiel was told she would be informally observed during the first nine weeks of the following school year, and formally observed in the second nine week period. This information was incorrect since any teacher on prescription must be formally observed during the first six weeks of the next school year. In conjunction with the EAP respondent began individual psychotherapy and supportive counseling with a licensed clinical psychologist that summer. She remained his patient until September, 1985. During school year 1983-84, Crumiel received help from Maloof and Daniels, who shared her pod. Maloof gave Crumiel assistance in grouping her children, shared materials with her, and made various suggestions on how to improve her teaching techniques. However, when they discussed educational topics, Crumiel did not seem to understand the subject matter. Daniels showed respondent how to order materials for the different levels of students. Finally, a reading specialist gave a workshop session in October, 1983 that addressed the procedures for pre- testing, post-testing and leveling students. Crumiel attended this workshop. School Year 1984-85 Beginning in the 1984-85 school year, WLRES implemented the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS) of teacher observation for all teachers. In the prior year, only annual contract teachers were under the TADS observation scheme. Since Crumiel was under a continuing contract, she was not subject to this observation method prior to school year 1984-85. Under the TADS system, teachers are required to have objectives, activities and a way of monitoring student progress in and through their lesson plans. At the beginning of the school year, Harris moved Crumiel to Room 212, a self-contained classroom. This move was prompted by complaints about noisy, disruptive students in Crumiel's classroom from the teachers who shared the pod with Crumiel during the prior year. Room 212 contained approximately the same amount of space that Crumiel previously had in the pod, but the classroom was not air-conditioned. However, around two- thirds of the teachers in the school did not have air- conditioning at that time. Harris also changed respondent's grade level from grade five to grade six. This was done to relieve her of the additional pressures of preparing the students for the state assessment test (SAT). WLRES had been adjudged deficient during the previous school year, and fifth grade classes were scheduled to be tested on the SAT in the first nine weeks of the school year. Crumiel protested her reassignment to a higher grade level and told Harris that sixth grade mathematics were beyond her teaching ability. However, Harris reminded Crumiel that she was certified for the sixth grade, and that the chances of her actually teaching sixth grade math in a Chapter I class were remote. Children were assigned to respondent in very much the same manner that they had been assigned the previous year. The administration made certain that slow learners and students exhibiting behavior problems were evenly distributed among the various teachers. Harris visited respondent's classroom on September 20, 1984 to conduct an informal observation. Respondent's lesson plans were not written in behavioral terms as directed by her June 21 prescription. Further, she had not grouped the children or pretested them in reading. Harris also found Crumiel's presentation of subject matter and classroom management skills unacceptable. Harris concluded that the children did not receive a minimally acceptable educational experience. Harris met with respondent following the informal visit. At that meeting, Harris reviewed Crumiel's prescription and the efforts being made by Crumiel to fulfill its goals. Harris discovered that respondent had "forgotten" to inquire about the various courses taught at the Reacher Education Center and displayed an unconcerned attitude towards the requirements of the prescription. She was told by Crumiel that the sixth grade level objectives were too difficult for her, and that she did not know how to write lesson plans in behavioral objectives. Harris then told Crumiel she would visit respondent's classroom on September 25, 1984. Harris also began showing Crumiel how to write objectives in behavioral terms. Harris was unable to visit respondent's classroom on September 25 because respondent called in sick that morning. Crumiel did, however, bring her lesson plans to Harris the following day. Harris found them lacking any behavioral objectives. Harris again encouraged Crumiel to read the material furnished her. Respondent's mathematics class was formally observed by Grayson on October 1, 1984. A formal observation was required at that time since Crumiel was on prescription from the prior year. She was rated unsatisfactory in preparation and planning because her lesson plans did not have the items required by the TADS system. In other words, Crumiel had no way to assess her students in order to monitor their progress. Grayson recommended that respondent continue with the prescription given by Harris, and to turn in her lesson plans on a weekly basis for his review. Grayson continued to review those plans until her dismissal some two years later, and to offer suggestions on how they could be improved. During the school year, the teacher occupying the adjacent classroom continually complained about the noise in respondent's room. Because of this, Crumiel was moved to room 206, a larger self-contained classroom which had been recently renovated and filled with new furniture. It was uncontradicted that room 206 was far superior to the other classroom spaces in the building that were used by Chapter I classes. Respondent was formally observed again by Harris on January 23, 1985. Harris found that the children were not receiving a minimal educational experience. Using the TADS system, Crumiel was rated unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction and assessments techniques. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because she was still using November lessons plans with only the dates changed, and was not using the prescribed plan. Crumiel was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she gave no instruction. She was found to be unacceptable in classroom management because the children were not prepared to begin the lesson. In the area of techniques of instruction, Crumiel received an unacceptable rating because she was not using appropriate methods or differentiated materials, and she failed to use two or more learning styles as required by TADS. Finally Crumiel was found to be deficient in assessment techniques because she failed to use the information given her in the TADS prescription manual. In addition, because her grade book and student folders were not properly maintained, and there was no way to tell what had been taught and tested, or to access the students' improvement. As a result of the January 25 visit, Harris prescribed help for respondent from the TADS prescription manual, which is written on a level that the average teacher can understand. However, Harris did not suggest that Crumiel use the manual after that occasion since Crumiel admitted she was unable to understand the information in the manual. At respondent's request, Harris performed another formal observation on January 29, 1985. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management and techniques of instruction. Harris also concluded that the students did not receive a minimal educational experience. Crumiel was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because her lesson plans were not written in conformity with her prescription. She appeared unprepared and wasted classroom time on repetitious, meaningless exercises. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of knowledge of subject matter because she did not understand the lesson she was suppose to be teaching, and told the children that adding an "s" at the end of a verb would make it plural. Crumiel's classroom management was rated unacceptable because the classroom environment was not conducive to learning. Harris found the room unkempt and materials in disorder, and noted that Crumiel did not start the lesson promptly due to a number of unnecessary delays. In the area of techniques of instruction Crumiel received an unacceptable rating because the majority of the materials used were inappropriate for the objectives. Further, the methods of instruction never varied, and respondent did not give consideration to the various learning styles in the classroom. Harris concluded that the materials and methods used often insulted the age level of the students. After the observation was concluded, Harris asked Crumiel to review and study the materials given her in the prior prescription. Crumiel was also told that Eneida Hartner, director of the North Central area, would provide her with additional help. Finally, Harris taught a reading lesson to Crumiel's class in an effort to improve Crumiel's teaching style. While Harris was in the classroom, respondent did relatively well with teacher-student relationships. However, when no administrator was present, respondent could often be heard shouting and cajoling the children to behave. There were instances when children were seen hanging out of the windows and shouting. Respondent was heard telling a student on one occasion, "Sit your black butt down." On February 8, 1985, Harris and Hartner visited respondent's classroom for approximately one hour to informally observe Crumiel. Even though Hartner had designed certain activities for respondent to use that day while teaching, Hartner and Harris concluded there was no teaching in the classroom. They also noted that respondent was not following the diagnostic prescriptive approach which is required of all elementary teachers.. Hartner recommended that Crumiel receive assistance from a Chapter I educational specialist, Pat Kanovsky, who was assigned to help Crumiel with the language experience approach used in Chapter I classes. Hartner also directed a prep specialist, Gwen Bryant, to monitor Crumiel in the areas of basic skills, such as reading, writing and mathematics, and to help respondent in the prescriptive diagnostic approach. She also recommended that Crumiel receive assistance from the assistant principal, department chairman and master teacher, and to make use of certain excerpts from the TADS prescription manual. Bryant visited Crumiel's classroom four times in February 1985 in an attempt to provide her with assistance. On her February 14 visit, Bryant observed that respondent was not using the "RSVP" program in an appropriate manner. This is a program that is used for all children in both Chapter I and regular classes. Bryant also noted that Crumiel had not used her pacemaker chart correctly, and was therefore unable to determine if the children were being taught subject matter at a pace commensurate with their level of ability. On her February 27 visit, Bryant found the students confused and not understanding what they were expected to do in class that day. They were yelling, and many were out of their seats. Respondent was unsuccessful in her efforts to manage behavior. After seeing this, Bryant made a number of suggestions to respondent. She also went over the instructional material and demonstrated how to properly use it. She explained how the students were to be placed and instructed according to their reading levels. Bryant gave further tips on teaching techniques, suggestions on managing classroom behavior and how to properly begin a lesson. On February 11, 1985, Kanovsky spent approximately two hours with Crumiel in an effort to improve Crumiel's lesson plan preparation. Among other things, Kanovsky told respondent that her grammar was inappropriate for use in a Chapter I classroom. Hartner, accompanied by Harris, visited respondent's classroom on March 27, 1985, for the purpose of making an external observation. This type of observation was required since Crumiel had already received two negative evaluations from WLRES administrators. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction and assessment techniques. She was given an unsatisfactory rating in preparation and planning because she failed to properly include a language experience activity in her instruction. She was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she continued to use poor grammar while teaching. For example, Crumiel made such statements as, "Their eyes be red" and "How do their face look?" Crumiel was found to be deficient in techniques of instruction because the lesson lacked sequence, and she failed to adjust her instruction when she did not get anticipated responses from the students. She also accepted responses from the students without telling them whether they were right or wrong. Further, it did not appear that Crumiel had made use of any of the suggestions regarding teaching techniques given by Bryant on February 27. Finally, respondent was given an unsatisfactory in assessment techniques because a review by Hartner of the students' folders revealed that Crumiel had failed to use the diagnostic prescriptive approaches in reading and mathematics that were required by the Dade County school system. Having formally observed Crumiel, Hartner concluded that respondent's students did not have a meaningful educational experience on March 27, 1985. She further concluded that respondent lacked adequate command of her area of specialization, elementary education, and that she lacked the necessary motivational skills necessary to promote oral language development. She also concluded that Crumiel would be unable to teach non-Chapter I students because of the greater number of students and more difficult subject matter in those classes. In short, she found Crumiel unable to teach in any capacity at the elementary school level. In addition to her visits on February 14 and 27, Bryant met with Crumiel on at least two other occasions to help Crumiel understand the diagnostic prescriptive approach to reading. Bryant came away from those meetings with the belief that Crumiel did not understand her directions or the teaching materials. She also concluded the Crumbie was unqualified to teach the sixth grade. An educational specialist, Shirley Fields, also visited respondent's classroom on April 19 and 22, 1985, to discuss the oral language development segment of instruction. On one of her visits, she demonstrated for Crumiel's benefit an actual lesson from the program. Harris returned to respondent's classroom on June 3, 1985 for the purpose of conducting a formal observation. She found no improvement on Crumiel's part and concluded it would be counter-productive to fill out a formal observation form. The subject matter of the class was fractions, and Crumiel appeared to have no knowledge of the subject matter. During the school year, Harris and Grayson received a number of verbal complaints about respondent's classroom management. This was confirmed by testimony from the other teachers and a teacher liaison who frequently observed or heard disruption and noise in respondent's classroom. Harris, Crumiel and a teacher union representative attended a conference-for-the-record on June 12, 1986 to discuss Crumiel's teaching performance. However, it was necessary to discontinue the conference shortly after it was begun because Crumiel lost her composure. The conference was reconvened on June 24, 1985. At that meeting Crumiel rejected an opportunity to be reclassified as a teacher aide, a position that would enable her to continue working with children, but only under the direct supervision of another teacher. On her annual evaluation for 1984-1985, respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction, assessment techniques and professional responsibility. In addition, she was not recommended for employment the following school year. Psychological Testing In an effort to find some type of alternative position for Crumiel, the classroom teacher's union recommended that she undergo a battery of psychological tests. In this vein, Crumiel was referred to both a psychiatrist and a psychologist to determine if there was a reason for her poor performance in classroom teaching. The psychologist, Dr. Bradman, had previously seen the patient since June, 1984 in conjunction with the EAP. On June 14 and 18, 1985 Bradman administered the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised (WAIS-R) Test to Crumiel. This test is more commonly known as an IQ or intelligence quotient test. At the time of testing, Bradman found no evidence of depression although Crumiel experienced some mild anxiety. The test segment which would most likely be affected by depression was the Digit Symbol Subtest. However, Crumiel scored within the average range on this segment, and it represented one of her highest scores. Respondent obtained a Full Scale IQ of 74 which is in the borderline range of intelligence. Stated differently, approximately 95% of the people taking the test would achieve a higher score than Crumiel. Bradman found this result to be accurate and valid, and that neither stress or depression could account for Crumiel's low performance. During the course of the two sessions on June 14 and 18, Bradman asked Crumiel a number of questions to test her intellectual skill and capacity. In response to a question asking her to name four men who have been president of the United States since 1950, she responded, "Roosevelt, Lincoln, George Washington and Theodore Roosevelt." When questioned further, she added, "Jefferson." Crumiel also told Bradman that there were 48 weeks in a year and that Labor Day is in May. She did not know who Louie Armstrong was, and thought that to get from Chicago to the country of Panama one would travel east. She could not correctly define the words "assemble," "enormous," "conceal," "consume," "regulate," "commence," "domestic," "tranquil" or "ponder." Finally, Crumiel could not answer basic arithmetic questions such as "If raffle tickets cost twenty-five cents each, how much would it cost to buy six tickets?" and "If soft drinks are sold six cans to a package, if you want 36 cans, how many packages must you buy?" Based upon the results of the WAIS-R, Dr. Bradman concluded that respondent was not capable of teaching the higher elementary school grades. However, he was unable to form an opinion as to whether Crumiel could teach the lower grade levels based strictly upon the testing he had performed. On August 29, 1985, Crumiel was also evaluated by a board certified psychiatrist, Dr. Waldo M. Ellison, who was accepted as an expert in that field. He examined Crumiel to ascertain if there was a psychological reason for her dysfunction as an elementary school teacher. Ellison noted that respondent experienced some mild anxiety during the examination but had no depression. Further, he found no evidence of any medical problem or condition. Although Crumiel told Dr. Ellison that mathematics was her favorite subject, she was unable to determine two-thirds of the number sixty. She also could not correctly define the word "motivate," and was unaware of important current events such as the name of the mayor of Miami, or the fact that a hurricane was then approaching the City of Miami. Based upon his evaluation, Ellison concluded that respondent's intellectual deficiencies would interfere with the ability to provide her students with a minimum educational experience. Miscellaneous It was the general consensus of all administrators and faculty who observed Crumiel during the relevant time periods that she did not possess the skills necessary to teach elementary students, either at a regular or Chapter I level. More specifically, they found that she lacked an adequate command of her area of specialization, elementary education, and that her lack of minimum skills and competency resulted in her students being deprived of a minimal educational experience. Respondent's own testimony helped confirm the above observations since it was replete with inappropriate English grammar and language. Her lack of fundamental mathematics skills also became apparent during cross-examination by the Board counsel. Respondent's Case Respondent blamed her problems in 1984-85 on her assignment to a small, self-contained classroom without air- conditioning. However, this classroom was approximately the same size as used by two other teachers in the pod, and they did not experience the same difficulty as did Crumiel. Moreover, two- thirds of the faculty at WLRES that year had no air-conditioning. Even so, she was moved to a larger, more modernized classroom during the year but her performance did not improve. Respondent also cited over-aged, disruptive students being assigned to her Chapter I classes as a cause for her classroom management difficulty. But credible testimony established that disruptive students were evenly assigned to all Chapter I teachers, that Crumiel's class had no more than other Chapter I teachers, and several were taken out of her classroom in an effort to aid her performance. Crumiel also contended that her classes were frequently disrupted by students wandering into her classroom from an adjacent physical education area to use the restroom and water fountain facilities. No administrator ever observed this while visiting in her class, and it was shown that even if it did happen, she could have prevented this by refusing to unlock her door. Crumiel further stated that she attempted to follow through with her prescriptions, but that Harris and Grayson were never satisfied. However, independent administrators not associated with WLRES confirmed her failure to follow the prescriptions. Respondent also stated she received a "B" in a college course taken one summer at a local college as evidence of her effort to improve her skills. But a fellow teacher placed this testimony in serious doubt when she testified that Crumiel had taken notes into the final examination and improperly used them while filling out her examination booklet. Through the deposition testimony of Dr. Capp, a psychologist, respondent attempted to refute the IQ score of 74 by showing that she received a score of 99 on the test on February 4, 1986, and that she was functioning within the normal range of intelligence. Dr. Bradman had no scientific explanation for this result, but opined that Crumiel may have studied for the second test, or had remembered the questions from the first time the test was administered. Dr. Capp agreed that this was possible. In any event, the testimony of Drs. Bradman and Ellison is deemed to be more persuasive and credible, and their results and conclusions are found to be more accurate. Union Contract Respondent was a member of the United Teachers of Dade County. That body has a labor contract with the Dade County School Board. Among other things, section 6 of the contract provides in relevant part as follows: Any teacher assigned in any observation category shall be entitled to a prescription of professional growth practices (remedies) which shall include reasonable time-frames for implementation . . .. The function of such practices is to assist the teacher in professional growth . . .. Failure to implement prescribed professional growth practices or to correct deficiencies for which professional growth was prescribed shall constitute just cause for disciplinary action in accordance with the due process provisions in this Article . . .. In the instant case, respondent was placed on prescription at the end of school year 1983-84. Respondent was told she would remain on prescription during the first nine weeks of school year 1984- However, in order to comply with a TADS requirement, a teacher who ends the year on prescription must be observed during the first six weeks in the following school year. To meet this requirement, a formal observation was made by Grayson on October 1, 1985 which was within the time-frame for improvement set forth in the prescription. At that time, Grayson gave a second prescription to Crumiel with instructions that a lesson plan be submitted by each Wednesday. Another formal observation was made by Harris on January 23, 1985, or well after the first and second prescriptive periods. Crumiel was then placed on another prescription effective January 28, 1985 by prescription dated January 23, 1985. Certain prescriptives were ordered to be complied with no later than the next visit. This was followed by a formal observation by Harris on January 29, 1985. When the next formal observation was made by Hartner on March 27, 1985, no time-frames were in effect. All such observations, prescriptive periods and remedies were in conformity with the contract. Even respondent did not file a grievance complaining that the contract was violated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of incompetency, and that she be terminated from employment with the School Board of Dade County, and her teaching certificate number 342743 be REVOKED. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of July, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of July, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Dade County Public Schools Board Administration Bldg., Suite 301 1450 NE Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Craig R. Wilson, Esquire 215 Fifth Avenue, Suite 302 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Daniel F. Solomon, Esquire 1455 Northwest 14th Street Miami, Florida 33125 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Judith Brechner, General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Room 215, Knott Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX Petitioner (Case No. 85-3673): Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in findings of fact 1 and 2. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 6. Rejected as not being necessary to resolve the issues. Rejected as not being necessary to resolve the issues. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 7. Covered in finding of fact 7. Rejected as being irrelevant. Rejected as being irrelevant. Covered in finding of fact 9. Covered in finding of fact 9. Covered in finding of fact 9. Covered in finding of fact 10 Covered in finding of fact 11 Covered in finding of fact 12 Covered in finding of fact 12 Covered in finding of fact 8. Covered in finding of fact 6. Covered in finding of fact 12 Covered in finding of fact 12 Covered in finding of fact 13 Covered in finding of fact 13 Covered in finding of fact 13 Covered in finding of fact 13 Covered in finding of fact 14 Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 15 Covered in finding of fact 15 Covered in finding of fact 15 Covered in finding of fact 13 Covered in finding of fact 13 Covered in finding of fact 13 Covered in finding of fact 13 Covered in finding of fact 28 Rejected as being unnecessary Covered in finding of fact 29 Covered in finding of fact 28 Covered in finding of fact 29 Rejected as being unnecessary Covered in finding of fact 29 Covered in finding of fact 16 Covered in finding of fact 16 Covered in finding of fact 17 Covered in finding of fact 16 Covered in finding of fact 16 Covered in finding of fact 16 Partially covered in finding of fact 16. Covered in finding of fact 16 Covered in findings of fact 18 and 19. Covered in finding of fact 18 Covered in finding of fact 18. Covered in finding of fact 18. Covered in finding of fact 18. Covered in finding of fact 19. Covered in finding of fact 19. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 21. Covered in finding of fact 21. Covered in finding of fact 21. Covered in finding of fact 21. Covered in finding of fact 22. Covered in finding of fact 23. Covered in finding of fact 24. Covered in finding of fact 24. Covered in finding of fact 25. Covered in finding of fact 25. Covered in finding of fact 25. Covered in finding of fact 25. Covered in finding of fact 26. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 26. Covered in finding of fact 27. Covered in finding of fact 27. Covered in finding of fact 27. Covered in finding of fact 27. Covered in finding of fact 27. Covered in finding of fact 27. Covered in finding of fact 30. Covered in finding of fact 31. Covered in finding of fact 31. Covered in finding of fact 32. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 33. Covered in finding of fact 34. Partially covered in finding of fact 34. Covered in finding of fact 35. Covered in finding of fact 35. Covered in finding of fact 36. Covered in finding of fact 37. Covered in finding of fact 37. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 37. Covered in finding of fact 37. Covered in finding of fact 38. Covered in finding of fact 38. Covered in finding of fact 39. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 38. Covered in finding of fact 40. Covered in finding of fact 41. Covered in finding of fact 42. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 44. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 45. Covered in finding of fact 45. Covered in finding of fact 45. Covered in finding of fact 45. Covered in finding of fact 45. Covered in finding of fact 46. Covered in finding of fact 45. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 45. Covered in finding of fact 47. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 45. Covered in finding of fact 48. Covered in finding of fact 48. Covered in finding of fact 48. Covered in finding of fact 49. Covered in finding of fact 49. Covered in finding of fact 49. Covered in finding of fact 49. Covered in finding of fact 50. Covered in finding of fact 50. Covered in finding of fact 51. Covered in finding of fact 51. Covered in finding of fact 51. Covered in finding of fact 51. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 52. Covered in finding of fact 52. Covered in finding of fact 52. Covered in finding of fact 53. Covered in finding of fact 53. Covered in finding of fact 53. Covered in finding of fact 53. Covered in finding of fact 53. Covered in finding of fact 53. Covered in finding of fact 53. Covered in finding of fact 54. Covered in finding of fact 55. Covered in finding of fact 55. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 56. Covered in finding of fact 57. Covered in finding of fact 58. Covered in finding of fact 58. Covered in finding of fact 58. Covered in finding of fact 59. Covered in finding of fact 59. Covered in finding of fact 60. Covered in finding of fact 61. Covered in finding of fact 61. Covered in finding of fact 61. Covered in finding of fact 62. Covered in finding of fact 63. Covered in finding of fact 64. Covered in finding of fact 65. Covered in finding of fact 66. Covered in finding of fact 66. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 67. Covered in finding of fact 68. Covered in finding of fact 68. Covered in finding of fact 68. Covered in finding of fact 57. Petitioner (Case No. 86-1116): Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in findings of fact 2 and 5. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 13. Covered in findings of fact 16 and 17. Covered in findings of fact 18 and 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 21. Covered in finding of fact 23. Covered in finding of fact 24. Covered in finding of fact 25. Covered in finding of fact 26. Covered in finding of fact 27. Covered in findings of fact 30 and 31. Covered in findings of fact 35 and 36. Covered in finding of fact 35. Covered in finding of fact 37. Covered in finding of fact 38. Covered in finding of fact 39. Covered in finding of fact 40 except that the observation took place on October 1, 1984. Covered in finding of fact 41. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 45. Covered in finding of fact 53. Covered in finding of fact 58. Covered in finding of fact 50. Covered in finding of fact 11. Covered in findings of fact 3 and 29. Covered in finding of fact 56. Covered in findings of fact 11 and 33. Covered in finding of fact 71. Covered in findings of fact 5, 6, 9 and 10._ Covered in findings of fact 61, 65 and 66. Covered in findings of fact 61-63. Covered in finding of fact 69 Covered in findings of fact 13 and 35. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 70. Rejected as being a conclusion of law. Respondent:* Covered in background. Covered in background. Covered in background. Covered in background. Covered in background. Covered in background. Covered in finding of fact 34. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 30. Covered in finding of fact 45. Partially covered in finding of fact 53. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 21. Partially covered in finding of fact 53. The second sentence is irrelevant since no formal external observation was performed by Hartner on February 8, 1985. Rejected as being irrelevant since no formal observation was conducted on February 8, 1985. Covered in finding of fact 48. Covered in finding of fact 48. Covered in finding of fact 53. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary. Findings of Fact Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 1. Rejected as being a conclusion of law. Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Covered in finding of fact 45. Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Covered in finding of fact 48. Covered in finding of fact 49. Essentially covered in findings of fact 48-58. Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Covered in finding of fact 53. Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of evidence and irrelevant. Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Rejected as being a conclusion of law. *Respondent's filing contained two sections entitled "Proposed Findings" and "Findings of Fact."
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent violated Section 231.28(1)(i), Florida Statutes, and Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a) and 6(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code, and if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is licensed to teach emotionally handicapped children in the elementary schools of Florida. She holds Florida teaching certificate number 696889 which is valid through June 30, 1998. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by the Volusia County School Board as a teacher of emotionally handicapped children in a self-contained classroom at New Smyrna Middle School. Prior to November 13, 1995, Respondent had no prior disciplinary history. The 1995-96 school year was Respondent's first year as a teacher at New Smyrna Middle School. Her previous teaching experience consisted of serving as a resource teacher. In that circumstance the students went to Respondent's class for a portion of the school day for instruction in certain academic areas. In August of 1995, Respondent requested a conference with the assistant principal, Sue Wolter. One of the items that Respondent wanted to discuss was the procedure she should follow in case a student had a weapon in the classroom. Ms. Wolter instructed Respondent that she should press the buzzer in the classroom three times. When the office staff receives this signal, they know there is a severe problem in the classroom. When a teacher presses the buzzer a light turns on beside the room number. Ms. Wolter also told Respondent that she could use the school intercom and say "Code 3" to alert the office about an emergency situation without letting the class know that she was calling for help. Lastly, Ms. Wolter advised Respondent to send her teaching assistant to the office for assistance. Respondent used these methods to summon help to her classroom on numerous occasions prior to the incident at issue here. In November of 1995, Respondent's class consisted of 12 sixth-grade students. The students' chronological ages varied from 11-to-14 years of age. Respondent's class consisted of students with "varying exceptionalities." Many of the students were dually diagnosed as having psychological and emotional disorders as well as mental retardation. The students' I.Q.'s were exceptionally low. Respondent's students were impulsive, volatile, and often exhibited poor judgment. They had difficulty at times distinguishing between right and wrong. Therefore, it was essential for Respondent to exercise appropriate classroom control at all times. Respondent had a difficult time maintaining discipline in the class. Students were frequently out of their seats or leaving the classroom without permission. Due to the chaotic classroom environment, several different teaching assistants were assigned to Respondent's classroom prior to November 13, 1995. On November 13, 1995, Ms. Linda Baker was Respondent's teaching assistant. Respondent and Ms. Baker did not have a successful working relationship. Ms. Baker felt that Respondent was a poor classroom disciplinarian. Ms. Baker also resented what she perceived as Respondent's condescending attitude. Respondent, on the other hand, resented Ms. Baker's admitted refusal to follow instructions which, at times, amounted to blatant insubordination. As a result of their communication problems, Respondent often wrote notes to Ms. Baker setting forth her classroom duties instead of speaking to her directly. Lavagus Brown, Michael Binder, and Klara Mills were students in Respondent's classroom on the morning of November 13, 1995. Klara Mills was the only girl in the class. As class began that morning, Lavagus Brown told Respondent that Klara had something in her bag that the teacher should know about. Next, Michael Binder told Respondent that Klara had a knife in her bag. Ms. Baker was sitting in the back of the room. She also heard from the children that Klara had a knife. Respondent wrote a note to Ms. Baker and took it to her in the back of the classroom. Respondent asked Ms. Baker to take the note to the office and get an administrator. Respondent did not reveal the contents of the note or explain to Ms. Baker why it was necessary for an administrator to come to the classroom immediately. Ms. Baker took the note and left the classroom. She returned later without an administrator. When questioned by Respondent, Ms. Baker told Respondent that she had delivered the note to the office. Respondent still did not discuss the seriousness of the situation with Ms. Baker. Respondent asked Klara to get her things together so that they could go to the office. Klara took her backpack purse and left the room with Respondent. She did not take her bookbag with her. Ms. Baker stayed in the classroom with the remaining students. She began taking the boys down the hall to the restroom. In order to get to the main office, Respondent and Klara had to walk out of one building, down the main walkway past a second building, and into the second entrance of a third building. Respondent did not attempt to retrieve Klara's backpack purse during the walk through the campus. When Respondent and Klara arrived at the office, Jasmine Gutierrez, a teacher's aide, was waiting in the outer office to see Ms. Wolter, who was in her office with the door partially closed. Cheryl Tucker, one of two secretaries, was also in the outer office. Ms. Tucker was busy answering the phone and writing passes for students. While she was waiting for Ms. Wolter, Ms. Jasmine Gutierrez helped Ms. Tucker write passes for students so they could go to class. Respondent and Klara stood in a corner of the office where they had an argument. Klara denied that she had a knife, claiming that she only had a toy in her bookbag, which was still in the classroom. Klara wanted to go back to the classroom. Respondent wanted Klara to give an object to Respondent or someone that Klara trusted. Respondent asked Ms. Tucker if Ms. Wolter was in the office. Ms. Tucker responded in the negative. Respondent then asked Ms. Tucker to watch Klara while she looked for an administrator. Respondent did not see anyone in Ms. Wolter's office through the partially opened door. Respondent walked toward the office workroom to check her mailbox. Klara was still in the office when Respondent walked back toward the office and around a corner to go to the clinic. Respondent thought that Ms. Wolter might be in the clinic helping the nurse. Unable to locate Ms. Wolter in the clinic, Respondent returned to the office. Ms. Tucker was no longer in the outer office. Ms. Debra Gutierrez, the main secretary, was at her desk next to the office door which was slowly closing. Klara was not in the office. Learning that Klara had returned to class, Respondent left the office without telling anyone in the office that Klara possibly had a knife in her possession. Respondent caught up with Klara before she re-entered the classroom. Respondent told Klara to go to her desk and gather all of her things, including her backpack purse and bookbag, because they needed to return to the office. When Respondent entered the classroom, Ms. Baker was sitting at her place in the back of the room. Respondent immediately began to deal with a student who was in the time-out room, screaming and yelling. Respondent attempted to calm the student down. The time-out room is a small closet with a desk where students can go when they want to work undisturbed. Respondent also used the room for students who were behaving inappropriately and needed time to cool off before returning to class. At times, Respondent would put herself in the time-out room when she felt she was losing patience with the children. While Respondent was in the time-out room with the other student, Ms. Baker took Klara to the restroom. In the hallway, Ms. Baker asked Klara if she had a knife. Klara denied having a knife. As Ms. Baker and Klara entered the classroom, other students began asking Klara about her knife. Klara did not respond to their comments. When Ms. Baker and Klara came back into the classroom, Respondent was standing in the doorway of the time-out room with the door partially closed. From that vantage point, Respondent could talk to the student who was upset and watch Klara who was sitting at her desk. Ms. Baker sat at her place in the back of the room for a few minutes. Then she went to the office where she located Elaine Haskins and Lenny Carr, campus advisors, advising them that Klara possibly had a weapon in the classroom. Ms. Haskins used her walkie-talkie to advise Ms. Wolter that she and Mr. Carr were proceeding with Ms. Baker to Respondent's room because there was a problem. When Ms. Haskins, Mr. Carr, and Ms. Baker arrived at Respondent's classroom, Klara was working quietly at her desk. Ms. Haskins entered the room and told Klara to get all of her things and accompany her to the office. Mr. Carr and Ms. Baker stayed in the hall. At this time, Respondent was still in the time-out room with the other student. Ms. Haskins walked to the time-out room and knocked on the partially-open door. Ms. Haskins advised Respondent that she was taking Klara to the office. Respondent did not advise Ms. Haskins that Klara possibly had a knife. Mr. Carr escorted Ms. Haskins and Klara back to the office. On the way, Ms. Haskins radioed Ms. Wolter to tell her that they were taking Klara to the office. Ms. Haskins told Ms. Wolter that Klara possibly had a weapon in her bag. The school resource officer met the campus advisors and Klara in Ms. Wolter's office. Klara admitted to Ms. Wolter that she had a knife in her bookbag. As Klara emptied her bag on Ms. Wolter's desk, she took out a large hunting knife. The knife was approximately eight and three-quarter inches in length when the retractable blade was extended. The blade alone was four inches long. Subsequently, Ms. Haskins went back to Respondent's classroom to tell her that Klara would not be coming back to class. There is no persuasive evidence of the following admissions by Respondent: (a) to Ms. Haskins that she knew Klara had a knife and "just hadn't responded on that" and (b) to Ms. Baker that she (Respondent) was too busy to handle the situation with Klara and the knife. About one week after the incident involving Klara, Respondent and Ms. Baker had a major disagreement. Ms. Baker was removed as the teaching assistant in Respondent's classroom. Respondent knew from the beginning that she had a potentially dangerous situation in her classroom. The potential for violence created an extremely unsafe environment for all the children involved, including Klara. The Volusia County School District's Student Code of Conduct states that possession of a weapon is a major offense which requires a recommendation of expulsion. Pending a decision on expulsion, a student will be suspended and lose all extracurricular privileges. Respondent was familiar with the Student Code of Conduct. However, the Volusia County School District has no written policy explaining the proper procedure a teacher should follow in searching a student when confronted with actual knowledge or a reasonable suspicion that the student has possession of a concealed weapon.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order suspending Petitioner's teaching certificate for two weeks and imposing two years of probation. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of September, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of September, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Ron Weaver, Esquire Ron Weaver and Associates, P.A. Post Office Box 10825 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-2865 Paul Kwilecki, Esquire 433 Silver Beach Avenue, Suite 104 Daytona Beach, Florida 32176 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Department of Education 224-E Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick, Esquire Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry Whitmore, Program Director Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent satisfactorily corrected specified performance deficiencies within the 90-day probation period prescribed by Section 1012.34(3)(d), Florida Statutes, and, if not, whether Respondent's employment should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact One of the statutory duties of Petitioner Miami-Dade County School Board ("Board") is to evaluate the performance of every teacher employed in the Miami-Dade County School District ("District"), at least once per year. To accomplish this, the Board uses a personnel assessment system known as "PACES," which is an acronym for Professional Assessment and Comprehensive Evaluation System. PACES is the product of collective bargaining between the Board and the teachers' union, and it has been duly approved by the Florida Department of Education. The Board's evaluation procedure begins with an observation of the subject teacher, conducted by an administrator trained in the use of PACES. On a score sheet called the Observation Form for Annual Evaluation ("OFAE"), the evaluator rates the teacher's performance on 44 independently dispositive "indicators." The only grades assignable to the respective indicators are "acceptable" and "unacceptable"; thus, the evaluator's decision, for each indicator, is binary: yes or no, thumbs up or thumbs down.1 A negative mark on any one of the 44 indicators results in an overall performance evaluation of "unsatisfactory." For the teacher under observation, therefore, each indicator constitutes, in effect, a pass/fail test, with his or her job hanging in the balance. If the teacher passes all 44 of the independently dispositive indicators, then the teacher's performance is rated "satisfactory" and the evaluative process is complete. If, on the other hand, the teacher is given a failing grade on one or more of the 44 indicators and hence adjudged an unsatisfactory performer, then the initial observation is deemed to be "not of record" (i.e. inoperative) and a follow-up, "for the record" evaluation is scheduled to occur, upon notice to the affected teacher, about one month later. In the meantime, the teacher is offered the assistance of a Professional Growth Team ("PGT"), a group of peers who, having received special training in PACES, are in a position to help the affected teacher correct performance deficiencies in advance of the follow-up evaluation. The follow-up evaluation is conducted in the same manner as the initial "not of record" evaluation. If the teacher passes all 44 indicators, then his performance is deemed satisfactory and the evaluative process is complete. If he fails one or more of the indicators, however, then the teacher is placed on probation for a period of 90 calendar days (excluding vacations and holidays). The probation period is preceded by a formal Conference-for-the-Record ("CFR"), at which notice of the specific performance deficiencies is provided to the teacher. As well, the teacher is given a Professional Improvement Plan ("PIP"), wherein particular remedial tasks, intended to help the teacher correct the noted performance deficiencies, are assigned. During the performance probation, the teacher must be formally observed at least twice, by an evaluator using the OFAE. If, on any of these probationary observations, the teacher fails at least one indicator, then another PIP is prepared and offered. Within 14 days after the end of probation, a "confirmatory evaluation" is conducted, using the OFAE. The purpose of the confirmatory evaluation is to determine whether the noted performance deficiencies were corrected. If they were, then the teacher's performance is rated "satisfactory." If not, the principal then makes a recommendation to the superintendent whether to continue or terminate the teacher's employment. As mentioned above, a PACES evaluation takes account of 44 crucial indicators.2 The indicators are organized under "components." The 44 outcome determinative indicators fall within 21 components, which are identified on the OFAE. These components are organized, in turn, under "domains," of which six are identified on the OFAE. Each domain has been assigned a Roman numeral identifier: I through VI. The components are distinguished alphabetically: A, B, C, etc. The indicators are numbered using Arabic numerals. Each specific indicator is named according to the Roman numeral of its domain, the letter of its component, and its own Arabic number. Thus, for example, the first indicator under Component A of Domain I is referred to as "I.A.1." Notwithstanding the PACES taxonomy, the classifications of "domain" and "component" are useful only as a means of organizing the indicators. This is because a teacher does not pass or fail a performance evaluation at the domain level or at the component level; rather, he passes or fails at the indicator level, for, again, each of the 44 indicators is independently dispositive under PACES.3 Thus, each of the determinative 44 indicators is of precisely equal weight. None is more important or less important than another.4 B. At all times material to this case, Respondent Sergio H. Escalona ("Escalona") was a teacher in the District. From 2000 until May 19, 2004, when the Board suspended him pending termination of employment, Escalona was a science teacher at Miami Springs Senior High School ("Miami Springs"), a typical high school in the District. During the 2003-04 school year, an evaluator observed Escalona in his classroom on five separate occasions, each time using the OFAE. The dates of these evaluations were, and the names of the respective evaluators are, as follows: Evaluation Date Evaluator November 5, 2003 Carlos M. del Cuadro, Assistant Principal, Miami Springs December 2, 2003 Mr. del Cuadro January 16, 2004 Douglas P. Rodriguez, Principal, Miami Springs February 17, 2004 Deborah Carter, Assistant Principal, Miami Springs April 5, 2004 Mr. Rodriguez The Board contends that Escalona failed all five evaluations; the first, however, was deemed "not of record" and thus is relevant only insofar as it opened the door to the process that followed. The following table shows, for each evaluation (including the first), the indicators that the respective evaluators thought Escalona had failed: IA1 IA2 IB1 IB3 IE3 IF1 IF2 IIA1 IIA3 IIB2 IIB4 11-05-03 x x x x x x x 12-02-03 x 01-16-04 x x x 02-17-04 x x x x 04-05-04 x x x IID1 IID3 IID4 IIE1 IIE2 IIE5 IIIA1 IIIA3 IIIB1 IIIB3 IIIB4 11-05-03 x x x x x x 12-02-03 x x 01-16-04 x x 02-17-04 x 04-05-04 x x x x x IVA3 IVA 5 IVA6 IVB1 IVB2 IVB 3 IVC2 IVD1 IVD3 IVD6 IVE2 11-05-03 x x x x x x x x x 12-02-03 x x x 01-16-04 x x x x x x 02-17-04 x x x x x 04-05-04 x ? x ? x ? x x IVE4 VA1 VA4 VB1 VB2 VC1 VIA2 VIB1 VIB3 VIC2 VIC4 11-05-03 x x x x x x x x 12-02-03 x x x x 01-16-04 x x x x x x x 02-17-04 04-05-04 x ? ? ? x ? x x Because Mr. del Cuadro identified 10 performance deficiencies on December 2, 2003, Escalona was placed on performance probation, pursuant to the procedure described in detail above. Mr. Rodriguez held a CFR on December 9, 2004, to review with Escalona the identified deficiencies and explain the procedures relating to the 90-day probation. Following the CFR, Escalona was given written notice of unsatisfactory performance, in the form of a Summary of Conference-For-The-Record And Professional Improvement Plan (PIP), dated December 9, 2003 ("Summary"). In the Summary, Mr. Rodriguez charged Escalona with failure to satisfactorily perform the following PACES indicators: II.B.4, II.E.5, III.B.3, IV.A.5, IV.B.1, IV.D.1, V.A.1, V.A.4, V.B.1, and VI.A.2. (These 10 indicators are highlighted vertically in the table above.) At the same time, Escalona was given a PIP, and a PGT was assembled to provide assistance. Following the confirmatory evaluation on April 5, 2004, based on which Mr. Rodriguez identified 24 deficiencies as shown in the table above, Mr. Rodriguez notified the superintendent that Escalona had failed to correct noted performance deficiencies during a 90-day probation and recommended that Escalona's employment be terminated. The superintendent accepted Mr. Rodriguez's recommendation on April 12, 2004, and shortly thereafter notified Escalona of his decision to recommend that the Board terminate Escalona's employment contract. On May 19, 2004, the Board voted to do just that. C. Of the four evaluations "for the record," the two that were conducted during Escalona's probation (on January 16, 2004, and February 17, 2004) are presently relevant mainly to establish that the proper procedure was followed——a matter that is not genuinely disputed. The substance of these probationary evaluations cannot affect the outcome here because even if Escalona's performance had been perfect during probation, Mr. Rodriguez nevertheless found deficiencies during the post- probation, confirmatory evaluation, which is the only one probative of the dispositive question: Had Escalona corrected the noted performance deficiencies as of the two-week period after the close of the 90 calendar days' probation? In view of the ultimate issue, the evaluation of December 2, 2003, is primarily relevant because it established the 10 "noted performance deficiencies" that Escalona needed to correct. For reasons that will be discussed below in the Conclusions of Law, the Board cannot terminate Escalona's employment based on other deficiencies allegedly found during probation or at the confirmatory evaluation; rather, it must focus exclusively on those 10 particular deficiencies which Escalona was given 90 calendar days to correct. Thus, stated more precisely, the ultimate question in this case is whether any of the 10 specific deficiencies identified in the Summary provided to Escalona on December 9, 2003, persisted after the 90-day probation. As it happened, Mr. Rodriguez determined, as a result of the confirmatory evaluation on April 5, 2004, that Escalona had corrected three of the 10 noted performance deficiencies, for Mr. Rodriguez gave Escalona a passing grade on the indicators II.B.4, II.E.5, and III.B.3. The remaining seven deficiencies upon which termination could legally be based are identified in the table above with the "?" symbol. It is to these seven allegedly uncorrected deficiencies that our attention now must turn. The Board contends, based on Mr. Rodriguez's confirmatory evaluation of April 5, 2004, that Escalona was still, as of that date, failing satisfactorily to perform the following PACES indicators: 5: The purpose or importance of learning tasks is clear to learners. 1: Teaching and learning activities are appropriate for the complexity of the learning context. IV.D.1: Learners have opportunities to learn at more than one cognitive and/or performance level or to integrate knowledge and understandings. V.A.1: Learners are actively engaged and/or involved in developing associations. 4: Learners are actively engaged and/or involved and encouraged to generate and think about examples from their own experiences. 1: A variety of questions that enable thinking are asked and/or solicited. VI.A.2: Learner engagement and/or involvement during learning tasks is monitored. The only descriptive evidence in the record regarding Escalona's performance on April 5, 2004——and hence the only evidence of historical fact upon which the undersigned can decide whether Escalona failed adequately to perform the seven indicators just mentioned——consists of Mr. Rodriguez's testimony. Mr. Rodriguez, who had observed Escalona in the classroom for 50 minutes that day, recounted at final hearing what he had seen as follows: Again, there were students that were simply not engaged at all in learning. For example, there was a student that put his head down at a particular time. He slept for about fifteen minutes. Mr. Escalona never addressed the student, never redirected the learning, never tried to engage that student. Overall the students continued to pass notes in class. The students simply——there was really no plan at all. That was get up, give a lecture. Kids were not paying attention. No redirection for student learning. Questions again very basic. Most of the questions had no response from the students. And [they] just seemed very disinterested, the students did, and the lesson was just not acceptable. Final Hearing Transcript at 103-04. To repeat for emphasis, any findings of historical fact concerning Escalona's performance during the confirmatory evaluation must be based on the foregoing testimony, for that is all the evidence there is on the subject.5 Mr. Rodriguez did not explain how he had applied the seven indicators quoted above to his classroom observations of Escalona to determine that the teacher's performance was not up to standards. D. The seven indicators at issue in this case, it will be seen upon close examination, are not standards upon which to base a judgment, but rather factual conditions ("indicator- conditions") for which the evaluator is supposed to look. If a particular indicator-condition (e.g. the purpose of learning tasks is clear to learners) is found to exist, then the evaluator should award the teacher a passing grade of "acceptable" for that indicator (in this example, Indicator IV.A.5); if not, the grade should be "unacceptable." The indicator-conditions are plainly not objective historical facts; they are, rather, subjective facts, which come into being only when the evaluator puts historical facts against external standards, using reason and logic to make qualitative judgments about what occurred. Subjective facts of this nature are sometimes called "ultimate" facts, the answers to "mixed questions" of law and fact. To illustrate this point, imagine that the class Mr. Rodriguez observed on April 5, 2004, had been videotaped from several different camera angles. The resulting tapes would constitute an accurate audio-visual record of what transpired in Escalona's class that day. Anyone later viewing the tapes would be able to make detailed and accurate findings of objective historical fact, including words spoken, actions taken, time spent on particular tasks, etc. But, without more than the videotapes themselves could provide, a viewer would be unable fairly to determine whether, for example, the "[t]eaching and learning activities [had been] appropriate for the complexity of the learning context" (Indicator IV.B.1), or whether the questions asked adequately "enable[d] thinking" (Indicator V.B.1).6 This is because to make such determinations fairly, consistently, and in accordance with the rule of law requires the use of standards of decision, yardsticks against which to measure the perceptible reality captured on film. Another term for standards of decision is "neutral principles." A neutral principle prescribes normative conduct in a way that permits fair judgments to be made consistently—— that is, in this context, enables the reaching of similar results with respect to similarly performing teachers most of the time. A neutral principle must not be either political or results oriented. It must be capable of being applied across- the-board, to all teachers in all evaluations. In the unique milieu of PACES, neutral principles could take a variety of forms. One obvious form would be standards of teacher conduct. Such standards might be defined, for example, with reference to the average competent teacher in the District (or school, or state, etc.). In an adjudicative proceeding such as this one, expert testimony might then be necessary to establish what the average competent teacher does, for example, to monitor learner engagement and/or involvement during learning tasks (Indicator VI.A.2) or to create opportunities to learn at more than one cognitive level (Indicator IV.D.1).7 Other standards might be definitional. For example, to determine whether teaching and learning activities are appropriate (Indicator IV.B.1) practically demands a definition of the term "appropriate" for this context. Still other standards might be framed as tests, e.g. a test for determining whether a question enables thinking (Indicator V.B.1). However the neutral principles are framed, at bottom there must be standards that describe what "satisfactory" performance of the indicators looks like, so that different people can agree, most of the time, that the indicator- conditions are present or absent in a given situation——and in other, similar situations. Without neutral principles to discipline the decision-maker, the indicators can be used as cover for almost any conclusion an evaluator (or Administrative Law Judge) might want to make. In this case, the record is devoid of any persuasive evidence of neutral principles for use in determining, as a matter of ultimate fact, whether the conditions described in the seven relevant indicators were extant in Escalona's classroom on April 5, 2004, or not. E. In this de novo proceeding, the undersigned fact- finder is charged with the responsibility of determining independently, as a matter of ultimate fact, whether, as of the two-week period following probation, Escalona had corrected all of the performance deficiencies of which he was notified at the outset of probation. The only evidence of Escalona's post- probation teaching performance consists of Mr. Rogriguez's testimony about his observation of Escalona for 50 minutes on April 5, 2004, which was quoted above. Mr. Rodriguez's testimony gives the undersigned little to work with. His observations can be boiled down to four major points, none of which flatters Escalona: (a) Escalona lectured, and the students, who seemed disinterested, did not pay attention——some even passed notes; (b) Escalona asked "very basic" questions, most of which elicited "no response"; (c) one student slept for 15 minutes, and Escalona left him alone; (d) the lesson was "just not acceptable." On inspection, these points are much less helpful than they might at first blush appear. One of them——point (d)——is merely a conclusion which invades the undersigned's province as the fact-finder; accordingly, it has been given practically no weight. The only facts offered in support of the conclusions, in point (a), that the students "seemed" disinterested and were "not paying attention" to Escalona's lecture is the testimony that some students passed notes, and some (many?) did not answer the teacher's questions. But this is a rather thin foundation upon which to rest a conclusion that the students were bored because Escalona's teaching was poor. And even if they were (or looked) bored, is it not fairly common for teenaged high-school students to be (or appear) bored in school, for reasons unrelated to the teacher's performance? There is no evidence whatsoever that student boredom (or note passing or non- responsiveness) features only in the classrooms of poorly performing teachers. As for the supposedly "basic" nature of Escalona's questions, see point (b), the undersigned cannot give Mr. Rodriguez's testimony much weight, because there is no evidence as to what the questions actually were or why they were so very basic. Finally, regarding point (c), the fact that a student slept during class is, to be sure, somewhat damaging to Escalona, inasmuch as students should not generally be napping in class, but without additional information about the student (who might have been sick, for all the undersigned knows) and the surrounding circumstances the undersigned is not persuaded that the sleeping student is res ipsa loquitur on the quality of of Escalona's teaching performance. There is certainly no evidence that students doze only in the bad teachers' classes. More important, however, than the paucity of evidence establishing the objective historical facts concerning Escalona's performance on April 5, 2004, is the failure of proof regarding neutral principles for use in determining the existence or nonexistence of the relevant indicator-conditions. Even if the undersigned had a clear picture of what actually occurred in Escalona's classroom that day, which he lacks, he has been provided no standards against which to measure Escalona's performance, to determine whether the indicator- conditions were met or not. The absence of evidence of such standards is fatal to the Board's case. To make ultimate factual determinations without proof of neutral principles, the undersigned would need to apply standards of his own devising. Whatever merit such standards might have, they would not be the standards used to judge other teachers, and hence it would be unfair to apply them to Escalona.
Conclusions The Division of Administrative Hearings has personal and subject matter jurisdiction in this proceeding pursuant to Sections 120.569, 120.57(1), and 1012.34(3)(d)2.b.(II), Florida Statutes. When a teacher contests a superintendent's recommendation of dismissal, as here, the ensuing hearing must be conducted "in accordance with chapter 120." See § 1012.34(3)(d)2.b.(II), Fla. Stat. A "chapter 120 proceeding [entails] a hearing de novo intended to 'formulate final agency action, not to review action taken earlier and preliminarily.'" Young v. Department of Community Affairs, 625 So. 2d 831, 833 (Fla. 1993)(quoting McDonald v. Department of Banking & Fin., 346 So. 2d 569, 584 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)). Thus, the Board's burden in this case was not merely to persuade the undersigned that the evaluators sincerely believed, after conducting a legally sufficient assessment, that Young's performance was deficient, nor even to persuade the undersigned that the evaluators' judgment was factually and legally tenable. Rather, the Board's burden was to persuade the undersigned himself to find, independently, that Young's performance was deficient. Because this case is a proceeding to terminate a teacher's employment and does not involve the loss of a license or certification, the Board was required to prove the alleged grounds for Escalona's dismissal by a preponderance of the evidence. McNeill v. Pinellas County School Bd., 678 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Allen v. School Bd. of Dade County, 571 So. 2d 568, 569 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Dileo v. School Bd. of Lake County, 569 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). B. Section 1012.34, Florida Statutes, which governs the process for evaluating teachers, provides in full as follows: 1012.34 Assessment procedures and criteria.-- For the purpose of improving the quality of instructional, administrative, and supervisory services in the public schools of the state, the district school superintendent shall establish procedures for assessing the performance of duties and responsibilities of all instructional, administrative, and supervisory personnel employed by the school district. The Department of Education must approve each district's instructional personnel assessment system. The following conditions must be considered in the design of the district's instructional personnel assessment system: The system must be designed to support district and school level improvement plans. The system must provide appropriate instruments, procedures, and criteria for continuous quality improvement of the professional skills of instructional personnel. The system must include a mechanism to give parents an opportunity to provide input into employee performance assessments when appropriate. In addition to addressing generic teaching competencies, districts must determine those teaching fields for which special procedures and criteria will be developed. Each district school board may establish a peer assistance process. The plan may provide a mechanism for assistance of persons who are placed on performance probation as well as offer assistance to other employees who request it. The district school board shall provide training programs that are based upon guidelines provided by the Department of Education to ensure that all individuals with evaluation responsibilities understand the proper use of the assessment criteria and procedures. The assessment procedure for instructional personnel and school administrators must be primarily based on the performance of students assigned to their classrooms or schools, as appropriate. Pursuant to this section, a school district's performance assessment is not limited to basing unsatisfactory performance of instructional personnel and school administrators upon student performance, but may include other criteria approved to assess instructional personnel and school administrators' performance, or any combination of student performance and other approved criteria. The procedures must comply with, but are not limited to, the following requirements: An assessment must be conducted for each employee at least once a year. The assessment must be based upon sound educational principles and contemporary research in effective educational practices. The assessment must primarily use data and indicators of improvement in student performance assessed annually as specified in s. 1008.22 and may consider results of peer reviews in evaluating the employee's performance. Student performance must be measured by state assessments required under s. 1008.22 and by local assessments for subjects and grade levels not measured by the state assessment program. The assessment criteria must include, but are not limited to, indicators that relate to the following: Performance of students. Ability to maintain appropriate discipline. Knowledge of subject matter. The district school board shall make special provisions for evaluating teachers who are assigned to teach out-of-field. Ability to plan and deliver instruction, including implementation of the rigorous reading requirement pursuant to s. 1003.415, when applicable, and the use of technology in the classroom. Ability to evaluate instructional needs. Ability to establish and maintain a positive collaborative relationship with students' families to increase student achievement. Other professional competencies, responsibilities, and requirements as established by rules of the State Board of Education and policies of the district school board. All personnel must be fully informed of the criteria and procedures associated with the assessment process before the assessment takes place. The individual responsible for supervising the employee must assess the employee's performance. The evaluator must submit a written report of the assessment to the district school superintendent for the purpose of reviewing the employee's contract. The evaluator must submit the written report to the employee no later than 10 days after the assessment takes place. The evaluator must discuss the written report of assessment with the employee. The employee shall have the right to initiate a written response to the assessment, and the response shall become a permanent attachment to his or her personnel file. If an employee is not performing his or her duties in a satisfactory manner, the evaluator shall notify the employee in writing of such determination. The notice must describe such unsatisfactory performance and include notice of the following procedural requirements: 1. Upon delivery of a notice of unsatisfactory performance, the evaluator must confer with the employee, make recommendations with respect to specific areas of unsatisfactory performance, and provide assistance in helping to correct deficiencies within a prescribed period of time. 2.a. If the employee holds a professional service contract as provided in s. 1012.33, the employee shall be placed on performance probation and governed by the provisions of this section for 90 calendar days following the receipt of the notice of unsatisfactory performance to demonstrate corrective action. School holidays and school vacation periods are not counted when calculating the 90-calendar-day period. During the 90 calendar days, the employee who holds a professional service contract must be evaluated periodically and apprised of progress achieved and must be provided assistance and inservice training opportunities to help correct the noted performance deficiencies. At any time during the 90 calendar days, the employee who holds a professional service contract may request a transfer to another appropriate position with a different supervising administrator; however, a transfer does not extend the period for correcting performance deficiencies. b. Within 14 days after the close of the 90 calendar days, the evaluator must assess whether the performance deficiencies have been corrected and forward a recommendation to the district school superintendent. Within 14 days after receiving the evaluator's recommendation, the district school superintendent must notify the employee who holds a professional service contract in writing whether the performance deficiencies have been satisfactorily corrected and whether the district school superintendent will recommend that the district school board continue or terminate his or her employment contract. If the employee wishes to contest the district school superintendent's recommendation, the employee must, within 15 days after receipt of the district school superintendent's recommendation, submit a written request for a hearing. The hearing shall be conducted at the district school board's election in accordance with one of the following procedures: A direct hearing conducted by the district school board within 60 days after receipt of the written appeal. The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of ss. 120.569 and 120.57. A majority vote of the membership of the district school board shall be required to sustain the district school superintendent's recommendation. The determination of the district school board shall be final as to the sufficiency or insufficiency of the grounds for termination of employment; or A hearing conducted by an administrative law judge assigned by the Division of Administrative Hearings of the Department of Management Services. The hearing shall be conducted within 60 days after receipt of the written appeal in accordance with chapter 120. The recommendation of the administrative law judge shall be made to the district school board. A majority vote of the membership of the district school board shall be required to sustain or change the administrative law judge's recommendation. The determination of the district school board shall be final as to the sufficiency or insufficiency of the grounds for termination of employment. The district school superintendent shall notify the department of any instructional personnel who receive two consecutive unsatisfactory evaluations and who have been given written notice by the district that their employment is being terminated or is not being renewed or that the district school board intends to terminate, or not renew, their employment. The department shall conduct an investigation to determine whether action shall be taken against the certificateholder pursuant to s. 1012.795(1)(b). The district school superintendent shall develop a mechanism for evaluating the effective use of assessment criteria and evaluation procedures by administrators who are assigned responsibility for evaluating the performance of instructional personnel. The use of the assessment and evaluation procedures shall be considered as part of the annual assessment of the administrator's performance. The system must include a mechanism to give parents and teachers an opportunity to provide input into the administrator's performance assessment, when appropriate. Nothing in this section shall be construed to grant a probationary employee a right to continued employment beyond the term of his or her contract. The district school board shall establish a procedure annually reviewing instructional personnel assessment systems to determine compliance with this section. All substantial revisions to an approved system must be reviewed and approved by the district school board before being used to assess instructional personnel. Upon request by a school district, the department shall provide assistance in developing, improving, or reviewing an assessment system. The State Board of Education shall adopt rules pursuant to ss. 120.536(1) and 120.54, that establish uniform guidelines for the submission, review, and approval of district procedures for the annual assessment of instructional personnel and that include criteria for evaluating professional performance. (Underlining and italics added). Under Section 1012.34(3), school districts must establish a primarily student performance-based procedure (or system) for assessing the performance of teachers. In other words, the method of accomplishing the assessment must be tailored to meet the goal of forming evaluative judgments about teachers' performance based mainly on the performance of their students. In clear terms, then, the legislature has announced that the primary (though not exclusive)8 indicator of whether a teacher is doing a good job is the performance of his students. If a teacher's students are succeeding, then, whatever he is doing, the teacher is likely (though not necessarily) performing his duties satisfactorily. It is plainly the legislature's belief that if we do not know how the teacher's students are performing, then we cannot make a valid judgment as to whether the teacher is performing his duties satisfactorily.9 The statute further mandates that, in assessing teachers, indicators of student performance——which performance is assessed annually as specified in Section 1008.22——must be the primarily-used data. (In contrast, evaluators are permitted, but not required, to make use of peer reviews in assessing teacher performance.) Section 1008.22, which is referenced specifically in Section 1012.34(3)(a), requires that school districts participate in a statewide assessment program, the centerpiece of which is the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test ("FCAT"). See § 1008.22(3), Fla. Stat. The FCAT is a standardized test that is administered annually to students in grades three through 10. Id. Section 1008.22 is not concerned only with the FCAT, however. Subsection (7), for example, provides as follows: (7) LOCAL ASSESSMENTS.--Measurement of the learning gains of students in all subjects and grade levels other than subjects and grade levels required for the state student achievement testing program is the responsibility of the school districts. Thus, the school districts are charged with developing their own local assessment tools, to fill in the gaps left open by the statewide FCAT testing program. Section 1008.22(5) provides additionally that "[s]tudent performance data shall be used in . . . evaluation of instructional personnel[.]" Section 1012.34(3)(a) prescribes two and only two permissible measures of student performance for use in evaluating teachers: (a) the statewide FCAT assessments and (b) the gap-filling local assessments, both of which measures are required under Section 1008.22. It is clear that Sections 1012.34(3) and 1008.22 have at least one subject in common, namely, student performance-based assessment of teachers. Being in pari materia in this regard, Sections 1012.34 and 1008.22 must be construed so as to further the common goal. See, e.g., Mehl v. State, 632 So. 2d 593, 595 (Fla. 1993)(separate statutory provisions that are in pari materia should be construed to express a unified legislative purpose); Lincoln v. Florida Parole Com'n, 643 So. 2d 668, 671 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)(statutes on same subject and having same general purpose should be construed in pari materia). When the requirements of Section 1012.34(3) are read together with Section 1008.22, several conclusions are inescapable. First, FCAT scores must be the primary source of information used in evaluating any teacher who teaches an FCAT- covered subject to students in grades three through 10. Second, school districts must develop, and annually administer, local assessments for subjects and grade levels not measured by the FCAT. Third, student performance data derived from local assessments must be the primary source of information used in evaluating teachers whose subjects are not covered on the FCAT and/or whose students do not take the FCAT. The absence of evidence in the record concerning the performance of Escalona's students either on the FCAT or on local assessments, as appropriate, see endnote 5, supra, deprives the undersigned of information that the legislature has deemed essential to the evaluation of a teacher's performance. Having neither state nor local assessments to review, the undersigned cannot find that Escalona's performance was deficient in the first place, much less whether he corrected the alleged performance deficiencies in accordance with Section 1012.34(3)(d). Without such findings, the Board cannot dismiss Escalona for failure to correct noted performance deficiencies. C. It was stated in the Findings of Fact above that the Board can terminate Escalona's employment only if, based on an assessment of his performance as of the two-week period following the 90 calendar days of probation, the teacher had failed to correct the particular performance deficiencies of which he had been formally notified in writing prior to probation; other alleged deficiencies, whether observed during probation or thereafter, cannot be relied upon in support of a decision to dismiss Escalona. Standing behind this observation is Section 1012.34(3)(d), Florida Statutes. The pertinent statutory language instructs that a teacher whose performance has been deemed unsatisfactory must be provided a written "notice of unsatisfactory performance," which notice shall include a description of "such unsatisfactory performance" plus recommendations for improvement in the "specific areas of unsatisfactory performance." The statute then specifies that the teacher must be allowed 90 calendar days "following the receipt of the notice of unsatisfactory performance" to correct "the noted performance deficiencies." Clearly, the "noted performance deficiencies" are the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance described in the notice of unsatisfactory performance. Finally, the statute mandates that the teacher shall be assessed within two weeks after the end of probation to determine whether "the performance deficiencies" have been corrected. It is clear, again, that "the performance deficiencies" are "the noted performance deficiencies" described in the written notice of unsatisfactory performance. See § 1012.34(3)(d)1. & 2.a., Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). The reason why a decision to terminate a poorly performing teacher must be based solely on the specific performance deficiencies described in the pre-probation notice of unsatisfactory performance is plain: allowing the school district to rely on subsequently observed deficiencies would defeat the teacher's unambiguous statutory right to have 90 post-notice calendar days in which to correct the noted performance deficiencies that triggered probation in the first place. This case exemplifies the problem posed by post-notice deficiencies. The notice of unsatisfactory performance (the Summary) that gave rise to Escalona's probation, which was based on Mr. del Cuadro's evaluation of December 2, 2003, charged the teacher with 10 specific performance deficiencies. By February 17, 2004, when Ms. Carter formally observed Escalona for the last time before the end of probation, Escalona had corrected all but one (Indicator IV.A.5) of the noted performance deficiencies——suggesting that he had made significant improvement. Unfortunately for Escalona, however, Ms. Carter believed that the teacher had exhibited nine deficiencies besides the noted performance deficiencies, with the net result that, near the end of probation, Escalona still had 10 deficiencies. Of these nine post-notice deficiencies, four (Indicators I.F.1, I.F.2, II.A.1, and IV.B.3) were recorded for the first time ever on February 17, 2004. Obviously, Escalona was not given 90 days to correct these four alleged deficiencies. Yet another three of the post-notice deficiencies reported by Ms. Carter (Indicators I.A.1, IV.A.6, and IV.B.2) had not been seen since Mr. Cuadro's initial evaluation of November 5, 2003. This initial evaluation, being "not of record," cannot count as a notice of unsatisfactory performance to Escalona. Hence he was not given 90 days to correct these three alleged deficiencies. For that matter, the remaining two post-notice deficiencies alleged to exist on February 17, 2004—— Indicators II.D.4 and IV.A.3——had not been observed, post- notice, until January 16, 2004, which means that Escalona did not have 90 days to correct them, either. For the above reasons, when assessing whether, in fact, Escalona had corrected the noted performance deficiencies as of the two-week period following probation, the undersigned focused, as he was required to do, exclusively on the 10 deficiencies described in the Summary, seven of which were alleged not to have been timely corrected. Having determined as a matter of fact that the evidence was insufficient to prove these seven alleged deficiencies existed or persisted, it must be concluded that the Board has failed to carry its burden of establishing the alleged factual grounds for dismissal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order: (a) exonerating Escalona of all charges brought against him in this proceeding; (b) providing that Escalona be immediately reinstated to the position from which he was suspended; and (c) awarding Escalona back salary, plus benefits, to the extent these accrued during the suspension period, together with interest thereon at the statutory rate. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of November, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of November, 2004.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent, Cynthia A. Foy (Respondent), committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint; whether the alleged conduct constitutes violations of Subsection 1012.795(1)(b), (c), (f), and (i), Florida Statutes (2003),1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e) and (5)(d); and, if so, what penalty, if any, should be imposed on Respondent's teaching certificate.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent, Cynthia Foy, holds Florida Educator's Certificate No. 468641, covering the areas of early childhood education, elementary education, and English to speakers of other languages, which is valid through June 30, 2007. Respondent had been employed with the Hillsborough County School Board 17 years as of the 2002-2003 school term. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was employed as a first-grade teacher at Colson Elementary School (Colson) in the Hillsborough County School District (School District). Respondent worked as a teacher at Colson for about five years, beginning the 1998-1999 school year. During her employment in the School District, including her employment at Colson, Respondent never had any disciplinary action taken against her. From 1986 through 1996, Respondent consistently received satisfactory ratings on her annual teacher evaluations, except for one school year when she had three deaths in her family, including the sudden death of her father and of her 38-year-old brother. Respondent's Absences Respondent was absent from work 22 days during the 1998-1999 school year, her first year at Colson. Some of the absences were related to Respondent's health issues. However, most of Respondent's absences were related to her mother's illness. During the 1998-1999 school year, Respondent's mother was confined to a nursing home and had become very ill and frail. Due to her mother's failing health, Respondent wanted to be with her mother, to watch and take care of her. Also, even though Respondent's mother was in a nursing home, Respondent was responsible for taking her mother to her own doctors to make sure she got the proper care. During the 1999-2000 school year, Respondent was absent from work 13.5 days. Respondent's mother died during that school year. As a result, Respondent missed 13.5 days to deal with matters related to her mother's death. During the 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 school years, Respondent was absent from school for 19.45 and 16 days, respectively. These absences were because of Respondent's own health issues. During these school years, Respondent was under an extreme amount of stress due to what she perceived to be a hostile work environment at school. Mary Clark, principal of Colson, was concerned about Respondent's absences and specifically noted this concern on all of Respondent's evaluations, which are at issue in this proceeding. The reasons for Respondent's absences were not disputed, and there is no assertion that the absences were unauthorized. However, Mrs. Clark believed that Respondent's absences resulted in the lack of continuity of instruction and negatively impacted the learning of students in Respondent's first-grade classes. Mrs. Clark testified that because of their concern about their children's progress, some parents requested that their children be transferred from Respondent's class to another first-grade class. Records of such requests and actual transfers were not presented at hearing. However, Mrs. Clark recalled that at least one student had been transferred from Respondent's class. Whether the only reason for the transfer was Respondent's absences is unclear. Notwithstanding Mrs. Clark's concern and belief that Respondent's absences had a negative impact on the students in her class, no basis for this concern was established. To the contrary, during Respondent's tenure at Colson, her students consistently performed well academically as reflected by their scores on the Stanford Achievement Test, a nationally normed test. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the Stanford Achievement Test was used by the School District to assess first-grade students' achievement in the areas of mathematics and reading. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the test was administered to first-grade students at Colson in March or April of each school year. In March 2000, there were four first-grade classes at Colson. Of those four classes, Respondent's students made the highest scores in both the reading section and the math section of the Stanford Achievement Test. The results of the Stanford Achievement Test administered in April 2001, reflect that of the four first-grade classes, the students in Respondent's class made significantly higher scores in both reading and mathematics than the students in the other three first-grade classes. As of April 2002, Colson had six first-grade classes. Of the six first-grade classes, Respondent's class ranked first on the reading section and second on the mathematics section of the Stanford Achievement Test. Respondent's Annual Performance Evaluations The School District utilizes the Classroom Certificated Instructional Effectiveness Evaluation Form (Evaluation Form), which has been approved by the Hillsborough County School Board (School Board) as the instrument by which its teachers are evaluated. Typically, tenured teachers with professional service contracts are evaluated annually, but if the tenured teacher is experiencing difficulties in the classroom, the school administrator may evaluate the teacher more than once a year. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the Evaluation Form consisted of the following categories in which teachers are evaluated: Category I, Planning and Preparation, which includes six subsections or areas; Category II, Professional Behaviors, which includes 12 areas; Category III, Techniques of Instruction, which includes 15 areas; Category IV, Classroom Management, which includes seven areas; and Category V, Instructional Effectiveness, which includes one area. The Evaluation Form requires that the teacher's performance in each area be rated as "satisfactory," "needs improvement," or "unsatisfactory." The highest possible rating is "satisfactory," and the lowest rating is "unsatisfactory." In addition to the areas under the various categories in which teachers are rated, the evaluation requires that the teacher be given an "overall rating" of "satisfactory" or "unsatisfactory." As principal of Colson, one of Mrs. Clark's responsibilities was to supervise and evaluate the teachers at the school. Consistent with that responsibility, Mrs. Clark supervised and evaluated Respondent. Mrs. Clark evaluated Respondent once in the 1998-1999, 1999-2000, and 2000-2001 school years, usually in April. During the 2001-2002 school year, Mrs. Clark evaluated Respondent twice, in December 2001 and in March 2002. Mrs. Clark decided to evaluate Respondent twice in the 2001-2002 school year. Given Respondent's status as a tenured teacher and Mrs. Clark's "concerns over the years with her performance," by evaluating Respondent in the fall, Mrs. Clark would be able to give Respondent notice of the areas in which she still needed to improve. During the period between the fall evaluation and the spring evaluation, Respondent would have an opportunity to work to improve in those areas.2/ The ratings assigned to Respondent's performance on each of the Evaluation Forms are based on data that is collected by Mrs. Clark through her observations and while "walking into [the] classroom on a regular basis." The Administrative Complaint alleged that Respondent's evaluations for the 1998-1999 through the 2001-2002 school years indicated that she needed to improve in specified areas under the following categories: Category II, Professional Behavior; Category III, Techniques of Instruction; and Category IV, Classroom Management.3/ Although Respondent worked at Colson during the 2002-2003 School year, there is no evidence that she was evaluated that year as required by law. If an evaluation was completed for that school year, the Administrative Complaint does not allege that the evaluation indicated any areas in which Respondent needed to improve. Professional Behavior The Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent received several evaluations from 1999 through 2002 that indicated she needed to improve in the following areas under the Professional Behavior category: 1) observes confidentiality related to students; 2) works cooperatively and supportively with school staff; and 3) responds reasonably to and acting appropriately to constructive criticism. With regard to the first area of concern, "observes confidentiality related to students," none of Respondent’s evaluations for the relevant time period, 1998-1999, 1999-2000, 2000-2001, and 2001-2002 school years, indicated that she needed to improve in that area. In fact, contrary to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, all five of Respondent's evaluations for that time period indicate that her performance in that area was rated as "satisfactory." The second area under Professional Behaviors in which it is alleged that Respondent's evaluations indicated she needed to improve is "works cooperatively and supportively with school staff." Respondent's evaluations for her first three school years at Colson--1998-1999, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001--reflect that her performance in the area, "works cooperatively with school staff," was "satisfactory." However, after receiving "satisfactory" ratings in this area for three consecutive years, for the first time, Respondent's evaluation for the 2001-2002 school year indicated that Respondent needed to improve in this area.4/ The evaluations gave no reason for the "needs improvement" rating in the area, "works cooperatively with school staff," on Respondent's December 2001 and April 2002 evaluations. Although no specific basis for the rating is given on the evaluation, it is noted that these evaluations coincide with the area supervisor's observations. The third area under the Professional Behavior category in which it is alleged that Respondent received several evaluations that indicated she needed to improve is the area, "responds reasonably to and acts appropriately upon constructive criticism." Contrary to this allegation, none of Respondent's evaluations indicated that she needed to improve in this area. Rather, Respondent's performance in the area, "responds reasonably to and acts appropriately upon constructive criticism," was rated as "satisfactory" on all five of the evaluations she received during the relevant time period. Techniques of Instruction The Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent received several evaluations that indicated she needed to improve in the following areas under the Technique of Instruction category: (1) uses instructional time efficiently; presents subject matter effectively; and (3) uses praise appropriately. Respondent's evaluations for the 1998-1999, 2000-2001, and 2001-2002 school years indicated that Respondent needed to improve in the area, "uses instructional time efficiently." As a possible rationale for the rating assigned in the 1998-1999 evaluation, Mrs. Clark wrote on the evaluation, "I am concerned about the slow pace of her lesson as well as the pacing through reading." The evaluations for the 2000-2001 and the 2001-2002 school years gave no rationale for the "needs improvement" rating in the area, "uses instructional time efficiently." Additionally, there is no indication that Mrs. Clark told Respondent the basis of the rating or offered any recommendations as to how Respondent could improve in this area. Upon Respondent's receiving the December 2001 and the March 2002 evaluations, she requested, in writing, a detailed written explanation of the basis for each of the "needs improvement" ratings, which included the area, "uses instructional time efficiently." There is no evidence that Mrs. Clark ever provided the requested explanation. Additionally, the evidence does not establish a basis for the "needs improvement" rating in this area. The next area at issue under the Techniques of Instruction category is, "presents subject matter effectively." Respondent's evaluations for the 1999-2000 and the 2000-2001 school years indicate that Respondent needed to improve in this area. However, neither the evaluation, nor any evidence at the hearing, offered or established a basis for this rating. On Respondent's evaluations for the 1998-1999 school year, and most recently for the 2001-2002 school year, her performance in the area, "presents subject matter effectively," was rated as "satisfactory." Clearly, the "satisfactory" ratings on the December 2001 and March 2002 evaluations, which were for the 2001-2002 school year, marked an improvement over Respondent's ratings in that category for the immediate prior two school years. Finally, it is alleged that the third area under the Techniques of Instruction category in which Respondent's evaluations indicated she needed to improve is, "uses praise appropriately." Respondent's evaluation for 1998-1999, her first year at Colson, indicated that she needed to improve in this area. The next three school years, however, Respondent's performance in this area improved to "satisfactory," as reflected by the four evaluations for the 1999-2000, 2000-2001, and 2001-2002 school years. Classroom Management Under the category, Classroom Management, it is alleged that Respondent's evaluations indicated that she needed to improve in the area, "enhances and maintains students' self- esteem." On Respondent's evaluations for the 1998-1999 and the 1999-2000 school years, her first two years at Colson, Respondent's performance in the area, "enhances and maintains students' self-esteem," was rated "satisfactory." Respondent's evaluation for the 2000-2001 school year indicated that her performance in the area, "enhances and maintains students' self-esteem," was unsatisfactory. It is specifically found that the Administrative Complaint makes no allegations regarding the "unsatisfactory" rating. Accordingly, except for limited purposes, issues related to that rating will not be addressed. Respondent's performance in the area, "enhancing and maintaining students' self-esteem," improved in the 2001-2002 school year from "unsatisfactory" to "needs improvement," as reflected in both her December 2001 and April 2002 evaluations. Instructional Effectiveness The Administrative Complaint does not allege that Respondent's evaluations reflect that she needs to improve in the Instructional Effectiveness category. However, in order to present a more complete picture of Respondent's performance, as rated on her evaluations, this category and Respondent's ratings thereunder are considered. The Instructional Effectiveness category includes only one area, "promotes academic learning which results in improved student performance."5/ This area is concerned with and assesses whether actual learning is taking place as a result of the teacher's instruction. 39. For the 1998-1999, 1999-2000, 2000-2001, and 2001-2002 school years, Respondent's performance in the area, "promotes academic learning which results in improved student performance," is rated as "satisfactory." Overall Rating Category Respondent's "overall rating" in all five of her evaluations for the 1998-1999, 1999-2000, 2000-2001, and 2001- 2002 was "satisfactory." 6/ Transfer of Student to Respondent's Class (January 2001) In January 2001, a student, F.R., was transferred to Respondent's class from another first grade class because of his behavioral problems. When such a transfer takes place, the teacher to whom the student is being transferred is given prior notice that the student is being assigned to her class. In this instance, that was not done. Respondent was not informed in advance that F.R. was being transferred to her class. On the first day the students returned to school from winter break, F.R. just "showed up" in Respondent's class. Later, Respondent was told that the child was transferred to her class because he was having peer conflict problems, and, as a result, he was acting out. Respondent was told that the student’s acting out behavior included such things as spitting on children, stabbing children with forks, knocking things off the children's desks, and having outbursts. Respondent thought this was a new chance for the child, and she attempted to make the new class assignment work. For example, rather than isolate the child, as his former teacher had recommended, Respondent assigned F.R. to a seat between two very well-behaved little girls, who she knew would never say anything mean to him. Despite Respondent's efforts to work with F.R., he exhibited lashing out and angry behaviors. Due to F.R.'s exhibiting lashing out behavior, Respondent was concerned for the safety of the other students in the class. In January or early February 2001, Respondent shared her concern with Mrs. Clark and asked that F.R. be removed from her class. Mrs. Clark responded that F.R. was just a little boy and said, "Let's see how he does." No offers for assistance were made, and Respondent felt that her request was simply ignored. Later, in January or early February 2001, as Respondent's class lined up and walked to the lunchroom, F.R. deliberately "high stepped and slid on the heels" of the child in front of him. When Respondent asked F.R. to stop, he just laughed, looked at Respondent, and repeated the behavior. Respondent told F.R. to stand out on the side of the line and walk with her. At first he complied, but then he started to get back in the line. Respondent then told F.R., "You're walking with me." After F.R. ignored Respondent, she took his hand so that he could walk with her. F.R. then yanked and pulled Respondent's fingers back, kicked Respondent "really hard" in the upper ankle, and "took off running." Respondent reported the incident to Mrs. Clark and the vice-principal and completed an incident report, reporting her injury and indicating her belief that F.R.'s behavior described in paragraph 44 constituted an assault/battery. After the incident, Respondent again asked Mrs. Clark to transfer F.R. from her class. Mrs. Clark never responded to Respondent's request. In fact, Mrs. Clark never talked to Respondent about the incident. Some time after the February 21, 2001, observation discussed below, there was a second incident where F.R. was physically aggressive toward Respondent. F.R. ran out of the lunchroom to return to the classroom to get the check he had forgotten. Concerned about his past behavior of destroying and "messing up" the other children's belongings, Respondent went to get F.R. Before Respondent could get to the classroom, F.R. had gotten the check and was running back to the lunchroom and toward Respondent. Respondent stuck her arm out to stop him and he continued running around her. Once in the lunchroom, Respondent "pulled" or "grabbed" the check from F.R.'s hand and asked the aides in the lunchroom to call Mrs. Clark. F.R. then seemed to explode, and he began punching Respondent with his fists and biting her. By the time the assistant principal got to the lunchroom, four students had pulled F.R. off Respondent, and Respondent was holding F.R.'s hand. When the vice-principal arrived, she did not discuss the incident with Respondent, but began screaming and told Respondent, "Go, get out of here, leave!" Following the lunchroom incident, Respondent filed another assault report and, for the third time, asked Mrs. Clark to transfer F.R. from her class. After there was no response to her verbal request, a union representative advised Respondent to make the request in writing. Initially, Mrs. Clark denied the request because it was not on the proper form, but once Respondent made the request on the appropriate form, F.R. was transferred from her class. Prior to the requests related to F.R., Respondent has never requested that a student be transferred from her class. Observations of Area Supervisor Ms. Daryl Saunders, an area supervisor for the School District, went to Respondent's classroom on five different occasions between February 21, 2001, and March 21, 2002, twice during the 2000-2001 school year, and three times during the 2001-2002 school year, to conduct observations. On a visit in February 2002, Ms. Saunders did not conduct an observation. With the exception of the first visit to Respondent's classroom, all of Ms. Saunders' visits were for the purpose of observing Respondent. Of the four times Ms. Saunders went to observe Respondent, she actually conducted observations three times. First Observation (February 21, 2001) Ms. Saunders' first visit to Respondent's classroom was on February 21, 2001. At the request of Mrs. Clark, Ms. Saunders went to Respondent's classroom to observe a student, F.R., who had been displaying inappropriate behavior in class and is described above.7/ During the time Ms. Saunders observed F.R., he did not have any outbursts, engage in any physically aggressive behavior, or display any disruptive or inappropriate behaviors. Ms. Saunders noted that the student delayed starting his assignment and took breaks between work, but did not bother any other student. Based on her observation of F.R. and the manner in which Respondent communicated with him, Ms. Saunders wrote in the summary letter to Mrs. Clark, "I believe F.R. is trying to survive in a room where he feels he is not valued." While Ms. Saunders was observing F.R., she also observed Respondent teaching and interacting with the students. Ms. Saunders was particularly concerned with Respondent's frequent verbal reprimands that were audible to the entire class. During the observation, Ms. Saunders also noticed that Respondent seemed to be easily frustrated and that when communicating with students, her voice vacillated between a friendly tone to an aggressive tone. Ms. Saunders expressed this and other concerns, not relevant to this proceeding, to Mrs. Clark in a letter dated February 22, 2001. According to the letter, a verbal reprimand to a particular student in front of the entire class is "damaging to [a] student's self-esteem." Ms. Saunders further noted that "considering the environment, I was surprised there were no behavioral issues while I was present." In the February 22, 2001, letter to Mrs. Clark, Ms. Saunders recommended that "we provide [Respondent] with some assistance so that the classroom environment is more conducive for instruction and learning." As a means of supporting Respondent in this effort, Ms. Saunders recommended that Mrs. Clark "have [Respondent] take two courses through the staff development office." The two classes that Ms. Saunders recommended were Cooperative Discipline and Effective Teaching Strategies. Finally, Ms. Saunders' letter stated, "the Language Arts Frameworks document should be reviewed with [Respondent]." There is no indication that Mrs. Clark discussed these recommendations. Second Observation (May 7, 2001) At Mrs. Clark's request, Ms. Saunders visited Respondent's classroom on May 7, 2001, to observe Respondent's teaching practices. This was about two weeks after Respondent received her evaluation for the 2000-2001 school year, which had rated her performance as unsatisfactory in the area of "enhancing and maintaining student's self-esteem." Pursuant to an earlier suggestion by Ms. Saunders, Respondent allowed herself to be videotaped in order that she could better critique her own behavior in the classroom. To implement this recommendation, the school's media specialist was in the classroom to set up the video equipment on the day of Ms. Saunders' observation. Soon after Ms. Saunders arrived, the media specialist asked Respondent if she should put the tape in the video recorder. Respondent answered, "Please, I don't want to be accused of using three minutes of my time up." Ms. Saunders believed that Respondent's tone of voice was "unprofessional" and that the comment was directed at her. During the May 7, 2001, observation, a student who was speaking to other students in a group had her back to them. Respondent's voice "became aggravated" as she told the student to turn around. Respondent placed her hands on the student's shoulders and physically turned her, but did not do so forcibly. During the May 7, 2001, observation, Ms. Saunders noted improvement in Respondent's communication with her students. In her written summary of the observation dated May 16, 2001, Ms. Saunders wrote: Based on that first encounter [February 21, 2001], I would say my greatest concern was how you communicated with both students and adults. However, this time your demeanor in front of the children was quite different than when I last observed in your classroom. I believe having the video camera present helped to keep you focused on appropriate communication with the children. I was pleased to hear more of a pleasant tone. Ms. Saunders' summary also stated that she counted four times when Respondent appeared to become frustrated and her tone of voice changed to a negative one. Ms. Saunders' summary of the May 7, 2001, observation included the following recommendations: One way to support and assist you regarding classroom environment, instruction and planning would be to have someone review with you, the six domains from the Florida Performance Measurement System. This information is based on research and would be beneficial to again cover. In addition, I recommend that you attend training provided by the elementary education department specifically in the area of writing. Enrollment can be done on-line. . . . There are many courses offered this summer. The Language Arts Frameworks document should also be reviewed. This will provide information about our district's curriculum and the writer's workshop model. Other staff development offerings related to classroom management are offered periodically through the staff development office. I suggest you take one of their courses to assist you with classroom management. You can register on line any time. . . . In the May 16, 2001, summary, Ms. Saunders notified Respondent that she planned to observe Respondent's classroom again soon. Additionally, Ms. Saunders indicated that she expected to see "appropriate and timely instruction and activities based on student need and planned from grade level expectations." Third Observation (December 6, 2001) Ms. Saunders conducted the third observation on December 6, 2001, seven months after the previous observation. Ms. Saunders summarized her observations in a letter dated December 17, 2001. In the letter, Ms. Saunders advised Respondent, for the first time, that the December 6, 2001, observation was part of a plan to assist Respondent with teaching practices. On December 6, 2001, Ms. Saunders arrived at Respondent's classroom at 8:30 a.m. and stayed until 9:10 a.m., when the children left the room for an activity. During the 40-minute observation, Ms. Saunders heard Respondent communicating with students and observed her conducting a review of telling time. Ms. Saunders was complimentary of Respondent's review of telling time. In the written summary to Respondent, Ms. Saunders wrote: You try hard to provide ways for students to remember abstract concepts. You use pneumonic devices, short stories, rhymes and other ways to assist with memorization. By calling the numbers bases and relating the time to the name of the base they passed, students more accurately read time when the short hand falls somewhere between two numbers. This seemed quite effective. Ms. Saunders observed an incident which she perceived to be negative. There was a student who was off task. Respondent directed her attention to the student and asked the student, "Would your mother [or family] be proud of you?" Ms. Saunders believed that when Respondent made this statement, her voice "sounded with disapproval." Ms. Saunders suggested that in the situation described in paragraph 66, Respondent should have "encouraged" proper behavior by asking the student a question that would have him participate so that he becomes on task rather than off task. In another situation, Ms. Saunders observed Respondent interact appropriately and effectively with a student she was reprimanding. In that case, Respondent asked the student, "What time is it?" Before that student could answer, another student shouted out the answer. Recalling Respondent's positive response in that situation, Ms. Saunders stated the following in the December 17, 2001, summary: A boy shouted out the answer and you began to reprimand him. You began to speak, stopped yourself, and continued with this carefully crafted sentence. "Tell me the rule about calling out." It was nice to see you stop yourself in mid-stream, rethink a way to correct this misconduct while still preserving the child's dignity. Based on the December 6, 2001, observation, Ms. Saunders had two areas of concern, only one of which is relevant in this case. That area relates to Respondent's "appropriate use of instructional time." Ms. Saunders' concern is stated in the summary as follows: In my opinion, a second area of concern relates to planning and appropriate use of instructional time. I entered your room at 8:30 and the instructional day begins at 8:00 a.m. Instruction in your room did not begin until 8:44 and the fifteen minutes suggested for calendar math was stretched to 21 minutes. I suggest you utilize time more wisely by beginning calendar math immediately after announcements. Then spend the rest of the morning on shared, guided and independent reading when youngsters are fresh and ready to learn. Beginning instruction nearly 45 minutes after the day begins will allow you to cover all the curriculum. Although the "instructional day," to the extent that term refers to Respondent's teaching a lesson to the class, did not begin at 8:00 a.m., or soon thereafter, there was a reasonable explanation for the delay. First, three students were assigned to Respondent's class that day because their regular teacher was absent. Prior to beginning instruction, Respondent met with those students, asked them their names, assigned them desks, and explained her classroom management system. Respondent's classroom management system involved giving each student a certain number of clothes pins at the beginning of the day. During the school day, the students could lose and/or earn clothes pins, depending on their conduct. The second reason for the delay in beginning the instructional day was that several students in Respondent's class had been allowed to go to the media center to "Santa's Book Fair." As Ms. Saunders noted in her written summary, several of Respondent's students did not return to the classroom from the book fair until 8:36 a.m. In light of the foregoing circumstances, it was reasonable that Respondent did not begin the "instructional day" at 8:00 a.m., or immediately after announcements were made. Admittedly, Ms. Saunders did not know what, if any, instructions or directions Respondent gave to students prior to 8:30 a.m. However, when Ms. Saunders entered Respondent's classroom, the students were actively engaged in various activities. For example, one student was working on math worksheets. Another student was at the computer taking an Accelerated Reading test. Respondent was working with the student at the computer. In addition to Ms. Saunders' concern that the instructional day did not begin until 8:44 a.m., she believed that Respondent spent too much time teaching the "calendar math" activity. Respondent began the activity at 8:44 a.m., and completed it at 9:05 a.m. Even though Ms. Saunders complimented Respondent on her presentation of the activity, as discussed in paragraph 65, she criticized Respondent for spending too much time teaching or reviewing the lesson. According to Ms. Saunders, the "suggested" time for "calendar math" was 15 minutes, but Respondent "stretched" the activity to 21 minutes, which was six minutes longer than the "suggested" time. Ms. Saunders offered no explanation of why or how Respondent's extending the calendar math activity by six minutes was not an "appropriate use of instructional time." At 9:10, a.m., five minutes after the calendar math lesson, Respondent's students had to leave the classroom to attend a health presentation. The five minutes between the end of "calendar math" and when the children left the classroom for the health presentation, allowed time for the children to return to their seats and for Respondent to pass out name tags to the students and have them line up before leaving the room. Ms. Saunders offered no suggestions as to a more appropriate or acceptable way Respondent could or should have used the extra six minutes that Respondent used teaching the calendar math activity. Ms. Saunders summarized the December 6, 2001, observation and made recommendations in a letter dated December 17, 2001. Based on Ms. Saunders' concerns about Respondent's teaching practices, Ms. Saunders recommended that Respondent "have someone review with [her] the six domains from the Florida Performance Measurement System." Also, she recommended that Respondent take training provided by the elementary education department and a classroom management course, both of which were offered "periodically" through the staff development office. Attempted Observation (February 2001) On an unspecified day in February 2002, Ms. Saunders went to Respondent's classroom to conduct her fourth observation. After Ms. Saunders entered the classroom, Respondent told her that she had no notice of the observation. Ms. Saunders then advised Respondent that Mrs. Clark knew that Ms. Saunders would be observing Respondent's class that day, but that "neither of us [Saunders nor Clark] chose to make you [Respondent] aware of the visitation." Respondent espoused the view that she should have received notice of the observation. Ms. Saunders disputed Respondent's view that she should have been given notice and indicated that the observation was part of the assistance plan laid out in May 2001. Respondent replied that an assistance plan could only last 90 days and, thus, this observation could not be part of any such plan. Ms. Saunders then asserted that she could do an observation any time as part of her normal duties. Respondent disagreed and requested that Ms. Saunders provide her with a written explanation of the reason why Ms. Saunders was visiting the class, the instrument she would be using, what she would be observing, and how long she would be staying. As the verbal interchange proceeded, Ms. Saunders thought that Respondent's voice became more aggressive and that she was also getting upset. Because Respondent's students were in the classroom, Ms. Saunders decided to leave the classroom and return at another time. Although students were in the classroom during the verbal exchange concerning whether Ms. Saunders' visit was authorized, there is no evidence that the students heard the conversation. Fourth Observation (March 21, 2002) On March 21, 2002, Ms. Saunders conducted an observation in Respondent's classroom. Upon Ms. Saunders' entering the room, Respondent advised her that she had no notice that Ms. Saunders was coming to her class. Respondent also told Ms. Saunders that the students were taking a school-wide writing assessment. Ms. Saunders acknowledged that, but still indicated that she would be seated and conduct an observation. Respondent then approached Ms. Saunders and asked why she was in the class, what instrument she was using, and what she was observing. Ms. Saunders reiterated her prior position that she was there as part of the assistance plan and that she would be taking anecdotal notes. Respondent then asserted her earlier position, that an assistance plan was only for 90 days. Consistent with Ms. Saunders' previous recommendation that Respondent tape herself in class as a way to critique herself, Respondent told Ms. Saunders and the class that she was turning on the tape recorder. Ms. Saunders began the observation at or about 8:58 a.m., and ended it at 9:16 a.m. In all, the observation lasted only about 18 minutes. During most of that time, Respondent's students were completing a school-wide writing assessment. As students finished the writing assessment, Respondent gave them books to read silently, while the other children continued to work on the writing assessment. Ms. Saunders summarized the March 21, 2002, observation in a letter dated April 18, 2002. Due to the duration of the observation, 18 minutes, and the fact that the students were taking a writing assessment, Ms. Saunders reported only a few specific observations. None of those observations concerned or were related to Respondent's teaching techniques or classroom management.8/ In the April 18, 2002, letter, Ms. Saunders summarized the March 21, 2002, observation and made conclusions. In the letter, Ms. Saunders stated she continued to see the "same behaviors" from Respondent. She further stated, Each time I visit your classroom I continue to see the same behaviors from you. Though discussion has occurred regarding ineffective practices, visitation were made to a number of other classrooms at Yates Elementary, suggestions regarding inservice courses have been made, yet your practices have not changed. I continue to see an emphasis on students being silent unless called upon. I continue to hear you speak gruffly to students. I continue to see you punish students for very minor infractions like wiggling or whispering. I continue to see you isolate students from the group. I continue to see you go over concepts, like vocabulary orally in order for students to memorize things rotely. I continue to see calendar math exceed the 15 minutes it is intended to occupy of the mathematics instructional time. I continue to see only one student engaged at a time. It was the intention of the assistance plan to have you reevaluate some of your ineffective practices and work to make some changes. I have yet to witness any of that nor do I think you are even trying to make strides toward improvement. Despite her recitation of areas in which Respondent still needed to improve, Ms. Saunders offered no recommendations in the April 18, 2002, summary letter to assist Respondent. However, Ms. Saunders stated that she "plan[ned] to make an unannounced observation in [Respondent's] class again soon," but she never did. The conclusions in Ms. Saunders' April 18, 2002, letter are inconsistent with some of her earlier observations discussed in paragraphs 59, 65, and 68 above. Moreover, there was no connection between the conclusion Ms. Saunders articulated in the summary letter and what she observed on March 21, 2002. Area Supervisor's Criticism of Respondent's Reprimand Method Ms. Saunders was critical of the way Respondent reprimanded students. During Ms. Saunders' observations, Respondent sometimes would call the name of the child who was being reprimanded and tell him what he should or should not be doing. At the hearing, Ms. Saunders testified to maintain order in the classroom, Respondent should have used "public praise" and "private criticism." Notwithstanding this position, Ms. Saunders admitted that this method or principle is not an established policy and procedure of the School District. While Ms. Saunders testified that the "public praise, private criticism" principle is simply an "educational belief that many people subscribe to," she acknowledged that other models exist. There was no evidence presented at the hearing that Ms. Saunders ever specifically discussed the "public praise, private criticism" philosophy that she believed Respondent should have used in the classroom. Observations of the School Principal Mrs. Clark frequently observed Respondent in the classroom as part of her routine of visiting all the classrooms at Colson. During her observation of Respondent, Mrs. Clark saw and heard Respondent sometimes use a "harsh desist" in reprimanding students. According to Mrs. Clark, the term "harsh desist" means "harshly reprimanding a child to stop doing something." Mrs. Clark described an example of a "harsh desist" by Respondent's saying, "Shhhh" to the class in a loud way, and talking to children in a way that was "derogatory." Mrs. Clark believed that the children were impacted by the way Respondent spoke to them. She based this belief on the expressions she saw on some of the children's faces. Mrs. Clark testified, "In some instances, they [the students] would cringe." Mrs. Clark testified that she talked to Respondent about her "harsh desist," but Respondent did not change this classroom management method. These discussions were not documented, and no reference to this issue was ever noted on Respondent's evaluations. The record fails to establish when or how often Mrs. Clark observed Respondent engaging in a "harsh desist," to whom any particular "harsh desist" was directed, and if and how the "harsh desist" affected the student. Mrs. Clark testified that she observed situations in which she observed Respondent talk to students in a derogatory manner. In one instance, the student referred to in paragraph 41 above, who had been transferred to Respondent's class because of behavioral problems he was having in another class, left Respondent's classroom without permission and was returned to the room by Mrs. Clark. The student told Mrs. Clark that he had left the room to look for a pencil or scissors. Mrs. Clark asked Respondent if the student could borrow one from another student or if she would give him the tool that he needed. Respondent said she would not give him the particular tool. Respondent continued, "He breaks them all the time. He doesn't deserve them." Although students were in the classroom when Respondent made the comments, there is no evidence that they heard the comments. The other incident in which Mrs. Clark described Respondent as using derogatory language when talking to a student involved T.B., a student in her class. On an unspecified date, Respondent was walking down the hallway with her students, taking them to the buses. Respondent was holding T.B. by his arm, presumably for misbehaving. At the time, Mrs. Clark was in the hallway, but some distance away. When Respondent saw Mrs. Clark in the hallway, she told T.B., "If you don't behave, you're going to get a referral to that lady over there," pointing to Mrs. Clark. Mrs. Clark testified that there is nothing wrong with reminding a child that he could have to go the principal's office if he or she misbehaves, "if it [is] handled in the appropriate way." The clear implication was that the manner in which Respondent handled the situation described in paragraph 98 was inappropriate. However, no evidence was presented to establish the appropriate way to remind the student that his behavior needs to improve and that there are consequences for misbehavior. Recommendations of Mrs. Clark Respondent's 2000-2001 evaluation indicated that her performance in the area, "enhances and maintains students' self-esteem," was unsatisfactory. To address this rating, Mrs. Clark issued a letter to Respondent which made two recommendations to assist Respondent in improving in this area. The letter is referred to on the evaluation and was given to Respondent on or about April 24, 2001, the day she received the 2000-2001 evaluation.9/ The first recommendation was that Respondent attend a Cooperative Discipline Workshop that was offered by the School District or "something similar to that that was offered by the district." The other recommendation was that Respondent go and observe behavior management in classrooms at other schools. No specifics were given as to who would schedule the time, place, and number of observations. With regard to the classroom management course, no information was provided as to what, if any, approval would be needed prior to taking the course. In neither instance was a time specified that Respondent would have to complete the observations and/or the classroom management course. During Respondent's tenure at Colson, the only written recommendations she received from Mrs. Clark were the two made in the letter issued to Respondent. As reflected on the 2000-2001 evaluation, Mrs. Clark issued the letter to address the "unsatisfactory" rating Respondent received in that evaluation. In such a case, a tenured teacher who receives an "unsatisfactory" rating, a letter and/or form of assistance is required to be provided pursuant to Section 1012.34(3)(d), Florida Statutes. Respondent's Efforts to Comply With Assistance Plans and/or Recommendations In an effort to comply with Mrs. Clark's recommendation that she observe other classes, Respondent asked several teachers on her first-grade team, including one who was nationally-certified, if she could observe them. Some of these teachers had been held out by Mrs. Clark as using behavioral models that were ones that Respondent might use in her class. All of the teachers agreed to allow Respondent to observe their classes, but Mrs. Clark denied Respondent's request to observe any of the teachers at Colson. Eventually, someone, likely Ms. Saunders or Mrs. Clark, scheduled an observation for Respondent at Yates Elementary School (Yates). On an unknown date between May 7, 2001, and December 6, 2001, Respondent went to Yates to observe several first-grade classes pursuant to Mrs. Clark's April 24, 2001, recommendation. Ms. Saunders accompanied Respondent to the class for the observations. As Respondent and Ms. Saunders went to observe in the various classrooms, it appeared to Respondent that the teachers in those classrooms had no prior knowledge of the observations. During the observations at Yates, Ms. Saunders directed Respondent to write down anything positive she saw regarding classroom management, as well as anything she found pedagogically unsound.10/ Ms. Saunders referenced and discussed Respondent's observations at Yates in the summary letter dated December 17, 2001. In that letter, Ms. Saunders recalled the following: During the visit to Yates, we witnessed some wonderful classroom strategies and we also saw some things that perhaps would not be helpful. I know, based on our conversation, that you saw some things that you might like to try implementing. I hope that you will continue to reflect on that day and try some of the things you think might work well in your room. Ms. Saunders also noted in the December 17, 2001, letter that at the time of the visit to Yates, she asked Respondent to write a plan that included trying or applying some of the classroom management strategies that they witnessed. Respondent complied with this directive as reflected in Ms. Saunders' letter in which she stated, "A copy of that plan was to be given to Mrs. Clark[,] and I am aware that you submitted something to her." As requested by Ms. Saunders, Respondent submitted a classroom management plan to Mrs. Clark based on what she observed at Yates that she could implement in her classroom. However, there is nothing in the record to indicate whether Respondent's plan was ever reviewed or critiqued by either Mrs. Clark or Ms. Saunders. After Mrs. Clark recommended that Respondent take a classroom management course, she attempted to do so, but was unsuccessful. Respondent's initial failure to take the classroom management course after the April 2001 evaluation, was based on a misunderstanding, miscommunication, and/or no communication between Mrs. Clark and Respondent. Later, Respondent's efforts to take a classroom management course were thwarted by Mrs. Clark. The misunderstanding, miscommunication, and/or lack of communication between Mrs. Clark and Respondent is evident. Almost eight months after Mrs. Clark initially recommended that Respondent take a classroom management course, she wrote in the "comment section" of Respondent's December 19, 2001, evaluation that she was "not sure" if Respondent had taken the course. In response, Respondent wrote on the same evaluation, "It was my understanding that a workshop would be scheduled for me during the school year." Mrs. Clark testified that Respondent had "repeatedly kept asking" for which workshop Mrs. Clark had signed her up. Based on the apparent misunderstanding discussed in paragraph 109, Respondent selected at least two different classroom management courses. She then requested Mrs. Clark's consent, because the course required payment of a fee and a substitute teacher for the time Respondent would be attending the course. Both courses were approved by the Hillsborough County School Board. Although in the 2001-2002 school year, Respondent made several requests to take a management course, Mrs. Clark denied all the requests, indicating that no money was available. In one case, a person from the School District office called Respondent and told her that no money was available for her to attend the courses she had requested. The payment for one of the courses was about $135.00 and required that a substitute teacher be hired to cover Respondent's class on the day of the course. Having been unsuccessful in obtaining permission or approval to attend two School Board-approved courses, on September 20, 2002, Respondent wrote an e-mail letter to Mrs. Clark regarding Respondent's efforts to take a classroom/behavior management course. In the e-mail, Respondent indicated that she had looked to take the recommended course on a professional study day (when students are not present), but had not found any such course being offered. In light of Mrs. Clark's and/or the School District's failure to approve a course for Respondent to take, Respondent requested that Mrs. Clark provide Respondent with the name of the classroom/behavior management course that Mrs. Clark wanted her to take and the date and time of such course. There is no evidence that Mrs. Clark ever responded to Respondent's September 20, 2002, e-mail or ever provided Respondent with the name of a classroom management course to attend. Moreover, no evidence was presented that the School District actually offered the recommended classroom management course during the relevant time period. Despite the recommendation that Respondent take the classroom/behavior management course, she was not provided with the assistance and in-service opportunity to help correct or improve the noted performance deficiency. Nonetheless, through her own effort, she increased her performance area, "enhances and maintains students' self-esteem," from "unsatisfactory" in the 2000-2001 school year to "needs improvement." Incidents Involving Respondent and School Principal and Staff First Incident (January/February 2001) In January or February 2001, during the lunch break, Vicki Davis, one of the other first-grade teachers, was sitting near Respondent and noticed that Respondent was writing in a notebook. Ms. Davis then asked Respondent, "What are you doing? Writing about kids or something?" Respondent did not elaborate, but told Ms. Davis that it was a behavior book. Ms. Davis was concerned because she saw her name in the book, but beyond that, she could not say what was in the book. Exactly what Respondent was writing in the "behavior book," is unknown, but this incident occurred soon after the student referred to in paragraph 41 was transferred from Ms. Davis' class to Respondent's class. Respondent implied that she was writing down observations about the child. Even though the precise contents of the "behavior book" were not clearly visible, Ms. Davis felt uncomfortable when she saw what she believed to be her name in the "behavior book." Second Incident (July 2001) In July 2001, when school was not in session, Respondent telephoned the school and asked Mrs. Clark to provide her with a report that Ms. Saunders had prepared. Before leaving the school, Mrs. Clark advised Jennifer Connolly, her secretary, that Respondent was coming to get the report and told Ms. Connolly to put the report in Respondent's mailbox. When Respondent arrived at Colson, she checked her mailbox, but did not see the report that she had come to retrieve. At the time, no one was in the front office area so Respondent went into Mrs. Clark's office and looked on her desk for the document. While Respondent was in Mrs. Clark's office looking through papers in an effort to locate Ms. Saunders' report, Ms. Connolly saw Respondent and asked why she was in the office. After Respondent explained that she was looking for Mrs. Saunders' report, Ms. Connolly told Respondent the report was in Respondent's mailbox and to leave Mrs. Clark's office. Ms. Connolly left the office and walked down the hall. After Ms. Connolly left Mrs. Clark's office, Respondent turned out the light in Mrs. Clark's office and closed the door to the office as she exited. By the time Respondent got to her mailbox, Mrs. Saunders' report was on top of the stack of mail in Respondent's mailbox. After being informed about Respondent's going into her office, Mrs. Clark contacted the School District's Professional Standards Office. An investigation was conducted and based on the findings, a letter was issued to Respondent. It is unknown if the letter was a warning, reprimand, or other type of communication since the letter was not offered as evidence at this proceeding. There is no indication that Respondent was doing anything in Mrs. Clark's office other than looking for the report that she came to the school to retrieve; the report that Mrs. Clark had expected her to pick up. Nonetheless, Respondent's decision to go into the principal's office, without permission, reflected poor judgment on her part. This, however, was an isolated incident and is not indicative of Respondent's usual judgment. Except for this incident, Respondent's record indicates that she usually exercised good judgment as shown by her evaluations for the relevant time period. For example, for the three school terms immediately prior to the July 2001 incident, Respondent's performance in the area related to a teacher's judgment under the Professional Behavior category, "demonstrates logical thinking and makes practical decisions," was rated as "satisfactory."11/ The only evaluation that indicated Respondent "needed to improve" in that area was the December 2001 evaluation, the first evaluation she received after the July 2001 office incident. However, in Respondent's very next evaluation dated April 24, 2002, her performance in the area, "demonstrates logical thinking and makes practical decisions," was rated as "satisfactory." Third Incident (2001-2002 School Term) In or about the 2001-2002 school year, Respondent brought a tape recorder to a team meeting. When Ms. Davis, one of the team members, saw the tape recorder, she felt uncomfortable and told Respondent to turn off the tape recorder.12/ Ms. Davis knew that "something was going on between [Respondent] and Mrs. Clark" and seemed to suspect that Respondent's bringing the tape recorder into the meeting was somehow related to that. However, Ms. Davis did not want to be a part of that and told Respondent, "This [meeting] is not about anything. We're working together as a team." Respondent immediately complied with Ms. Davis' request and turned off the tape recorder. After that one incident, Respondent never again brought a tape recorder to a team meeting. Fourth Incident (February 25, 2003) On or about February 25, 2003, as part of her usual routine of visiting classrooms, Mrs. Clark went to Respondent's classroom, entering from the back door. At the time, Respondent was sitting with two students, working with them. When Respondent saw Mrs. Clark, she got up from her seat and walked over to where Mrs. Clark was standing. Respondent then asked Mrs. Clark, "Did you leave right after us?" Mrs. Clark correctly understood, and Respondent confirmed that the question referred to Respondent's grievance hearing that was held the previous day and attended by Respondent and her attorney, as well as Mrs. Clark and the area supervisor. Respondent apparently thought Mrs. Clark indicated that she had left immediately after the grievance hearing. Respondent challenged Mrs. Clark and indicated that Respondent and her attorney had waited outside for Mrs. Clark for 15 minutes. Respondent then moved closer to Mrs. Clark and whispered in her ear. Mrs. Clark understood Respondent to say, "You're a liar. You're devious. There is a God. I'm not through with you yet." Respondent denied that she made these statements. Given the conflicting testimony of Mrs. Clark and Respondent, both of whom appeared to be credible witnesses, there is no clear and convincing evidence that Respondent made the statements. Nonetheless, it is found that Mrs. Clark understood and believed that the statements in paragraph 130 were the ones Respondent whispered to her. Mrs. Clark responded to Respondent's statements in a voice that was not a whisper by asking, "You're not through with me yet?" According to Mrs. Clark, during this incident, she repeatedly kept turning to Respondent and kept telling her, "If you have something to say to me, we can meet in my office." There were children in Respondent's classroom during the incident described in paragraph 130, but Mrs. Clark's credible testimony was that the children could not hear Respondent's comments. Mrs. Clark described the comments Respondent whispered in her ear as "quite upsetting." While Mrs. Clark might have been upset, her conduct clearly indicated that she did not feel threatened by Respondent's comments. After the exchange between Respondent described in paragraphs 130 and 131, Mrs. Clark stayed in Respondent's classroom to continue her visit and look at the children's work. In fact, Mrs. Clark took time to talk to a student in the class who she believed was not working. Later, she asked the children about a large crayon that was on the floor. At some point during the visit, Respondent noticed that Mrs. Clark was holding something in one of her hands, both of which were behind her back. Believing that the object in Mrs. Clark's hand was a tape recorder, Respondent grabbed Mrs. Clark's hand and splayed it open in an attempt to completely display the object. As Respondent grabbed Mrs. Clark's hand, she asked Mrs. Clark if she had a tape recorder and if she were recording Respondent. Mrs. Clark stated that the object she was holding was a two-way radio. Even though the object Mrs. Clark was holding was a two-way radio, Respondent did not believe Mrs. Clark's explanation. After or as Respondent grabbed Mrs. Clark's hand, Mrs. Clark told Respondent, "Get your hands off me! Get away from me!" Respondent believed Mrs. Clark was going to strike her so she moved back, away from Mrs. Clark. Undoubtedly, Respondent's conduct, described in paragraph 134, grabbing her supervisor's hand, was inappropriate, unprofessional, and disrespectful. However, based on the record, this was clearly an isolated incident. Moreover, this conduct does not constitute any of the statutory or rule violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Mrs. Clark then left Respondent's classroom and continued visiting other classrooms. After completing her routine classroom visits, Mrs. Clark called the School District office to report the February 25, 2002, incident in Respondent's classroom. Respondent also called the School District office to report the incident. In addition to calling the School District Office, Respondent called a friend who was a retired teacher and reported that she believed Mrs. Clark had tried to record her and asked for advice on what she should do if Mrs. Clark returned to her room. The following day, an investigator with the School District went to the school to investigate the matter. School District Request for Fitness for Duty Evaluation By letter dated April 30, 2003, the School District referred Respondent to Dr. James Edgar, M.D., a psychiatrist, for an evaluation. In the referral letter, Linda Kipley, the general manager of the School District's Professional Standards Office, stated that the referral was due to the School District's "concerns for a pattern of personal and professional behavior which has negatively impacted her capability and competence to perform the duties and responsibilities of teaching." Ms. Kipley's letter went on to say, "After reviewing our most recent investigative report, there is a question if she is fit for her teaching responsibilities and to teach minor children." Also, Ms. Kipley requested that Dr. Edgar provide a written report of his assessment of Respondent's "capability to make sound professional judgments and her capability to safely instruct children." Opinion of James Edgar, M.D. Dr. James Edgar, who was qualified as an expert in the field of psychiatry, conducted an independent medical (psychiatric) evaluation of Respondent. Based on information provided to Dr. Edgar by School District staff, there were questions raised about Respondent's ability to safely instruct minor children and about her general mental health status. Along with the request for the evaluation, the School District provided Dr. Edgar with copies of all of Respondent's evaluations since she was employed by the School District and the February 22, May 16, and December 17, 2001, letters/reports from Ms. Saunders. For some reason, Ms. Saunders' last report dated April 18, 2002, and discussed in paragraphs 85 and 86, was not provided to Dr. Edgar. Dr. Edgar found that Respondent had normal motor activity and normal facial expressions; that she was polite and her appearance was neat; and that she was calm although anxious (which Dr. Edgar indicated was a natural reaction under the circumstances of an evaluation being ordered by her employer). He also found that Respondent's intelligence was normal, her memory was intact, her senses were good, her affect was appropriate, and there was no evidence of hallucinations. Notwithstanding the foregoing conclusions, in the "summary and recommendation" section of his report, Dr. Edgar opined, I do not feel [Respondent] is currently capable of safely instructing young children." As the basis for this conclusion, Dr. Edgar stated that when Respondent is stressed by routine events, such as constructive criticism, her ability to keep things orderly and controlled is impaired and she becomes anxious and depressed. He further stated that the combination of Respondent's "major depression and pre-existing personality disorder interfere with the usual psychological functions (i.e. judgment and problem solving ability, emotional stability, ability to conform to societal standards of behavior, interpersonal skills, integrity, responsibility, ability to cope with stressful situations, and decision making in a crisis). In the "summary and recommendation" section of Dr. Edgar's written report, he prefaces the above-quoted opinion by stating, "This summary is provisional because I have not had an opportunity to review medical records or mental health records." At the end of the report, Dr. Edgar states that "I may amend my report after reviewing the previously mentioned records." As of the date of this proceeding, Dr. Edgar had not yet reviewed any of Respondent's medical records and mental health records, although Respondent advised him that she was being treated for depression by a psychiatrist and was in counseling with a licensed mental health professional. Contrary to the School District's concern for Respondent's "competence to perform the duties and responsibilities of teaching," Dr. Edgar testified that his report made no finding that Respondent was incompetent to teach. Opinion of Gerald Mussenden, Ph.D. Dr. Gerald Mussenden was qualified as an expert in the area of psychology. On September 5 and 12, 2003, Dr. Mussenden conducted a comprehensive evaluation of Respondent to determine her overall mental functioning (i.e., whether she was mentally stable, well adjusted, and/or if she is a threat to herself or others). As part of the evaluation, Dr. Mussenden administered, among other instruments, the Child Abuse Potential Inventory, which has been developed and standardized since 1982. The Child Abuse Potential Inventory is valid in terms of content validity, construct validity, and predictive validity and is a tool used by psychologists who do testing specializing in abuse propensities. Based on the results of the Child Abuse Potential Inventory, Dr. Mussenden concluded that Respondent had no child abuse potential characteristics and was not a danger to children. Moreover, Dr. Mussenden opined that Respondent was emotionally stable, had good skills by which to relate and interact with others, and had no problems or difficulties that would endanger others around her. Dr. Mussenden's evaluation report accurately notes that at the time of the evaluation, Respondent was under the treatment of a psychiatrist and in counseling with a licensed mental health counselor. Dr. Mussenden's opinion is that this course of treatment contributed to Respondent's mental health status at the time of the evaluation. In his report, Dr. Mussenden states, "Due to their success [the psychiatrist and mental health counselor], [Respondent] is relatively well adjusted and without signs of mental difficulties." Dr. Mussenden's credible testimony was that a person can suffer from depression and still be competent to handle one's duties as a teacher. When Respondent was evaluated by Dr. Mussenden, she was taking medication for depression. The purpose of such medication is to help people suffering from depression become well-adjusted. The fact that there was no evidence that Respondent was suffering from depression during the September 2003 evaluation indicates that the medication she was taking was effective in that it masked any depression that may have been present. Dr. Mussenden saw Respondent within 60 days of the hearing and based on that visit, he did not change his opinion that Respondent posed no risk of harm to children.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered that finds Respondent not guilty of the charges alleged in the Administrative Complaint and dismisses the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of April, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of April, 2006.
The Issue The issue is whether the Education Practices Commission should suspend, revoke, or otherwise discipline Respondent’s certificate to teach school in the State of Florida.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is certified to teach in the area of Mentally Handicapped. Her Florida teaching certificate, number 637203, is valid through June 30, 1999. Respondent received a satisfactory evaluation of her teaching performance in Duval County for four years prior to the 1992-1993 school year. While teaching at C. G. Woodson Elementary School in Duval County, Respondent helped establish a mobility room for students in the Exceptional Student Education (ESE) program. She also played an important role in the creation of a parent center. She initiated the school’s participation in the foster grandparent program. During the 1992-1993 school year, the Duval County School District employed Respondent as a teacher in a self- contained Exceptional Student Education (ESE) classroom at C. G. Woodson Elementary School. Her students included pre- kindergarten, kindergarten, and first grade students who were designated as Trainable Mentally Handicapped (TMH). Respondent’s principal at C. G. Woodson Elementary School was Ms. Gloridan Norris. In 1992, Ms. Norris observed Respondent in classroom situations that caused her great concern. As a result, Ms. Norris and district ESE personnel began providing Respondent with on-going technical assistance. Respondent denied that she had any problems and did not cooperate with the efforts to alleviate Ms. Norris’s concerns. On or about March 11, 1993, Ms. Norris signed an annual evaluation of Respondent’s performance for the 1992-1993 school year. Competent persuasive evidence supports this evaluation which rated Respondent unsatisfactory in five of eight categories: (a) demonstrates ability to plan and deliver instruction; (b) demonstrates knowledge of subject matter; (c) demonstrates ability to utilize appropriate classroom management techniques, including the ability to maintain appropriate discipline; (d) shows sensitivity to student needs by maintaining positive school environment; and (e) demonstrates a commitment to professional growth. Respondent’s overall evaluation was unsatisfactory. By letter dated May 10, 1993, the Duval County Superintendent of Schools advised Respondent that she would be discharged if she did not reach a satisfactory level of performance. It also informed her that she had the option of transferring to a new teaching position within the county. Respondent elected to transfer to another school. For the 1993-1994 school year, the Duval County School District assigned Respondent to teach at Mary McCloud Bethune Elementary School. Mr. William West was her principal. Respondent’s class for this school term consisted of fourth and fifth grade Educable Mentally Handicapped (EMH) students. Her class had twelve students, making it the smallest ESE class in the school. On or about August 2, 1993, Mr. West requested technical assistance for Respondent from the school district’s office of ESE Instructional Program Support. He specifically requested recommendations for Respondent in the area of classroom and behavior management. Pursuant to that request, the school district’s ESE staff visited Respondent’s classroom five times between September 8, 1993 and October 4, 1993. Dory Reese, Specialist in Intellectual Disabilities, prepared a report containing recommendations for Respondent’s immediate implementation. These recommendations included, but were not limited to these: (a) methods to gain control of the classroom so that instruction can begin; (b) how to follow through on any directions; (c) how to discipline; (d) how to be positive in giving directions; (e) how to stop a specific behavior; and (f) how to regain control which has been lost. In the fall of 1993, Mr. West requested assistance for Respondent from the school district’s office of Professional Development. As a result of that request, Sheryl Hahn visited in Respondent’s classroom. Ms. Hahn is certified to teach mentally retarded students. She prepared a written success plan which listed specific objectives and strategies for Respondent to improve her classroom teaching performance. Ms. Hahn’s plan included objectives and strategies in the following areas: (a) ability to plan and deliver instruction; (b) demonstrates knowledge of subject matter; (c) ability to use appropriate classroom management techniques; (d) maintaining accurate records; and (e) showing sensitivity to student needs by maintaining a positive school environment. Respondent and Ms. Hahn discussed the plan, including proposed completion dates for certain objectives, in a meeting on October 12, 1993. On October 26, 1993, Mr. West prepared Respondent’s mid-year evaluation for the 1993-1994 school year. He found that her performance was unsatisfactory in five of eight categories: demonstrates ability to plan and deliver instruction; demonstrates ability to utilize appropriate classroom management techniques, including the ability to maintain appropriate discipline; (C) shows sensitivity to student needs by maintaining positive school environment; (d) demonstrates abilities to evaluate instructional needs of students; and (e) shows evidence of professional characteristics. Competent persuasive evidence supports these ratings. On October 27, 1993, Respondent was absent from work. The assistant principal, Ms. Rosa Thomas, had to stay with Respondent’s class until a substitute arrived. Respondent had not prepared lesson plans for her class. Another teacher had to share her class work with Respondent’s students. On October 28, 1993, two of Respondent’s pupils left the classroom without permission. Respondent did not know where they were until they were located in the assistant principal’s office. On November 2, 1993, a student left Respondent’s class and went to the school office without permission. Mr. West sent Respondent a memorandum, reminding her that it was dangerous for the children to leave the classroom without adult supervision. He was concerned for the safety of the children. On November 5, 1993, a parent wrote a memorandum complaining that Respondent’s class was out of control. The parent requested that her child be transferred to another class. On November 8, 1993, Mr. West requested a psychiatric evaluation for Respondent. Mr. West based his request on concerns for the safety of Respondent’s students, concerns for Respondent’s health, and concerns about the school’s program. Respondent was unable to maintain control of her classroom. She appeared to be depressed and lethargic. During the week of November 12, 1993, one of Respondent’s pupils refused to get on the bus. The child walked home across a busy highway without supervision. Meanwhile, parents continued to call or visit Mr. West on a daily basis requesting that their child be removed from Respondent’s classroom. On or about November 19, 1993, Mr. West observed Respondent’s classroom performance. He saw students leaving the room without permission, standing on top of desks, taunting the teacher, and fighting. At the end of the day when Mr. West mentioned her pending psychiatric evaluation, Respondent became loud and emotional and stormed from the room. Mr. West wrote a letter to the Assistant Superintendent of Schools, expressing fear for the safety of the children. He requested that Respondent be removed from the classroom immediately. Late in November or early in December of 1993, Mr. West removed Respondent from her regular teaching position. He assigned her a new duty, one-on-one tutoring of ESE students. On or about December 15, 1993, Mr. West wrote another letter to the Assistant Superintendent of Schools. This letter expressed Mr. West’s fear regarding the safety of adults working with Respondent. During a meeting, Respondent became angry with support staff. She glared at the other adults, mumbled under her breath, and scribbled so hard on a paper that she tore it. Mr. West requested that Respondent be removed from the school setting. In January of 1994, Respondent returned to her regular classroom for the first time in several weeks. Mr. West observed her while she was teaching a lesson. He saw a student standing on top of a table and other students wrestling. The students appeared to ignore Respondent’s attempts to restore order. At times, Respondent appeared to ignore the chaos around her. After this observation, Mr. West told Respondent to return to her assigned duty of tutoring ESE students. Mr. West again requested that the school district remove Respondent from the school and place her in a non-teaching position. A memorandum dated January 27, 1994, advised Respondent that she would receive an unsatisfactory evaluation for the 1993-1994 school year. On March 10, 1994, Mr. West signed Respondent’s annual evaluation for the 1993-1994 school year. She received unsatisfactory ratings in six of eight categories: demonstrates ability to plan and deliver instruction; demonstrates knowledge of subject matter; (c)demonstrates ability to utilize appropriate classroom management techniques, including the ability to maintain appropriate discipline; (d) shows sensitivity to student needs by maintaining positive school environment; (e) demonstrates abilities to evaluate instructional needs of students; and (f) shows evidence of professional characteristics. Competent persuasive evidence supports these ratings. On or about April 25, 1994, the Duval County School Board notified Respondent that it intended to terminate her employment. On or about July 11, 1994, Respondent and the Duval County School Board entered into an agreement in which Respondent agreed to resign her teaching position. Clear and convincing evidence indicates that Respondent is not competent to teach or to perform the duties of an employee in a public school system. She is not competent to teach in or operate a private school. Most importantly, Respondent is incapable of providing a safe environment for students in her classroom.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Education Practices Commission revoke Petitioner’s teaching certificate for one year from the date of the Final Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of July, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of July, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire 14 South Ninth Street DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32433 Patricia Simmons 968 Southeast Browning Avenue Port St. Lucie, Florida 34983 Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 224-B Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Kathleen M. Richards, Administrator Professional Practices Services 325 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick, Esquire Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent's termination of employment by the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, was proper.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was employed as a teacher at Charles R. Drew Middle School, pursuant to an annual contract and holds Florida Educators Certificate Number 188727. Respondent holds a bachelor of science degree from Florida Atlantic University. She was employed by Petitioner in 1997 and has worked in the teaching profession for approximately 30 years. Prior to 1997, Respondent was a substitute teacher in Broward County, Florida, and in other states. During the 1999- 2000 school year, Respondent taught eighth grade science. Teachers employed by the School Board are evaluated pursuant to the Teacher Assessment and Development System ("TADS"). TADS was approved by the Florida Department of Education and is incorporated into the labor contract between the School Board and UTD. The identical TADS evaluations are used for all grade levels, subject areas, and teachers, whether new or veterans. TADS objectively measures 68 minimal behaviors necessary for teaching. At all times material hereto, TADS was used to evaluate Respondent's performance. TADS includes the following factors in its assessment criteria: preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships and assessment techniques. All teachers are contractually required to be informed of the criteria and procedures. At the beginning of each school year, school principals are required to review the assessment criteria with all faculty. TADS observations and ratings are performed by school principals and assistant principals who are trained and certified. The TADS training encompasses four days and includes the following components: strategies for pre-observation, classroom observation, decision-making with the Classroom Assessment Instrument, post-observation interview, prescription/probation of professionals, recommendations for improvement (prescriptive activities), assisting teachers in the design of instruction and improvement activities, practical activities such as video assessment, and actual classroom teacher assessment under the supervision of a trainer. The trained observer is responsible for recording any deficiencies identified during the observation period and providing a prescription plan for performance improvement. Within five work days, a post-observation conference is held with the teacher to discuss the prescription. The teacher has the right to provide a written response, either in the space provided in column 3 of the "Prescription for Performance Improvement" or by separate document that becomes part of the teacher's file. The teacher is required to comply with the activities provided in the prescription plan, which are usually obtained from the "Prescription Manual," and to meet the deadlines set forth in the column designated "Timeline" in the prescription performance improvement plan. As a result of the statutory amendments to Section 231.29, Florida Statutes, the School Board and UTD executed a Memorandum of Understanding on December 4, 1997, for the purpose of amending the TADS procedures to comply with the new statutory requirements. Under the amended procedures, a "conference for the record" initiates a 90 calendar-day performance probation period. Each observation is independent, and there must be periodic observations during the performance probation period in which the employee is apprised of his or her progress and is provided assistance through prescription plans. After the performance probation period is concluded, a "confirmatory observation" occurs without a prescription plan. On November 8, 1999, Respondent was formally observed by Assistant Principal Paulette Covin during science class. Respondent received an unsatisfactory rating in Category III, Classroom Management; Category IV; Techniques of Instruction; and Category V, Teacher-Student Relationships. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in classroom management because she did not effectively use verbal or non- verbal techniques to redirect off-task learners. Several students continuously misbehaved and violated classroom rules. Four students were engaged in drawing during the lesson. One student slept throughout the entire observation which lasted over one hour. Six students talked throughout the observation period. Several students left their seats without permission and walked around the classroom during the observation period. Respondent did not use techniques effectively to maintain the attention of off-task learners. Clear expectations of student behavior and a systematic approach to proper classroom discipline were not evident. Respondent blew a whistle in an attempt to redirect off-task behavior, but there was no connection between the whistle-blowing and the expected behavior. The students did not react at the use of the whistle. Classroom rules were referred to; however, disruptive students were not dealt with quickly and appropriately. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because Respondent failed to provide background information explaining why the topic of waves was being discussed. Respondent asked students if they remembered what they had learned about waves and electromagnetic spectrum. A student responded, "You did not teach us that." Moreover, lesson components were not properly sequenced. Without any segue or introduction from one activity to another, Respondent told the students to engage in jump-in reading and later, buddy reading. Respondent did not provide students with examples of demonstrations for the lesson she was teaching. Respondent did not provide students with feedback. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in teacher-student relationships because Respondent did not promote a positive interpersonal environment in her classroom. She did not encourage her students who had difficulty responding. She demonstrated a lack of empathy and understanding for students who responded poorly during the observation, and did not solicit involvement from students who appeared reluctant to participate. She failed to take corrective action when one student gave a response and another student yelled out, "Dummy that's not right." During the post-observation conference for the record held on November 15, 1999, Respondent was advised that her performance was unacceptable, and effective immediately, was being placed on a 90 calendar-day performance probation period. She was informed that, at the end of her probation period, it was her responsibility to demonstrate that she had corrected the identified deficiencies. On November 17, 1999, Respondent received a prescription for performance improvement. Assistant Principal Covin made recommendations with respect to the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance and provided assistance in the prescription plan for Respondent to correct her deficiencies. The plan included observing a lesson taught by a fellow teacher and submitting a summary of the verbal and non- verbal discipline techniques used by that teacher to redirect off-task learners. Respondent was directed to create a classroom management plan for implementing techniques to redirect off-task learners, chart implementation for one week, and then discuss the results with Assistant Principal Covin. In addition, Respondent was directed to review reading strategies learned during in-service training sessions and submit a paper describing ways in which Respondent could provide instruction accommodations for more than one learning style. Additional resources, including administrators and fellow teachers, were also made available to Respondent. Respondent submitted her completed prescription activities before the December 3, 1999, deadline. On December 13, 1999, Respondent was formally observed in her science class by Assistant Principal Andy Granados as a subsequent evaluation to apprise Respondent of her progress. Respondent was found unsatisfactory in Category I, Preparation and Planning; Category III; Classroom Management; and Category IV, Techniques of Instruction. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in preparation and planning because she had failed to develop written lesson plans, as required. Instead, Respondent advised Assistant Principal Granados that "the lesson plans were in her head." Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in classroom management because she was unaware that several students were engaged in off-task behavior. Three students left their seats without permission and went to other students' desks to talk casually. One student sat in his chair but did not attempt to complete any work. Seven students held private conversations and Respondent made no attempt to redirect them. Throughout the observation period, students walked aimlessly, sharpened pencils, visited with other students, and disturbed the class. Respondent failed to address their behavior. Although Respondent blew a whistle, there was no connection between the whistle blowing and any expected behavior. Respondent's use of verbal and non-verbal techniques to redirect the off-task behavior was completely ineffective. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because she failed to provide any background for the lesson at hand. The lesson began without introduction and the activities in the class were unrelated. Respondent distributed two worksheets. The first worksheet involved an exercise comparing energy and the second was an isolated word game. She did not provide the students with any explanation about either sheet. Students repeatedly asked, "Why are we doing this?" Assistant Principal Granados held a post-observation conference with Respondent on January 10, 2000, to discuss his findings. Although the observation took place on Monday, December 13, 1999, Respondent, admittedly, was absent on December 14 and 15, 1999, and again on January 3-7, 2000. Furthermore, the holiday break extended from December 18, 1999, to January 2, 2000. Notwithstanding Respondent's testimony that she was present on two workdays, December 16 an 17, between the date of the observation and the post-observation conference held January 10, 2000, Petitioner complied with the five-work day time requirement for the post-observation conference. During their post-observation conference, Assistant Principal Granados made recommendations with respect to the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance and provided assistance in the prescription plan for Respondent to correct her deficiencies. The directions included writing and submitting daily lesson plans containing objectives, activities, procedures, assessments, and homework. Respondent was directed to observe a fellow teacher and identify instances where non-verbal techniques were used to maintain the attention of the students. She was also directed to prepare a plan for student behavior with rewards and consequences, to read specific pages for the TADS Prescription Manual, and to complete certain activities in that manual. Additionally, Respondent was directed to create a written outline with an introduction to each lesson indicating the relationship between the written instructional objectives, and the planned activities. The written outline was required to be attached to Respondent's lesson plans. Respondent's prescription plan activities were due on January 28, 2000. Respondent requested and received an extension of time to complete the activities until January 31, 2000, and completed the assigned activities on time. On February 8, 2000, Respondent was formally observed again in her science class by Assistant Principal Edward Bethel. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in Category III, Classroom Management, and Category IV, Techniques of Instruction. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in classroom management because there was no clear expectations for acceptable behavior. Students were engaged in off-task behavior. Four students left their seats without permission, while six students chewed gum and talked throughout the lesson. Respondent blew a whistle but the students continued to talk. Students who interacted inappropriately or interfered with the work of others were not disciplined appropriately. Two students fought over a stool, while a male student tried to remove a book from a female student. Respondent did not intervene. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because there was no background given for the lesson presented and lesson components were not properly sequenced. Respondent listed six unrelated activities on the board. The students were confused about the unrelated assignments and the relationship between the assignments and what they had learned in the previous lesson. In the middle of the lesson, Respondent interrupted the students and read to them about the life of Frederick Douglas. Respondent failed to explain the connection between the life of Frederick Douglas and the lesson objective of the day which involved an animal's environment influencing survival. During the post-observation conference on February 15, 2000, Assistant Principal Bethel made recommendations with respect to the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance and provided assistance in the prescription plan for Respondent to correct her deficiencies. The assistance included observing a fellow teacher and identifying five verbal and five nonverbal techniques to maintain specific behaviors of learners. Respondent was instructed to submit to Assistant Principal Bethel techniques that could be used to develop clear expectations to deal with students appropriately. Respondent was instructed to list the name of each student who acted inappropriately, and to submit a written plan to Assistant Principal Bethel as to how Respondent would handle negative behavior in the classroom. In addition, Respondent was directed to read specific pages from the TADS Prescription Manual, and to complete certain activities in that manual. Respondent was directed to create a written outline with an introduction to each lesson indicating the instructional objectives, the planned activities, and a description of how those activities will assist the students in reaching the instructional objective. Respondent submitted her completed activities in a timely manner. On March 9, 2000, two days after Respondent's 90-day performance probation period ended, Principal Ronnie Hunter performed a confirmatory observation to determine if Respondent's deficiencies had been corrected. Principal Hunter formally observed the Respondent in her science class and rated her unsatisfactory in Category II, Knowledge of Subject Matter, Category III, Classroom Management; Category IV; Techniques of Instruction; and Category VI, Assessment Techniques. After the confirmatory observation, Respondent was notified that she had failed to correct her performance deficiencies. Thereafter, on March 9, 2000, Principal Hunter forwarded to the Superintendent of Schools his recommendation that Respondent's employment be terminated. By letter dated March 10, 2000, the Superintendent notified Respondent that he was recommending to the School Board that her employment contract be terminated because she failed to correct performance deficiencies during her 90-calendar-day performance probation period. The assistance provided to Respondent through her prescriptions was substantial and appropriate to remedy her cited deficiencies. Although she claims that in-service training opportunities to help correct the noted performance deficiencies were not provided, she was directed to and observed several fellow colleagues engaged in teaching. Dr. O'Donnell, a 31-year veteran with the school system and an expert in TADS and teacher assessment, specifically testified that in-service training is not limited to formal education or workshops, but includes observation of fellow teachers. Although the School Board provided sufficient and meaningful in-service training opportunities to Respondent, she failed to show improvement. Respondent further claims that the School Board failed to meet TADS requirements after she was placed on a 90 calendar- day performance probation in October 1999, following the initial and rescinded observation conducted by Principal Hunter on October 12, 1999. Respondent claims that after she was initially placed on probation in October, Principal Hunter failed to notify her that she was being removed from probationary status due to a procedural error. Principal Hunter testified he rescinded the October 12, observation and verbally told Respondent that he was removing her from the 90-calendar- day performance probation because he did not get a required signature on the post-observation report. Respondent on the other hand, claims she did not receive notification and, as a result, believed the observation conducted by Paulette Covin on November 8, 1999, and the subsequent observations conducted on December 13, 1999, and February 8, 2000, were observations within the 90 calendar-day probation period. Respondent's claim that she never received notice that she was no longer on probation following the October 1999 observation is disingenuous. Notwithstanding Principal Hunter's credible testimony that he verbally informed her that she was no longer on probation, Respondent was clearly placed on notice that she was on probation beginning November 17, 1999. Specifically, on November 15, 1999, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent following her unsatisfactory observation held on November 8, 1999, during which Respondent received a written prescription and was informed in writing that, as a result of that unsatisfactory observation, she was being placed on the 90-calendar-day performance probation period. Moreover, on November 17, Respondent signed the summary of the conference-for-the-record which clearly and unambiguously stated, "You were advised of the availability of personnel to assist you during the 90 calendar-day Performance Probation, which commences upon the date that you receive the written prescription." In addition, the School Board committed no statutory violation of any TADS procedures by rescinding the October 12 unacceptable observation. In fact, under TADS the School Board could not rely on the October 12 unacceptable observation to dismiss Respondent because the post-observation report lacked a required signature. The School Board correctly rescinded the October 12 unacceptable observation. The TADS' requirements and procedures were properly executed regarding the formal observations of Respondent and the evaluations of her teaching performance. Petitioner complied with all of the statutory time frames. Respondent also failed to demonstrate that Principal Hunter created a hostile environment toward Caucasian female teachers that resulted in the termination of Respondent's employment. There was no reliable evidence that Principal Hunter discriminated against Respondent at any time including his formal observations of Respondent pursuant to TADS. While Principal Hunter performed two formal observations noting Respondent's deficiencies including the rescinded observation on October 12, 1999, and the confirmatory on March 9, 2000, three different assistant principals also objectively evaluated and rated her unsatisfactory prior to Principal Hunter's confirmatory observation finding Respondent's performance unacceptable. Moreover, Principal Hunter interviewed and hired Respondent as a teacher in 1997. Finally, although the School Board's contract with UTD provides for a joint labor/management committee called the "TADS Monitoring Committee" to resolve evaluation and procedure disputes, Respondent never objected to the criteria, procedures, or assessments of the committee. In sum, Respondent failed to demonstrate that TADS procedures were not followed, or establish that she was harassed or discriminated against by Principal Hunter. On the other hand, Petitioner presented competent substantial evidence that Respondent consistently performed at an unsatisfactory level and failed to correct her deficiencies during the probationary period.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment and denying Respondent's claim for back pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of June, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. PFEIFFER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of June, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Valerie Kiffin Lewis, Esquire Valerie Kiffin Lewis, P.A. 4801 South University Drive, Suite 102 The Atrium Centre Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33328 Timothy A. Pease, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Roger C. Cuevas, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Charlie Crist, Commissioner Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida as alleged in the letter from Duval County School Board dated May 25, 2017; and, if so, the appropriate disciplinary action.
Findings Of Fact Background Petitioner is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the system of public schools in Duval County, Florida. Art. IX, § (4)(b), Fla. Const.; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Petitioner has the authority to discipline instructional staff and other school employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell is a teacher covered by the Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) between Duval Teachers United and the Duval County School Board for 2014-2017. At all times material to this matter, Respondent was a teacher assigned to Hyde Grove. During the 2016-2017 school year, Respondent was assigned to teach second-grade students. As a classroom teacher, Respondent was expected to comply with the 2016-2017 staff handbook which required staff members to strive to achieve ethical conduct and to familiarize themselves with the Code of Ethics. Teachers are trained to avoid touching students aggressively and to avoid leaving students unsupervised. The staff handbook provides that students should not be left unsupervised in a classroom or other area. The policy also provides that no student should be sent to the playground without teacher supervision. Ms. Sapp, the principal of Hyde Grove, provided training to the staff during pre-planning training and orientation week. One of those trainings was on Ethics and Professionalism. The training in-service record reflects that Respondent completed the training. During the training, Ms. Sapp provided guidelines for interaction with students and demonstrated the training principles. To avoid aggressive touching of students, she gave examples as follows: “[i]f a student falls down to the floor, pouting, as children would do, . . . basically ask for them to get up, but, rule of thumb, just not to put your hands on the student.” Ms. Sapp testified that teachers could exercise various strategies to diffuse a situation with a student engaged in disruptive behavior. Teachers are trained to create distance between the child who is being disruptive and the adult, until someone else could remove that child. Another strategy is to transfer the disruptive student to the partner-teacher for time- out. A teacher could also send the classroom partner for help or call the administration for assistance. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell testified that her partner-teacher, Ms. Hinton, was absent on the day of the incident so she did not use that strategy. However, Ms. Stripling-Mitchell did not otherwise use any of the suggested strategies during the incident with the student. The facts that serve as the basis for this case occurred in April 2017. On April 20, 2017, at approximately 2:45 p.m., classes were preparing for afternoon dismissal. At around the same time, Ms. Jones, the Team-Up instructor arrived at the classroom she shared with Ms. Stripling-Mitchell. Team-Up is an after-school program that provides academic enrichment, arts and crafts, and homework assistance. The Team-Up program operates from 2:55 p.m. until 6:00 p.m. each day. As she entered the classroom, Ms. Jones saw Ms. Stripling-Mitchell talking to students to prepare them for dismissal. The students were working on the iReady program using laptops. Respondent was working with three students who were seated in the back left corner of the classroom. Ms. Jones noticed that J.K. was being noncompliant with Ms. Stripling- Mitchell’s requests to continue working on the iReady program. As a result of the disruptive behavior, Ms. Stripling- Mitchell directed the student to return his laptop to the laptop cart and leave her classroom. The student continued to be disruptive and stated that he was not going to leave. Ms. Jones heard Ms. Stripling-Mitchell say, “[l]et me help you out with it,” and Ms. Stripling-Mitchell led the student by his left arm to the front of the classroom. Ms. Jones also heard the student say, “[n]o. I didn’t do anything. Get your hands off me.” While the student walked with Respondent side by side, he continued to resist. When the two arrived at the front of the classroom, the student turned and faced Respondent. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell bent over toward the student’s face. Her face was a few inches from the student’s. Ms. Jones saw Ms. Stripling-Mitchell pointing and waving her finger in the student’s face while saying, "[w]hat did your mother tell you? Didn't she tell you to respect me? I'm going to call your mother and she's going to beat your butt." Ms. Jones testimony about this statement is different in her written statement, which states, “[M]s. Stripling-Mitchell said, What did your mother tell you about being disruptive? What did your mother tell you about being disrespectful to me? I am going to call your mother and tell her everything you have done here today so she can get on your butt!” Ms. Jones was at the back of the room, near the sink, on the opposite side of the room from Ms. Stripling-Mitchell and the student. Although the statements are different, the difference is of minor significance. The evidence demonstrates that Ms. Stripling- Mitchell threatened to call the student’s parent while she and J.K. were at the front of the classroom and in front of other students. The student in turn yelled at Respondent to get out of his face. At the same time, he raised the laptop above his head and swung it at Ms. Stripling-Mitchell. Respondent blocked the laptop and took it from the student. The student then attempted to punch Ms. Stripling-Mitchell. She dropped the laptop and blocked his punch. Although Ms. Jones witnessed the events, she had not intervened to assist Ms. Stripling-Mitchell at this point. Ms. Jones contacted the administration office two times, but the teachers did not receive assistance in the classroom. After Ms. Stripling-Mitchell struggled with the student, she restrained him against one of the two dry-erase boards using her hand and forearm. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell was directly facing the student with her back to the classroom, and the student’s back was against the dry-erase board. Ms. Jones testified that Ms. Stripling-Mitchell and the student continued to argue and they moved along the dry-erase board laterally, for approximately eight feet. Ultimately, Ms. Jones separated Ms. Stripling-Mitchell and the student. Ms. Jones walked the student to Ms. Sapp’s office. During the walk to the principal’s office, the student complained of shortness of breath and was breathing heavily. Ms. Sapp was notified that a student was in her office and there was an issue she needed to address. Ms. Sapp testified that when she initially saw the student, he was crying, huffing and puffing, and breathing hard. When Ms. Sapp asked what happened, the student told Ms. Sapp that Ms. Stripling-Mitchell placed her hands around his throat and that he could not breathe. After J.K. told his account of the incident, Ms. Stripling-Mitchell arrived in the office. Ms. Sapp then met with J.K. and Ms. Stripling-Mitchell. During the meeting, J.K. repeated that Ms. Stripling-Mitchell choked him. Ms. Stripling- Mitchell interrupted J.K. and engaged him in reenactment of the incident. The reenactment consisted of Ms. Stripling-Mitchell demonstrating how she restrained the student using her hand near his neck. Ms. Sapp then stopped the reenactment and asked the student to wait outside her office. Ms. Sapp told Ms. Stripling-Mitchell she should not touch the children, and Ms. Stripling acknowledged in agreement this was the school policy. Ms. Sapp testified that it was unacceptable for Ms. Stripling-Mitchell to instruct the student to leave her class and go sit at the picnic bench without supervision. Ms. Sapp finished her meeting with Ms. Stripling- Mitchell, and Ms. Stripling-Mitchell returned to her classroom. Before Ms. Sapp met with J.K. and Ms. Stripling- Mitchell, she contacted the Office of Professional Standards for guidance regarding the appropriate next step. Ms. Sapp was advised to obtain statements regarding the incident. Ms. Sapp later asked Ms. Jones to send students who had knowledge of the incident to her office. After speaking with the students, Ms. Sapp asked the students to write statements about the incident as requested by the Office of Professional Standards. The statements were provided to the investigator conducting the investigation of the allegations, Mr. Gregory. Mr. Gregory collected the written statements and interviewed five students the day following the incident. Overall, the students provided varied descriptions of what happened. Mr. Gregory also conducted an interview of Ms. Jones, a portion of which occurred in the classroom, and requested that she provide a written statement. In addition to obtaining witness statements, Mr. Gregory researched Ms. Stripling-Mitchell’s discipline history. He discovered that Ms. Stripling-Mitchell had been the subject of prior investigations that resulted in disciplinary action. On May 18, 2012, Ms. Stripling-Mitchell was investigated for use of profanity, demeaning, and derogatory communication directed toward employees. She was issued a written reprimand, a Step II disciplinary action. In December 2016, Ms. Stripling-Mitchell was involved in an incident with a different student that is of direct relevance to this proceeding. In that incident, a parent complained about Ms. Stripling-Mitchell’s interaction with their child. It was determined that during an interaction with a disruptive student, Respondent pushed that student to the floor and verbally reprimanded him in front of other students. The incident resulted in the child being subject to embarrassment and physical aggression. On January 9, 2017, Ms. Stripling-Mitchell was issued a written reprimand, her second Step II disciplinary action. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell was also directed to seek assistance from the Employee Assistance Program (“EAP”) to obtain training on strategies for deescalating situations. After the interviews and review of the statements, Mr. Gregory concluded that Ms. Stripling-Mitchell used inappropriate physical contact with J.K. by restraining him against the wall with her hand and arm against his throat, after J.K. swung the laptop at her. Although not specifically alleged in the Notice, there was a dispute whether the student was choked. Ms. Jones testified that Ms. Stripling-Mitchell choked the student during the incident. However, she did not mention choking in her written statement. At hearing, Ms. Jones was confronted with a text message addressing that issue. The texts were as follows: Ms. Stripling-Mitchell: I was told that Ms. Timberlake planned or plans to call DCF or someone since J.K. told her I choked him that why he tried to hit me. LIES!! Ms. Jones: What!!! That’s a freaking lie!!! You did not choke him!!! Ms. Jones’ testimony regarding Ms. Stripling-Mitchell choking J.K. was not credible. There was also a dispute regarding whether Ms. Stripling-Mitchell raised her fist toward the student. Ms. Jones testified Ms. Stripling-Mitchell raised her fist and threatened to strike the student. Ms. Jones did not mention this allegation in her written statement provided days after the incident. Ms. Jones also did not mention this alleged observation when Mr. Gregory interviewed her. Ms. Stripling- Mitchell testified that she did not raise her fist to strike J.K. The student provided a statement describing the incident in his own words. He indicated that Ms. Stripling- Mitchell placed her hand on his neck. There was no reference in the student’s statement that Ms. Stripling-Mitchell tried to punch him. Several other students provided written statements which also did not include any indication that Ms. Stripling- Mitchell raised her fist toward the student. The undersigned finds no credible evidence that Ms. Stripling-Mitchell raised her fist to strike the student. There was much discussion at hearing regarding the description and behavioral history of the student. Ms. Jones described the student as a seven-year-old, scrawny boy, standing at four feet, nine inches. She also stated that the student could be sweet, but could be provoked “if things don’t go his way, if you threaten him or when the children . . . play a game called “the dozens.”2/ Ms. Stripling-Mitchell, on the other hand, described the student as routinely disruptive and noncompliant with staff. Between October 2016 and April 2017, J.K. engaged in conduct that resulted in six referrals. The referrals involved pushing another student, attempting to trip a student multiple times, stabbing a student in the arm with a pencil, and fighting. There were no referrals that involved a confrontation with a teacher. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell provided her account of the incident at hearing. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell testified that she became the student’s teacher in August 2016. Shortly after he became her student, she became aware of his disruptive behavior. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell had a practice of telling J.K., “[I]’m going to call your mom if you don’t settle down,” to encourage him to stop engaging in inappropriate behavior. On April 20, 2017, Respondent was working with three students on the iReady system when she heard someone say “[t]he folder hit me.” When she approached a group of three boys, including J.K., one student said, “J.K. just hit me with a folder.” Ms. Stripling-Mitchell instructed the boys to get back to work. Before she returned to her seat, she heard someone say “Stop.” She then returned to J.K. and told him, “[y]ou’re going to need to go sit on the picnic table.” J.K. agreed to return to the iReady activity. However, a short time later, Ms. Stripling- Mitchell heard a loud yell from one of the boys at J.K.’s table. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell then repeated to J.K., “[y]ou’re going to have to leave.” Ms. Stripling-Mitchell recalls that Ms. Jones arrived and sat at a table in the opposite corner of the room and began changing her shoes. During this time, Ms. Stripling-Mitchell continued to engage in a back-and-forth exchange with J.K. Similar to Ms. Jones’ account of the incident, J.K. swung the laptop at Ms. Stripling-Mitchell and she blocked it. Then, J.K. tried to punch her, which she also blocked. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell testified that after she blocked his punch, J.K. continued to attack her by trying to throw her to the floor. She testified that she had to restrain him against the dry-erase board to avoid falling. It is disputed whether the student continued to attack Ms. Stripling-Mitchell after she took the laptop and blocked his punch. Ms. Jones testified the student was not attacking Ms. Stripling-Mitchell, but rather he was trying to get away while Ms. Stripling-Mitchell was restraining him. On the other hand, Ms. Stripling-Mitchell testified that the student was trying to “flip” her, which is why she restrained him. The undersigned finds Ms. Jones’ testimony more credible. After J.K.’s failed attempt to punch her, there was no evidence of a threat for which Ms. Stripling-Mitchell needed to defend herself. Even if there was a threat, Ms. Stripling- Mitchell inappropriately touched J.K. by restraining him against the dry-erase board using her hand against his neck area. Ultimate Findings of Fact Overall, the credible evidence demonstrates that Ms. Stripling-Mitchell restrained the student against the dry- erase board using her hand near his neck. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell exercised poor judgment when she told the student that his mother was going to discipline him at home for his behavior in front of other students. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell exercised poor judgment when she instructed the student to leave her classroom to sit at the picnic bench.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Duval County School Board, enter a final order sustaining the Step III written reprimand and suspension without pay disciplinary action imposed against Respondent, Stephanie Stripling-Mitchell, as an instructional employee of the School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of December, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of December, 2017.
Findings Of Fact Annie Jackson, currently Principal of Golden Glades Elementary, also served in that capacity during Elijah McCray's 6th grade experience there during the regular 1984-1985 school year. On December 10, 1984, Mrs. Jackson personally removed Elijah from the lunch room for shooting paper at other students. He was reprimanded after a conference and sent to an alternative eating place for a month. On March 5, 1985 the classroom teacher referred Elijah to Mrs. Jackson for disruptive behavior, running around, not working and splashing water. He was removed from class and received a conference with Mrs. Jackson. Mrs. Jackson called the parents the next day and reported the situation. On March 27, 1985 he was referred to Mrs. Jackson for laughing at his teacher and being defiant. On March 28, 1985 he was assigned 3 days outside detention by Mrs. Jackson because he had refused to serve assigned detention. On April 2, 1985, which was the day Elijah was due to return, Mrs. Jackson wrote his parents because he had again been referred to the office and defied the authority of the teacher referring him by not carrying the referral to Mrs. Jackson's office. He was referred to the school counselor by Mrs. Jackson. There was a subsequent 5 day suspension for disruptive behavior scheduled to begin on April 15, 1985. At 5:00 P.M. on that day, Mrs. Jackson personally conducted a teacher/parent/ student/administrator conference to discuss the April 15, 1985/ suspension. Present in place of the parents were Mr. and Mrs. Taylor, Elijah's grandparents. The teacher made known to the grandparents that she did not want Elijah back in her class because he would throw items and deny it and frequently disrupt the class by spitting in the classroom or by leaving the classroom to spit. The grandparents made known to the teacher, and to Mrs. Jackson that a sinus condition of Elijah's required him to spit frequently and Mrs. Jackson apparently engineered some rapport between the teacher and Elijah upon this information so that the planned 5 days suspension was rescinded by Mrs. Jackson. Mrs. Taylor testified that she was present at this meeting but felt she had not participated because she had left most of the talking to Mr. Taylor and Mrs. Jackson, but upon Mrs. Jackson's and Mrs. Taylor's testimony together it is specifically found that this parent contact did occur. On April 17, 1985, Mrs. Jackson referred Elijah to the school counselor because of a report from his classroom teacher that Elijah had said he would "swing his old gun" at her. While this language by the teacher is technically hearsay outside the admission exception, information on the report was recorded contemporaneously by Mrs. Jackson in the school records and regardless of what was actually said to the teacher, Mrs. Jackson personally observed the distraught behavior of the teacher in reaction to whatever threat had been made by Elijah. Mrs. Jackson called school security as a result. The investigation of the incident by Mrs. Jackson and the security investigator revealed that the teacher had been told by other students that Elijah had shot a relative of theirs but that he had in fact never done so. Elijah was warned that it is serious to make threats to teachers. On April 22, 1985 Mrs. Jackson received a formal written request from the classroom teacher requesting Elijah's removal from her class. Much of Mrs. Jackson's testimony suggests that the persistent disruptive behavior was that of the classroom teacher who referred Elijah for what she perceived as threats. This teacher was not present to testify. Elijah was returned to class by Mrs. Jackson over the teacher's objections with a final warning concerning making threats. A parent/teacher/student/ administrator conference was held to apprise the parents that this was a last chance. It may be that Mrs. Taylor was not present for this conference, but Mrs. Jackson indicates at least one adult was present on behalf of the child. On April 25, 1985, Elijah was returned to class. On April 30, 1985, Mrs. Jackson requested Officer Harris of Operation Pro Volunteer Listener to confer with Elijah about the seriousness of making threats. On May 1, 1985, Mrs. Jackson investigated a report that Elijah had threatened two girls (Mirland Joseph and Lesley Compton) in his class with a knife. The girls gave statements which Mrs. Jackson synopsized as stating that they thought they had been threatened with a knife by Elijah. The statements are not signed. The incident as reported in the statements composed by the principal are by themselves hearsay and that hearsay is not confirmed or corroborated by a statement made by Elijah directly to Mrs. Jackson that he had showed the girls the point of a nail file attached to a man's pocket toenail clippers and was "just joking with it." Mrs. Jackson received a broken pair of blunt toenail clippers from Elijah at the time of this admission and a xerox copy of the nailclippers was admitted in evidence as a true and correct copy of the implement. Because of the presence of the nailclippers, which Mrs. Jackson characterized as a "pointed object", Mrs. Jackson initiated transfer of Elijah to an alternative education program. She felt this was a lesser alternative to expulsion. Expulsion would otherwise be required by School Board policy in the presence of a "weapon." Mrs. Taylor testified that she had heard one of the girls who had given statements to Mrs. Jackson or perhaps a third girl named "Alexandra" say they had made up the May 1, 1985 incident. Mrs. Taylor stated Elijah and his sister had told her the night before the May 1, 1985 incident that the two girls or Elizabeth Carpenter was going to "start a problem for him the next day" or "going to fight him" the next day. There is no record evidence of failing grades, truancies, or unexcused absences for Elijah.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the School Board enter a final order returning Elijah McCray to the appropriate grade level in a regular school program with a different classroom teacher than previously assigned. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of September, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 30th day of September, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Jackie Gabe, Esquire Law Offices McCrary, Valentine & Mays P.A. 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 800 Miami, Florida 33137 Mrs. Sylvia Taylor 2971 N. W. 165 Street Opa Locka, Florida 33054 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire 1450 N. E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida Ms. Maeva Hipps School Board Clerk 1450 N. E. 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent's professional service contract should be renewed as provided in Subsection 231.36(3)(e), Florida Statutes. This requires a determination of whether the Petitioner provided sufficient assistance and in-service training opportunities and evaluated Respondent periodically to apprise him of his progress, and whether Respondent corrected certain noted performance deficiencies.
Findings Of Fact At the time that he was recommended for non-renewal, Respondent, James A. Conner, had been employed by the School Board of Seminole County (Board) as a graphic arts teacher at Sanford Middle School for approximately seventeen years. Daniel Pelham has been principal at Sanford Middle School for the past twenty-three years. On March 26, 1991, Pelham advised Conner, in writing, that he was being recommended for return to annual contract status for the 1991-92 contract year, based on unsatisfactory performance in the following areas: Deficient Classroom Management Failure to maintain established procedures. Failure to maintain appropriate and consistent disciplinary procedures. Failure to use clearly defined classroom procedures. Failure to utilize time efficiently. Deficient Teaching Skills Failure to promote effective classroom interaction. Failure to exhibit rapport and understanding with students. (Petitioner's Exhibit #4) The deficiencies noted by Pelham had been developing over a period of approximately four or five years and were pointed out on prior evaluation forms. In particular, Pelham was concerned that there were an inordinate number of student discipline referrals being made by Conner. Pelham also personally observed problems in classroom management in visits he made to Conner's classes. Conner's classes in the vocational program were typically smaller than those in the academic programs. Over a school day of five periods, he had a total of sixty to seventy-five students, and some of his classes contained only nine or ten students. As a result of proceedings not relevant to this case, the parties entered a stipulation that the March 26, 1991 recommendation would be considered a notice of unsatisfactory performance required to terminate a professional service contract pursuant to Section 231.36(3)(e), Florida Statutes (1991). The effect of the stipulation was to provide Conner with an opportunity to remedy his deficiencies as provided in a new law governing employment rights of classroom teachers. By the time Pelham's recommendation was made, he felt that Conner had the capacity to improve, but the principal was not optimistic that the improvements would be made. As required by law, an assistance plan was developed to assist James Conner in correcting the deficiencies provided in the notice described above. Daniel Pelham assigned Roger Gardner, his assistant principal, to be a mentor to Conner; and he removed Gardner from any supervisory role in an attempt to make the relationship more helpful. The assistance team was comprised of Dan Pelham; Roger Gardner; John Reichert, the Board's Director of Personnel; Cliff Duncan, Director of Staff Development; and Betty Hogle, Director of Vocational Education. The plan was provided to James Conner in September 1991. Helene Samango was Conner's representative from the Seminole Education Association, the teachers union. She elicited the assistance of Linda Cronin- Jones, Ph.D., an associate professor of instruction and curriculum at the University of Florida College of Education, to review the performance assistance plan. Dr. Cronin-Jones provided a critique of the plan, with suggestions that were, in turn, provided to Mr. Reichert the second week of December 1991. Dr. Cronin-Jones' suggestions were incorporated in the plan at the next meeting of the assistance team on January 13, 1992. The additions to the plan included a peer teacher selected by Mr. Conner, in addition to the one already identified in the plan, and included videotaping Conner's class sessions to be used as a tool for Conner and his peers to critique his work and to make suggestions for further improvement. The content of the assessment documents used to evaluate Conner's performance was established by statute. The assessment plan itself was developed four or five years ago by a committee of school board staff, including teachers, principals and union representatives. The plan has been approved by the State Department of Education every year thereafter. The performance assistance plan developed for James Conner was adequate and appropriate to address the specific deficiencies previously noted in his performance. He took advantage of the required activities, including review of in-service training material. He was not, however, responsive to the guidance attempts by Roger Gardner, whose task, having known Conner for many years, was to help him with specific strategies to reach the goals set up in the plan. For example, Gardner gave Conner a few articles to read that supported some of the things he was being asked to do. The articles related to specific problems of middle school children and ways of dealing with their discipline needs. Conner was to respond back to Gardner after reading the articles. He apparently read them, but did not respond as asked. Another assignment to Conner was to draft his classroom management plan. He and Gardner met on preliminary drafts several times, but it was not finally completed until December 19, 1991. The meetings were scheduled by Gardner, and Conner simply did not take the initiative that would have reflected an effort to cooperate. James Conner was observed or formally assessed on several occasions over the remedial year. Bettie Hogle, Director of Vocational and Technical Education for the School Board, observed him from the beginning of the first period until 10:35 a.m. on October 28, 1991. She noted the following: There was no clear focus on the day's learning activities at the beginning of class. Student behavior was poor. One student was sent to the office for discipline at the start of class. I was not sure why he was singled out when others were misbehaving as well. Equipment and materials were stacked around the lab. This cluttered atmosphere is not conducive to student learning. On the positive side, Mr. Conner exhibited good questioning techniques in teaching the lesson. He complimented the students on the good behavior they demonstrated in groups earlier in the week. After students began working on projects, he circulated around the room and provided individual assistance. (Petitioner's Exhibit #11) Daniel Pelham observed Conner's seventh grade class for thirty-five minutes on November 11, 1991. There were five students in the class. The assessment form notes unsatisfactory ratings in six areas of classroom management and teaching skills. Two students were observed talking during most of the observation, without intervention by the teacher. The form also noted "not much change here" under the category, "Exhibits rapport and understanding with students", with the comment, "very high discipline referral. To date 11/11, total of 46". (Petitioner's Exhibit #12) On December 9, 1991, Pelham sent Conner a memorandum regarding the continued clutter in his classroom, storage room and office, and directed him to remove the items not in use in his program and to get the items off the floors. A follow-up memorandum was given to Conner on January 22, 1992, noting that the papers and boxes were still scattered on the floor of his office and storage room. The memorandum also noted a positive improvement in classroom management observed on January 9, 1992. The nine students observed that period were on task and behaved. Pelham's next assessment is dated March 24, 1992 and reflects a thirty-five minute observation of Conner's seventh grade graphic arts class on March 18, 1992. There were ten students present. Five areas under classroom management and teaching skills were found unsatisfactory. No significant change in management style was found. Students spent a lot of time just sitting. One student completed his project and sat for 30 minutes. The students were told "just follow directions". (Petitioner's Exhibit #8) Pelham's annual assessment of Conner is dated April 24, 1992 and finds him unsatisfactory in these four areas under classroom management and teaching skills: "Uses clearly defined classroom procedures"; "Disciplinary procedures established and used"; "Promotes effective classroom interaction"; and "Exhibits rapport and understanding with students". Four or more unsatisfactory ratings constitute an unsatisfactory evaluation according to the instructional personnel plan. (Petitioner's Exhibit #6) The areas found unsatisfactory are critical to the effective functioning of a teacher. The deficiencies noted in the above-described assessments or evaluations are evident in the videotapes of Conner's classes, recorded in December 1991 and March 1992. Those sessions are typical examples of Conner's performance at the time that they were taped; they reflect the methodologies and strategies he was using and attempting to implement from the assistance plan. The December session shows constant talking by the students, with Conner lecturing and attempting to demonstrate over the low din. The class was small, approximately ten students, but they were notably disengaged, except during brief periods when the equipment was plotting designs. Conner ignored the talking and forged on with the lesson. The March sessions were also small classes and the students were not as disruptive. Explanations and demonstrations of equipment were made with the teacher's back to the students. Again, the students were primarily disengaged, some with their heads on the tables. Several times, Conner urged them, "you might want to write this down", but not the first student picked up a pencil, and some seemed not to have pencils or materials on their tables. A child with his hand up was not recognized for an extended period and eventually Conner's response to his question was a flippant, "Because it's there". There was some attempt to engage the students in discussion about what was learned in other classes or about trips to Epcot or Busch Gardens, and there was some attempt to compliment students with, "Congratulations and a warm fuzzy to the stars who made 100"; but in spite of the size of the class, there was very little individual interaction. Students were rarely addressed by name or called to respond individually. For the most part, the students appeared unchallenged or simply bored. The Board's expert witness described the classroom style as lack of "with-it-ness". Although Conner was friendly or kind, class time was wasted and the students' education was not advanced. Over the 1991-92 school year, James Conner issued approximately 110 student discipline referrals, exhibiting some improvement over prior years, but still an excessive amount based on the number of his students, and reflective of a failure of classroom management and poor rapport with the students. His explanation that his students were particularly disruptive and he had to be strict to keep them from hurting themselves on the dangerous equipment, is not substantiated by the observations of the principal or by the compelling evidence of the videotaped sessions. The classroom unrest was more apparently the painful consequence of student boredom and failure of the teacher to engage his enviably small classes in the subject matter. Conner's theory that his principal gave up on him too early and failed to provide the equipment he needed, or had a personality conflict, was not developed with competent, credible evidence. The assistance plan, the suggestions and guidance offered by Roger Gardner, and the peer assistance of two outstanding teachers were appropriate and adequate. Daniel Pelham did not recommend Conner's transfer to another school because he properly wanted to avoid passing on a problem to someone else. James Conner did improve his performance over the remedial year. Six unsatisfactory charges were reduced to four. It is impossible to determine whether more improvement would have been made with more time. He was, however, given the time required by law, and was given the assistance required to make improvements. The principal's assessment was valid and the superintendent's recommendation that he not be issued a new professional service contract was timely and is appropriate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the School Board of Seminole County enter its Final Order denying renewal of James Conner's professional service contract. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of January, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of January, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-3012 The following constitute rulings made on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted substantially in paragraph 1. Respondent testified that he was employed 17 years (transcript, p.304). Included in Preliminary Statement. Adopted in paragraph 17. Included in Preliminary Statement. Adopted in substance in paragraph 2. Adopted in paragraph 3. Rejected as unnecessary. 9-10. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in paragraph 25. Rejected as unnecessary. (Second numbered paragraph 12) Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in substance in paragraph 10. Adopted in paragraphs 17 and 26. Adopted in paragraph 25. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 17. Adopted in paragraph 9. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 12-16. Rejected as substantially unsupported by the evidence. He did make some effort and was moderately, but insufficiently, successful. Adopted in paragraph 18. Rejected as unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in substance in paragraph 1. Adopted in part in paragraph 2. The proposed finding of personality conflict is rejected as unsubstantiated by competent, credible evidence. Adopted in paragraphs 2 and 4. Adopted in part in paragraph 5. The ultimate conclusion that he had "given up" is rejected as an overstatement of the substance of Pelham's testimony. 5-7. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substantive part in paragraph 25. Adopted in paragraph 6. 10-12. Adopted in substance in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 8. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. 15-17. Substantially rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. 18-22. Rejected as unnecessary. The testimony of the peer teachers neither supports nor rejects the position of Respondent. It is credible, but essentially neutral. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. The referrals played some part in the unsatisfactory assessments, but so also did Pelham's classroom observations. Rejected as unnecessary. The basic premise is accepted, but this was not the reason Respondent had problems with referrals. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. 26-27. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 18. 29-31. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Both parties' experts were impressive and credible. In her assessment of Respondent's performance, Dr. Cronin- Jones understandably concentrated on the positive aspects, which aspects were nonetheless outweighed by the negative overall lack of effective connection between teacher and his students. The marked efforts to "relate" are rote, and in some cases (the trips), detract from the learning process. COPIES FURNISHED: Ned N. Julian, Jr., Esquire STENSTROM, MCINTOSH, ET AL. Post Office Box 4848 Sanford, Florida 32772-4848 Thomas W. Brooks, Esquire MEYER AND BROOKS, P.A. 2544 Blairstone Pines Drive Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Robert W. Hughes, Superintendent Seminole County School Board 1211 Mellonville Avenue Sanford, Florida 32771
