The Issue Whether the Respondent's teaching certificate should be suspended, revoked, or otherwise disciplined based upon the allegations of Petitioner Castor's Administrative Complaint executed on May 26, 1988. Whether Respondent's continuing contract with the Collier County School Board should be terminated based upon the allegations set forth in the Notice of Intent to Take Action dated June 10, 1988. Whether the School Board properly suspended the Respondent without pay.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds Florida Teaching Certificate #117082. During the August 1987-June 1988 school year, the Respondent was employed as a second grade teacher at Highlands Elementary school by the School Board of Collier County. The Respondent had continuing contract status which she had received prior to July 1, 1984. The Respondent was suspended as an employee with pay effective January 1, 1988. The reason for this suspension by the School Board was the pending investigation by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services regarding alleged child abuse to a child in the Respondent's classroom. A second suspension without pay for which no reasons were given occurred on September 1, 1988, and was made retroactive to August 16, 1988. The Respondent was not given prior notice the School Board's plan to consider her employment status during a meeting in September 1988. She was notified after the fact, by letter dated September 2, 1988. On November 17, 1987, the principal asked to see the Respondent's grade book. The grade book, as reviewed by the principal on November 17, 1987, contained very few recorded grades for the initial marking period and the portion of the second quarter which had already passed. After the grade book was returned on November 17, 1987, the Respondent made additional entries for the second marking period. The principal reviewed the grade book again on November 18, 1987. Shortly thereafter, when the principal asked the Respondent to demonstrate that the new entries were related to exams or class work evaluated by her, the Respondent was unable to do so. During the administrative hearing, no evidence was presented which would justify the assigned grades on the report cards or in the grade book. It was not demonstrated that there was a correlation between the marks given and the level of skills demonstrated by students on either exams or seatwork for the dates recorded. The Respondent did not administer corporal punishment to any second grade students during the 1987-1988 school year. The Respondent did pinch the child Lucretio Gutierrez on his outer lower left thigh while he was seated in a reading group session on December 7, 1987. The general location where the child was touched was the outer seam of his long dungarees. The Respondent did not slap this child on the arm on another occasion during the 1987-1988 school year. The pinching of the child Lucretio Guiterrez did not occur in a setting where the child was being punished. The child was reading out loud for the teacher. During the performance, the Respondent reached over and squeezed his leg in a manner the child described as a "pinch." The incident did not rise to the level of child abuse, either physical or mental, as defined by Florida Statutes. No physical or mental harm occurred to the child as a result of the incident. No other children were inappropriately touched or pinched by the Respondent in the 1987-1988 school year. The Respondent did not make inappropriate and profane comments to students in her second grade classroom. She did not tell the students they would "go to hell" if they did not complete their reading assignments. She did not tell the students that they would "go to hell and burn forever, but their souls would never die" if they did not abide by the rules. The children were not told that they would "go to hell" if they did not complete their reading assignments. The Respondent did not describe a lurid tatoo to the students, nor did she state that she was going to have a similar tatoo place upon her "titty." When a student note was confiscated by the Respondent which included the sentence "I like your dick," the Respondent did not make comments to the class such as, "This is not something you should do now, but its okay when you get older." She did not explain that "it gets better as you get older." The Respondent did not mentally abuse, as defined by Florida statutes, any of the children in her classroom.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, Charlotte County School Board (the "School Board") has just cause to terminate the employment contract of Respondent, Natalie Santagata, based upon loss of effectiveness as a teacher due to scandalous materials being disseminated to School Board employees and parents.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is the duly authorized entity responsible for the operation, control, and supervision of the School, which is an elementary school within the Charlotte County Public School system. The School is an "A-rated" school with approximately 650 students and 45 members of the teaching staff. At all times relevant hereto, Santagata was employed at the School under a professional services contract. At the time of her termination from employment by the School Board, Santagata was teaching fifth grade at the School. She had been teaching at the School for approximately four years, having transferred from Peace River Elementary School. By all accounts, Santagata was an excellent teacher when she was hired to work at the School. She was hired to teach third-graders, an important grade due to the "no-child- left-behind" requirements associated with that grade level. Santagata was a "stellar" teacher according to the school principal. When she first came to the School, she taught third grade. Then, she "looped" to fourth grade the next year. One hundred percent of her students' parents agreed to allow their children to loop with her so she could continue teaching them. Santagata continued to be an excellent teacher at the School. However, in the beginning of the 2010-2011 school year, things began to change. At the start of the school year Santagata was operating at about the same proficiency level as in previous years, but in November her supervisor and co-workers began to notice disturbing changes in Santagata's appearance and demeanor. She began to show up at work in a somewhat disheveled state, she began to lose a noticeable amount of weight, and she was absent from the classroom more than usual. There were reports that Santagata was leaving her co-teacher alone in the room with the students more frequently. Her co-teacher at that time was a teacher with three years' experience as a teacher, but was in her first year at the School. Santagata was, however, never unable to perform her duties as a teacher during the school year. Santagata was experiencing significant difficulties in her personal life at the time she began to struggle as a teacher. She was going through a very unpleasant divorce and was undergoing extreme stress and anxiety because of that event. Beginning late in 2010 and continuing into the early months of 2011, Santagata showed signs that she was not performing up to her normally excellent standards. According to her principal, Santagata began to lose her "with-it-ness," i.e., her ability to maintain interaction and involvement with her students and their parents. One day, Santagata did not show up for work. When the principal called, Santagata said she had overslept. Santagata, ultimately, made it to work, but she was late and was admonished for that failure on her part. As her concerns about Santagata grew, the principal began to take more frequent "walk-throughs" in Santagata's classroom as a means of monitoring her more effectively. As a result of her observations during those walk-throughs, the principal decided to offer Santagata some help by way of the employee assistance program. The program provides teachers a way to deal with private and personal problems more effectively in order to maintain professionalism in their classrooms. The program was first discussed with Santagata in November of the 2010-2011 school year when the principal first learned Santagata was going through her divorce. The program was offered a second time in January after Santagata's behavior and demeanor began to change even more. There was no evidence as to whether Santagata availed herself of the employee assistance program. At about the time Santagata began showing signs of stress, the School received a few anonymous telephone calls from individuals saying that Santagata was using drugs and making inappropriate life choices. The School knew that Santagata's estranged husband was attempting to hurt her in any way he could. It was believed that he may be the source of the anonymous calls. The School also received an anonymous email advising about a You-Tube video purportedly showing Santagata in a room where other people were apparently smoking marijuana. When confronted with those allegations, Santagata voluntarily agreed to take a drug test to prove her innocence. The School decided not to test Santagata at that time. At a school field day held in the spring, a couple of parents reported to a teacher that Santagata looked "terrible." The teacher reported the observation to the principal, who went to see for herself. The principal found Santagata not to be up to her normal standards, but she did not look terrible. Shortly thereafter, the principal received another anonymous email saying Santagata was abusing drugs. At that time, the School decided to ask Santagata to submit to a drug test. Santagata was placed on administrative leave pending the result of the test, and when the test returned with a negative result, Santagata was reinstated. The reinstatement occurred just a few days before the end of the 2010-2011 school year. After the conclusion of the school year, various administrators at the School received packages from an anonymous sender. The packages contained videos and still photographs that purported to be Santagata engaged in sexual activities and smoking marijuana. The person in the videos and photographs resembled Santagata. The school principal recognized Santagata's house from one of the videos or still photographs. However, there was no verification that the person in the videos and photographs was indeed Santagata. Santagata neither admitted, nor denied that the videos and photographs were of her. One of the videos shows a woman engaging in oral sex with a man. Both appear to be adults and the sexual activity appears to be consensual. The videos also show the man and woman smoking cigarettes, but holding the cigarettes between the thumb and forefinger, i.e., in the manner which is generally associated with smoking marijuana cigarettes. The man in the videos at one point asked the woman whether she was "high" or some such reference to drug use. One of the videos also shows the woman moving from room to room, seemingly gathering clothes and other items as if she were packing. The man and woman appear to be angry at each other during this particular video. The woman appears to be preparing to terminate whatever relationship existed with the man. Once the videos were received at the School Board, they were turned over to the School Board security officer so that an investigation could be conducted. As part of the investigation, the security officer reviewed the videos and pictures, pleadings and other documents concerning Santagata's divorce proceedings, newspaper articles, and other documents. The officer interviewed school employees, but did not interview any parents of students from the School. The officer did not interview Santagata. Mrs. Mangiafico, a parent of students at the school, also received the pictures that had been sent to the School and School Board. Mangiafico's children were never in Santagata's classroom, but they were friends with Santagata's children. Mangiafico may have, at the time she turned over the pictures to the School, stated that she did not want Santagata teaching her children. However, she considered Santagata to be an excellent teacher and that "everybody wanted their kid in her class." Mangiafico did not know whether any other parents of students received the videos or pictures. She did not believe there had been any change in Santagata's reputation as a result of the pictures being disseminated. A local newspaper published an article about Santagata saying she was under investigation due to "inappropriate photos" the School had received. The article was published on August 10, 2011. There is no mention in the article as to what the photographs may have depicted. The School Board recognized that Santagata was not responsible for releasing the videos and pictures. It was, however, concerned about the possible perception of the School and Santagata by the general public. Specifically, the superintendent worried that "because the pictures and videos had been sent out to parents, that would affect [Santagata's] effectiveness in the classroom." The School principal was concerned about "the doubt that was placed in parents' minds" about Santagata as a teacher. Likewise, the assistant superintendent's concern was that once the pictures got out into the public, "it would lessen her effect [sic] as a teacher." The School Board was genuinely worried that if the videos and pictures were distributed more widely, the School may experience some negative public scrutiny. The School and School Board took strong measures to ensure that they were not the source of dissemination of the information to the public, but they could not be sure that some anonymous person might do so. Based upon those concerns, the School Board decided to terminate Santagata's employment. Santagata was offered the opportunity to resign, rather than being fired, but she refused to do so. Santagata was placed on administrative leave with pay, effective August 1, 2011. On September 6, 2011, the School Board voted to terminate Santagata's employment; she was notified by letter the next day. According to the superintendent of schools and the School principal, the pictures and videos were not sufficient, in and of themselves, to warrant discipline against Santagata, nor had any discipline been imposed against Santagata prior to her being placed on administrative leave. The basis of the School Board's action was simply the possibility that Santagata may lose her effectiveness, if the public was made aware of the photographs and videos.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Charlotte County School Board, rescinding the termination of Respondent, Natalie Santagata's, employment and that she be reinstated to her position with back pay and benefits for the reasons set forth above. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of March, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of March, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Douglas Whittaker, Superintendent Charlotte County School Board 1445 Education Way Port Charlotte, Florida 33948-1052 Gerard Robinson, Commissioner Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Charles M. Deal, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Mark S. Herdman, Esquire Herdman and Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761 Thomas M. Gonzalez, Esquire Erin G. Jackson, Esquire Thompson, Sizemore, Gonzalez & Hearing, P.A. 201 North Franklin Street, Suite 1600 Tampa, Florida 33602
The Issue Whether the Petitioner's decision to suspend the Respondent without pay for a period of five working days should be sustained.1
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Article IX, Florida Constitution; Section 230.03, Florida Statutes. Mr. Fox is a teacher of emotionally handicapped students who has been employed by the School Board for approximately 27 years and has taught at Jefferson Davis for the past 23 years. He is employed by the School Board under a continuing contract. On March 28, 2000, Mr. Fox was issued a written reprimand by the Director of the School Board's Department of Employee Relations for making inappropriate comments to students. During the 2000-2001 school year, Mr. Fox taught a sixth grade class composed of six to eight emotionally handicapped students, some of whom had behavioral problems. The students in the class were between 11 and 12 years of age. B.W. was a student in Mr. Fox's class from the first part of November 2000 until he was transferred in the spring to another class for emotionally handicapped students.2 B.W. testified that Mr. Fox cussed in class, using words like "damn" and "asshole," and saying things like "quit your bitching." B.W. testified that he "believed" he overheard Mr. Fox say "fuck" in a conversation with another teacher about restaurants and cars. B.W. agreed when counsel for the School Board asked him if Mr. Fox ever told him, another student in the class, to "shut the hell up."3 B.W. recalled that, when Mr. Fox was talking to a girl in the class who had been fighting, he overheard Mr. Fox tell her, in response to something that she said to him, that he would see her at her funeral.4 B.W. also testified that some of Mr. Fox's actions in the classroom bothered him.5 B.W. told his mother that Mr. Fox was being "real rude,"6 and he complained to her about Mr. Fox almost every day. L.G., B.W.'s mother, testified that B.W. complained to her about Mr. Fox. B.W. told her that, one time, Mr. Fox told him to "shut the hell up."7 B.W. also told her that Mr. Fox used the "f- word" to a teacher, and B.W. told her that Mr. Fox "said the word, damn, one time."8 B.W. also told her that Mr. Fox told him to "sit back down in the damn seat."9 When B.W. told her these things, L.G. testified that she would contact Todd Smith and Anthony Rochon at Jefferson Davis; she spoke with them weekly. L.G. testified that she had written in B.W.'s agenda book that Mr. Fox should correspond with her or call her on the telephone if there were a problem with B.W. According to L.G., Mr. Fox called her at work one day and told her that he had a problem with B.W. L.G. went to the school immediately and went into the classroom to help her son. L.G. testified that Mr. Fox was rude to her on this occasion because he told her in a gruff voice: "'Tell him to do that page there.'"10 L.G. also testified that Mr. Fox telephoned her to talk about B.W. not doing his work and being obnoxious in class. L.G. testified that Mr. Fox was rude and unprofessional during these conversations; he was "very short" with her and once told her that B.W. "wouldn't do his damn work."11 The 2000-2001 school year was Anthony Rochon's first year as the Crisis Intervention Teacher at Jefferson Davis. His job is to assist the special education teachers with students who become overly disruptive in the classroom. The students are removed from the classroom and sent to him for counseling. In many cases, the students are very angry when they come into his office; Mr. Rochon must sometimes send the student home because he or she cannot be calmed down, but, other times, the student stays with Mr. Rochon the entire day or returns to the classroom. At unspecified times during the 2000-2001 school year, Mr. Rochon received complaints regarding Mr. Fox's comments and actions in the classroom. These complaints came primarily from four male students, including B.W. and S.M., although other students in Mr. Fox's class would occasionally complain. Mr. Rochon received more complaints from the students in Mr. Fox's class than he did with respect to the other two classes for the emotionally handicapped at Jefferson Davis. Mr. Rochon could not remember during his testimony specifically what each student said about Mr. Fox, but he thinks that B.W. may have said that Mr. Fox cursed at him "or something like that."12 With respect to the other complaints, Mr. Rochon recalled that "[s]ome [students] would say he cursed at them, used profanity. Some would say he made derogatory remarks about their intelligence. And those were basically their major complaints. Yelled at them."13 Some students complained to Mr. Rochon that Mr. Fox called them stupid or yelled at them, told them that they were not wanted in the class and "should be somewhere else."14 In most cases, Mr. Rochon would talk to the student and discover that the student had been angry and misinterpreted what Mr. Fox said. In a few cases, the student would not tell him what the problem was but would become upset and would refuse to return to the classroom; Mr. Rochon would refer these cases to Todd Smith, the assistant principal for the sixth grade. Mr. Rochon also received complaints from the mothers of three of the four male students, including B.W.'s mother and S.M.'s mother. L.G., B.W.'s mother, complained to Mr. Rochon that her son complained to her about things that Mr. Fox said to him, and L.G. complained that Mr. Fox was rude to her. M.M., S.M.'s mother, complained to Mr. Rochon that Mr. Fox hung up on her and was rude to her "or something" and that she received "excessive phone calls or something from Mr. Fox about things her child was doing in class."15 Mr. Rochon has no records of the complaints he received from students or parents, and he does not know whether the accusations against Mr. Fox were true. Mr. Fox frequently sent both B.W. and S.M. to Mr. Rochon for intervention. B.W. was sent to Mr. Rochon two or three times per week, and S.M was sent more often than B.W. Mr. Fox sent both students to Mr. Rochon for intervention because they were disrupting his classroom and he could not teach. Sometimes Mr. Rochon would go to Mr. Fox's classroom to remove B.W. or S.M. in response to a request from Mr. Fox for intervention. Mr. Fox personally observed B.W. "running around the classroom, maybe talking loudly or having an argument with another student and refusing to stop when Mr. Fox asked him to."16 He personally observed S.M. to be "generally . . . loud, would sometimes use profanity. He would leave the room a lot. Mr. Fox had to call me to go find him a lot. He was more of a volatile student in the sense that when he became very angry, he became very aggressive."17 The 2000-2001 school year was Mr. Smith's first year as the assistant principal for the sixth grade at Jefferson Davis. In the fall of 2000, Mr. Smith began receiving complaints from students about Mr. Fox's behavior in the classroom. Mr. Smith also received complaints from the parents of the four male students who complained to Mr. Rochon, especially from the mothers of B.W. and S.M. The complaints began in November 2000, at about the time B.W. was placed in Mr. Fox's classroom.18 Relevant to the issues herein, L.G., B.W.'s mother, complained to Mr. Smith that B.W. complained to her that Mr. Fox used inappropriate language and some profanity, specifically "bullshit," in the classroom. M.M, S.M.'s mother, made similar allegations against Mr. Fox, and she complained to Mr. Smith that Mr. Fox made some inappropriate comments and used some profanity, but she did not give Mr. Smith any specifics. L.G. and M.M. both complained to Mr. Smith that Mr. Fox was unprofessional in his conversations with them, but they did not give any specific instances of such behavior. At their parents' requests, both B.W. and S.M. were transferred out of Mr. Fox's classroom. B.W. testified that he asked Mr. Smith to "get me out of the class because he [Mr. Fox] was rude, and he would make comments to other children which I thought were inappropriate, and they bothered me."19 At about the same time, Mr. Smith discussed the complaints with Mr. Fox, and there were no further complaints from parents. Only one student complained to Mr. Smith about Mr. Fox after Mr. Smith's conversation with Mr. Fox. Mr. Smith turned over the information regarding the complaints of L.G. and M.M. to the principal of Jefferson Davis, and the principal contacted the Personnel Department and referred the matter for investigation. The investigation of Mr. Fox was assigned to Mr. Johnson on January 17, 2001. Mr. Johnson interviewed S.M., the alleged "student victim," on February 1, 2001; he interviewed B.W. and two other students in Mr. Fox's class on March 13, 2001; and he interviewed a seventh grade student on April 10, 2001, who had been in Mr. Fox's class the previous year. Mr. Johnson also interviewed S.M.'s aunt on March 20, 2001, and S.M.'s mother, M.M., on April 10, 2001.20 Mr. Johnson made notes during these interviews and later compiled the notes into summaries of the interviews that were included in his investigation report. He compiled some other documents in this investigation report, including S.M.'s extensive disciplinary history, the written reprimand issued to Mr. Fox on March 28, 2000, and Mr. Fox's evaluations for the 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 school years.21 Mr. Johnson presented the investigation report to a case management committee, which determined that there was probable cause to discipline Mr. Fox and that the appropriate penalty would be a five-day suspension without pay, which would be progressive discipline because of the written reprimand of March 28, 2000. Summary. The School Board presented no evidence that establishes that Mr. Fox used inappropriate language or made inappropriate comments to students or parents on December 19 or 20, 2000. But even going beyond the limited time frame alleged in the Administrative Complaint, the evidence is simply not qualitatively or quantitatively sufficient to establish clearly and convincingly that Mr. Fox made inappropriate comments and used inappropriate language in the classroom or to parents. And, even had the evidence supported a finding that Mr. Fox had made inappropriate comments or used inappropriate language on December 19 and 20, 2000, or even during the 2000-2001 school year, such behavior does not involve conviction for an act of moral turpitude, the only specific violation with which Mr. Fox is charged. The only direct evidence of Mr. Fox's behavior in the classroom was the testimony of B.W.. The remaining evidence was either hearsay or hearsay within hearsay: It consisted of the testimony of L.G. with respect to B.W.'s complaints to her about Mr. Fox's comments and language in the classroom; the testimony of Mr. Rochon and Mr. Smith with respect to complaints of primarily unspecified comments and language attributed to Mr. Fox conveyed to them by students and parents, who reported only what their children had told them about Mr. Fox's comments and language in the classroom; and the summaries of the interviews Mr. Johnson conducted with a few students and the aunt and mother of one student. Given all the facts and circumstances in this case, including B.W.'s demeanor as a witness and the use of leading questions to develop his testimony, B.W.'s testimony is not sufficiently credible or persuasive of itself to constitute clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Fox made inappropriate comments and used inappropriate language in his classroom. Furthermore, the hearsay evidence regarding the student complaints about Mr. Fox's language and comments in the classroom, which formed the primary body of evidence against Mr. Fox, cannot be used to enhance B.W.'s credibility and is not sufficiently persuasive, when viewed as supplementing or explaining B.W.'s testimony, to establish clearly and convincingly that Mr. Fox made inappropriate comments or used inappropriate language in the classroom.22 The only direct evidence of Mr. Fox's behavior towards parents is the rather vague testimony of L.G. that Mr. Fox was unprofessional and rude and that, one time, Mr. Fox used the word "damn" in a conversation with her; the other evidence consisted of the testimony of Mr. Rochon and Mr. Smith regarding the complaints of two parents and the summaries of interviews with a student's mother and aunt that were included in the investigation report. A description of Mr. Fox's comments as rude and unprofessional is not sufficiently specific to establish that his comments were inappropriate, and L.G.'s testimony that Mr. Fox said "damn" in one conversation with her, even if true, is not sufficient to support a finding that Mr. Fox's use of the word was inappropriate, especially given the absence in the record of any evidence that the School Board considers inappropriate the use of the word "damn" to a parent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida, enter a final order rescinding the five-day suspension of William Fox and ordering that his salary for these five days be paid. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 20th day of May, 2002.
The Issue Whether Petitioner established, pursuant to section 1012.33(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2014),1/ that Respondent, Susan Steverson (Respondent), committed gross insubordination and should have been disciplined therefore.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is responsible for the public education of students in grades pre-K through 12 in Holmes County, Florida. The School Board is also responsible for the hiring, firing, and overseeing all employees within the Holmes County School District (District). The District has a total of approximately 3,250 students enrolled and employs just under 475 persons. Mr. Eddie Dixon is the Superintendent of School for the Holmes County School District. He was elected as Superintendent in 2012. As Superintendent, Mr. Dixon is responsible for the management of district employees and regularly makes recommendations to the School Board regarding the suspension, discipline, or termination of such employees. The District is comprised of seven traditional schools and one alternative school. One of the traditional schools within the District is Bethlehem School, a Pre-K through 12 school. Approximately 500 students are enrolled at Bethlehem School, which has roughly 55 faculty and staff members. Brent Jones is the current principal of Bethlehem School and was principal during the 2014-15 school year. Rosanne Mitchell is the current assistant principal of Bethlehem School and was assistant principal during the 2014-15 school year. At all relevant times to these proceedings, Respondent has been employed by the School Board as a classroom teacher. Respondent was employed at Bethlehem School for over 28 years. Respondent met Superintendent Dixon shortly after he became superintendent. Superintendent Dixon removed Zeb Brown as principal of Bethlehem School in the middle of the 2012-13 school year, around December of 2012. Respondent, along with a number of teachers, disagreed with the decision and voiced her concerns. According to Respondent, Superintendent Dixon was dismissive of those concerns. Respondent also disagreed with a policy change that took place at Bethlehem school after Principal Brown was removed during the tenure of an interim principal, Principal Thompson. The policy had to do with pre-approved permission forms for student activities. Before the change, teachers could decline to sign the form if a student was not performing or behaving well in class. After the change, teachers no longer had veto power over the forms. They were told that they were to sign the forms, even before the student received it. During the 2014-2015 school year, while Respondent was employed as a classroom teacher at Bethlehem School, Principal Jones received reports that Respondent was leaving students outside of her locked classroom during instructional time. The standard policy that had been put in place at Bethlehem School at the time required that after classes began, classroom doors were to be locked from the inside, requiring late-arriving students to knock on the door to gain entrance. During the fall of 2014, Respondent became "fed up" with the situation, especially during her first period, because late- arriving students interrupted her class. Therefore, she told her students that, after Thanksgiving break, if a student was tardy, they were to knock on the door only once, and that she would open the door when there was a convenient break. According to Respondent, the strategy worked well, and students were never left outside for more than a minute or two. On December 11, 2014, while taking attendance during her first period, a student knocked on her door, and Respondent called out "Just a minute." In less than a minute, she opened the door but no one was there. Shortly thereafter, there was an intercom announcement that there was a late bus and to please allow students in the classrooms. The announcement was followed by a phone call to Respondent in her classroom from the receptionist who had made the announcement, who asked Respondent to allow students in her classroom. That phone call was followed by another from Principal Jones, who asked Respondent why she was locking students out. While Respondent was explaining, the phone call was interrupted by another knock on the door by a late-arriving student. The next day, Friday, December 12, 2014, Principal Jones and Assistant Principal Mitchell met with Respondent during her planning period. During the meeting, Principal Jones told Respondent that they were not running a military-styled school and instructed Respondent to stop leaving students locked outside of her classroom. Principal Jones also gave Respondent instructions regarding the handling of student tardies, acceptance of late work, and the accommodations for ESE students. Regarding leaving students locked outside, Principal Jones told Respondent that she needed to keep her door locked and suggested that she have a student open the door when a late student knocks. Respondent advised Principal Jones that it disrupts educational time, but that she would open the door. On the issue of tardies, Principal Jones explained that the administration's hands were tied because Holmes County had not adopted an attendance policy. In fact, Bethlehem School did not differentiate between excused or unexcused tardies. Some of the teachers at Bethlehem School, including Respondent, had stopped filling out referrals for tardies because they had been told by the school administration that they were not going to be counted. Prior to the meeting, Respondent had a policy of not accepting late work in an effort to promote students’ personal responsibility and fairness to other students. Respondent told Principal Jones that her policy of not accepting late work had been effective. Nevertheless, Principal Jones instructed Respondent to accept late work. He also instructed her to allow students who came unprepared to leave the classroom to get their materials if it was just outside the room in their locker. Principal Jones also mentioned that Respondent needed to make accommodations for ESE students with Individual Education Plans so that those students could succeed and pass. Respondent advised Principal Jones that if the student does nothing, she would not give them a passing grade. Respondent became visibly upset during the meeting, which ended abruptly. The following Monday morning, December 15, 2014, Assistant Principal Mitchell and Principal Jones received reports that Respondent was reading a prepared statement about Principal Jones to her classes. Principal Jones reported the incident to Superintendent Dixon, who asked Principal Jones to obtain a copy of the statement which Respondent had read to the students. Thereafter, Principal Jones went to Respondent’s classroom and asked for a copy of the prepared statement. Respondent stated that she would have to talk to her lawyer. Principal Jones said, "Okay," and walked away. Petitioner did not receive a copy of the statement until many months later when it was produced as part of this proceeding. Later that day, Respondent was called down to the Bethlehem School office during her seventh period to meet with Superintendent Dixon. Respondent was accompanied by fellow teacher, Donna Mollet, at Respondent’s request. When they arrived, Superintendent Dixon handed Respondent a memo on Holmes County School Board stationary from the Superintendent to Respondent dated December 15, 2014, which stated: This is notification that you are suspended with pay from your regularly assigned duties pending the outcome of an investigation concerning gross insubordination of Principal Brent Jones with students at Bethlehem High School. Please be advised that this suspension does not constitute a disciplinary action. We will keep you apprised as the investigation continues; including written notification of the outcome once the investigation is concluded. You are to immediately leave school grounds and not return until further notice. The Superintendent asked Respondent to sign the letter, which she did. When she asked him what she had done, the Superintendent declined to discuss it further at that time and asked her to leave. Respondent was then accompanied to her classroom by Assistant Superintendent Goodman and Carmen Bush from the District office, where she gathered her personal belongings and left. Mr. Goodman and Ms. Bush told Respondent not to return to the school until notified. Principal Jones and Superintendent Dixon conducted an investigation, which included obtaining statements from students who witnessed her conduct. The witness statements indicated that Respondent had told her students that Principal Jones would not enforce her rules and that students might be better off taking an on-line, virtual class, rather than attending Bethlehem School. Following the investigation, the Superintendent determined that Respondent had been grossly insubordinate and had violated the School Board policy regarding Employee Communications. On December 17, 2014, Pam Cameron from the District office called Respondent and asked that she come to the District office the next day. When Respondent arrived at the District office on December 18, 2014, she met with Superintendent Dixon and Principal Jones. Principal Jones handed her a letter of reprimand (Letter of Reprimand) which he had signed, stating: This correspondence is a formal reprimand of your actions and behavior on Monday, December 15, 2014. Our investigation has found that you were grossly insubordinate. The gross insubordination includes reading the prepared statement to your classes and your refusal to provide a copy to me when I requested it. You have been found to be unprofessional and inappropriate in relation to this situation. Please know and understand by way of this correspondence that you are directed to refrain from such unprofessional actions and behaviors in the future. To violate this directive, any School Board Policy, State Statute, or any other School Board Rule can result in further disciplinary action. Please plan to attend the professional practices workshop that will be held during preschool next year. Further, State Board of Education Rule 6B- 1.001, FAC, Section (2) states the educator " . . . will seek to exercise the best professional judgment and integrity." Section (3) states "Aware of the importance of maintaining the respect and confidence of one's colleagues, of students, of parents, and of other members of the community, the educator strives to achieve and sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct." Respondent did not sign the bottom of Letter of Reprimand in the place for her acknowledgement. She did, however, read a statement to Superintendent Dixon and Principal Jones about her frustrations regarding lack of discipline and the attendance policy at Bethlehem School. In a letter addressed to Superintendent Dixon dated December 19, 2014, Respondent stated: This document is my response to my letter of reprimand that you issued on December 18, 2014, in your office. I refute the accusation of gross insubordination that you and Principal Jones have made against me. You both refused to give me specific examples of the alleged insubordination other than “reading the prepared statement to your classes and your refusal to provide a copy to me when I requested it.” Never at any time did you or Principal Jones ask me to tell you what I conveyed to my students. During the brief meeting of December 18, 2014, I explained that I told my students of changes in my classroom rules and that I divulged to students Principal Jones’s statements regarding those changes. Principal Jones said that I had undermined his authority. I fail to see that telling students exactly what Principal Jones said can be construed as undermining his authority or insubordination. Furthermore, the method of my suspension was, I firmly believe, meant to humiliate me in front of my students and colleagues. On Monday, December 15, 2014, Principal Jones called me into his office. Superintendent Dixon gave me the paper regarding my suspension from duties, refused to answer my questions regarding the charges, and told me to get my personal belongings and leave the campus immediately. That meant returning to my classroom of sixth graders—including my own child—and gathering my belongings to leave. My son kept asking what was wrong, why we were having to leave, etc. The emotional distress that you caused not only me, but my son in front of his peers, is unconscionable and unforgivable. I was escorted to my classroom by two county office personnel, Jim Goodman and Carmen Bush, and they followed from there to make sure that I left the building and the campus. I was treated as though I were some kind of desperate criminal, which I definitely resent. I contend that I am innocent of the charges and further contend that your handling of this situation has been conducted purposely to damage my reputation. Respondent wanted to challenge her suspension, but was told both in the letter of suspension, as well as by the Chairman of the School Board, that a suspension with pay is not “discipline” that can be challenged or for which there is a right to a hearing. After Respondent was suspended with pay, Principal Jones informed her that she could return to school from her suspension on January 5, 2015, the day that winter break was over. Shortly after her return, Respondent received a telephone call from a concerned parent because, prior to the winter break, Respondent had deducted points from an essay that the parent’s child had submitted to Respondent. The incident involving the student and the essay occurred during the week of December 8, 2014. In fact, the incident involving that student appears to have been one of the issues that Principal Jones discussed with Respondent on December 12, 2014. The student in question was one of Respondent’s first-period students. The essay was due Monday, December 8, 2014. The student was not in Respondent’s class that day, but Respondent saw the student at school later that same day. When she saw the student, she asked him if he had his essay to turn in and the student replied that he did not. The same thing happened on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday of that week. Each of those days, the student was absent from Respondent’s first-period class, but was seen by Respondent later in the day. When asked by Respondent whether he had his essay, he responded that he did not. Then, on Friday, December 12, 2014, the student arrived very late to Respondent’s first-period class. When he arrived, he put his essay assignment on Respondent’s desk. Respondent told the student that she could not accept the assignment because it was late. He picked up the essay and sat down. Upon noticing that other students were working from their books, the student asked Respondent for permission to go get his book. Respondent refused. The student then left Respondent’s class without her permission. Later that same period, the student came back to Respondent’s class with a note from Principal Jones directing the student back to Respondent’s class. Respondent accepted the student back into her class as directed. Later, Respondent accepted the student’s late work as directed by Principal Jones, but she deducted points from the essay because it was late. When Respondent spoke to the parent of the student after winter break, it was agreed that the parent would come in for a parent-teacher conference to be held during Respondent’s seventh-period planning period on Wednesday, January 7, 2015. Respondent informed Assistant Principal Mitchell of the planned parent-teacher conference and asked her to attend. Principal Jones was also aware that Respondent was going to have the parent-teacher conference. The parent-teacher conference was held on January 7, 2015, with Respondent, the parent, and Assistant Principal Mitchell present in a conference room at Bethlehem School. At the beginning of the meeting, the parent apologized for his son leaving Respondent’s classroom without permission. The parent, however, wanted an explanation of why points had been deducted from his son’s essay. Respondent explained that the points were deducted because the paper was late. The parent was under the belief that his son had only been absent for three days and had not been tardy during the time period in question. Respondent advised the parent that her records showed that the student had been absent seven days and tardy 24 times within the nine-week period. The parent wanted to know why he had not been informed that his son had been tardy so many times. Respondent stated to the parent, “We don’t do much about tardies.” Respondent further explained that they had stopped using paper-based referrals after the first nine-week period. Assistant Principal Mitchell advised the parent that phone calls and letters are sent out to parents of students with excessive absences and tardies. Respondent did not disagree with Assistant Principal Mitchell, nor did Respondent question or criticize the school’s administration during the parent-teacher conference. At the parent’s request, the student joined the teacher-parent conference. The parent spoke to his son and then advised that there should be no more problems out of his son. Thereafter, the student left the conference. After the student left, the parent still wanted Respondent to remove the point deduction from his son’s essay. When Respondent advised that she would not do that, the parent suggested that, if she did not remove the deduction, he would just go to the School Board about it. Respondent said, “I guess you will just have to do that.” Assistant Principal Mitchell then suggested that she would like to speak with Principal Jones about the matter prior to the parent going to the School Board. The parent said that would be fine. Thereafter, Respondent then left the meeting. After Respondent had left, Assistant Principal Mitchell told the parent that she would contact him as soon as the matter had been resolved. The parent thanked Assistant Principal Mitchell and left. On Friday, January 9, 2015, Respondent met with Principal Jones. Lisa Matthews accompanied Respondent at Respondent’s request. During the meeting, Principal Jones told Respondent that she could not deduct points from the student’s essay discussed at the January 7, 2015, teacher-parent conference. When Respondent questioned why she should not be able to deduct points under the circumstances, Principal Jones explained that the student had turned in the paper the next time he was in class and that was good enough. Respondent did not refuse to comply with Principal Jones’ request and, in fact, Respondent complied by removing the point deduction from the student’s essay. Further, after discussing what occurred at the parent- teacher conference with Assistant Principal Mitchell, Principal Jones felt that Respondent’s conduct and statements were designed to undermine the administration of Bethlehem School. Therefore, he reported Respondent’s conduct to Superintendent Dixon, who then determined that there was just cause to suspend Respondent, without pay, for a period of five days. On January 9, 2015, Superintendent Dixon suspended Respondent, without pay, for a period of five days which commenced on Monday, January 12, 2015, and ended on Friday, January 16, 2015. That same day, January 9, 2015, Superintendent Dixon signed a document prepared on Holmes County School Board letterhead regarding Respondent’s suspension without pay. The document stated: Friday, January 9, 2015 Susan Steverson RE: SUSPENSION WITHOUT PAY Pursuant to School Policy 6.38, and Section 1012.33(6), Florida Statutes, Eddie Dixon, Superintendent of Schools for Holmes County School District, recommends that Mrs. Susan Steverson, be suspended without pay for a period of five (5) days from employment with the School Board. Mrs. Steverson has engaged in conduct that constitutes grounds for suspension without pay for a period of five (5) days. The grounds for suspension include, but are not limited to being grossly insubordinate of Principal Brent Jones in a parent meeting after having been reprimanded prior to this school year and violating School Board rules to the extent that disciplinary action is required. The foregoing conduct by Mrs. Steverson constitutes grounds for suspension without pay for a period of five(5) days, in violation of School Board Policy 6.38(III)(B), and (F). Mrs. Steverson’s behavior also violates Department of Education Rules, including but not limited to: Rule 6A-10.080 and Rule 6B-5.056, FAC, and other applicable Florida Law. Accordingly, Mrs. Steverson will be suspended from employment for a period of five (5) days beginning Monday, January 12, 2015 at 7:30 a.m. and ending Friday, January 16, 2015 at 3:00 p.m. During this suspension, Mrs. Steverson will not be allowed on any School Board property. Please know and understand that you are directed to refrain from such unprofessional actions and behaviors in the future. Further, State Board of Education Rule 6B- 1.001, FAC, Section (2) states the educator “ . . . will seek to exercise the best professional judgment and integrity.” Section (3) states “Aware of the importance of maintaining the respect and confidence of one’s colleagues, of students, of parents, and of other members of the community, the educator strives to achieve and sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct.” Subsequently, Superintendent Dixon presented the suspension to the School Board at its next meeting and recommended that the suspension be upheld. The School Board voted on January 20, 2015, to approve the suspension without pay. On January 27, 2015, a Notice of Charges against Respondent in this case was signed by Superintendent Dixon. The Notice of Charges states: NOTICE OF CHARGES Pursuant to Section 1012.33(6), Florida Statutes, Eddie Dixon, Superintendent of Schools for the Holmes County School District, recommended that Mrs. Susan Steverson ("Mrs. Steverson"), be suspended without pay for a period of five (5) days by the School Board. Mrs. Steverson has engaged in conduct that constitutes "just cause" for her suspension without pay. The grounds for suspension include, but are not limited to, the following: gross insubordination. Mrs. Steverson has a history of engaging in insubordinate behavior toward administrators, which began under prior superintendents and continued with recent incidents involving comments made to and about the administration of the Bethlehem School in December 2014 and January 2015. Mrs. Steverson has been repeatedly instructed by persons in authority to correct her behavior, but she has failed to do so. INCIDENTS INVOLVING MRS. SUSAN STEVERSON On or about Monday, December 15, 2014, Mrs. Steverson made unprofessional and derogatory statements to her class about what she believed to be a lack of support from her school principal, Mr. Brent Jones. A statement was apparently read to the class strongly criticizing the principal, and advising the class that there were no longer any rules for the class as a result of a lack of support by her school principal. Students reported the statement to administrators out of concern for the class. Mrs. Steverson was asked for a copy of the written statement by Principal Jones but she refused to provide a copy. Mrs. Steverson was reprimanded for her conduct and advised not to allow her unprofessional conduct to continue. Then again, on January 9, 2015, Mrs. Steverson, during a parent teacher conference scheduled by Mrs. Steverson with Vice-Principal Mrs. Roseanne Mitchell present, was grossly insubordinate by criticizing and questioning Principal Brent Jones, in front of a parent. Her obvious intent was to embarrass and humiliate the Principal, and challenge his authority to administer the operations of the school in a manner he deemed appropriate. Mrs. Steverson was suspended without pay for a period of five (5) days beginning on January 12, 2015 to January 16, 2015, immediately prior to the School Board meeting on January 20, 2015, at which this issue was heard.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Holmes County School Board: Dismissing the charge of gross insubordination against Respondent and setting aside any discipline subsequent to Respondent’s suspension with pay and reprimand received in December 2014; Dismissing the allegations set forth in the Notice of Charges to the extent they seek to impose or support any discipline subsequent to Respondent’s suspension with pay and reprimand received in December 2014; and Reimbursing Respondent for the five days of pay that Respondent did not receive during her suspension from January 12, 2015, through January 16, 2015, plus interest, as appropriate under applicable law. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of March, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III 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 17th day of March, 2016.
The Issue The issues presented are whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and by doing so violated Sections 1012.795(1)(d), 1012.795(1)(g) and 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2008),1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), (e) and (f). If one or all of the violations alleged are proven, what penalty would be appropriate?
Findings Of Fact Respondent is licensed as a teacher in Florida, and has been issued Florida Educator's Certificate 449960. Her certificate covers the area of mentally handicapped, and expires June 30, 2013. During the 2008-2009 school year, Respondent taught at Chaffee Trail in Duval County, Florida. She was assigned as an exceptional education teacher in a self-contained classroom for trainable mentally handicapped students in the first through third grades. Respondent generally had eight to eleven students in her class, and was aided by a paraprofessional, Julie Brooke. Respondent's classroom was on the first-grade hallway. One of Respondent's students was a nine-year-old named C.L. C.L. was a thin, frail, African-American student who, at the time of the incidents giving rise to these proceedings, was approximately four feet, four inches tall and weighed approximately 60 pounds. He was described as very low functioning, with an IQ in the 40's. Despite his significant limitations, C.L. was an active, friendly child who had a tendency to wander and needed redirection. His IEP included specific strategies for dealing with behavior problems in the classroom. Ms. Brooke worked with C.L. daily and he often sat at her desk to work on his assignments. They got along well together. November 18, 2008 On November 18, 2008, there were only four or five students in Respondent's class, because a number of students were absent. That morning, Ms. Brooke took another student to the office because he had been misbehaving. On her way back to Respondent's classroom, she heard loud voices and screaming coming from Respondent's classroom and recognized the voices as those of Respondent and C.L. When she entered the classroom, Ms. Brooke saw Respondent sitting in an office chair, holding C.L. face down on the floor with both of his arms twisted behind his back. Respondent appeared to be pushing C.L. down so that his face and body were pressed against the floor. C.L. was screaming and crying and appeared to be frightened. Ms. Brooke walked over to her desk and sat down. C.L. wanted to go over to Ms. Brooke, but was not allowed to do so. Respondent let him get up, but pinned him into the corner of the classroom near the door, by hemming him in with her chair. Respondent was facing C.L. and pressing the chair against his body, while he continued to scream and cry. About this same time, Assistant Principal Wanda Grondin received a call from a substitute teacher in another classroom on the first-grade hallway, complaining that there was yelling going on that was disturbing her classroom. Ms. Grondin went to the first-grade hallway, and could also hear yelling that was coming from Respondent's classroom. As Ms. Grondin approached the classroom, the yelling stopped. As she entered the room, she saw Respondent sitting in the office chair, with C.L. pinned in the corner of the room, held there by Respondent's chair. C.L. was crying and fighting back. Respondent indicated that he had refused to do something and she was trying to calm him down to give him options. Upon Ms. Grondin's arrival, Respondent slid her chair back, and C.L. fell into Ms. Grondin's arms, crying. Respondent told C.L. that he could now go to Ms. Brooke. C.L. went to Ms. Brooke and she comforted him and gave him some work to do. Later in the day, Ms. Brooke reported to Ms. Grondin that another child in the classroom, M.C., had reported to Ms. Brooke that Respondent had twisted C.L.'s arm and had locked him in the closet in the classroom. Although there was testimony presented regarding conversations that Ms. Grondin, the principal and the guidance counselor had with M.C., and his description of what allegedly happened to C.L., neither M.C. nor any other person who actually witnessed C.L. being locked in the closet testified at hearing. December 16, 2008 Brian Harvell is a first-grade teacher whose classroom is across the hall from Respondent's. On December 16, 2008, he was in his classroom when he heard loud voices and banging noises. Mr. Harvell walked out into the hallway and saw Respondent with C.L., struggling in the doorway. Respondent had her back against the doorframe, and one arm around D.L.'s torso and one of C.L.'s arms twisted behind his back. Mr. Harvell approached Respondent and C.L., and she stated, "Look what's happening in my classroom." When he looked past her, it appeared that a desk had been turned over. C.L. was squirming and crying out while Respondent restrained him. At that point, Mr. Harvell stated, "C.L., come to me." Respondent released C.L. and he walked over to Mr. Harvell, who took him to his classroom. In the classroom, he showed him a carpeted area and a toolbox full of cardboard books. C.L. sat and played quietly for approximately 15-20 minutes, until Ms. Brooke came for him. Mr. Harvell reported the incident to Ms. Grondin. It is not appropriate to control a student by twisting his arm behind his back, pinning him into a corner, or pushing his face toward the floor. It is especially inappropriate to subject a small, frail, mentally handicapped child of C.L.'s size and capacity to such methods of restraint. Respondent was removed from Chaffee Trail on December 19, 2008, as a result of the incidents involving C.L. Her employment with the Duval County School District was terminated in February 2009. The allegations against Respondent were reported in both the print and broadcast news media. The incidents in question also prompted complaints to be filed with the Department of Children and Family Services, and investigations were conducted by DCFS to determine whether there were indicators for child abuse. However, the investigations by DCFS do not address violations of professional standards governing teachers, and the findings are a result of evidence that is different from that presented at the hearing in this case.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order finding that Respondent violated Subsections 1012.795(1)(d),(g) and (j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-(3)(a),(e) and (f), and permanently revoking her certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 24th day of November, 2010.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Education Practices Commission should deny Petitioner's application for a teaching certificate on the grounds that Petitioner lacks the requisite good moral character and that he has committed an act or acts for which such a certificate could be revoked.
Findings Of Fact The evidence presented at final hearing established the facts that follow. During the 1999-2000 school year, Rolle was employed as a public school teacher in the Miami-Dade County School District (the "District"). He was assigned to Mays Middle School, where he taught drama to sixth, seventh, and eighth grade students. Holding a temporary Florida Educator's Certificate, Rolle was hired initially to work as a substitute teacher. Later during the 1999-2000 school year, Rolle's contract status was reclassified, and he became a "3100" or "temporary" teacher. A 3100 teacher's contract automatically expires at the end of the school year. Before the close of the subject school year, Rolle was removed from the classroom after allegations of misconduct were made against him. When the school year ended, Rolle's supervisor gave him an unsatisfactory evaluation and recommended that the temporary teacher not be re-hired. Consequently, Rolle separated from employment with the District following the 1999- 2000 school year. In the meantime, Rolle applied to the Department of Education for a professional (i.e. non-temporary) teaching certificate, pursuant to Section 231.17, Florida Statutes. On March 28, 2001, the Commissioner, as the head of the Department of Education, issued a Notice of Reasons setting forth the grounds for denying Rolle's application. In a nutshell, the Commissioner alleged that Rolle lacked the good moral character required of a teacher and that he had violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession. Below are the relevant historical facts concerning the specific incidents upon which the preliminary denial of Rolle's application was based.2 The Vulgar Joke On March 17, 2000, Rolle told a vulgar joke to his sixth grade class. One of his students, an 11-year-old girl named D. M., reported the joke to the school's administration, submitting a handwritten statement dated March 23, 2000, that quoted Rolle's monologue.3 Rolle admits having told the joke; indeed, he repeated it in full while testifying at hearing. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by including the entire joke in this Recommended Order. The punch line——"Your mouth smells exactly like your butt"——is sufficient to convey the crudity of Rolle's ill-considered attempt at comedy, which would have been inappropriate in polite adult company. Telling such a coarse joke in the classroom to a group of young schoolchildren at a minimum reflected appallingly poor judgment on the teacher's part. The R-Rated Movies On several occasions during the school year, Rolle showed movies to his sixth and seventh grade classes.4 At least two of the movies, Rolle admitted, are rated "R." Another, Rolle claimed, is rated "PG-13."5 Rolle did not obtain the permission of his students' parents to show the children any of these films in class. While the movies themselves were not offered into evidence, it is a matter of general knowledge based on common experience that R-rated movies are intended for a "restricted" audience and typically contain language, images, and plots to which children under the age of 17 should not be casually exposed. At any rate, clearly, children aged 11 and 12 should not be shown R-rated movies in a public school classroom without parental knowledge and consent. Rolle showed these movies, not for a pedagogic purpose, but merely to entertain the children. Making matters worse, Rolle instructed his students to have sheets of paper on their desks while a videotape was playing so that they could pretend to be "critiquing" the movie if someone (presumably another teacher) were to enter the classroom. Rolle also directed the children not to tell others that R-rated films were being screened in his class, warning the students that if word got out, then someone might complain, with the predictable result that the school's administration would forbid such movies from being shown in the future. The Impromptu Skits In class, Rolle often required small groups of his students to act in impromptu skits as a means of developing improvisational skills. Rolle would describe a scene in broad terms, and the students selected to perform would play assigned parts, making up appropriate dialogue extemporaneously. The plots for some of these impromptu skits were taken from the students' textbooks. But Rolle required the students to act out some other scenes that he had imagined on his own. Several of these skits were highly inappropriate, to say the least. In the sixth grade class, for example, Rolle assigned children to play in a scene involving a lesbian having an affair with her female boss at work; a skit in which a girl describes losing her virginity and becoming pregnant; and a vignette wherein a girl who has been raped reports the crime to her parents and the police. Students not chosen to perform in these skits were obligated to watch them. D. M., the young girl who reported the gauche joke discussed above, was one of the sixth-grade students chosen to play a lesbian. She refused the assignment, whereupon Rolle threatened her with a failing grade. Rolle also instructed his seventh grade students to perform in impromptu skits having adult themes.6 More than once, the plot required these adolescent (or pre-adolescent) children, aged 12 and 13, to explore the subject of homosexual relationships. On one occasion, according to the credible testimony of a (then) seventh-grade student named M. M., Rolle suggested that two girls kiss. One of the girls refused. M. M. described a separate incident during which she and another girl, playing lesbians in an impromptu skit under Rolle's direction, actually did kiss one another, although M. M. professed not to have been adversely affected by the experience. Rolle's Explanations Rolle conceded that he had exercised "bad judgment" in connection with the incidents described above and stressed that he had been "reprimanded" by the District for them. Rolle admitted that he had believed his actions were appropriate at the time taken, but upon reflection he now recognizes that he made what he calls "first year teacher" mistakes. Rolle adamantly denied having intended to harm or embarrass any student. Ultimate Factual Determinations Rolle's classroom conduct during the 1999-2000 school year repeatedly fell short of the reasonable standard of right behavior that defines good moral character. By any reasonable measure, it is wrong for a teacher to show R-rated movies to impressionable sixth and seventh grade students; when that teacher, an authority figure acting in loco parentis, further instructs the students to be prepared to lie about or conceal the fact that such films are being shown, as Rolle did, he not only exhibits a propensity for dishonesty that is incompatible with the position of great trust he holds but also encourages the children in his charge likewise to be deceitful. Similarly, when Rolle told that scatological joke to his sixth grade class, he revealed a lack of respect for the rights of others and behaved in a manner inconsistent with the high standard expected of a public school teacher. Finally, asking children as young as 11 years old to act out or watch scenes in which lesbians discuss an illicit workplace romance; a rape victim describes her trauma; and a pregnant girl speaks about her first sexual experience, as Rolle did, reveals a personality that is preoccupied with subjects unsuitable for the middle school curriculum. If Rolle were soon permitted to teach again, parents understandably would question their children's safety and well-being. The risk of allowing Rolle to return to the classroom, at this juncture, is too great. The conduct in which Rolle engaged, moreover, took place in the classroom during the 1999-2000 school year and directly involved the students in his care. Thus, the conduct involved in this case is both recent and rationally connected to Rolle's fitness to teach in the public schools of Florida. In sum, the evidence fails to establish that, more likely than not, Rolle possesses the good moral character required of a teacher to whom the custody of children is entrusted. For that reason, Rolle is not eligible for certification. There is, further, ample proof that Rolle failed on numerous occasions to exert a reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to learning, health, or safety as required under Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, which is part of the Principles of Professional Conduct. Rolle's multiple violations of this Rule would be grounds for revocation of a teaching certificate and hence independently justify the denial of his application for one. Finally, the greater weight of evidence does not demonstrate that Rolle specifically intended to expose his students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement in violation of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order denying Rolle's application for a teaching certificate and providing that he shall not be eligible to reapply for certification for a period of 15 years from the date of the final order, during which time the Department of Education, in its discretion pursuant to Section 231.262(6)(a), Florida Statutes, may refuse to consider his application, neither granting nor denying same. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of December, 2001, 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 14th day of December, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Wright holds teaching certificate number 109682, covering the areas of elementary education and junior college. This certificate was issued on October 4, 1978, and is valid until 1989. Wright is employed by the Duval County School Board and is currently assigned to the Media center in Jacksonville, Florida. Wright has been a teacher with the Duval County School Board since 1962 and was a teacher at Mamie Agnes Jones Elementary School for 17 years, until this incident resulted in reassignment to the Media center. Wright attempted to motivate students by offering them money and other rewards for achieving good grades. He visited in other classrooms and took interest in students that were not in his class. One student he singled out, who was not in his class, was Lillian Simone Allen. He says he singled her out because "he saw potential in her." Wright talked to Ms. Allen's teacher on several occasions about her grades and he talked to Ms. Allen directly. As an incentive, he entered into a "bet" with Ms. Allen whereby she would receive money from him if she made the A/B Honor Role. On February 2, 1987, Ms. Allen walked to school as usual and went to the cafeteria with her friends. Shortly thereafter, Wright entered the cafeteria and said hello to the group. Ms. Allen did not say hello and Wright asked her why she did not respond. Ms. Allen finally said hello. Wright then asked her some questions about her grades and whether she needed any help. Ms. Allen went outside to wait for the buses to arrive with other friends on board. When they arrived, the group went to the playground. After playing for a few minutes, Ms. Allen and some friends headed for the library. On the way, Wright saw her and called her over. He asked her to come to his room to discuss her grades. Wright unlocked his classroom and both entered. He closed the door behind them. Ms. Allen remained standing by the door until Wright called her over to some cabinets along one wall. The area of the room where the cabinets were located was out of the view of the door and the only window in the room. Ms. Allen ended up sitting on the low cabinet. Wright was sitting next to her. A male student in Wright's class entered the room to place his books on his desk. Wright moved away from Ms. Allen when this student was in the room. After the student left, Wright began putting papers in the high cabinet next to where Ms. Allen was sitting. Up until that moment, Wright had been asking Ms. Allen about her grades and whether she needed help with her studies. After the student left, Wright moved over next to Ms. Allen and began rubbing her shoulder. Then he ran his hand down and rubbed her hip and thigh. Wright then stepped in front of Ms. Allen and asked her bra size. Using both hands, Wright touched and rubbed Ms. Allen's breasts. Wright heard the door handle turn and stepped away from Ms. Allen. A female student who was a friend of Ms. Allen's entered the room to drop off her books. As soon as this student, Lakia, left the room, Ms. Allen jumped up and left the room. Ms. Allen was shocked and frightened by this incident. At the time she was twelve years old. She was mature enough that she was wearing a bra, but no teacher had ever touched her in this manner. She is now scared of males and male teachers. When she left the room, Ms. Allen went out to the playground and talked to her friend, Lakia. She then went and told her teacher, Ms. Miles, who in turn took Ms. Allen to the principal's office. An investigation was conducted initially by the principal, Mr. Hurst. Wright denied touching Ms. Allen. A further investigation was conducted by Police Officer Norman of the School Board's Security Office. Wright told Norman that he could have accidently brushed against the left side of Ms. Allen's body. Now Wright denies making this statement. On or about March 4, 1987, Wright was arrested and charged with three counts of lewd and lascivious assault upon a minor child in violation of Section 800.04, Florida Statutes. Two additional victims were mentioned in the information, but no testimony regarding those children was presented in this proceeding. The information filed on March 13, 1987, charged Wright with lewd, lascivious or indecent acts upon minor children. Wright entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement whereby he was placed on 24 months probation with the special conditions that he perform 80 hours of community service, that he have no contact directly or indirectly with the victims, that he not be employed as a teacher at Mamie Agnes Jones Elementary, and that he attend Arlington Psychological Center for evaluation and successful counseling. In exchange for the Deferred Prosecution Agreement, the State Attorney's Office nol prossed the Information. According the Mr. Hurst, the principal, there was publicity about these events at the time and teachers, parents and students were aware of the arrest. Since that time the matter has died down and people no longer ask about it. According to Raymond Bailey, Director of Certified Personnel at the Duval County School Board, if the allegations are shown to be true, the acts are ones of gross immorality or moral turpitude in violation of Section 231.28(1)(c), Florida Statutes; and the acts are personal conduct which seriously reduces Wright's effectiveness as an employee of the School Board; the acts violate Rules 6B-1.006(3)(e)(f), and (h), in that they exposed a student to unnecessary harassment or disparagement, they intentionally violated or denied a student her legal rights, and they exploited his professional relationship with a student for personal gain or advantage. In making these findings regarding the actual events of this incident, it recognized that Wright denies that he touched Ms. Allen in an inappropriate manner. It is also recognized that Ms. Allen's testimony contains some inconsistencies, such as the date of the event. Viewing the testimony as a whole, however, it is found that Ms. Allens testimony the more credible and that Wright's testimony is self-serving and inconsistent with statements made to the principal and the Police Officer during the investigations.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that The Department of Education, Education Practices Commission, enter a Final Order finding Ira B. Wright guilty of the violations charged and permanently revoking his teaching certificate number 109682. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of October, 1988. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-2474 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Department of Education, Education Practices Commission Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-4(1-4); 5(4&5) ; 6(6); 7- 9(7); 10&11(8) ; 12(9&10) ; 13(11); 14(10); 15-17(11); 18- 20(12-14); 22(15); 23&24(16) ; 25-28(17-20); and 29-33(20). Proposed findings of fact 21 and 34 are unnecessary or Irrelevant. Specific Rulings on proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Ira B. Wright Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted In substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1&2(1); 3(2); 14(4); 20(21); and 26(3). Proposed findings of fact 4-9, 18, and 29 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 10-12, 27 and 28 are rejected as being unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence. Proposed findings of fact 13, 15-17, 19, and 21-25 are Irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Lane Burnett 331 East Union Street Suite 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 David A Hertz 1601 Atlantic Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Hon. Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 =================================================================
The Issue The central issue in case no. 88-2368 is whether Respondent should be suspended for thirty workdays due to misconduct in office. The central issue in case no. 88-3315 is whether Respondent should be dismissed from employment due to misconduct in office, gross insubordination, and incompetency.
Findings Of Fact COPIES FURNISHED: Marlene Rodriguez 16333 Wood Walk Miami Lakes, Florida 33014 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 Dr. Joseph A. Fernandez Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: With regard to case no. 88-2368, that the School Board of Dade County enter a final order affirming the administrative decision to suspend Respondent for a thirty workday period for misconduct in office. With regard to case no. 88-3315, that the School Board of Dade County enter a final order affirming the administrative decision to dismiss Respondent from employment for misconduct in office, incompetence, and gross insubordination. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 1st day of December, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of December, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 88-2368, 88-3315 RULINGS ON PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: Paragraph 1 is accepted with the exception of George C. Clark, Mr. Clark's testimony was offered by deposition. Paragraph 2 is accepted. Paragraphs 3-4 are accepted. Paragraph 5 is rejected as a recitation of testimony, not specific facts adduced by such testimony; some of the recitation being without basis. It is found that Respondent did not follow school policies regarding the discipline administered to students, that Respondent was aware of the correct procedures, and that Respondent continuously had trouble regarding classroom management. Paragraph 6 is accepted. Paragraph 7 is accepted. Paragraph 8 is accepted. Paragraph 9 is accepted but is unnecessary to the conclusions reached in this cause. Paragraph 10 is accepted not for the truth of the matters asserted therein but as a indication of the student-teacher relationship between Respondent and one of the students she taught. Paragraphs 11, 12, and 13 are accepted. Paragraph 14 is accepted not for the truth of the matters asserted therein but see p.9 above. Paragraph 15 is accepted. Paragraph 16 is accepted not for the truth of the matters asserted therein but see p.9 above as it relates to the hearsay contents of the letter. Other portions of the paragraph which conclude respondent knew discipline procedures but did not follow them, or knew notice policies but did not follow them are accepted. Paragraphs 17 and 18 are accepted. Paragraphs 19,20,21, and 22 are accepted only to the extent addressed in findings of fact, paragraphs 7,8,9, and 10; otherwise, the proposed findings are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or unsupported by admissible evidence. Paragraphs 23, 24, and 25 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 26, the first two sentences are accepted, the balance is rejected as hearsay or unsupported by the record in this cause. Paragraphs 27, 29, and 30 are accepted. (Petitioner did not submit a paragraph 28) In the future, proposed findings submitted which do not conform to the rules of the Florida Administrative Code will be summarily rejected. Petitioner is cautioned to review applicable rules, and to cite appropriately. RULINGS ON PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: Paragraph 1 is accepted with the clarification that Clark's testimony was offered by deposition. Paragraph 2 is accepted. With regard to paragraph 3, according to the evidence in this case, Repodent taught at Miami Gardens Elementary School (Leon was her principal there) and North Carol City Elementary School (Sawyer and Brown were her principals there). Other schools may have been assigned during her periods of "special assignment" but the record is insufficient to establish Respondent's performance while on such assignments. The record is insufficient to make the legal conclusion addressed in paragraph 4, consequently, it is rejected. The Board addressed a recommendation to terminate Respondent's employment; however, the record does not establish final action was taken. The facts alleged in paragraph 5 are too voluminous to address in one paragraph. Petitioner's continued use of a recitation of the testimony does not constitute findings of fact. Pertinent to this case are the following facts adduced from Petitioner's paragraph 5: that Respondent's overall performance was unacceptable, that Respondent failed to direct students who were off task, that Respondent made an excessive number of referrals for discipline, and that the atmosphere in Respondent's class was not conducive to learning. With the exception of the last sentence in paragraph 6, it is accepted. The last sentence is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. See finding made regarding paragraph 5, case no. 88-2368. Paragraph 8 is rejected as contrary to the specific evidence presented. Paragraph 9 is accepted. Paragraphs 10-14 are accepted. Paragraph 15 is rejected with the exception of the last sentence; the time sequence referred to is not specified in the record. The record does establish, however, that Respondent did not make progress in correcting noted areas of deficiency. Paragraphs 16 and 17 are accepted. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact have duplicate numbers for the following paragraphs: 15,16, and 17. The second set of these paragraphs are addressed below. Second paragraph 15 accepted not for the truth of the matters asserted but as an indication of the teacher-student relationship between Respondent and her student. Second paragraph 16 is accepted. Second paragraph 17 is accepted. Paragraph 18 is accepted. Paragraphs 19-22 are accepted.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent has violated section 1012.795(1)(c) and (j), Florida Statutes (2007), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (5)(e), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, what penalties should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a teacher licensed by the State of Florida, and has been issued Florida Educator's Certificate 400054. Her certification covers the areas of history, physical education, social science, and middle grades, and is valid through June 30, 2014. Respondent was employed by the DCSD since 1981, and taught at several different schools during her employment. During the 2007-2008 school year, she was employed as a geography teacher at Jefferson Davis Middle School (Jefferson Davis). During the 2008-2009 school year, she taught geography at Southside Middle School (Southside). The allegations in this proceeding concern Respondent's behavior during and professional evaluations with respect to the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 school years. During this period, the DCSD used the Teacher Assessment System (TAS) as the authorized method of evaluating teacher performance. The TAS measures teaching performance based on nine identified "competencies," which are as follows: Promotes student growth and performance; Evaluates instructional needs of students; Plans and delivers effective instruction; Shows knowledge of subject matter; Utilizes appropriate classroom management techniques, including the ability to maintain appropriate discipline; Shows sensitivity to student needs by maintaining a positive school environment; Communicates with parents; Pursues professional growth; and Demonstrates professional behaviors. A teacher's evaluation was based upon two formal classroom observations performed by a school administrator, which was usually the principal or an assistant principal. The teacher was afforded a pre-observation conference at which time the date for the observation was selected and the lesson plan to be taught during the observation was discussed. After the observation, there was a post-observation conference where the administrator's observations, which were recorded on a Teacher Assessment Instrument (TAI) were discussed. In addition to the formal evaluations, administrators also could use informal, unannounced observations of teachers in forming their opinions regarding performance. In the final evaluation conference with a teacher, a form entitled Evaluation of Professional Growth of a Teacher was used to document the instructor's final rating in each competency area and to record the teacher's overall performance rating for the school year. If a teacher demonstrated deficient performance in one or more competency areas, a "success plan" was developed for the teacher in an effort to assist the teacher in improving performance. The elements of the success plan were developed by a success team, typically composed of the teacher, school administrators, teachers with expertise in the relevant subject matter area, and resource teachers or "coaches." These elements, which were developed with input by the teacher being assisted, identified weaknesses by competency category, set out objectives to address these weaknesses, and provided timelines to meet the identified objectives. Addison Davis was the principal at Jefferson Davis from December 2005 through August 2009. He was the principal responsible for evaluating Respondent's performance during the 2007-2008 school year. On August 28, 2007, Mr. Davis conducted an informal "walk through" of Ms. Bowman's classroom. He observed that although the students had been instructed to read, 16 out of 23 of them did not have a book and were doing nothing. Ms. Bowman did nothing to provide these students with a book, and after 21, 31, and 37 minutes of class time respectively, Mr. Davis noted that no instruction had yet taken place. During the "mini- lesson," Ms. Bowman was asking questions and the students were yelling out unison responses, a practice which is not considered an effective teaching method. Mr. Davis's notes regarding the walk-through observation included the following observations: Instructor informed that "the quieter the class, the more hall passes were given out." Instructor asked questions and students were talking about unrelated topics . . . No evidence of learning taking place. No daily objectives were extended. Essential questions and vocabulary were not extended. Standards were not introduced. I asked the instructor for a lesson plan and one was not provide. [sic] Instructor said, "I don't have one." Student called Mrs. Bowman Ms. Bowwow. I had to address the class about gross respect. Mr. Davis observed no implementation of best practices and saw significant classroom management problems. Mr. Davis conducted a formal observation of Ms. Bowman on September 20, 2007, for which appropriate prior notice had been provided. The TAI completed for this observation indicated that all competencies were satisfactory with the exception of one area: plans and delivers effective instruction. Mr. Davis met with Ms. Bowman on September 26, 2007, to go over her TAI. He also spoke to her about calling him a dictator in the teacher's lounge at some point before the meeting. During this conversation, Mr. Davis spoke to Ms. Bowman about developing a success plan for her. Although Ms. Bowman signed her TAI, she informed Mr. Davis that she felt she was being targeted. A success plan meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, October 24, 3007. On October 22, 2007, Mr. Davis went to the cafeteria to remind Ms. Bowman, out of the hearing of students, of the meeting scheduled for later that week. Ms. Bowman stated that she did not have adequate time to arrange for a union representative, and while the two left the cafeteria, continued to express her feeling that she was being targeted. By the time Ms. Bowman and Mr. Davis reached the front office, she was yelling at Mr. Davis in the presence of students and staff, and accusing him of harassing her. When Mr. Davis advised her that she was acting unprofessionally, Ms. Bowman called him a liar. Approximately 30 minutes later, Mr. Davis called Ms. Bowman to his office to counsel her regarding her professional responsibilities. Ms. Bowman continued to claim she was being harassed, and Mr. Davis told her they needed to move forward. In response, Ms. Bowman told Mr. Davis she was not going to "kiss his ass" and walked out, still yelling at him. As a result of these incidents, Ms. Bowman received a written reprimand on October 23, 2007, considered step two discipline for the DCSD. Step one discipline had been imposed for a prior incident during the 2007-2008 school year. Ms. Bowman did not attend the success plan meeting scheduled for October 24, 2007. Despite her refusal to participate, Respondent was placed on a success plan which was implemented on or about November 3, 2007. Ms. Bowman made it clear that she would not participate in completing the success plan, despite repeated encouragement to do so. She refused to attend meetings and completed none of the identified objectives. A revised success plan dated January 18, 2011, was prepared, which reflected that none of the strategies were completed. Ms. Bowman refused to sign the revised success plan and continued to claim that she was being targeted. On December 10, 2007, Mr. Davis conducted an observation of Ms. Bowman, for which she had received notice November 27, 2007. As a result of this observation, Mr. Davis found that Ms. Bowman did not meet the competencies for promotes student growth and performance; plans and delivers effective instruction; and shows knowledge of subject matter. Mr. Davis was especially concerned that during his observation, two students were sleeping, and a third was wearing a hood on her head, which is prohibited. In addition, a significant portion of class time was focused on Sojourner Truth and the role she played in America's history. Teaching about Sojourner Truth, while relevant to geography in terms of cultural change, did not align with the pacing guide for teaching middle school geography at that point in the semester. On January 18, 2008, Ms. Bowman met with Mr. Davis regarding her December 10, 2007, observation, which they had discussed previously on January 2, 2008. A success team meeting was scheduled to occur after Ms. Bowman's meeting with Mr. Davis. During this initial meeting, Mr. Davis provided to Ms. Bowman a Notice of Potential Unsatisfactory Evaluation. Ms. Bowman became very upset during the meeting with Mr. Davis. She started yelling and could be heard by those staff members in the office area, calling Mr. Davis a liar and insisting that he was targeting her. Ms. Bowman refused to participate in the success plan meeting, continuing to insist that she was being targeted and harassed. Shortly after the meeting, Ms. Bowman returned to the office to say that she was leaving because she did not feel well. She called Mr. Davis a "son of a bitch" and said that "If I go down, then I am taking him with me." As a result of her behavior on January 18, 2008, on February 4, 2008, Ms. Bowman received another written reprimand as step three of the progressive discipline plan employed by the DCSD, and the Office of Professional Standards was notified. Ms. Bowman refused to sign the letter of reprimand.1/ An additional formal observation was conducted on January 30, 2008, by Tiffany Torrence, an assistant principal at Jefferson Davis. The TAI prepared for the observation indicated that competencies were not demonstrated for the following areas: promotes student growth and performance; evaluates instructional needs of students; plans and delivers effective instruction; and demonstrates professional behaviors. On March 3, 2008, Ms. Bowman received an unsatisfactory evaluation for the 2007-2008 school year. The evaluation reflected unsatisfactory ratings for the competencies of promoting student growth and performance; planning and delivering effective instruction; and demonstrating professional behaviors. She received a "needs improvement" for the competency of evaluating instructional needs of students. On May 7, 2008, John Williams, Director of Professional Standards for the DCSD, notified Ms. Bowman that, consistent with DCSD policy, in light of her unsatisfactory evaluation she had the right to elect to stay at Jefferson Davis or be reassigned to another school for the following school year. Failure to make an election by May 16, 2008, on the form provided would result in the automatic transfer to another school. Ms. Bowman did not submit the form and was transferred, consistent with DCSD policy, to Southside Middle School for the 2008-2009 school year. The principal for Southside during the 2008-2009 school year was LaTanya McNeal. In light of Ms. Bowman's unsatisfactory evaluation the previous year, and her own preliminary observations of Ms. Bowman, she initiated a professional development plan for Ms. Bowman on August 28, 2008. The plan identified four areas of focus: 1) to effectively create and maintain a standards-based bulletin board; 2) to effectively create and maintain a standards-based classroom environment; 3) to consistently develop plans based on student data; and 4) to effectively maintain student portfolios with work that meets the outlined standards according to the department checklist. The plan also provided certain goals and timelines for completing these goals, including the continued maintenance of daily lesson plans that reflect the workshop model. Ms. Bowman refused to sign the professional development plan. Ms. Bowman was informally observed on September 5, 2008, and September 24, 2008, with notice provided prior to the observations. Neither observation could be characterized as successful. The Teacher Observation Follow-up Form completed on September 25, 2008, included the following: -Teacher must have daily lesson plans and workshop model for social studies on her board. -Must have daily writing prompts -Portfolios (student) must be maintained consistently. -Per teacher has a problem with the support (amount) that is provided [Instructional coach, Department chair, Professional Development Facilitator and administrator]. On October 22, 2008, Ms. McNeal conducted a formal observation of Ms. Bowman, for which notice was provided. The TAI prepared as a result of the observation indicated in part that there was no evidence of student portfolios and that the students' folders were empty. There was no evidence of differentiated instruction or use of data to guide instruction; portfolios showed no evidence of work artifacts. The form also indicated that one student was sleeping, and Ms. Bowman yelled at him to wake up once someone came to retrieve him from class. In addition, the class was in disarray with Ms. Bowman engaging in shouting matches with the students. It was noted that Ms. Bowman had not initiated any parent/teacher conferences for academic or behavioral reasons. The TAI indicated deficiencies in the following competencies: promotes student growth and performance; evaluates instructional needs of students; plans and delivers effective instruction; utilizes appropriate classroom management techniques, including the ability to maintain appropriate discipline; shows sensitivity to student needs by maintaining positive school environment; communicates with parents; and demonstrates professional behaviors. Ms. Bowman did not accept the TAI, and wrote on it that "principal did not tell the truth and was unfair and misleading." On October 28, 2008, Ms. Bowman was provided a Notice of Potential Unsatisfactory Evaluation, with competencies A, B, C, E, F, G and I listed as needing improvement. The Notice notified her that a success plan would be developed with her input and collaboration, with a conference to be held on November 3, 2008. Ms. Bowman refused to sign the Notice. On November 3, 2008, the success team met with Ms. Bowman in attendance, and a success plan was developed. The success plan included the concerns outlined in the professional development plan and focused on data-driven instruction, use of student portfolios, assessment of student needs, measurement and explanation of student progress, and use of the CHAMPS program, which is a classroom management program used throughout DCSD. Consistent with DCSD policy, a success team was created that included Principal McNeal, other administrators, Ms. Bowman, a reading coach, and an instructional coach. In contrast to the experience at Jefferson Davis, Ms. Bowman at least attended the success plan meetings. Consistent with the objectives outlined in the success plan, Ms. Bowman was provided training and technical support for Compass Odyssey and FCAT Explorer, which are computer programs used to assess student needs and to track student progress. However, Ms. Bowman did not use the programs in her teaching and rejected the concept of individualized instruction based on student needs. She did not implement a portfolio system and declined to observe another teacher conducting a parent-teacher conference. As of January 30, 2009, Ms. Bowman had not submitted a five-day lesson plan, which is required of all teachers, despite that fact that the school year was over half-way completed. While Ms. Bowman claimed that she knew how to conduct parent-teacher conferences, Ms. McNeal had received numerous calls from parents upset about the grades received in Ms. Bowman's classes, and the lack of contact with Ms. Bowman. Ms. Bowman continued to complain that she was being singled out and that the success plan was merely a pretext to justify her termination. Although the success plan was deemed "completed" on February 25, 2009, Ms. Bowman did not incorporate the concepts identified in the success plan into her classroom instruction. To the contrary, it appears that Ms. Bowman's instructional methods did not change at all. Ms. McNeal conducted another formal observation of Ms. Bowman on March 11, 2009, in the afternoon. FCAT testing had taken place earlier in the day and Ms. Bowman thought it unfair to be observed on that day. However, she designated the date for observation during her pre-observation conference on March 6, 2011. The TAI indicates that competencies were not satisfactory for the following competencies: promotes student growth and performance; evaluates instructional needs of students; utilizes appropriate classroom management techniques; shows sensitivity to student needs by maintaining positive school environment; and communicates with parents. Ms. McNeal noted on the TAI that a recent grade printout showed high levels of D's and F's for Ms. Bowman's students. For example, the printout dated March 5, 2009, indicated that out of 16 students in her first period class, five students had F's and two had D's. Of the 24 students in her second period class, 13 were failing and two had D's. Ms. Bowman was offered significant assistance to improve her performance. Ms. Bowman attended training opportunities on 14 school days where substitutes were arranged to handle her teaching duties. She was also offered the assistance of instructional and reading coaches, which she consistently rejected. On March 13, 2009, Ms. McNeal issued an Evaluation of Professional Growth of Teacher for Ms. Bowman. The overall evaluation resulted in an unsatisfactory rating, with unsatisfactory ratings in the following competencies: promotes student growth and performance; evaluates instructional needs of students; utilizes appropriate classroom management; shows sensitivity to students by maintaining positive school environment; and communicates with parents. Ms. Bowman was rated as needing improvement in the areas of planning and delivering effective instruction and demonstrating professional behaviors. Ms. Bowman signed the evaluation but indicated that she did not accept it, noting that her observation was conducted on a day of FCAT testing. Ms. Bowman attacked the credibility of the principals at both Jefferson Davis and Southside, stating that they were targeting her and retaliating against her. However, no credible evidence was presented to show any basis for Mr. Davis or Ms. McNeal to retaliate against her. Moreover, as noted in the Recommended Order in Duval County School Board v. Bowman, Case No. 09-3004 (Fla. DOAH Jan. 12, 2010; DCSD Mar. 15, 2010), Respondent's work history indicates a pattern of blaming others for poor evaluations. On May 5, 2009, Respondent was notified by the Superintendant of Schools for DCSD, that based upon her two successive unsatisfactory evaluations, he was recommending that her employment be terminated. Ms. Bowman requested a hearing pursuant to chapter 120, and the case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of an administrative law judge. After completion of a hearing, on January 12, 2010, a Recommended Order was issued recommending termination of Ms. Bowman's employment in Duval County School Board v. Bowman, Case No. 09-3004. A Final Order adopting the Recommended Order and terminating Ms. Bowman's employment was entered by the Duval County School Board on March 12, 2010.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order finding that Respondent has violated the section 1012.795(1)(c) and (j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (5)(e), and revoking her educator's certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of January, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 19th day of January, 2012.
