Findings Of Fact Respondent began working for Petitioner in 1966 as a teacher's aide. She became a teacher in 1974 at Olympia Heights Elementary School under the principalship of William Kennedy. Although Respondent received acceptable evaluations from Kennedy for the next several years, she frequently had problems in classroom management and in her paperwork. Kennedy admonished Respondent to utilize more voice control in giving directions and corrections to students, since she frequently yelled at the students and sometimes the yelling could be heard in the hallway and even in the principal's office. Kennedy held informal conferences with Respondent. He also directed the assistant principal, Tessa Gold, and Respondent's fellow teacher, Josie Wright, to give advice to Respondent. Additionally, he changed Respondent's grade-level assignments from fifth grade to third grade to first grade and then to kindergarten in an attempt to assist her. Respondent basically corrected her errors each year and managed to obtain a good evaluation by the end of each school year. However, each year she required more administrative input in order to be an adequate teacher. On or about October 28, 1977, Respondent struck a child with a ruler. Kennedy and Gold saw redness and ruler marks on the child's hands. Respondent admitted to Kennedy that she had struck children, and Kennedy directly ordered her never to strike a child again. Clifford Herrman became the principal of Olympia Heights Elementary School for the 1981-82 school year. Although Herrman's goal was to visit every classroom once a day, he was generally successful in visiting each classroom at least three times a week for a short visit or "walk-through" for up to five minutes. Herrman also was responsible for official evaluations of the teachers at his school. New teachers are required to have a certain number of observations. As teachers have more seniority, fewer observation are required. If a teacher was found to be unacceptable in any area, Herrman was required to reevaluate to see that the improvements that had been recommended were actually made. Therefore, every time, as will be set forth below, that Respondent was rated "unacceptable" in a long series of observations, Herrman was required to reevaluate Respondent to ascertain if the recommended improvements had been made. Accordingly, mare formal observations were performed on Respondent than on other teachers with the same seniority in order that Respondent could demonstrate improvement. Respondent was promised a kindergarten class for the 1981-82 school year by Kennedy before he was replaced as the principal by Herrman. During the preceding summer, Herrman questioned whether there would be enough students for that additional kindergarten class. He therefore notified Respondent that she would be teaching a third grade class but that if there were enough kindergarten students he would make sure she taught a kindergarten class. During the pre-planning week, Herrman ascertained that the number of students was sufficient to generate the additional kindergarten class, and he so notified Respondent. Although she had only one afternoon to get ready for her kindergarten class, Respondent was not penalized in any way for having a late start. Herrman assigned the other kindergarten teachers to assist Respondent in preparing her classroom and son plans because of the reduced time Respondent had to prepare individually. When Herrman made his first official observation of Respondent on September 14, 1981, he rated her performance as acceptable. The Balanced Curriculum is a Dade County Public Schools district policy. It mandates that certain blocks of time be committed to different areas of study. Different grade levels require different lengths of time, and certain material must be taught within those blocks of time. PREP is a program mandated by the State Legislature. The most important aspect of the PREP program is that the children receive an intense amount of individualized help. Their problems are identified early in their school careers. The intent is to identify problem areas and eliminate those areas by the use of small class size, low teacher ratio, and a lot of support in the kindergarten through third grade classrooms. When a child enters school, a test is given. Through the results of that test, the child is placed into one of the three PREP strategies. The preventative strategy means that there is an identifiable, correctable problem. A "preventative child" needs a lot of manipulatives, a lot of "hands-on" activities, and more one-to-one instruction. A "developmental child" is one who is progressing the way a child is expected to progress at that grade level. These are generally the "average" children. The "enrichment children" would include the gifted and those children who need extended activities because they finish their work early and need to be challenged. The children are charted on a PREP roster, which is a classroom chart. A teacher's plans must reflect different activities for the children on the different strategies, and the children's work folders must reflect the strategies. Dade County provides in-service training for the PREP program in the form of a 30-hour course. Respondent had received her PREP training during the first year of teaching kindergarten, probably before Thanksgiving. Dade County requires all of the schools to have children's work folders with graded, dated work. Homework is to be reflected in those folders. The work must show corrections. There is also a requirement that the grade book reflect at least one grade per week in each subject area. The next formal observation of Respondent was performed by Herrman on November 24, 1981. Respondent was found to be unacceptable overall and was rated unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships. Respondent was marked unacceptable in preparation and planning because she was not following her lesson plans and was therefore off task. Her lesson plans did not reflect the specific time allocations for different subject areas as required by the Dade County Balanced Curriculum. Respondent wad unacceptable in classroom management because the students were not on task, they were noisy, and they were out of their seats. Respondent did not appear to be aware of which students were on or off task. Respondent was unacceptable in the area of techniques of instruction because she was not involving the students in a diagnostic prescriptive program, as required by Dade County policy. All of Respondent's students were given the same material and were not put into PREP strategies. This meant that the work was too difficult for some and too easy for others. Respondent therefore failed to meet the individual needs of her students, as required by Dade County policy. Additionally, Respondent's directions were not given in a clear and precise manner. Respondent was found to be unacceptable in teacher-student relationships because her verbal communication was found to be inappropriate and very negative. She used phrases such as "Shut up" and "You're acting like babies." Respondent was found to be unacceptable in maintaining a complete grade book. There were many entries in the grade book that had no indication as to what they were for and for which date. There were grades missing for some subject areas. There were not sufficient grades in the grade book to document a child's progress at the end of the nine-week grading period. The grade book is used to determine whether a student has mastered the skills according to the Dade County Public Schools Minimum Performance Standards and to document whether a child has met the requirements for promotion to the next grade. Herrman prescribed help for Respondent. He directed her to (1) follow planned lessons, (2) establish classroom procedures and require the children to follow those procedures, (3) periodically check the students to see that they remain on task, (4) give directions in a clear and precise manner, (5) date her grades, and (6) have more complete grades. He further directed that her verbal communication should be more positive. Herrman performed the next formal observation of Respondent on December 1, 1981. She was found to be unacceptable overall, and she was rated unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. Tessa Gold, the assistant principal, was in the Respondent's classroom when this observation was made, and she is in full agreement with the observation. Respondent was found to be unacceptable in preparation and planning because her lesson plans did not reflect the Balanced Curriculum requirements. Respondent failed to ascertain whether the students' record player was working properly. The record player was on the wrong speed, and the lesson was inaudible to the children who were using headphones. Respondent was found to be unacceptable in classroom management because the children were not on task and doing their lesson. instead, they were doing other things, talking, and out of their seats. Respondent was found unacceptable in her techniques of instruction because nothing was being done to remediate the deficiencies of the children. Much of the work was at a level that was too difficult for them. The strategies were not appropriate for them, they were not on task, and they were not supervised closely. Respondent was evaluated unacceptable in her assessment techniques. There were still insufficient grades to determine a student's progress. The Teacher's Handbook for Respondent's school indicated the requirement that a minimum of one grade per week per subject area be given. Respondent had no more than five grades in any one subject area for a period of 13 weeks. Herrman prescribed help for Respondent and directed that his recommendations for improvement be implemented by December 7, 1981. He directed Respondent to show all times of day in her plan book along with individual lessons with objectives from the “balanced Curriculum. Her grade book was to show the dates and objectives. She was to monitor individual group activities to see that the children remained on task and was to limit the number of group activities so as to allow time to move from group to group to see that the students understood and were on task. She was to meet regularly with the kindergarten staff, at least twice a week, so that they could assist her in complying with the recommendations. She was advised that all grades in her grade book must be identified by date and subject and that a minimum of one grade per week per required subject area was required to be recorded in her grade book. Teacher-directed activities were to be relevant to the needs of the students, and basic skills of the Balanced Curriculum were to be taught. Respondent was to implement a classroom management system that emphasized positive interaction with students. She was to keep the office advised of the status of compliance or noncompliance with these recommendations. Respondent was next formally observed by Tessa Gold, assistant principal, on January 22, 1982. She was found to be unacceptable overall and was rated unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships. Respondent was found to be unacceptable in preparation and planning because her plans were not in compliance with the Balanced Curriculum. All of the teachers in the school had received copies of the Balanced Curriculum, and there had been meetings to review that information. Respondent did not have the materials at hand which were necessary to conduct the lesson she intended to teach, and the lesson which was being taught was not listed in the lesson plan. Respondent was found to be unacceptable in the area of classroom management because the students were not attentive and were talking. Further, a group of students returned from the ESOL program (English for Speakers of Other Languages), entered the room noisily, and did not settle down. The students were not incorporated into the lesson. Other students were trying to explain to these students what to do, and that made the class even noisier. Respondent was found to be unacceptable in her techniques of instruction because the students never settled down to pay attention to the lesson that was being taught. Respondent did not use motivating factors to begin her lesson and never obtained the attention of the students. Respondent was found to be unacceptable in her teacher-student relationships. She made inappropriate comments to the students, such as "Don't bother me now. This is inappropriate because it does not build a comfortable feeling on the part of the students about coming to school. She also threatened to send a student to the principal if he did not listen, and then, when the student had to be reprimanded again, Respondent did not follow through with her threat. Gold also recommended help for Respondent. She directed Respondent to follow the time guidelines for the Balanced Curriculum and to adjust her schedule accordingly. Gold indicated that the instructional time must follow the plan book times and that all lessons taught must be written in the lesson plans. Respondent was directed to have all supplies ready and available before beginning a lesson. Respondent was directed to compliment the students who listened and to reward their positive behavior. Gold further suggested that Respondent take a workshop course in classroom management and gave her a copy of 62 Suggestions to Improve Classroom Discipline. Respondent was directed to become familiar with the Science Teacher Manual and to utilize the information therein to prepare the students. Respondent was directed to be more positive with the students and not to threaten the students unless she intended to follow through with her threat. On January 26, 1982, in an effort to aid Respondent in complying with the Balanced Curriculum, Herrman developed a lesson plan for her to use. She was instructed to follow this lesson plan and to make no changes without first discussing it with him. Herrman's next formal observation of Respondent was on February 12, 1982. She was found to be unacceptable overall and was rated unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships. Gold accompanied Herrman during this observation and concurred with his observations. Respondent was found to be unacceptable in preparation and planning because during the time that was allotted for a literature and expressive language lesson, she passed out art materials for 15 minutes. She also read a story, which was used as a time filler. She did nothing with the story to make it into a literature and expressive language lesson. She was therefore not meeting the Balanced Curriculum for language and literature on that day. Further, Respondent had not made the necessary arrangements for materials relative to the planned lesson. Respondent was also found to be unacceptable in her knowledge of the subject matter because she was not teaching the lesson in the plan book in the required manner, which entailed introducing the lesson and using some type of activity involving the students and some type of assessment. Respondent was also found to be unacceptable in classroom management because the children were very loud, and Respondent had to stop the lesson four times to quiet the students so that she could proceed. Respondent was marked unacceptable in techniques of instruction. The lesson was not appropriate, was not in compliance with the lesson plan, and did not meet the interests, needs, and abilities of the students. No interaction was taking place. Respondent was not teaching the subject listed in the lesson plans, and no directions were given by Respondent for the completion of tasks. Respondent was found unacceptable in student-teacher relationships because she used very negative communications and raised her voice almost to the scolding pitch. It was at this time that Herrman discovered Respondent had struck six children with a pointer stick. Although Respondent admitted hitting the children, she only admitted hitting four of them even though she had been previously advised by Principal Kennedy that corporal punishment was contrary to Dade County School Board policy. There is a relationship between classroom management and corporal punishment. Corporal punishment is a last-resort type of discipline for children. Respondent's repeated use of corporal punishment was a further indication that Respondent's class was out of control. Herrman made several recommendations to Respondent for improvement. He directed her to follow her lesson plans. He directed her to observe the classes of Mrs. Wright and Mrs. Peraza in order to observe their classroom management skills, and he arranged for coverage for Respondent's class so that she could observe those classes. He directed her to use motivation preceding all lessons and to encourage pupil participation and interest by discussions. He suggested that she enroll in one of the Teacher Education Center courses. He directed her to incorporate a behavior management program that stresses positives. He reiterated to respondent the fact that corporal punishment is not permitted by staff at the school and that, if punishments are deemed necessary, school board policies must not be violated. Respondent was next formally observed by Herrman on March 15, 1982. She was found unacceptable overall and was rated unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning classroom management, techniques of instruction, assessment techniques, and teacher-student relationships. Gold accompanied Herrman during this observation and concurred with his observations. Respondent was exhibiting the same kinds of problems that were found unacceptable on previous observations. All students were receiving the same lesson. No pre- and post-assessments were done, and the needs of the individual children were not being met. Negative responses were given to students, and Respondent discouraged student expression. The lesson was not being; introduced, and the children were not given adequate instructions as to what to do. Many of the children sat with no work to do for most of the period. In an effort to help Respondent, Herrman recommended that Respondent ask students to repeat the directions. He also indicated that a positive approach to classroom management must occur to improve the teacher-student relationship. Respondent was next formally observed by Herrman on April 15, 1982. She was found to be acceptable overall; however, she was found to be unacceptable in the areas of assessment techniques and professional responsibility. Respondent was found to be unacceptable in professional responsibility because she had not implemented the directives for improvement as requested thus far and was still having trouble with certain areas She was still teaching the same lesson to the whole class. There were not enough grades recorded in her grade book. There were no recorded expressive language grades since march 10, 1982; no social studies grades since March 12, 1982; no science grades since march 10, 1982; no homework grades since February 23, 1982; and no health and safety grades since February 23, 1982. As a recommendation for improvement Respondent was again directed to record a minimum of one grade par week as per prior recommendations. Herrman next formally observed despondent on May 11, 1982. She was found to be unacceptable overall and was rated acceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships and professional responsibility. The areas marked acceptable at this time were areas that had been marked unacceptable at various times over the year. The reason for Respondent's decline in performance since her prior observation is that she had been given a tremendous amount of support in the way of help being provided. Once she was left on her own to proceed and implement recommendations or to follow through on things that had been demonstrated, she could not do so. Her lessons again became acceptable in many areas. For example, she taught a lesson for only 10 minutes that should have taken 30 minutes. The children's individual needs were not taken into consideration in the presentation of the lessons. Classroom management became acceptable again. The children did not follow the directions, and Respondent resorted to a very negative approach in dealing with the children. There was no organization evidence in the classroom. Respondent was marked acceptable in professional responsibility because she was still not being consistent in implementing the recommendation for improvement. Herrman made recommendations for improvement and noted that all of the recommendations made had been made before and that implementation dates had been set and not met. He directed Respondent to meet these reasonable directives immediately. On the May 11, 1982, evaluation, Herrman noted that Respondent's grade book was complete and up to date. Subsequently, he discovered that the grades did not reflect the academic achievement or non-academic achievement of the students. The work was graded, but the grade was not a legitimate evaluation of the students' progress. Further, the grades were not substantiated by documentation of the students' work in the students' folders, as required by Dade County policy. At the close of Respondent's first year in the kindergarten classroom Herrman prepared an annual evaluation, which is a summary of all of the observations done during the year. While he believed that Respondent had not performed satisfactorily enough to attain an acceptable rating in most of the areas observed, he recommended her for reemployment because he was still committed to working with her in trying to improve her performance to bring it up to an acceptable level. In a memorandum to Respondent, Herrman indicated that he was still greatly concerned about her potential to implement recommendations for improvement. He stated that if improvement were not shown during the next year disciplinary action might be taken. He offered to continue to assist her in meeting the goals, but that, after one year of intensive assistance, he felt she must now assume a major portion of the responsibility. The first formal observation of Respondent during her second year of teaching kindergarten was performed by Herrman on September 13, 1982. She was found unacceptable overall and was rated unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction, assessment techniques, and professional responsibility. Some of the areas that were unacceptable previously were still unacceptable, and some of the areas where she had previously shown improvement were again unacceptable. Respondent spent more than one-half of the time intended for the lesson just getting the children ready. Ten minutes were used for passing out science books and locating page 35. The children were lacking the skills to know the number 35, and consequently they could not find the page. It took Respondent a long time to realize that the children did not know the concept They could have been introduced to it at that time, but they were not. This resulted in their being on the wrong pages, and few children, if any, could find the right page. This was not an appropriate introduction to the lesson. Additionally, children were not attentive to the lesson being taught, and they were flipping pages, talking, and out of their seats. No assessment of the lesson was done. The grade book had no recorded names or grades for any subject. Respondent was again given specific recommendations for improvement. On September 24, 1982, a conference-for-the-record was held to discuss Respondent's noncompliance with recommendations for improvement. Herrman and Barbara Porzio, the assistant principal, reviewed all areas that had been marked unacceptable on the prior evaluations. Respondent was directed to use each of these recommendations when planning, teaching, evaluating, and conducting her professional responsibilities. Herrman performed the next formal observation of Respondent on September 24, 1982. She was found unacceptable overall and was rated unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction, assessment techniques, teacher-student relationships, and professional responsibility. The same problems continued to surface: lesson plans did not reflect what was happening in the classroom; the lesson proceeded even though the children were off task; Respondent made negative comments to the students; and Respondent was still not recording grades as directed. As a recommendation for improvement, Herrman directed Respondent to review all recommendations for improvement and to incorporate them into her planning, teaching, and follow-through strategies. Respondent was next officially observed by Barbara Porzio on October 15, 1982. Respondent was found to be unacceptable overall and was rated unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction, assessment techniques, and teacher-student relationships. Earlier in the year, Porzio had passed through Respondents classroom on a daily basis and had made some unofficial observations: she noted that there was general confusion in the classroom; Respondent and the children were speaking at the same time; there was an unrest that should not have been there; and Respondent reinforced the unrest by rewarding bad behavior, i.e., giving attention to the children who were not seeking it appropriately. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because she ignored the workbook directions which would have been more appropriate than the directions she gave, which directions were confusing to the children. Respondent did not review with the children what a good breakfast was. The children were directed to a two-digit page number, which they had difficulty finding because they did not have knowledge of two- digit numbers. They looked at each other and thumbed through the pages until they came to the number that Respondent wanted them to have. Herrman had previously recommended that the books could have been distributed prior to the lesson and the pages marked or the books opened to the right page for these kindergarten students. Respondent was marked unacceptable in classroom management because the children were out of their seats, talking while directions were being given, talking throughout the lesson, and talking at will. Respondent was marked unacceptable in techniques of ink auction because several children clearly needed more explanation than was given. The whole class received the same lesson. Both the health lesson and the math lesson were presented to the whole class and not to smaller groups. The lesson on the square was presented in a very abstract manner. Respondent defined the word "square" by using the word "square." She did not have the children identify squares in the room and did not have them see and feel squares. Respondent was marked unacceptable in assessment techniques because there were no grades or corrections on the papers in the children's folders. The papers only had happy faces and sad faces on them. The child had no way to look at the paper and know what part of the paper was unacceptable. Finally, there were no grades in the grade book for that particular week. Respondent was marked unacceptable in teacher-student relationships. Some children monopolized Respondent's attention by calling out, talking, and/or being out of their places. There were children who were not getting the recognition they should have had. There was one problem child in the class who needed outside attention but was not referred by Respondent until March, after Respondent had complained about the student all year and after being prodded by the administration. Although Respondent got along well with the children and the children liked her, it is possible to have good rapport but still not effectively conduct a class. Children can like a teacher, but that does not mean that the teacher is necessarily relating to them in an appropriate teacher-student relationship. Respondent communicated with the children more on a personal level, and the communication of skills and learning was not done well. Porzio recommended Respondent establish classroom rules for behavior. Eye contact should be made when addressing a group, the class should be broken down into small groups, and a method for recognition, such as raising hands, must be established. Corrections on children's papers should be made in such a way that the child can identify his or her mistakes. Porzio further recommended that Respondent observe another lesson in Mrs. Wright's kindergarten class, that Porzio teach a lesson in Respondent's class, and that Porzio observe another lesson done by Respondent. The first two suggestions were rejected by Respondent. She did, however, invite Porzio back to observe another lesson. While Respondent is very artistic and her room was creatively decorated, she did not change those decorations frequently enough in order for them to be stimulating and interesting to the children. She did display some children's work, but the work remained on display for a long time. It would have been more effective to keep changing the display so that the children could be rewarded for doing well. At Herrman's request, during the months of November and December 1982, despondent was provided additional help by the PREP specialist for the south Central Area, Marcia Fulton. Herrman felt that he had exhausted the resources within his building and some outside the building, such as the Teacher Education Center, in his efforts to assist Respondent. Therefore, he contacted the area office for some other suggestions and the area office assigned a resource specialist to help Respondent. Fulton made six classroom visitations. When Fulton first arrived, Respondent did not have her PREP roster posted, nor did she have it in her planning or grade book, nor was it readily accessible. The Kindergarten tests which had been given by the counselor had the strategies marked at the top. The PREP chart had the children's names on it, but the strategies had not been filled in with the appropriate "Xs." The PREP chart is required to be completed within the first 20 days of school, so the PREP chart should certainly have been done by November. Fulton completed Respondent's PREP chart for her. Fulton determined that Respondent's lesson plans did not reflect strategies for the different children and were not in compliance with the Dade County Balanced Curriculum. Fulton further observed that Respondent did not spend the required time for math and did not teach the children according to their different strategies. They were all doing the same lesson. This was not appropriate because her PREP roster indicated that she had children in all three strategies. There was no evidence that the children had been grouped into reading groups. By testing the children, Fulton found that there was one child who was very advanced in reading, and she recommended resourcing that child to first grade for reading. Prior to Fulton's suggestion, that child's needs were not being met. The children who were resourced out for Spanish and ESOL were not getting the required subjects upon their return to Respondent's classroom. Fulton restructured Respondent's schedule to put her into compliance with the Balanced Curriculum. Fulton observed that Respondent did not prepare her materials prior to the lesson, for academic lessons and holiday activities as well, and that Respondent was still preparing her materials for Thanksgiving and Christmas activities at the beginning of the class. Only part of the class could begin work, while the rest of the class had to wait until materials were finished so that they could have some meaningful work to do. They had no other work to do in the meantime, and this caused discipline problems as well as lost instructional time. Even though Respondent cooperated and gathered some materials at the suggestion of Fulton, the kindergarten curriculum was not being implemented to the extent that a mid-year kindergarten teacher should have been implementing it. Fulton arranged for Respondent to accompany her to visit another elementary school to observe an excellent kindergarten program, but she was disappointed that the main concept which Respondent grasped from that visit was an art idea which she would try with her own students. Fulton had hoped that Respondent would gain ideas as to how to integrate and reinforce kindergarten objectives. The next formal observation of Respondent was performed by Herrman on November 30, 1982. She was found to be unacceptable overall was rated unacceptable the areas preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction, assessment techniques, teacher-student relationships, and professional responsibility. This observation was similar to prior ones: all of the students still had the same assignment; Respondent did not follow the plan in the teacher's manual, and she gave an inadequate presentation; she was not utilizing diagnostic information to meet the individual needs of the students; the lesson plans were not followed; the students did not follow directions, talked out loud, were out of their seats, and did not raise their hands after being told eight times; the children were noisy and off task; PREP strategies were not being followed; children were not given adequate introductions to lessons, and papers graded with an "N" (Needs Improvement) did not show what items were wrong. There were only two grades in the grade book for math in November, two missing grades for science and writing, no social studies grades, no health and safety grades, and no expressive language grades. Lastly, there were many negative interactions, and Respondent made few positive remarks. Dorothy Adside, the area director, formally observed Respondent on January 21, 1983, and found Respondent unacceptable overall, with "unacceptable" ratings in the areas of preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. Respondent was unacceptable in preparation and planning because she had one lesson plan for all children. There was no evidence of any attempt to vary the instruction according to the Dade County policy for diagnostic prescriptive teaching in elementary schools. Adside suggested that Respondent carefully study the PREP tests, seat work, and class participation to determine where additional instruction was needed. Children were to be grouped according to the skills to be taught, and they were to be taught in small groups within the PREP strategies. Respondent was to include opportunities for evaluation and development of independent work habits. Respondent was to be certain that the children's independent work had been taught previously, so that they understood it well enough to work without assistance and confusion. She was to learn the parts of a lesson and the sequence for teaching it. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because the general procedures she used resulted in confusion and chaos. For example, a spelling lesson was given which was too simple for some children, about right for some, and too difficult for others. As a result, some children finished quickly and became discipline problems. Also, when Respondent was to begin the math lesson, she sent four children to get "counters" for each table without giving further instructions. When the children returned to he tables, they grabbed, dropped, scrambled for, crawled for, and played with the counters loudly. Although Respondent began teaching the lesson, she never did capture the students' attention, and order was never restored. Adside recommended that Respondent use the assistance given by the PREP specialist, Marcia Fulton. Respondent was also to implement the techniques demonstrated by the specialist and was to take a course in classroom management. Respondent was marked unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she was not teaching the children according to their interests and levels of learning. All children were given work on the same level. There was limited and inadequate opportunity for children to express their ideas. The lesson was dull, and there was no motivation for learning. Instructions in spelling and math were poorly given, thereby resulting in confusion. Children who finished their work early were given busy work to do. Respondent inappropriately had the children count from right to left, contrary to the required pre-reading skill of going from left to right. Adside also found that some seat work was too mature for kindergarten children, and the lines upon which they were to write were too close together. Respondent was found unacceptable in assessment techniques because she did not make use of the diagnostic prescriptive strategies. The PREP records were not current. There was no evidence of the use of listed sources to select instructional strategies for meeting students' needs. When Adside asked for Respondent's PREP roster, Respondent took it out of the middle of a stack of materials that was in the desk drawer. Adside recommended that Respondent use test materials and teaching strategies to assess strengths, weaknesses, and levels of learning. She suggested that Respondent study assessment data to group children according to skills missed and then to teach in either small groups or individually, as needed. She was to update her records to show the progress or lack of it. The next formal observation performed by Herrman was on March 4, 1983. Respondent was found unacceptable overall and in the areas of preparation and planning, techniques of instruction, assessment techniques, and professional responsibility. Porzio was in the room during the time that this observation was made and is in agreement with it. Respondent still had lesson plans that were incomplete and inappropriate. There was no lesson plan for development or enrichment PREP strategies for Friday. Children were not properly placed in groups. The children did not have the correct materials according to their individual needs. According to lessons and the PREP roster, students were given inappropriate assignments. Student folders contained grading errors. Herrman directed that the lesson being taught be reflected in Respondent's lesson plans. He directed that the children on the enrichment strategy have enrichment level material. He directed Respondent to involve all students in a diagnostic prescriptive program which reflected appropriate assignments. Assignments were to reflect PREP strategies. Respondent was directed to correctly grade and date all papers and was told that when an "S" or "N" was used as a grade there must be consistent indications of what is right or wrong with the paper. Herrman attached student papers to this observation form as an example for Respondent so that she could see the errors in the grading of papers in the student folders and because she insisted that she was grading papers correctly. The papers are representative of great inconsistency in grading and incorrect grading. The student papers indicated that some children received grades on a particular lesson while other students received no grade at all for the same lesson. One child received a perfect score on a paper, but his paper was completely wrong. Incomplete papers had perfect or satisfactory grades. On a paper where Respondent had marked all the correct answers, she missed some, which would indicate to the child that his answer was wrong when it was not. The grades that these children were receiving were inconsistent with their performance. On some papers, Respondent failed to indicate to the students what needed to be corrected or worked upon. There was also inconsistency in grading symbols. On some papers, a checkmark meant "correct," while on others it indicated a wrong response. There were indications of busy work in the folders. Some papers indicated that the children were given written work to do on unlined paper, which is inappropriate for kindergarten children who need to develop their motor skills. Some of the student papers did not have dates on them. Dates are needed to substantiate grades that are given for a particular marking period. The work folders indicated that "Erika" was working with the developmental group, even though she is listed on Respondent's PREP roster as an "enrichment" child. During the school year, Respondent had changes Erika's PREP strategy from enrichment to developmental and had documented that in her lesson plan book; however, Respondent admitted that she did not change the level on her PREP roster. Previously, Respondent had told Herrman that she worked directly from her PREP roster. While it is acceptable for a teacher to use teacher judgment to change the strategies of children, there must be appropriate documentation. If the PREP roster reflects that the teacher has enrichment children, there must be a different kind of activity going on in the classroom for those children. Respondent was suspended from employment on March 16, 1983, and Respondent's class was taught by a substitute teacher for the remainder of that school year. Under the substitute teacher, there was a great change in the classroom. The children were working on task. Even a child who was a hyperactive discipline problem was working on task--not perfectly, but on task. The disruptions to the teacher were almost totally dismissed by her organization methods. There was a change in atmosphere in the room, and the curriculum was implemented by the new teacher. The substitute had to be given a lot of help by Porzio because of the state the classroom was in upon Respondent's suspension. The papers that were found in the children's folders had grades on them, but they were not graded correctly. The grades did not match the work on the paper, and therefore the grade book was not representative of the children's achievement. The children had to be organized into groups. Some of the children were given assignments that they had been given earlier in the year; since they had not received the basic skills, the substitute was required to go back to fill in these deficiencies. Some of the lessons which had been given earlier may not have been appropriate for the children at the time they were given, and therefore the children were given some of the same assignments over again because they were more appropriate to what the children were now doing. During the 1981-82 and the 1982-83 school years, Respondent was unable or unwilling to communicate with and relate to the children in her classroom to such an extent that those children were deprived of minimum educational experience. Respondent is incompetent to teach and to perform her duties as an employee of the Dade County Public School system. Respondent has been either unwilling or unable to implement the directives given to her by her superiors for attaining acceptable teaching methods and procedures and for complying with the Policies of the School Board of Dade County. The prescriptions given to Respondent by Kennedy, Herrman, Gold, Porzio, and Adside are not merely suggestions but rather are mandates. Further, those prescriptions were reasonable and given by persons with proper authority. A continual noncompliance with repeated Prescriptions and a continual, or at least repeated, failure to comply with school board policies constitutes gross insubordination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Amended Specific Notice of Charges filed against her, affirming the suspension of Respondent from employment, dismissing Respondent from her employment as a teacher with the School Board of Dade County, Florida, and denying Respondent's claim for back pay. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 6th day of February, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 6th day of February, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire 1410 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 200 Miami, Florida 33132 Patricia Williams, Esquire 18583 Northwest 27th Avenue Miami, Florida 33056 Dr. Leonard Brittonp Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1410 NE Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent's employment by the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed as a teacher at Van E. Blanton Elementary School, pursuant to a professional service contract. Van E. Blanton is a typical elementary school within the Miami-Dade County school system, except that it is classified as a "D" school. As in any school, some students engage in disruptive behavior. Respondent holds a Bachelor of Science degree from Florida International University and is certified to teach English as a second language. Pursuant to her certification, she is eligible to teach elementary school students in grades one through six. She has taught for seventeen years. During the 1998-1999 school year Respondent taught third grade. During the 1999-2000 school year she was assigned to teach first grade. Teachers employed by the Miami-Dade County School Board are evaluated pursuant to the Teacher Assessment and Development System (hereinafter "TADS"). TADS was approved by the Florida Department of Education and is incorporated into the labor contract between the School Board and the United Teachers of Dade (hereinafter "UTD"). The same TADS documents are used for all grade levels, subject areas, and teachers, whether new or veteran. TADS objectively measures 67 minimal behaviors necessary for teaching. At all times material hereto, TADS was used to evaluate Respondent's performance. TADS includes in its assessment criteria: preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships, and assessment techniques. All teachers are informed of the criteria and procedures. All new teachers receive a copy of "Mini-TADS," a reduced photocopy of the publication entitled "Teacher Assessment and Development System." At the beginning of each school year, school principals are required to review the assessment criteria at faculty meetings. TADS observations and ratings are performed by school principals and assistant principals. TADS observers are trained and certified. The TADS training takes four days and includes the following components: strategies for pre-observation, classroom observation, decision-making with the Classroom Assessment Instrument, post-observation interview, prescription/probation of professionals, recommendations for improvement (prescriptive activities), assisting teachers in the design of instruction and improvement activities, practical activities such as video assessment, and actual classroom teacher assessment under the supervision of a trainer. The observer records deficiencies observed during the observation period and provides a prescription (a plan) for performance improvement. A post-observation conference is held with the teacher to discuss the prescription. The teacher has the right to provide a written response, either in the space provided in column 3 of the "Prescription for Performance Improvement" or by separate document that becomes part of the teacher's file. The teacher is required to comply with the activities provided in the prescription plan, which are usually obtained from the "Prescription Manual," and to meet the deadlines set forth in the column designated "Timeline" in the prescription performance improvement plan. As a result of the statutory amendments to Section 231.29, Florida Statutes, the School Board and UTD executed a Memorandum of Understanding on December 4, 1997, for the purpose of amending the TADS procedure to comply with the new statutory requirements. Under the amended procedures, a conference for the record initiates a 90 calendar-day performance probation period. Each observation stands on its own, and there must be periodic observations during the performance probation period in which the employee is apprised of his or her progress and is provided assistance through prescription plans. After the performance probation period is concluded, there is a confirmatory observation without a prescription plan. On March 30, 1999, Respondent was formally observed by Principal Edith Hall during math class. She was rated unsatisfactory in Category III, Classroom Management, and Category IV, Techniques of Instruction. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in classroom management because she did not effectively use verbal or non- verbal techniques to redirect off-task learners. Several students misbehaved and violated classroom rules continuously. Respondent did not use techniques effectively to maintain the attention of off-task learners. Clear expectations of student behavior and a systematic approach to proper classroom discipline were not evident. Classroom rules were not referred to, and students who were disruptive were not dealt with quickly and appropriately. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because Respondent did not provide background information and information as to why the topic of surveys was being taught. Respondent started with the wrong textbook and abruptly changed books without explanation and without setting the stage for the lesson. Lesson components were not appropriately sequenced. Activities were not in her lesson plans. Respondent and her students read material together, and students were told to copy a chart. There was no closure to assist the students in understanding the concept of surveys. Little or no instruction or learning took place. During the post-observation conference for the record held April 14, 1999, Respondent was advised that her performance was unacceptable, that starting on that date she was placed on a 90 calendar-day performance probation period, and that at the end of her probation period she had to demonstrate that she had corrected the identified deficiencies. This conference took place within 10 calendar days excluding spring recess, which started April 2 and ended April 9, 1999. Principal Hall made recommendations with respect to the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance and provided assistance in the prescription plan for Respondent to correct her deficiencies. Respondent provided her written responses in column 3 of the prescription plan, basically explaining her unsuccessful efforts to control students' disruptive behavior. The assistance provided included observing a lesson taught by a fellow teacher and submitting a summary of the verbal and non-verbal discipline techniques used by that teacher to redirect off-task learners. Respondent was also directed to read specific pages from the TADS Prescription Manual, to complete certain activities in that Manual, to develop instructions for proper student behavior, and to submit those activities to the assistant principal for review. Recommended resources, such as administrators and fellow teachers, were also made available to Respondent. Respondent had until May 14, 1999, to complete the prescription activities listed in the April 14 prescription plan. She submitted her completed activities in a timely manner. On May 20, 1999, Respondent was formally observed in her science class by Assistant Principal Christina Miracle as a periodic evaluation to apprise Respondent of her progress. Respondent was found unsatisfactory in Category I, Preparation and Planning, Category III, Classroom Management, and Category IV, Techniques of Instruction. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in preparation and planning because her lesson plans failed to state the objectives, activities, homework, or method of monitoring student progress and because she did not fill the allocated time with instruction. Twenty minutes were wasted waiting for a video that was never shown, which video was not reflected in Respondent's lesson plans for that day. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in classroom management because there was too much time when there was no instruction taking place. Instructional activities did not begin promptly and did not continue until the end of the allocated time period. Approximately half of the students were not engaged in learning activities. Respondent did not effectively use verbal and non-verbal techniques to redirect the off-task behavior. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because she did not follow a sequence of instruction and did not refer to any previous information that students should possess to facilitate learning the lesson. In addition, the lesson components were not appropriately sequenced. First, Respondent stated that they would be learning about animals but when the video was not shown, she proceeded to discuss natural resources. No explanation or connection was made between the two topics. Respondent made no provision for lesson closure. The students told Respondent it was time to go home and started leaving the classroom. During the post-observation conference on May 27, 1999, Miracle made recommendations with respect to the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance and provided assistance in the prescription plan for Respondent to correct her deficiencies. The assistance included preparing detailed lesson plans identifying objectives, activities, assessment and homework, submitting her lesson plans to the assistant principal on a weekly basis, and observing a fellow teacher to note verbal and non-verbal techniques. The prescription also required Respondent to submit to the assistant principal a classroom management plan to implement in Respondent's classroom. Respondent was also directed to complete several specific activities from the TADS Prescription Manual and to discuss them with the assistant principal. Recommended resources from the administration and the TADS Prescription Manual were also made available to Respondent. Respondent's prescription plan activities were due on September 10, 1999, but she did not submit them. Respondent was given until September 27 to complete those activities, but she again failed to complete them. On September 15, 1999, Respondent was formally observed in her language arts class by Principal Hall. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in the categories of Preparation and Planning, Knowledge of Subject Matter, Classroom Management, Techniques of Instruction, and Assessment Techniques. Respondent's performance was unsatisfactory in the area of preparation and planning because the content of the lesson and the activities were not related to the objective listed in the lesson plan. Respondent did not follow the lesson plan as written. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because she did not present information in a sequentially-logical manner. The information presented was disjointed and in an illogical sequence. Respondent failed to present information at more than one cognitive level. The students were asked to trace and color without any probing or higher-level questioning. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in classroom management because there were no clear expectations for behavior. Students ignored the classroom rules, and Respondent did not refer to those rules when students misbehaved. She did not deal appropriately with off-task students. Many students talked out of turn, got out of their seats without permission, and talked with classmates during instruction. Respondent failed to engage those students in learning. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in her techniques of instruction because the lesson components were inappropriately sequenced. Respondent began with color words, then discussed time, and then gave directions for heading the paper. She interrupted students by constantly referring to the time remaining to complete the assignment. She did not provide for lesson closure and did not recap any of the activities of the day. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in assessment techniques because there was only one grade in her grade book and no evidence of more than one kind of assessment. There was no evidence of a variety of test formats. There were no samples of student work on file. During the post-observation conference on September 21, Principal Hall made recommendations with respect to the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance and provided assistance in the Prescription Plan for Respondent to correct her deficiencies. The assistance included preparation of detailed lesson plans, with objectives, activities, and student assessment, to be submitted to the assistant principal for review on a weekly basis. Respondent was told to follow her lesson plans for each subject each day, to prepare her classroom activities prior to teaching the lesson, and to review those activities with the assistant principal. Arrangements were made for Respondent to observe fellow teachers. Respondent was to prepare a summary of her observations as to how other teachers encouraged their students to improve their behavior and the strategies those teachers used for verbal interaction. Respondent was to include in that summary the manner in which she could incorporate her observations into her own lessons and discuss her summary with the assistant principal. Respondent was told to use the standard teacher grade book to record student attendance and student assessment and to submit her grade book to the assistant principal on a weekly basis. Respondent refused to sign the Prescription Plan and did not submit any written response. The activities required by the Prescription Plan were due September 24, 1999, but Respondent failed to submit them. She was given until September 27 to do so, but again failed to submit them to the assistant principal as directed by the Prescription Plan. On September 29, 1999, Respondent was formally observed in her math class by Principal Hall and was rated unsatisfactory in Classroom Management and Techniques of Instruction. This observation was made within 14 days of the close of Respondent's probationary period and was made for the sole purpose of determining if Respondent's deficiencies had been corrected. This confirmatory observation does not require a prescription plan. On September 30 Respondent was notified that she had failed to submit her prescriptive activities, had failed to meet the Prescription Plan requirements, and had failed to correct her performance deficiencies. On that date Principal Hall forwarded to the Superintendent of Schools her recommendation that Respondent's employment be terminated. On October 5 the Superintendent notified Respondent that he was recommending to the School Board that her employment contract be terminated because she had failed to correct her performance deficiencies during her 90 calendar-day performance probationary period. The School Board's contract with UTD provides for a joint labor/management committee commonly known as the TADS monitoring committee. That committee serves as a forum to resolve complaints regarding observation and evaluation issues. Respondent did not register any complaint with the TADS monitoring committee and did not file any grievance under the UTD contract as a result of any dispute or objection concerning the TADS criteria or procedures or her assessments under TADS. On September 28, 1999, Respondent did file a grievance with UTD claiming harassment by Principal Hall. That grievance did not articulate any dispute with the TADS criteria or procedures used to evaluate Respondent. Respondent's complaint of harassment was based solely on frequent classroom visits by her principal. At a meeting held on October 8, 1999, Principal Hall explained that it was her duty to make classroom visits because Van E. Blanton was rated as a "D" school and that she regularly visited every classroom. Respondent's grievance was filed only after the close of her performance probationary period, and the meeting occurred after the Superintendent had recommended to the School Board that Respondent's employment be terminated. The assistance provided to Respondent through her prescriptions was appropriate to remedy her cited deficiencies. Respondent was also provided assistance in the form of workshops, monthly grade-level teacher meetings, in-service workshops and classroom demonstrations. Respondent was observed in two of the workshops eating potato chips and not taking any notes. Despite the assistance given to Respondent, she did not improve sufficiently at any time subsequent to April 14, 1999, to obtain a satisfactory rating under TADS. Respondent could have taken the Summer 1999 In-service Program for elementary teachers, or the Dimensions of Learning Program, or the Substitute Teacher Training: Classroom Management and Effective Teaching Techniques, or any of the workshops offered by the Teacher Education Center but did not do so. Under the UTD contract, teachers cannot be required to attend in-service programs held during the summer recess. Participation by teachers in those programs is voluntary. For whatever reasons, Respondent chose not to participate in order to correct her deficiencies during her performance probationary period. Respondent claims that Principal Hall inappropriately performed one of her observations when testing was scheduled. The alleged testing was a diagnostic survey that is done on an individual basis. Teachers are still required to provide learning activities for the other students while such testing is being performed. Further, Respondent failed to perform that required testing, and other teachers had to test Respondent's students. Respondent also claims that the September 29, 1999, observation was performed during a time when she was not scheduled to teach. However, Respondent's class schedule belies that claim. All TADS requirements were completed, and all TADS procedures were properly executed regarding the formal observations of Respondent and the evaluations of her teaching performance. Further, Respondent was not harassed by Principal Hall regarding the formal observations of Respondent pursuant to TADS requirements.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered terminating Respondent's employment and denying Respondent's claim for back pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of May, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of May, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Roger Cuevas, Superintendent School Board of Miami-Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 403 Miami, Florida 33132-1308 Tom Gallagher, Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Lisa N. Pearson, Esquire United Teachers of Dade 2929 Southwest Third Street Miami, Florida 33129 Ana I. Segura, Esquire School Board of Miami-Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Anna M. Brewer, holds Teaching Certificate Number 475518, issued by the Department of Education, State of Florida. Respondent is certified to teach in the area of elementary education, grades 1-6. From 1968 or 1969 until 1980, Respondent worked for the School Board as a teacher aide. As a teacher aide, she had approximately twelve years to view a wide variety of teaching strategies, methods, and teaching techniques in the approximately six different schools to which she had been assigned. While employed as a teacher's aide, Respondent attended Miami-Dade Junior Community College, North Campus, and studied Initial Elementary Education. She then completed Bachelor's Training at Nova University in 1979 and thereafter became employed as a classroom teacher with the Dade County School Board at the Elementary Level beginning in the 1980-1981 school year. Respondent has been employed as an elementary teacher by Petitioner School Board since the 1980-1981 school year. During all of that period, she has taught at Perrine Elementary School in Dade County, Florida. During all of the years Respondent taught, except for the first year, she had classes approximately half of a regular size class. This was because she has been teaching Title I/Chapter I classes. "Title I", renamed "Chapter I", classes refer to classes funded and mandated as part of the Education Consolidation Improvement Act which targets children who are deficient in certain areas and concentrates on bringing them into the mainstream of the education process by concentrated remediation in small, directed education classes. It is a "given" that many of these children are difficult to teach and to control. 1980-1981 SCHOOL YEAR On October 29, 1980 Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by her principal, Gloria H. Gray. Although rated overall acceptable she was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning and in assessment techniques. Although rated acceptable in techniques of instruction, Respondent was rated unacceptable in one subcategory thereof because the proliferation of students' questions concerning the work indicated to the observer that the Respondent did not give clear assignments and directions to allow ample time for completion of tasks. Respondent was next formally observed by Principal Gray on December 12, 1980. Although Respondent was rated overall acceptable, she was rated unacceptable in classroom management because Mrs. Gray found much off-task behavior on the part of students, and Respondent appeared not to notice it. Through no fault of her own, Respondent had a very difficult first year experience with many interruptions. She was the foreman of the Grand Jury and was absent every Wednesday. In addition, she had legitimate family and medical problems causing frequent absences. To the extent possible, principal Gray initiated and followed through on numerous attempts to remediate Respondent's deficiencies in teaching. Mrs. Gray also provided an aide for Respondent in order to be assured that the education of her students was not being sorely neglected. Respondent was in a large pod with two other teachers. They helped Respondent in putting work on the board clearly. They also helped her in getting and using instructional material. Although Mrs. Gray testified that she was, in the spring of 1981, of the opinion that there was a repeated failure on the part of Respondent to communicate with and relate to the students in her classroom to such an extent that they were deprived of a minimal educational experience, she nonetheless rated Respondent acceptable in all categories and gave Respondent an overall acceptable rating on her Annual Evaluation for the 1980-1981 school year. Mrs. Gray gave Respondent the benefit of the doubt because Respondent had improved her teaching skills during the year, she had a good attitude toward trying to improve, she took Mrs. Gray's recommendations and attempted to implement them, and Mrs. Gray expected further improvement from Respondent the following year. Mrs. Gray further recommended Respondent for re-employment as an annual contract teacher. 1981-1982 SCHOOL YEAR Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by her new principal Dr. Joan Hanley, on November 23, 1981. While Respondent was very devoted to self-improvement, she was nevertheless rated overall unacceptable and unacceptable in the category of preparation and planning because she did not have complete lesson plans for each of the following subjects she was responsible to teach: social studies, science, art, music, and physical education. Likewise, she did not have plans which could be used by a substitute in the event of her absence. Although she was rated acceptable in classroom management, Dr. Hanley offered suggestions for Respondent's improvement. It was not clear to Dr. Hanley whether Respondent's students were grouped for math. It is a standard instructional strategy to ascertain the ability levels of the students, group them accordingly, and plan separate instruction for the various groups. She also instructed Respondent to stand up and move between her groups of students in order to monitor the random activity that goes on. Respondent was formally observed in her classroom by Assistant Principal Ellen Supran on January 6, 1982. Although rated overall acceptable, Respondent was found unacceptable in one subcategory, techniques of instruction. This subcategory deals with the use of instructional strategies for teaching the subject matter. Her students were not grouped for math instruction and the subject matter was too difficult and too abstract for the students. Respondent was not getting feedback from them. During the remainder of the school year, Mrs. Supran assisted Respondent through informal visitations. On these occasions, Mrs. Supran was concerned about Respondent's lesson plans, her children being off-task, and the appropriateness of the tasks assigned to the students by Respondent. She spent time working with Respondent on lesson plans, materials, instructional strategies, grouping, and monitoring children's progress. Respondent had an accident during the 1981-1982 school year which resulted in extended sick leave. Dr. Hanley was unable to observe Respondent formally in the classroom for the remainder of that school year. Because Respondent was anxious to improve her teaching and because she had made a good start, Dr. Hanley felt that it was only fair to rate Respondent acceptable in all categories for her Annual Evaluation for the 1981-1982 school year. Therefore, for the school year 1981-1982, Respondent's second annual contract year, Respondent was found acceptable in all categories on her Annual Evaluation and was again recommended for employment. 1982-1983 SCHOOL YEAR Respondent's next formal observation was on November 23, 1982. Although rated overall acceptable, Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter, because the observer, Dr. Hanley, felt Respondent needed improvement in grammar, particularly verb usage. More specifically, Dr. Hanley observed poor grammar was utilized orally by Respondent in the course of teaching other subjects. Hers was a significant error because Respondent was teaching a resource class in compensatory education. This is a remedial class which addressed the reading, language arts, and mathematics needs of low- achieving students. In every type of class, it is necessary that a teacher set a good example in spoken English. Because elementary school children model the speech of their teacher, Respondent's grammatical errors, which were frequent and excessive, would impede the students' acquisition of appropriate language arts skills. In remedial classes, the effect is more pronounced and reinforces poor language arts skills because the children are already deficient in that area. Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by Dr. Hanley on December 7, 1982. Although rated overall acceptable, Respondent was again found unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she continued to make the same kinds of grammatical errors she had been observed making at the November 23, 1982 observation. The December 7, 1982 observation resulted in a prescription for remediation. Dr. Hanley suggested that Respondent record herself on a tape recorder so that she could become sensitized to verb forms. Respondent followed Dr. Hanley's advice and it helped on the subsequent observation, but she did not sustain the improvement as indicated below. Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by Dr. Hanley on February 10, 1983. She was rated overall acceptable and made only one grammatical error, saying "cent" sometimes instead of "cents." Note was made of excellent behavior modification. On Respondent's Annual Evaluation for the 1982-1983 school year, Dr. Hanley rated Respondent acceptable in all categories and recommended her for employment for the next school year as a continuing contract teacher. Respondent had achieved tenure. 1983-1984 SCHOOL YEAR Respondent was next formally observed in her classroom by Dr. Hanley on May 7, 1984. Although rated overall acceptable, she was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter and in a single subcategory of preparation and planning. She was rated unsatisfactory in the latter subcategory because her room was so cluttered that it was difficult to carry on her instruction. She was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she was again making the same grammatical errors she had made the year before. (See Finding of Fact No. 20 that improvement was not sustained). For example, the following statements were written on Respondent's chalk board: "Dorothy want to go back home", " . . . work that I have not finish." Dr. Hanley reminded Respondent that they had worked on the "ed" and "s" endings on verbs before. Nonetheless, Respondent was rated acceptable in all areas on her Annual Evaluation for 1983-1984 and was recommended for continued employment as a continuing contract teacher. 1984-1985 SCHOOL YEAR Through the 1983-1984 school year, the School Board utilized the standard evaluation system which was an undefined system that allowed observers maximum discretion, without any clear or consistent criteria. It was essentially geared toward making any end-of-the year employment decision. With the advent of the 1984-1985 school year, a new method of evaluating teachers was put into effect. Beginning with the 1984-1985 school year, Respondent's performance was assessed under a new form of evaluation which was thoroughly tested by the School Board and which was negotiated and agreed-to between the School Board and Respondent's union. This is the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS). TADS is a highly specific research-based clinical supervision system. State-of-the-art research has characterized certain teaching behaviors that are effective in a learning environment. TADS has grouped these into categories of assessment criteria. Required teaching behaviors are very precisely defined and there is very little room for discretionary interpretation by the observer. Ideally, the system is governed by decision rules which eliminate the potential of an arbitrary or capricious application of the criteria. The system is intended to further develop and upgrade teaching skills and assist the individual teacher to perform better. On the down side, TADS was characterized by the School Board's expert, Dr. Patrick Gray, as a clinical form of evaluation which primarily identifies teaching behavior which is simply acceptable, but it would not identify behavior of superior or excellent performance. (TR-II 47) Respondent's first formal classroom observation under TADS was on November 13, 1984. She was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because she only carried out a very small part of the lesson and because she did not follow the assessment item in her lesson plan. She was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she presented the information to the children inadequately. There was no background given to draw out the students' previous understanding; no introduction, reinforcement, and drill; and no form of assessment to ascertain what the children had learned when the lesson was completed. She was rated unacceptable in classroom management, because there was disorder a good part of the time and the class was not conducive to learning. Respondent and students arrived late. There were many delays during the class period. The cardboard coins utilized in the lesson on coin values became a great distraction and Respondent was unable to bring the coins into the lesson. She only got into the very introductory part of the lesson and rambled in her instruction. Respondent was not able to pull the students together into a group of attentive listeners. She was also rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she never fully instructed the students about her expectations regarding what they were to do at their desks. The coins became the major focus of the children's attention and they were tossing them and taking them from one another. Respondent was rated unacceptable in assessment techniques because there was no assessment of the teaching objectives. As a result, there would be no way to tie up a lesson or help a teacher plan subsequent lessons. In order to aid Respondent in improving her performance, Dr. Hanley prescribed help. Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent develop the skill of pacing her lessons so that she could complete the lesson within the allotted time; that Respondent seek help from Cynthia Muller, a PREP specialist, and that she also seek help from Dorothy Sissel, Chapter I Manager. Dr. Hanley also prescribed help in that she recommended that Respondent reorganize her room to make materials accessible for more efficiency. She recommended Mr. Holmberg, Assistant Principal, as a resource person. She also recommended that Respondent seek help from the Chapter I Specialist. Dr. Hanley recommended the Respondent seek help from Chapter I and PREP specialists because she felt that the on-the- spot classroom training by these very qualified people would be very helpful to Respondent. PREP stands for Florida Primary Education Program, a program mandated by the State of Florida pursuant to Section 230.2312, Florida Statutes. PREP mandates a diagnostic- prescriptive approach that enables each child to have an individualized program to permit development of that child's maximum potential and to achieve a level of competence by that child in basis skills. Pursuant to this approach, students are divided into three categories, with those developing at a normal level being taught with developmental teaching strategies, those having been identified as having potential learning problems, being taught with preventive teaching strategies, and those needing more challenging work, being taught with enrichment teaching strategies. The School Board has developed reading and math programs to comply with the statutory mandate. Respondent actually received help from Cynthia Muller, the PREP Specialist, in the areas of preparation and planning, classroom management and techniques of instruction. Mrs. Muller helped Respondent approximately on 9 to 10 occasions for a total of approximately 12 hours of assistance. She provided this assistance on November 7, 9, 26, 29 and December 4, 1984, and on February 7, May 28, June 6, and 11, 1985. In the course of her assistance, Mrs. Muller observed several problems with Respondent's teaching. There was a lot of off- task behavior. The children were jittery and walked around the classroom at will. They exhibited little motivation. Mrs. Muller found that much of the work was inappropriate for the students, above the level for which they were competent. That added to the off-task behavior. On November 26, 1984, Mrs. Muller did a demonstration lesson for Respondent showing her how the children could be motivated to stay in their seats and work quietly. She also demonstrated the use of the teacher manual in planning for the complete class period so that all of the children would receive their reading lessons within the prescribed timeframe. On another occasion, they also discussed the Total Math Program (TMP), Petitioner School Board's diagnostic-prescriptive program for math. TMP provides for pre- and post-testing of students and clustering students into particular groups. They discussed grouping students, assessing them, planning for them, and instructing them using a teacher's manual. Mrs. Muller also suggested a positive re-enforcement type of reward system. She also suggested that Respondent remove books and materials from the instructional area so that the class would have a clean place to work and place their books. Mrs. Muller also noticed misspelled words and improperly used words on the chalkboard e.g., "When he finish the book." Mrs. Muller's assistance, November 7, 1984 to June 11, 1985 overlaps several subsequent formal observations. Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by Dr. Hanley on December 7, 1984. Despite Mrs. Muller's assessment on November 7 and 11 that there was some improvement, Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning, classroom management, and techniques of instruction by Dr. Hanley on December 7, 1984. She was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because she had no assessment item in her lesson plan. Because Respondent told Dr. Hanley that she knew what was expected and she promised to do it in the future, Dr. Hanley did not make a further prescription in that area. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because her classroom was still very disorderly. Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent designate areas for specific subjects and tasks within her room. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because her lesson, again, was considered by Dr. Hanley to be a rambling one. Dr. Hanley found the lesson components not to be sequenced; Respondent did not accent the important points; Respondent was unaware of what her students were doing; she did not provide suggestions to her students for improving performance; she did not adjust her lesson when students were not understanding but went right on with what she was teaching rather than re-teach a concept. Dr. Hanley did not feel Respondent provided for closure of the lesson so as to help the children pick up the critical areas of the lesson and so as to be ready for the next lesson. Respondent continued to make grammatical and spelling errors, e.g., "...Santa Clause and other tradition." In order to help Respondent improve her performances Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent observe two fellow teachers whom Dr. Hanley felt had excellent techniques of instruction. A conference-for-the-record was scheduled for the Respondent in December, 1984, but due to Respondent's illness and impending surgery, it was rescheduled for February 13, 1985. A conference-for-the-record is an official meeting regarding a teacher's teaching performance. It is required so that the teacher is officially notified that her deficient performance has not been remediated. At the conference, administrators went over Respondent's classroom observations. Respondent was notified that if she was still under prescription at the time of her Annual Evaluation, she would not receive her annual teaching increment (pay raise). From February through May, 1985, Perrine Elementary School was visited at least once a week by the Chapter I Educational specialist, Tarja Geis. She helped most of the teachers each time she visited. Chapter I is a federally funded program which addresses reading and math deficiencies in children from low income areas. It uses a language experience approach. Ms. Geis' opportunities to observe Respondent were short and sporadic. Her observations were not "formal" observations. However, when Ms. Geis did observe Respondent in the classroom, she noticed Respondent's inattentiveness to some of the children's behavior. She suggested ways to Respondent to improve that, most of which were "boilerplate" suggestions. Ms. Geis also observed one of Respondent's lessons and did a demonstration lesson for her on May 22, 1985, in order to show Respondent the language experience approach used in the Chapter I program. Ms. Geis discussed and/or demonstrated techniques to improve class management, student behavior, student comprehension and student attitude. On March 15, 1985, Ms. Geis gave a workshop for Chapter I teachers. All teachers who would have been working that day would have been in attendance. It is probable that Respondent attended that workshop. She had missed an earlier one in February because of her absence. Respondent indicated at formal hearing that she was not aware that Tarja Geis was a resource person for her use, but her perception is illogical in that Ms. Geis is a Chapter I Educational Specialist and Respondent teaches in the category of Chapter I students. Respondent also testified that she was not given in-service learning experiences by Dr. Hanley and Mr. Holmberg when she requested them. The workshop given by Ms. Geis would seem to address this request, contrary to Respondent's assertion. Respondent concurs that she attended at least one such workshop. Respondent was next formally observed in her classroom by Dr. Hanley on March 21, 1985. By this time, Respondent had received help from Mrs. Muller and Ms. Geis. She may have also sought help from the two teachers at her school. By her own testimony, she sought assistance from Ms. Jackerson and by a course taught outside of the usual school day. She showed great improvement and was rated acceptable in every category. Respondent was next formally observed in her classroom on May 7, 1985, simultaneously by Dr. Hanley and the area director, Phyllis Cohen. Under TADS, this is an external or dual observation where two observers assess the same classroom performance. Its purpose is to assure objectivity and fairness. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because her lesson plans were not carried out. While Respondent attempted to work with one group, the other groups' lessons were not implemented. The students were not on task. The group at the listening station was not doing its work. The group doing independent reading did not open their books. At least half the students did not receive their directed reading lesson. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because her development of ideas and information was unclear and confusing. She would give insufficient definitions and did not reinforce with enough examples so that the students could understand the homework assignment. The lesson was not sequenced and Respondent was again using inaccurate language. The vocabulary words that the students were working on were not introduced to them and did not have any relationship to the lesson. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because her classroom was out of control and because of her problems in managing the transition time, getting and keeping students settled, and managing the different reading groups. Class started ten minutes late, and during transitions in the lesson, approximately twenty minutes were wasted. As the hour progressed, the noise crescendoed. Five to eight students were off-task at different times during the class. One student slapped another during the lesson. Respondent was not aware of the off-task behavior and did not redirect the students. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she did not introduce the lesson, provide opportunities for the students to practice, get feedback whether the students had obtained information, or provide reinforcement and follow-up. In other words the sequence was not appropriate. There was a lot of jumping around in the lesson. Respondent did not address the various learning styles of the students. Her communication was not precise enough for students to understand what she was trying to teach. She did not give the students feedback on their strengths and weaknesses. Although she used the teacher manual, she did not fill in between the questions with her own information. She asked the questions in a distorted manner. The students were unable to answer the questions and Respondent could not elaborate but went on to the next question. Her directions to the students were very poor, as were her explanations. She failed to rephrase explanations that were not understood. Her instructions to the listening station group were not specific enough. Her questions on the worksheet were not explained in a way that the students were able to proceed independently. They did not do the worksheet at all. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in assessment techniques because she did not assess what the students were learning at their levels. Material was presented at a low cognitive level. She did not seem to be able to ascertain whether the students were learning what she was teaching them. She did not walk around to determine what each group was doing. In order to help Respondent improve her teaching performance, Dr. Hanley recommended that she work with Mrs. Muller again on the execution of her lesson plans in order to facilitate a directed reading lesson for each of her reading groups. To help Respondent improve her teaching performance, Dr. Hanley recommended that she observe another Chapter I teacher during a reading lesson to hone in on the development of ideas and information in a sequential and meaningful manner. Two teachers were named as resources. To help Respondent with her classroom management, Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent work with Ms. Geis and the Assistant Principal to develop strategies for effective student management while beginning classes and during transition periods and that she work with an observer to sensitize herself to off-task, nonproductive activities on the part of students. It was also recommended that Respondent revamp her behavior modification plan to enhance student involvement. To help Respondent improve her techniques of instruction, Dr. Hanley recommended the Respondent again work with Ms. Geis and Mrs. Muller since she had improved after working with these two education specialists the prior year. Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent review the elements in a basal reading lesson, i.e., background, sequence, and closure. She also recommended that Respondent rehearse her reading lesson so that she would think ahead about the main points and key definitions. She recommended that Respondent work with the observers to sensitize herself to situations in which the students are confused, and that she develop strategies to improve clarification. Dr. Hanley was also available to Respondent as a resource. In order to help Respondent improve techniques of instruction, Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent have a person observe Respondent while she was teachings and help her on the spot when her students were not following the lesson. She suggested the Respondent develop assessment techniques which incorporated multilevel assessment activities. She also recommended that Respondent include development of summative assessment instruments in conjunction with these other activities. She recommended that Ms. Geis and the Assistant Principal be used as resources to help Respondent develop a sensitivity in identifying whether the students were on-track. On May 28, 19 85, Mrs. Muller discussed reading lessons with Respondent. She went over sequencing. She asked Respondent to rehearse her reading instruction. Mrs. Muller also gave Respondent a PREP teacher guide and a sample directed reading lesson. She referred her to a section on classroom organization and management. On June 6, 1985, Mrs. Muller was to visit Respondent's class and to observe a directed reading lesson. Respondent, however, was doing a different lesson. There was very little organization in the lesson. Mrs. Muller saw some improvement in the Respondent's teaching; however, considering the amount of time she had spent with the Respondent, she would have expected to have seen more progress. Although Respondent had demonstrated a willingness to receive suggestions for improvement and a willingness to work toward acceptable ratings, her Annual Evaluation for the 1984-1985 school year was unacceptable. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. Nonetheless, Respondent was recommended for continued employment for the next school year as a continuing contract teacher. It was Dr. Hanley's hope that Respondent would remediate herself during the next school year. Respondent remained on prescription and would not be entitled to her pay increment (raise) for the next school year while she was still on prescription. 1985-1986 SCHOOL YEAR On October 16 and 17, 1985, Respondent received more help from a fellow teacher, Joyce King. Ms. King discussed with Respondent the instructional processes of sequencing, interfacing subjects, and closure. Ms. King also demonstrated a reading lesson for Respondent. On October 22, 1985, Respondent received further help from another teacher, Doretha P. Thomas. Respondent observed Ms. Thomas during a developmental reading lesson in her class. Ms. Thomas also discussed with Respondent the amount of time used with the reading group, scheduling, and possible changes Respondent could make in her own planning. Respondent was next formally observed in her classroom by Dr. Hanley on October 30, 1985. The class was working on the Dade County required diagnostic-prescriptive reading curriculum known as RSVP. This curriculum contemplates that students are to be pretested and their deficiencies listed on individual profiles so that the teacher knows what specific skills to teach them. It is mandatory that the students' skills be profiled before the teacher attempts to work with them. Respondent had not completed the RSVP paperwork as of the date of this observation. I accept Respondent's testimony that she only had from October 18 until October 30, 1985 in which to complete these profiles; that she was under some disadvantage in preparing the profiles because of the administration's peremptory move of all her materials to a smaller classroom on Friday October 18; and that her observation rating was somewhat tainted by the temporary mess that resulted from the move. However, I find that the period involved would have been sufficient to complete at least the profiles if she had performed her tasks diligently in the intervening seven workdays. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in classroom management because the class was not well managed and the students were not working. After the midpoint of the period, three students did no work. In the last ten minutes of the periods, six students did no work. Many students completed worksheets during the first twenty minutes of the class and then colored pictures. These students of Respondent's were not re- directed by her. Respondent seemed to be unaware of the off-task behavior. In order to help Respondent with her classroom management, Dr. Hanley recommended the Respondent move among the students periodically. She also recommended the Respondent plan sufficient work for the instructional period and that she clarify to students what additional study and enrichment activities were available when work is completed. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she was not monitoring pupil performance. Students were doing work incorrectly on their worksheets, and Respondent did not circulate and catch the errors or clarify them. Therefore, incorrect material was being reinforced by the students in their work. Several of the students did not understand the follow- up worksheets. The students' confusion indicated that they were not being taught at their appropriate level. They were being taught on a hit or miss method since their profiles had not been completed. In order to help Respondent improve her techniques of instruction, Dr. Hanley recommended that she fulfill the requirements of RSVP by completing her profiles, grouping her children, and making a class profile chart. Dr. Hanley also recommended that the teacher aide assist Respondent with the pretesting. Dr. Hanley listed the area PREP specialist and herself to review grouping for instruction. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in assessment techniques because although she, as part of her school faculty, had been instructed every year as to the School Board requirements for maintaining student folders, her student folders were deficient. She had no papers dated after September 19, 1985 in them. In order to help Respondent improve her assessment techniques, Dr. Hanley clarified what was expected as far as classroom folders. Respondent must have at least one graded and dated paper per week in reading, math, and writing in each student's folder. Dr. Hanley listed herself and other classroom teachers as a resource for Respondent. Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by Assistant Principal, Herbert Holmberg. He rated her unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because she had grammatically incorrect information and statements on the chalkboard. Knowledge of subject matter was not exhibited as Respondent read verbatim from the teacher manual. She did not address various cognitive levels. In order to help Respondent improve her knowledge of subject matter, Mr. Holmberg recommended that Respondent prepare her material, information, and directions in advance and that her verbal and written usage be grammatically correct. He suggested more flexibility and elaboration during reading. He also suggested that the subject matter be presented at more than one level. As recommended resources, he listed the Principal, the Assistant Principal, and a peer teacher. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because she did not have a sequence in the lesson. The grammar on the board was incorrect. Her spelling was incorrect. There was no variety to her activities. There was no assessment of closure in the lesson. As resources for help, he recommended the Assistant Principal, the PREP specialist, and a peer teacher. Another conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent on December 9, 1985. Respondent's teaching performance was discussed. Dr, Hanley was hopeful the Respondent would be able to remediate her deficiencies; however, Respondent was put on notice that if she was not fully remediated by the close of the school year she would be recommended for termination for cause. Respondent was next formally observed by Charles Sherwood, Directors Basic Skills on December 13, 1985. She was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction and assessment techniques. Respondent testified that Dr. Sherwood orally indicated to her that her rating was satisfactory and created no problems but the business record of the school (P 30) shows that he rated her unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because all of the pupils received the same spelling lesson, despite the differences in their reading levels; and that he rated her unsatisfactory in assessment techniques because, although the school year was very close to being halfway over, Respondent still had not completed her PREP roster. Respondent was next formally and simultaneously observed in her classroom in another external observation on March 17, 1986, by Dr. Hanley and Mrs. Cohen, and she was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because there were a substantial number of errors in teaching the concept "1/2". The words "equal" and unequal" were not used, although they were key vocabulary words in the teacher's manual for the lesson. Respondent told the children that a whole with a line in it becomes one-half. She did not indicate that the line had to be in the middle of the whole in order for there to be halves. In order to help Respondent improve her knowledge of her subject matter, Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent use the teacher's manual for planning and delivering of instruction. It was requested the Respondent master the use of and use the words "equal" and "unequal" appropriately. She also recommended the Respondent use the area specialists, peer teachers, and the Assistant Principal as resources. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because the explanations of the concept of a whole, half, and fractions were not clear to the reviewer, and the reviewers felt the components necessary to address the key concepts were not effectively presented, thereby confusing she children, and an appropriate vocabulary was not used. They felt Respondent's lesson was again lacking in sequence. Additional resources and suggestions for improvement were prescribed to Respondent. Another conference-for-the-record was held with the Respondent on April 16, 1986. Some of Respondent's concerns regarding the TADS process were addressed. Respondent's improvement was discussed and Respondent was again notified that if she failed to be removed from prescription by the end of this second year of deficiency, recommendation of dismissal for cause would be made. Respondent was next formally and simultaneously observed in the classroom in another external observation by Dr. Hanley and Evelyn Evans, another area director. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because she made errors in subtracting. The errors which she made on the board were not corrected. She also made errors in the process itself. These errors were demonstrated on a chalkboard at formal hearing which was erased without being admitted in evidence, but the oral testimony and business records of this observation are sufficient to support this finding. Respondent did not correct student errors, used inappropriate terminology referred to the one's and ten's columns as the right column and left columns and thereby confused the children. Dr. Hanley found the deficiencies in this lesson very similar to the math lesson observed on March 17, 1986. Respondent was still using her own vocabulary. Despite the fact that most of the children in her class and certainly most of our society could understand Respondent's use of "take away" for "subtract" and use of similar colloquialisms, the School Board established the need for more precise and consistent language in teaching early math skills. Respondent did not show evidence of having mastered the subject matter. In order to help Respondent improve her knowledge of subject matter, Dr. Hanley again emphasized mastery of vocabulary and concepts in the teacher's manual and advised adhering closely to the recommended word usage and plan of instruction. Respondent was instructed not to use her own vocabulary and methods until she had total command of the material. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because of many errors. The lesson was not properly sequenced; the children did not have a basic understanding of subtracting without regrouping before beginning subtracting with regrouping; Respondent's use of her own vocabulary confused the children; Respondent did not clarify by rephrasing with different words, but rather, used the same vocabulary over again that the children had not understood the first time. Respondent blocked the chalkboard while she was demonstrating to the class, was inattentive to the need for a chair by one student, and required a reading level of the children in math for which they were not prepared. Respondent again demonstrated improper subject-verb agreement, e.g., "What is the numbers?" and dropping endings on verbs, e.g., "As time go on", "Three minus two leave one." In order to help Respondent improve her techniques of instruction, Dr. Hanley again recommended the Respondent work with another second grade teacher to understand and become proficient in following the sequence and the delivery of instructions to include introduction, background, and the other steps in sequencing. She was also instructed to master the vocabulary and instructional plans in the teacher's manual and to adhere to them while teaching. She was instructed to develop a method for re-teaching individual students who appeared not to understand the lesson. Another conference-for-the-record was held on June 6, 1986. Respondent's unacceptable teaching performance was reviewed. Respondent was advised that a recommendation for dismissal for cause would be made. Respondent was also given an end of the year prescription, as required by TADS. Although Respondent had improved her classroom management during the year, she was still unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction for the 1985-1986 school year. The two unacceptable categories are key categories in teaching. Improvement in these had either been slight or not at all, and Dr. Hanley had exhausted the school system's resources in attempting to assist Respondent. Respondent's testimony at formal hearing corroborates her supervisors' observations as to her failure to exhibit appropriate English grammar and usage with regard to subject-verb tenses. Gloria Jackerson, a retired teacher, testified on behalf of Respondent. Although this retired teacher of 21 years and a candid witness, she is Respondent's best friend. While this relationship may not have colored her favorable testimony, she admits that she has never observed Respondent teach in the classroom nor has she taught Chapter I students in Miami-Dade County under the present program. Therefore, her testimony with regard to Respondent's competency must be rejected. Evidence presented by several satisfied parents is all in Respondent's favors however, most had no training in classroom observation nor were they able to observe Respondent teaching in her classroom over any significant period of time. Their observations, therefore, were of minimal duration and purely subjective. No objective records showing whether their children were promoted or how their children progressed under Respondent's teaching were offered to substantiate their layman's viewpoint. With regard to the testimony of Robert Collins, a Learning Disability teacher in the Dade County School System, who requested that his child be placed in the Respondent's class and who had a brief opportunity to observe Mrs. Brewer in the classroom and who testified that her classes were well managed, his observation opportunities were so brief and so sporadic as to not outweigh the greater weight of the expert testimony of Petitioner's witnesses. The supportive evidence of Geraldine Townsend, another Perrine teachers is not helpful to Respondent in that this witness also had no truly meaningful observations of Respondent. The testimony of Mrs. Collins, a mother and also a teacher's aide, that some of the formal observers made Respondent's classes nervous and jittery is accepted, but this circumstance does not eliminate or seriously mitigate Respondent's responsibilities to teach effectively and to keep her students under control during observations. Respondent Brewer has worked hard to obtain her education and position. She is a deeply religious, compassionate, and caring individual. She has the type of supportive personality the young people of this society dearly need to know and relate to. She has good rapport with the young and communicates with them in loving and supportive ways. However, her personal qualifications and attributes do not outweigh the clear and convincing evidence of her incompetency as demonstrated by the foregoing Findings of Fact. On August 20, 1986, Petitioner School Board suspended Respondent, 55 years old, from employment, 2.20 years short of her attaining full retirement, and further initiated dismissal procedures.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner, School Board of Dade County, Florida, enter a Final Order sustaining the suspension, without pay, as of August 20, 1986, of Respondent, Anna M. Brewer, and dismissing Respondent Anna M. Brewer as a teacher in the Dade County Public Schools. That the Educational Practices Commission enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's Florida teaching certificate for five years or until she demonstrates competency pursuant to statute and ruled whichever occurs first. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of July, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOs. 86-3926, 87-0468 The following constitutes specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF). Petitioner School Board's PFOF Covered in FOF 1. Covered in FOF 2 and 3. Covered and corrected to reflect the record in FOF 5. Covered in FOF 6. Covered in FOF 7. 6-8. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary except as set out in FOF 11. Covered in FOF 8. Except to the extent it is subordinate and unnecessary, it is covered in FOF 9. Rejected as subordinate, unnecessary and cumulative. Partially addressed in FOF 11. Covered in FOF 10. Covered in FOF 11. Covered in FOF 12. Covered in FOF 13. 16-18. Covered in FOF 14. Covered in FOF 15. Covered in FOF 16. Covered in FOF 17. 22-23. Covered in FOF 18. Covered in FOF 19. Covered in FOF 20. Covered in FOF 21. Covered in FOF 22. Covered in FOF 23. Covered in FOF 24. Covered in FOF 25. Covered in FOF 26. Except to the extent it required expansion to fully conform to the record and except to the extent its proposals are subordinate and unnecessary, this proposal is covered in FOF 26. 33.-42. Covered in FOF 27-28. 43.-47. Except as contrary to the record for expression or subordinate, covered in FOF 29. Covered in FOF 30. Covered in FOF 31. Covered in FOF 32. Covered in FOF 33. Covered in FOF 34. Covered in FOF 35. Covered in F0F 36. Modified to more accurately reflect the record as a whole, in FOF 37. Modified to more accurately reflect the record as a whole, in FOF 38. Covered in FOF 39. Covered in FOF 41. Covered in FOF 42. , 62., 64., 66. and 68. are covered in FOF 43. , 63., 65., 67. and 69. are covered in FOF 44. 70.-73. Covered in FOF 45. Covered in FOF 46. Covered in FOF 47. Covered in FOF 48. Covered, expanded and modified so as to reflect the competent, substantial evidence of record as a whole in FOF 49. Covered in FOF 50. Covered in FOF 51. Covered in FOF 52. Covered in FOF 50 and 53. Covered in FOF 54. Covered in FOF 55. Covered in FOF 56. Covered in FOF 57. Covered in FOF 58. Covered in FOF 59. Covered in FOF 60. 89-91. Expanded and modified to reflect the competent, substantial evidence of record and to eliminate the subordinate and unnecessary in FOF 61. Covered in FOF 62. Except to the extent it is subordinate and unnecessary, covered in FOF 63 and 65. Covered in FOF 64. 95-96. Covered in FOF 65 except for cumulative and unnecessary material. Covered in FOF 66. Covered in FOF 67. Covered and expanded in FOF 68. Covered in FOF 69. Except to the extent it is subordinate and unnecessary or cumulative, covered in FOF 70. Covered in FOF 71. Covered in FOF 72. Covered in FOF 73. Rejected as cumulative. Covered in FOF 74. Rejected as cumulative. Covered and expanded in FOF 80. Petitioner Betty Castor's (EPC's) PFOF Since this petitioner adopted the PFOF of Petitioner School Board, the rulings are also the same. Respondent's PFOF Covered in FOF 1. Covered in FOF 2-3. Covered in FOF 4. There is no PFOF. Covered in FOF 7-13, most specifically in FOF 13. Covered in FOF 14-17, most specifically in FOF 17. Covered in FOF 18-22, most specifically in FOF 22. Covered in FOF 23-25, most specifically in FOF 25. 9-10. Covered in FOF 26. Rejected as not supported by the evidence. Rejected as not supported by the evidence and for the reasons discussed in FOF 75. Rejected as not supported by the evidence and for the reasons discussed in FOF 77. Rejected as not supported by the evidence and for the reasons discussed in FOF 76. Rejected as not supported by the evidence and for the reasons discussed in FOF 78. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard Britton, Superintendent School Board of Dade County 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Madeline P. Schere, Esquire Board Administration Building Suite 301 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 J. David Holders Esquire 211 South Gadsden Street Post Office Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 William DuFresne, Esquire 2929 Southwest Third Avenue Suite 1 Miami, Florida 33129 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Tracy Tashanna Jackson is a 13-year-old, and Tammy Terrell Jackson is a 12-year-old, who were, until February 7, 1979, assigned respectively to the eighth and seventh grades at Miami Edison Middle School in Miami, Florida. On February 7, 1979, an incident occurred at Miami Edison Middle School which resulted in both students being reassigned to Jan Mann Opportunity School North. At the time of this incident, the two students had been attending Miami Edison Middle School for only approximately one month. On February 6, 1979, one day prior to the incident which gave rise to this proceeding, the students were threatened by another student who allegedly was a member of a group of students popularly known as the "Graveyard Gang." Upon receiving the throat, the students went to the office of the Assistant Principal and advised him that they expected trouble from these other students. The Assistant Principal essentially advised the students to attempt to avoid any confrontation. However, on the afternoon of February 6, 1979, while Tammy and Tracy Jackson were on their way home from school, they encountered the students who had threatened them, and a fight ensued. After the fight, Tracy and Tammy Jackson were advised by the other students that the fight would continue the next day at school, that these other students would have knives, and that Tracy and Tammy Jackson should come prepared. When Tracy and Tammy Jackson and their brother stepped off the city bus in the vicinity of Miami Edison Middle School the next morning, they were met by a large group of other students. Apparently, some member of this group struck Tracy and Tammy Jackson's brother, at which point Tracy and Tammy Jackson first displayed knives which they had brought with them from home. According to the testimony of Tracy and Tammy Jackson, which is not controverted, this was the first and only time that they had attended school armed with knives. The entire group of students apparently began milling around but proceeded generally in the direction of the main school building. At this point, Freddie Robinson, the Assistant Principal at Miami Edison Middle School, noticed the crowd of students, and proceeded into the crowd on the assumption that a fight was occurring. Upon being advised that Tracy and Tammy Jackson were armed with knives, Mr. Robinson managed to direct the students into the main school building, down the hall and into the Counselor's office. At all times during those movements, the Assistant Principal and the students were surrounded by a milling group of hostile students apparently intent on prolonging the confrontation. According to the Assistant Principal, at no time did either of the students display their knives in a threatening or offensive manner, but were instead attempting to defend themselves against attack. At some point in this process, the Assistant Principal was joined by George Thomas, a teacher at the school, who attempted to assist Mr. Robinson in disarming the girls. Mr. Thomas managed to remove the knife from the possession of Tammy Jackson without incident, but when Mr. Robinson grabbed the arm of Tracy Jackson, that student, in attempting to break free, inflicted what appears to have been a minor wound to Mr. Robinson's forearm. Mr. Robinson testified, without contradiction, that it appeared to him that the student did not intentionally stab him, but inflicted the wound accidently in the process of attempting to break free from his hold. On February 22, 1979, both Tammy and Tracy Jackson were reassigned from Miami Edison Middle School to Jan Mann Opportunity School North as a result of this incident. There is nothing in the record to indicate the procedures by which this assignment was accomplished. It is, however, clear that the students never attended Jan Mann Opportunity School North, but were instead held out of school by their mother. As a result, February 7, 1979, was the last day on which these students attended school during the 1978-79 school year. The incident which occurred on February 7, 1979, was the only incident of disruptive behavior in which Tracy and Tammy Jackson have been involved while enrolled in the Dade County Public Schools. The other students involved in the fight with them, however, had been suspended from school on several occasions for fighting and disrupting classes. There is no evidence in the record in this cause concerning Tracy and Tammy Jackson' grades from which any determination could be made that they have been unsuccessful in the normal school environment. Likewise, the record is devoid of any testimony regarding their lack of attendance in the regular school program. Although the students did not attend Jan Mann Opportunity School North after having been assigned to that facility, there appears no evidence of record concerning the programs available at that institution in which the students would have been enrolled had they chosen to attend. In addition, although there exists some testimony concerning a very commendable Dade County School Board policy against the possession of knives on campus at any school in Dade County, no such written policy was offered into evidence at this proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Dade County School Board reassigning the students, Tammy Terrell Jackson and Tracy Tashanna Jackson, to the regular school program in the Dade County School System. Recommended this 17th day of July, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mrs. Jerry D. Jackson 2340 NW 73rd Terrace, #12 Miami, Florida 33147 Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Esquire 3000 Executive Building, Suite 300 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Mr. Ludwig J. Gross Executive Director Division of Student Services Dade County Public Schools 5975 East 7th Avenue Hialeah, Florida 33013 Phyllis O. Douglas, Esquire Dade County Public Schools Administrative Office Lindsey Hopkins Building 1410 NE 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Michael Neimand, Esquire 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami Florida, 33137 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY CASE NOS. 79-709, 79-710 MRS. JERRY D. JACKSON, on behalf of minor child, TAMMY TERRELL JACKSON, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 79-709 THE SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, Respondent. / MRS. JERRY D. JACKSON, on behalf of minor child, TRACY TASHANNA JACKSON, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 79-710 THE SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, Respondent. / ORDER OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY FLORIDA THIS CAUSE came on for hearing before The School Board of Dade County, Florida at its regular meeting on August 22, 1979, upon the Hearing Officer's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended order, recommending that Tammy Terrell Jackson and Tracy Tashanna Jackson be reassigned to the regular school program in the Dade County school system. IT IS THEREUPON ORDERED by The School Board of Dade County, Florida that the Hearing Officer's findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommended order are adopted with the following modifications: 1. The Hearing Officer's Conclusions of Law are modified by deleting paragraph 7 and substituting the following therefor: 7. F.A.C. Section 6A-1.994 provides: "6A-1.994 Educational alternative programs. Definition. Educational alternative programs are programs designed to meet the needs of students who are disruptive, dis- interested, or unsuccessful in a normal school environment. The educational alter- native may occur either within the school system or in another agency authorized by the school board. Criteria for eligibility. A student may be eligible for an educational alternative program if the student meets one (1) or more of the criteria prescribed below as deter- mined by grades, achievement test scores, referrals for suspension or other discipli- nary action, and rate of absences. (a) Disruptive. A student who: Displays persistent behavior which inter- feres with the student's own learning or the educational process of others and requires attention and assistance beyond that which the traditional program can provide; or Displays consistent behavior resulting in frequent conflicts of a disruptive nature while the student is under the jurisdiction of the school either in or out of the class- room; or Displays disruptive behavior which severely threatens the general welfare of the student or other members of the school population." (emphasis supplied) 8. The petitioners have both displayed "dis- ruptive behavior which severely threatens the general welfare of the student or other members of the school population." Meeting this criteria is sufficient grounds for placement in an educational alternative program. Accordingly, they are properly, and in their own best interests, assigned to Jan Mann Opportunity School North. There is no evidence that this assignment is punitive rather than positive in nature. 2. The Hearing Officer's recommendation is, therefore, rejected, and the assignment of Tammy Terrell Jackson and Tracy Tashanna Jackson to Jan Mann Opportunity School North is affirmed. DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of August, 1979. THE SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA By: Phyllis Miller, Chairman
The Issue Whether just cause exists, pursuant to section 1012.33, Florida Statutes,2 to suspend Respondent from his employment as a teacher for ten days without pay. 1 All references to chapter 120 are to the 2019 version. 2 All references to chapter 1012 are to the 2018 version, which was in effect at the time of the alleged misconduct at issue in this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Based on the credible and persuasive competent substantial evidence in the record, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties Petitioner, Miami-Dade County School Board, is charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise free public schools in Miami-Dade County pursuant to section 1001.32, Florida Statutes (2018), and article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution. Respondent has been employed by Petitioner as a teacher since 2000. He has been employed as an art teacher at E.W.F. Stirrup Elementary School ("Stirrup") for the last 18 years, including when he is alleged to have engaged in the conduct that has given rise to this proceeding. Respondent is certified in art, graphic design, and vocational education. Notice of Specific Charges The Notice of Specific Charges ("NSC"), which constitutes the administrative complaint in this proceeding, alleges two instances of conduct on Respondent's part as the grounds for the proposed disciplinary action. Specifically, the NSC alleges that on or about September 27, 2018, Respondent told a female 5th grade student words to the effect of "get out here; I do not want you here," and forcibly pushed her away with his hand. The NSC also alleges that Respondent used profanity, spoken in Spanish— specifically, the words "mierda"3 and "pinga"4?while covering a class of kindergarten students. The complaint alleges that two adults witnessed Respondent's use of these words.5 This incident is alleged to have occurred on or about December 5, 2018. Based on this alleged conduct, the NSC charges Respondent with misconduct in office, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056(2), for having violated specified provisions of rule 6A-10.081, Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession; School Board Policy 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct; and School Board Policy 3210.01, Code of Ethics. Evidence Adduced at the Final Hearing The September 27, 2018 Incident 3 Translated into English, "mierda" means "shit." 4 Translated into English, "pinga," as used in the context pertinent to this proceeding, means "fuck." 5 As more fully discussed below, the NSC does not allege that Respondent's use of these words was directed at any students, or that any students saw or heard Respondent use these words. On September 27, 2018, S.D., a minor, was a student in Respondent's 5th grade art class. S.D. testified, credibly, that on that day, Respondent told her to "get out of his way," then pushed her away by placing his hands on her shoulders. She testified that Respondent's words and actions made her feel "embarrassed, or, like, weird." S.D. acknowledged that she had gone up to Respondent and tried to talk to him while he was talking to the president of the Parent Teacher Association ("PTA"). She tried to get hand sanitizer and Respondent said to her "not now, go away" because he was talking to the PTA president at that time. Respondent characterized S.D. as a child who "has a reputation for basically not obeying anything." He testified that when S.D. approached his desk, he was in a discussion with the PTA president, and he told S.D. to "get out of here" and "sit down." He did not recall touching her. He stated that from where he was standing, he doubted that he could have reached her to push her away, and that had he pushed her, she likely would have fallen. No other witnesses testified at the final hearing regarding this incident. The December 5, 2018 Incident On Wednesday, December 5, 2018, Respondent was assigned to cover another teacher's kindergarten class starting at 9:00 a.m., so that the teacher who regularly taught that class, Ms. Rivero, could attend an exceptional student education ("ESE") meeting regarding one of her students. For the 2018-2019 school year, Respondent was assigned a full day of planning each Wednesday. In addition, Respondent was assigned one hour of planning every other day of the school week, per the Miami-Dade School District ("District") policy of providing teachers a minimum of one hour of planning per day.6 6 Respondent was assigned a full day of planning on Wednesdays in the 2018-2019 school year. This was not a function of his having an extraordinary workload; rather, it was because on Wednesdays, the language arts classes were scheduled back-to-back and students were dismissed early, so that it was infeasible to schedule art classes on Wednesdays. As a result of this scheduling, Respondent enjoyed nearly four more hours of planning per week than the minimum planning time to which he was entitled under the District's planning policy. According to Smith-Moise, if a teacher's schedule provides more than an hour of planning per day, that teacher may be requested, from time to time, to use that additional planning time for involvement in other school activities, including covering other teachers' classes as necessary. The administration at Stirrup generally attempts to schedule substitute teachers to cover classes when a teacher is called away from his or her class; however, on December 5, 2018, another teacher's class already was being covered by a substitute teacher. Because Respondent had planning that entire day, he did not have classes, so was available to cover Rivero's class. The length of ESE meetings varies, depending on the type of ESE service being delivered and whether the students' parents agree with the school district regarding the ESE services proposed to be provided. This particular meeting was an initial ESE team staffing meeting; these types of meetings often are relatively long compared to other types of ESE meetings. Respondent covered Rivero's class on December 5, 2018, from approximately 8:35 a.m. until shortly after 1:00 p.m., when a substitute teacher was called to cover the class for the remainder of the ESE meeting. During the time he was covering Rivero's class, Respondent called the Stirrup administration office multiple times, and also called and sent text messages to a fellow teacher, Yvette Mestre, asking how long the ESE meeting would take and when it would be over. In response to Respondent's calls, Smith-Moise twice left the ESE meeting to speak to Respondent in Rivero's classroom. Both times, when she entered the classroom, she observed Respondent disengaged from the students and talking very loudly on his phone. Respondent made clear to Smith-Moise that he was very frustrated at having his planning time taken to cover Rivero's class when he had other responsibilities to attend to.7 7 Respondent testified that he had a great deal of work to do on a large mural project for his own classes that needed to be completed under a tight deadline. Shortly after the beginning of the school day on December 5, 2018, Smith- Moise had taken a student from Rivero's class to Mestre's classroom because the student was misbehaving in Rivero's classroom. A short time thereafter, Respondent began sending text messages to Mestre, asking when the ESE meeting was going to be over. Mestre, who was occupied with teaching her own class, responded that she did not know, and suggested that Respondent contact the administration office. Around 10:30 or 11:00 a.m., Respondent began calling Mestre, again asking about the length of the ESE meeting. Mestre testified that "he seemed upset because he had stuff that he wanted to plan." Mestre again responded that she did not know and suggested that Respondent contact the administration office. At some point, Mestre went to Rivero's classroom to retrieve a lunchbox for the student from Rivero's class whom she was supervising. When she entered the classroom, she observed Respondent on his phone. Respondent told Mestre that he was on the phone with his United Teachers of Dade ("UTD") representative and that he was upset at having to cover Rivero's class because it was his planning day. Mestre went to the administrative office and reported to Smith-Moise that Respondent was upset and needed assistance in Rivero's classroom. Smith-Moise directed Mestre to take Acevedo Molina, an office assistant, to the classroom so that she (Acevedo Molina) could assist Respondent. According to Mestre, when they entered the classroom, Respondent initially thought Acevedo Molina was going to take over supervision of the class; however, when Mestre informed him that Acevedo Molina was there to assist him but would not be taking over supervision of the class, Respondent became very irate, raised his voice, and used the words "mierda" and "pinga" in speaking to them.8 Acevedo Molina confirmed that Respondent used these words when he spoke to her and Mestre. Mestre and Acevedo Molina were, respectively, "shocked" and "surprised" at Respondent's use of these words. 8 Mestre testified that Respondent said, translated into English, "[t]he school doesn't understand the shit that I do," and "they don't give a fuck what I do in this school." Respondent testified that he does not recall having said those words when he spoke to Mestre and Acevedo Molina that day. There is conflicting evidence whether Respondent used those words inside the classroom, such that they were said within earshot of the students, or outside of the classroom, where the students would not be able to hear or see him use the words. Mestre and Acevedo Molina both testified that they had entered Rivero's classroom and were inside the classroom with Respondent when he used the words. Respondent claims that he had to have stepped outside of the classroom into the corridor to speak to Mestre and Acevedo Molina, because the door was locked and they would have been unable to open it and enter the classroom on their own. In any event, it is unnecessary to determine whether Respondent used these words in the classroom within the students' earshot, because the NSC only charges Respondent with having said "mierda" and "pinga" while "covering a class of kindergarten students for another teacher," and that Respondent's use of these words was "overheard by two adult witnesses." The NSC does not allege that Respondent directed the words toward any students or that any students saw or heard him use these words.9 No direct or persuasive circumstantial evidence was presented showing that any students saw or overheard Respondent use those words. Although Mestre and Acevedo Molina testified that Respondent was inside the classroom when he said the words, both testified that the words were not directed toward the students, and neither testified that any students heard or saw Respondent say those words. Thus, even if the evidence conclusively established that Respondent was inside the classroom when he said those words—which it does not—that does not prove that any students saw or heard Respondent use those words. To that point, Smith-Moise 9 Trevisani v. Dep't of Health, 908 So. 2d 1008, 1009 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)(a respondent cannot be disciplined for offenses not factually alleged in the administrative complaint); Cottrill v. Dep't of Ins., 685 So. 2d 1371, 1372 (Fla 1st DCA 1996)(predicating disciplinary action on conduct never alleged in an administrative complaint or some comparable pleading violates the Administrative Procedure Act). See Hunter v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 458 So. 2d 842, 844 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)(administrative complaint seeking to impose discipline must state, with specificity, the acts giving rise to the complaint). testified that the school had not received any complaints about Respondent's use of those words from any of the students or their parents. The UTD Contract establishes a policy of imposing progressive discipline ("Progressive Discipline Policy") when "the Board deems it appropriate, and . . . the degree of discipline shall be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense." Neither the Progressive Discipline Policy nor Petitioner's adopted policies articulate a disciplinary "scale" or penalty categories applicable to specific types of conduct. There is no competent substantial evidence in the record showing that Respondent previously has been subjected to disciplinary action by Petitioner. Petitioner did not present any competent substantial evidence establishing the factual basis for its proposal to suspend Respondent for ten days for the offenses charged in the NSC. Findings of Ultimate Fact As noted above, Petitioner has charged Respondent with misconduct in office under rule 6A-5.056(2) for having violated specified provisions of rule 6A-10.081, Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession; School Board Policy 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct; and School Board Policy 3210.01, Code of Ethics. Whether an offense constitutes a violation of applicable statutes, rules, and policies is a question of ultimate fact to be determined by the trier of fact in the context of each violation. McKinney v. Castor, 667 So. 2d 387, 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)(whether particular conduct violates a statute, rule, or policy is a factual question); Langston v. Jamerson, 653 So. 2d 489, 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)(whether the conduct, as found, constitutes a violation of statutes, rules, or policies is a question of ultimate fact); Holmes v. Turlington, 480 So. 2d 150, 153 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)(whether there was a deviation from a standard of conduct is not a conclusion of law, but is instead an ultimate fact). Charged Conduct and Rule Violations The September 27, 2018 Incident Based on the foregoing, it is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent pushed S.D. on September 27, 2018. There was no justification for Respondent to place his hands on and push S.D., even if she interrupted him while he was speaking with another person. Respondent's conduct in pushing S.D. constituted misconduct in office, as defined in rule 6A-5.056(2). Specifically, Respondent's conduct did not comport with rule 6A-10.081(1)(a), which provides that his primary professional concern must be for the student, and requires him to exercise best professional judgment. In pushing S.D., he did not treat her as his primary professional concern, and he did not exercise best professional judgment. Additionally, Respondent's conduct did not comply with rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. or School Board Policies 3210 and 3210.01. Specifically, in pushing S.D., Respondent did not make a reasonable effort to protect her from conditions harmful to her mental and physical health and safety. Although S.D. was not physically injured, she was embarrassed by Respondent's conduct in pushing her. Respondent's conduct also did not comply with rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)5. or School Board Policies 3210 and 3210.01. Respondent's conduct in pushing S.D. was intentional and it exposed her to embarrassment. Because Respondent's conduct in pushing S.D. violated rules 6A- 10.081(1)(a)1. and (2)(a)1. and 5., and School Board Policies 3210 and 3210.01, it is found, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent committed misconduct in office, pursuant to rule 6A-5.056(2). Pursuant to the UTD Progressive Discipline Policy, it is determined that Respondent's conduct in pushing S.D. was sufficiently serious to warrant suspending him without pay for five days. There was no justification for him having pushed her. Although S.D. was not physically injured as a result of Respondent's conduct, the potential existed for her to have been injured had she fallen, and, in any event, Respondent's intentional action subjected her to embarrassment. The December 5, 2018 Incident Based on the foregoing findings, it is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent used the words "mierda" and "pinga," which are profane words, when speaking to Mestre and Acevedo Molina on December 5, 2018. However, for the reasons discussed above, it is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent did not direct those words toward the students or that any students heard or saw him use those words.10 Respondent's use of profanity in speaking to Mestre and Acevedo Molina did not comport with rule 6A-10.081(1)(c). In using profanity toward his colleagues, Respondent did not strive to achieve and sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct. Mestre and Acevedo Molina both testified to the effect that they viewed his conduct as inappropriate in that professional setting. Respondent's use of those words when speaking to Mestre and Acevedo Molina did not comply with the requirement in School Board Policy 3210 to refrain from the use of profane or abusive language in the workplace. Respondent's use of those words when speaking with Mestre and Acevedo Molina also did not comply with the standard set forth in School Board Policy 3210.01, which requires the employee to show respect for other people. In sum, Respondent's conduct in saying "mierda" and "pinga" while speaking to Mestre and Acevedo Molina violated rules 6A-10.081(1)(c) and School Board policies 3210 and 3210.01. Accordingly, Respondent's conduct constituted misconduct in office under rule 6A-5.056(2). As discussed above, there is no competent substantial evidence establishing that Respondent has ever been subjected to discipline by Petitioner prior to this proceeding. Although Respondent's conduct in using profanity when speaking to two adult colleagues violates certain policies, in light of the UTD Progressive Discipline Policy, such violation is not sufficiently serious to warrant suspension without pay. Therefore, it is determined that, consistent with the concept of progressive 10 Further, as discussed above, the administrative complaint does not charge Respondent with using those words toward students or charge that any students saw or heard him use those words. discipline, Petitioner should issue a verbal reprimand to Respondent for his conduct in using profanity when speaking to his colleagues. Because Respondent was not charged with, and the evidence did not prove, that he directed profanity toward any students or that any students saw or heard him use profanity, Petitioner may not impose discipline on Respondent on that basis. Just Cause Based on the foregoing, it is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that just cause exists to suspend Respondent. Recommended Penalty Based on the foregoing, it is determined that Respondent should be suspended for five days without pay for having pushed S.D. Based on the foregoing, it is determined that Respondent should be issued a verbal reprimand for using profanity when speaking to Mestre and Acevedo Molina and Respondent should receive five days of back pay for the balance of the ten-day period for which Petitioner proposed to suspend him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that, consistent with the foregoing, Petitioner enter a final order suspending Respondent from his employment as a teacher for five days without pay, issuing a verbal reprimand to Respondent, and awarding Respondent back pay for five days. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of June, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of June, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher J. La Piano, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132 (eServed) Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761-1526 (eServed) Cristina Rivera, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132 (eServed) Carlos M. Sanjurjo Apartment 214 14907 Southwest 80th Street Miami, Florida 33193 Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami-Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Richard Corcoran, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Sharon V. Eaddy (Respondent) committed the acts alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges filed by the Miami-Dade County School Board (the School Board) on August 29, 2014, and whether the School Board has good cause to terminate Respondent’s employment as a paraprofessional.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the School Board has been the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Campbell Drive Center is a public school in Miami-Dade County, Florida. During the 2013-2014 school year, the School Board employed Respondent as a paraprofessional pursuant to a professional service contract. At all times material hereto, Respondent’s employment was governed by the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the United Teachers of Dade, the rules and regulations of the School Board, and Florida law. The School Board assigned Respondent to a Pre-K special education classroom at Campbell Drive Center taught by Pascale Vilaire. Respondent has worked at Campbell Drive Center as a paraprofessional for 13 years. During the 2013-2014 school year, 14 special needs students were assigned to Ms. Vilaire’s classroom. Those students were between three and five years of age. L.H., a four-year-old boy who was described as being high functioning on the autism spectrum, was one of Ms. Vilaire’s students. L.H. had frequent temper tantrums during the 2013-2014 school year. Prior to the conduct at issue in this matter, Respondent had had no difficulty managing L.H.’s behavior. There was a conflict in the evidence as to the date the conduct at issue occurred. The undersigned finds that the conduct occurred April 9, 2014, based on the Incident Information admitted into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 4, on the testimony of Yamile Aponte, and on the testimony of Grisel Gutierrez.1/ Ms. Aponte had a daughter in Ms. Vilaire’s class and often served as a parent-volunteer. Ms. Aponte was at Campbell Drive Center’s cafeteria on the morning of April 9, 2014. Present in the cafeteria were Ms. Vilaire, Respondent, some of Ms. Vilaire’s class (including L.H.) and students from other classes. When Ms. Aponte entered the cafeteria, L.H. was crying and hanging on to a trash bin. Ms. Vilaire was attending to another student. Respondent was trying to deal with L.H. to prevent him from tipping over the trash bin. Respondent led L.H. by the wrist back to a table where they sat together. Ms. Aponte approached them and offered L.H. a milk product referred to as a Pediasure. Because L.H. was allergic to milk, Respondent told Ms. Aponte that L.H. could not have the product. When Ms. Vilaire lined up her class to leave the cafeteria, L.H. threw a tantrum because he was still hungry. Ms. Aponte testified that Respondent grabbed L.H. by the wrist and pulled him up. Ms. Vilaire observed the entire interaction between L.H. and Respondent in the cafeteria. Ms. Vilaire did not witness anything she thought was inappropriate or caused her concern. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent became physically aggressive toward L.H. in the cafeteria by dragging him across the floor or otherwise grabbing him inappropriately. Paragraph nine of the Notice of Specific Charges contains the allegation that while in the cafeteria, “Respondent forcefully grabbed L.H. and dragged him across the floor.” Petitioner did not prove those alleged facts. After the class finished in the cafeteria, the students lined up to go back to the classroom. Ms. Vilaire was at the front of the line, and Respondent was ten to fifteen feet behind at the end of the line with L.H. Ms. Aponte was part of the group going from the cafeteria to the classroom. During the walk back to the classroom, Ms. Vilaire did not see or hear anything between Respondent and L.H. she thought was inappropriate. She did not hear anything that diverted her attention to Respondent and L.H. At the time of the conduct at issue, Barbara Jackson, an experienced teacher, taught first grade at Campbell Drive Center. While Ms. Vilaire’s class was walking from the cafeteria to the classroom, Ms. Jackson had a brief conversation with Respondent about getting food for her class from McDonald’s. Ms. Jackson did not hear or see anything inappropriate between Respondent and L.H. After stopping to talk with Ms. Jackson, Respondent resumed walking to Ms. Vilaire’s classroom. L.H. continued to cry and attempted to pull away from Respondent. L.H. wanted to be the leader of the line, a position that is rotated among the class members. Ms. Vilaire led the other class members into the classroom while Ms. Aponte, Respondent, and L.H. were still outside. While still outside, they saw Grisel Gutierrez, a teacher at Campbell Drive Center. L.H. began to throw himself on the ground on top of his backpack. Ms. Aponte and Ms. Gutierrez saw Respondent grab L.H. forcefully by the arm and hit him on his shoulder with a slapping sound.2/ After Respondent returned L.H. to the classroom, L.H. tried to push over a bookcase containing books and toys. To prevent L.H. from pushing over the bookcase, Respondent grabbed L.H. by his hands and held them behind his back. Ms. Vilaire witnessed the interaction between Respondent and L.H. in the classroom and thought Respondent acted appropriately. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent acted inappropriately towards L.H. while in the classroom. Ms. Aponte reported what she had seen to the school principal the day of the incident. Respondent learned that Ms. Aponte had complained against her the day of the incident. After school the day of the incident, Respondent angrily confronted Ms. Aponte and asked her why she had lied. Rounett Green, a security guard at Campbell Drive Center, stepped in to end the confrontation between Respondent and Ms. Aponte. There was no evidence that Respondent attempted to threaten Ms. Aponte. Respondent did not use inappropriate language towards Ms. Aponte. Respondent did not make physical contact with Ms. Aponte. L.H.’s mother heard about the alleged interactions between Respondent and L.H. When L.H. returned home after school, the mother examined L.H. and found no bruises or other unusual marks on L.H.’s body. At its regularly scheduled meeting on June 18, 2014, the School Board suspended Respondent’s employment and instituted these proceedings to terminate her employment.
Recommendation The following recommendations are based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: It is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board, enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order terminate the employment of Sharon V. Eaddy. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of January, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of January, 2015.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds Florida Teaching Certificate 297447 covering the area of elementary education. At all times pertinent hereto, the Respondent was employed as an elementary school teacher in the Dade County School District. During the 1983-84 school year, the Respondent was employed as a second grade teacher of Chapter I students at Lillie C. Evans Elementary School. During the 1984-85 school year, the Respondent was again employed at Lillie C. Evans Elementary School as a second grade teacher. In March 1985, Respondent was transferred to Miami Springs Elementary School for the remainder of the school year as a result of an altercation involving an irate parent. During her tenure at Lillie C. Evans Elementary School, Respondent was assigned approximately 16 students in her second grade classes each year. Respondent was assigned a fourth grade class at Miami Springs Elementary School from March through June 1985. The Respondent's class contained approximately 30 students. Respondent was a first year annual contract employee of the Dade County Public Schools during the 1983-84 school year and a second year annual contract employee of the Dade County Public Schools during the 1984-85 school year. Respondent was not reappointed for the 1985-86 school year as an employee of the Dade County Public Schools because she failed to perform at an acceptable level of professional performance at two different schools, under two different administrations, with two different sets of students. The principal of Lillie C. Evans Elementary School, Willie Mae Brown, is a thirty-six year employee of the Dade County School System. Ms. Brown was Respondent's principal during Respondent's employment at Lillie C. Evans Elementary School. Ms. Brown has been trained to observe and evaluate the professional performance of classroom teachers and has observed and evaluated hundreds of teachers in her position as principal. On May 31, 1984, Brown prepared the Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1983-84 school year. She rated Respondent as unacceptable in the category of classroom management and noted in the remarks section of the evaluation that Respondent "should continue participating in workshops that will enable her to acquire techniques in instruction and classroom management." Brown requested that Respondent attend workshops on techniques of instruction and classroom management during the 1983-84 school year and that she observe fellow teachers in the school in order to improve Respondent's performance in the classroom. During the 1984-85 school year, Brown continued to observe serious problems with Respondent's control of student conduct and classroom management. On October 1, 1984, Brown overheard a child screaming loudly in the Respondent's classroom as if the child was in pain. When Brown observed Respondent on October 5, 1984, she noted that Respondent was unable to manage the class, failed to use non-verbal techniques and few verbal techniques to deal with students who were off-task. Brown observed that pupils were moving about and making noise in the classroom. Respondent's lesson plans did not appear to have enough activities to occupy the students' attention. Respondent was provided with "prescription plan" activities and recommended resources for implementation of the prescriptions. Brown provided a time line for improvement of October 29, 1984. On October 24,1984, Brown prepared a log of assistance which had been provided to Respondent. Brown's log noted that on October 1, 1984, Mrs. Mayme Moore, North Central Area Chapter I Resource Teacher, provided special assistance to Respondent concerning control of student conduct. In addition, Brown documented assistance provided to Respondent by Teacher Lena Hoskins; Teacher Sharon Sbrissa; Mr. Mitchell, School Guidance Counselor; Walter Foden, Assistant Principal; and others. As a follow-up to the October 5, 1984 observation, Brown again observed Respondent's classroom performance on October 29, 1984. Brown observed that the Respondent's performance was deficient in preparation and planning and classroom management. Brown observed a large number of children off-task. Respondent still appeared to be unable to manage her students. Again, Respondent failed to provide enough activities to occupy the students for the full class period. Brown noted that two pupils fell asleep during the class. Once again, Brown prescribed plan activities and recommended resources to Respondent with a time line of November 15, 1984. Brown continued to provide Respondent with assistance through the Teacher Education Center and through fellow teachers. On November 21, 1984, Brown found four of Respondent's students creating a disturbance in a bathroom. Upon returning these students to Respondent's classroom, she observed eight or nine of the twelve students in the classroom running around making noise. During the course of the 1984-85 school year, Ms. Brown received three or four written complaints and several additional telephone calls from parents complaining about Respondent's class. The nature of the parental complaints concerned Respondent's lack of control of student conduct in the classroom. On December 10, 1984, a conference for the record was held by Brown with Respondent and her union representative to address parent complaints, the complaint of the primary helping teacher for Respondent, Respondent's performance assessment to date and her employment status. At the conference, Respondent was advised of letters of complaints from parents and peers regarding her classroom management. Respondent was afforded the opportunity to identify a fellow teacher with whom she could confer and observe. Respondent did not indicate a preference for peer assistance. As primary helping teacher, Ms. Scurry complained that Respondent's inability to control students in her classroom was requiring Ms. Scurry's assistance almost every day. Scurry expressed concern to Brown about Respondent's continuous need for assistance with her students which was interfering with Scurry's instruction of her own class. In addition to Scurry, two other teachers, Ms. Drawley and Ms. Bell, made written complaints to Brown concerning the disruption of their respective classes due to excessive noise emanating from Respondent's classroom. At the request of Principal Brown, on November 1, 1984, Respondent prepared a summary of assistance which the Respondent received during the year. Respondent's handwritten narrative discloses that she received assistance from Mrs. Sbrissa, Mrs. Hoskins, Mrs. Moore, Mrs. Knight, Ms. Johnson, Ms. Brown, and Mr. Foden. Brown continued to require that Respondent attend prescriptive in- service courses through the Teacher Education Center in the latter half of the 1984-85 school year. Specifically, Brown requested that Respondent attend courses concerning classroom management and preparation and planning. On February 15, 1985, a joint observation of Respondent's professional classroom performance was conducted by Brown and Mrs. Eneida Hartner, the Area Director for the North Central Area of the Dade County Public Schools. Each observer evaluated Respondent's performance separately. Respondent received advance notice of the observation. The combined evaluations of Brown and Hartner resulted in an overall rating of unacceptable, with specific ratings of unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning and classroom management. Respondent was once again provided with prescription plan activities, recommended resources with which to implement the activities and a time line for improvement. Both observers noted that Respondent failed to provide sufficient activities for the class period to occupy the students' time for the entire period and, as a result, students were off-task. Respondent failed to motivate her students to be interested in the task at hand and failed to provide appropriate feedback concerning the students' behavior. In March, 1985, Brown again received a memorandum from the Teacher Education Center regarding prescriptive in-service courses for the Respondent. Brown requested that Respondent attend the course on classroom management. Subsequently, on April 15, 1985, Ms. Brown was notified by memorandum that the Respondent had failed to attend the classroom management course prescribed for her. During the 1984-85 school year, many educators from Lillie C. Evans Elementary School and from the school district provided Respondent with assistance at the request of Brown in an effort to remediate Respondent's observed deficiencies. In addition to Principal Brown, Assistant Principal Walter Foden observed and evaluated Respondent's performance. On November 19, 1984, Foden conducted an observation of Respondent's classroom and found her to be deficient in the area of classroom management. In the TADS observation form, Foden identified the areas of deficiency, prescribed plan activities for improvement, indicated recommended resources, and provided a time line for Respondent's improvement. Foden observed that Respondent was unaware of childrens' off-task behavior in the classroom despite the fact that there were only 12 to 13 children in her classroom at the time. Foden recommended six individuals to provide Respondent with assistance, and each of the six did provide assistance to her. Foden also observed Respondent on September 12, 1984. Based upon this observation, Foden concluded that Respondent was deficient in classroom management and in the teacher-student relationship. The students ignored Respondent, would not listen to her and appeared to lack respect for her. In addition, Respondent's instructions were unclear. Foden recommended four resource persons to Respondent. These individuals provided Respondent with the assistance requested. Gwendolyn Bryant, Primary Education Coordinator for the Dade County School System, provided assistance to Respondent at the request of Principal Brown. Bryant met with Respondent in her classroom on December 12, 1984, and on January 9, 1985. Bryant observed that Respondent needed assistance with classroom management and with the implementation of the primary education program. Bryant returned on January 9, 1985, and reviewed the procedures for implementing PREP, RSVP (Reading Systems Very Plain) and TMP (Total Math Program). During her January visit, Bryant found that Respondent had not yet evaluated her students to determine their needs under these programs. The evaluations of the students' individual needs should have been completed at the beginning of the school year. Bryant concluded that Respondent was in need of continuing assistance with classroom organization and management. Margaret Rogers, teacher on special assignment to the Reading Department, provided assistance to Respondent in April 1985 at Miami Springs Elementary School. Rogers reviewed RSVP with Respondent, reviewed the Respondent's grouping of students for reading, provided the Respondent with handouts on teaching a directed reading lesson and classroom management, rearranged the students' desks to comply with fire code and to provide access to the blackboard, and provided Respondent with numerous suggestions on control of student conduct. On the following day, April 2, 1985, Rogers demonstrated a writing lesson for Respondent and provided Respondent with information on RSVP and teaching a directed reading lesson. During her tenure at Miami Springs Elementary School, Respondent received assistance from Helen B. Francis, Assistant Principal. It was Ms. Francis who requested that Mrs. Rogers provide assistance to Respondent. On April 15, 1985, Ms. Francis conducted a formal observation and evaluation of Respondent's classroom performance. Ms. Francis rated Respondent deficient in the categories of preparation and planning, classroom management and techniques of instruction. Francis observed that Respondent failed to control student conduct, resulting in constant disruptions and interference in the reading lesson which she was attempting to conduct at the time. Ms. Francis was in the Respondent's classroom almost on a daily basis because of constant complaints from parents and other teachers. Francis concluded that Respondent was unable to provide her students with appropriate instruction because she could not maintain control of the children's behavior. On March 29, 1985, Principal Margot J. Silverman observed and evaluated Respondent's teaching performance. Based upon that observation, Dr. Silverman rated Respondent deficient in the areas of preparation and planning, classroom management and techniques of instruction. Dr. Silverman provided an intensive description of the observed deficiencies and numerous specific suggestions for improvement. Silverman observed Respondent's performance again on May 13, 1985. Based upon the observation, Dr. Silverman evaluated Respondent's performance to be unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction and teacher-student relationships. Again, Dr. Silverman provided a detailed description of the observed deficiencies as well as specific suggestions for improvement. On May 30, 1985, Dr. Silverman prepared Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1984-85 school year. On the evaluation, Silverman rated Respondent's performance as unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction and teacher-student relationships. Silverman rated Respondent's overall performance as unacceptable and recommended that she not be re- employed for the following school year. Dr. Patrick Gray, Executive Assistant Superintendent in the Office of Professional Standards for the Dade County Public Schools, testified at formal hearing that in his professional opinion, Respondent has proven to be incompetent as a classroom teacher, by the standards of both the County School System and the Florida Department of Education. In Dr. Gray's expert opinion, Respondent's personal performance in the classroom has seriously reduced her effectiveness as an employee of the Dade County School Board. Dr. Gray determined from a review of all of the observations, both internal and external, that Respondent's professional performance was worsening, rather than improving, despite extensive assistance to help her remediate her deficiencies. Gray's review of Respondent's personnel file discloses that the Respondent did not achieve an acceptable level of performance in any of the nine classroom observations conducted of her during the 1984-85 school year. Gray is unaware of any additional assistance which the Dade County School System could provide to Respondent to assist her in remediating perceived deficiencies beyond the assistance which has been previously provided to her.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained within the Administrative Complaint and permanently revoking Respondent's Florida Teaching Certificate. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 11th day of December, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of December, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-46 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 47 has been rejected as being unnecessary, and Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 48 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel or conclusions of law. Respondent filed posthearing correspondence which contains ten unnumbered paragraphs. The eighth unnumbered paragraph is the only one which constitutes a proposed finding of fact, and it is rejected since it is not supported by the evidence in this cause. The remainder of the unnumbered paragraphs in Respondent's correspondence have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: J. DAVID HOLDER, ESQUIRE POST OFFICE BOX 1694 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32302 JOYCE L. PENCHANSKY 610 N.E. 177TH STREET NORTH MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33162 KAREN B. WILDE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR EDUCATION PRACTICES COMMISSION 125 KNOTT BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399 MARTIN B. SCHAPP, ADMINISTRATOR PROFESSIONAL PRACTICES SERVICES 319 WEST MADISON STREET, ROOM 3 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Petitioner has sufficient grounds to support dismissal of Respondent from employment.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was a duly- constituted School Board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida (“School District”), pursuant to Article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution, and section 1012.23, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed as an elementary school teacher by the School Board and currently holds a professional services contract. He began working for the School District on or about March 2007, in the middle of the 2006-2007 school year. His first assignment was at Holmes Elementary School where he worked on a “waiver,” since he did not have an elementary education certification. The principal asked him to get his certification in elementary education, which he did. According to Respondent, he was asked to start working early because the principal did not have enough teachers. During that year, he was evaluated as meeting standards in all areas of evaluation and was rehired for the 2007-2008 school year. Prior to becoming a teacher in Miami-Dade County, Respondent served in the United States military from 1978-1985, and had worked as a registered nurse. He holds an associate’s degree from Miami-Dade College, a bachelor’s degree from Florida International University (“FIU”), two master’s degrees from FIU, an academic certificate in gerontological studies from FIU, and an academic teaching certificate from FIU. For the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent worked at Little River Elementary School (“Little River”). The principal at Little River asked Respondent to work on another “waiver,” this time for teaching English as a Second Language students (“ESOL”). After completing the necessary coursework, Respondent received an ESOL certification. Respondent remained at Little River through the 2008-2009 school year until he was involuntarily transferred to Scott Lake Elementary School (“Scott Lake”) for the 2009-2010 school year. During the latter two years at Little River, he was evaluated as meeting standards in all areas. According to Respondent, he was transferred to Scott Lake because the administration of Little River objected to the number of student discipline referrals (“SCMs”) he was writing on students. Respondent reports having written somewhere between 600 and 700 SCMs on students over the years. Respondent freely admits he wrote many SCMs at every school he worked at and highlights that fact as an excuse for why he performed poorly. During Respondent’s first three years of employment at Holmes Elementary and Little River, he was evaluated across the board on his annual evaluations as “Meets Standards.” During this period of time, the only other rating an employee could receive was “Does Not Meet Standards.” During the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent’s principal for his first year at Scott Lake was Valerie Ward. During the 2009-2010 school year, the School District made changes to the teacher performance evaluation system. Use of the Instructional Performance Evaluation and Growth System (“IPEGS”) was implemented. The IPEGS Summative Performance Evaluations (“SPEs”) were now comprised of eight Performance Standards, where a teacher could be rated “Exemplary,” “Proficient,” “Developing/Needs Improvement,” or “Unsatisfactory.” In her first year with Respondent, Ms. Ward rated him “Proficient” in all eight standards. At the end of the 2009-2010 school year, Ms. Ward placed Respondent on a 90-day performance probation pursuant to section 1012.34. During this 90-day probation process, he was observed by administration on at least five different occasions, was put on several improvement plans, and had several meetings with administrators. The 90-day probation process is very time- consuming for both the subject employee and the employee’s administration. In other words, it is not the preferred task of a busy principal, unless he or she must, and then only when it is warranted by poor performance. Respondent believes Ms. Ward placed him on performance probation to retaliate against him because he complained about the temperature in his classroom. This is the first of many excuses and justifications Respondent has offered to explain criticisms of his performance by administrators. For the 2010-2011 school year at Scott Lake, Respondent was again evaluated as proficient in all areas. On or about April 2012, Principal Lakesha Wilson- Rochelle assumed Ms. Ward’s role at Scott Lake. Principal Rochelle signed off on Respondent’s summative evaluation during the 2011-2012 school year, but did not fill it out, since it had already been completed by someone else. The score placed Respondent in the “needs improvement” category. She signed it only because she was required to do so, and the summative evaluation rating she gave him for the next school year was even worse by several points. It was also during the 2011-2012 school year that IPEGS underwent another change. Now there were seven professional practice standards on which teachers were evaluated and one standard that was based on actual student data. Use of IPEGS IPEGS was approved by the Florida Department of Education (“FDOE”) for all years relevant to this case. The IPEGS processes from the 2013-2014 school year forward consisted of the following: Each teacher that had been teaching for more than two years received one formal observation. If during that observation the teacher’s performance was sufficient, nothing more need be done, outside of a summative evaluation at the end of the year. However, informal feedback is given to teachers throughout the year after classroom walkthroughs and through other means. If a teacher was observed to be deficient in one or more standards during the formal observation, the teacher and administration would engage in something called “support dialogue” in which support in various forms is provided to the teacher, so that the deficiencies can be remediated. If the teacher still exhibits performance deficiencies after the support dialogue, they are placed on the 90-day performance probation. While on performance probation, the teacher is observed another four times after the initial observation. After the second, third and fourth observations, if the teacher has not remediated, the administration develops an improvement plan, which must be followed. The improvement plan gives the teacher assignments and assistance to aid him or her in remediating any deficiencies. Also, each teacher, regardless of whether placed on performance probation, receives an SPE, as well as a Summative Performance Evaluation Rating (“SPE Rating”) of either “Highly Effective,” “Effective,” “Developing/Needs Improvement,” or “Unsatisfactory.” In addition to the seven professional practice standards, a data component is also factored into the SPE Rating known as the VAM. The VAM As explained by Director of Research Services Dr. Aleksander Shneyderman (“Dr. S”), the VAM is a statistical model that attempts to measure a teacher’s impact on student learning growth through the use of a multi-level lineal regression. Dr. S has been working with the VAM, since its inception in 2010-2011. He has studied it and keeps abreast of Florida’s rules and regulations of how to calculate it. Dr. S and his office calculate what is called “Local VAM” for the School District. He also provides trainings to School District employees on the use of the VAM. Dr. S was tendered and accepted in this proceeding as an expert in VAM calculation. Local VAM is usually calculated in September/October by his office after the previous year’s testing data become available. Various assessments are used to create the Local VAM. It is calculated in compliance with state statutes, and the methodology is approved each year by FDOE. Also, the methods for calculating the Local VAM are bargained for and ratified by the United Teachers of Dade (“UTD”) teacher’s union. The Florida VAM is calculated by the State using a model that is approved by the Florida Commissioner of Education. The results of the Florida VAM are given to Dr. S’s office by the State. The Florida VAM is created using the Florida Standards Assessment (“FSA”). In the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 school years, Respondent’s Local VAM scores were calculated by Dr. S’s office and based upon his students’ results on the Stanford 8 Achievement Test, 10th edition. UTD approved the methodology in VAM calculation for both of these years. For the 2015-2016 school year, Respondent’s VAM score was the Florida VAM in English language arts for fifth grade. The goal of the VAM is to measure a teacher’s effectiveness on student learning growth. In order to do this as accurately as possible, students are compared to similar students for an “apples to apples” comparison. Only students with the same demographic characteristics, as well as the same prior year’s test scores are compared to one another. The demographic factors considered are English Language Learner (“ELL”) status, gifted status, disability status, relative age (which considers whether a child was retained in a previous grade), and attendance (which was added in 2014-2015). Student demographics and the prior year’s test scores must be exactly the same. Based on these demographics and past scores, an expected score is created for each student. If the student exceeds that score, the credit for that success is given to the teacher. The School Board and Dr. S concede that the VAM does not account for every possible student performance variable, because, simply put, this would be impossible, since there are a limitless number of factors that could be considered. Moreover, certain factors are forbidden to be used by the Legislature, including socioeconomic status, race, gender, and ethnicity. (See § 1012.34, Fla. Stat.). Respondent argues that because not every imaginable factor that might affect a student’s grade is captured, that the VAM is not useful. Respondent claims that factors beyond the teacher might be causing poor performance, for example: lack of parental engagement. While levels of parental engagement could impact student performance, the School Board states that it is following state statutes to the letter and doing the best it can within the applicable statutory framework. Moreover, just as factors outside of consideration might hurt student performance, other factors might enhance performance, and the teachers receive those possible benefits as well--for example, if parental engagement is good. Those benefits would flow to the teacher, despite not having earned them through his or her personal efforts. Moreover, the VAM score ranges that are used to classify teachers are bargained for with UTD. The ranges have confidence intervals developed through the application of margin of error calculations that mitigate uncertainty to protect and “safeguard” teachers from unfair classifications. In many instances these safeguards give the teachers the benefit of the doubt to make sure they do not fall into the lowest category, which is “unsatisfactory.” Noticeably absent from these bargained for “safeguards” is any mention of how much instructional time a teacher must have with a class before those students’ data can be used to calculate a teacher’s VAM score. UTD has not bargained for any special rules designating when teachers can and cannot be held accountable for their class’ data based on the time they have instructed that class. As such, the only relevant inquiry is whether those students are with that teacher during the FTE period in February. Also, the law (see § 1012.34, Fla. Stat.) makes no mention of any minimum length of instructional time necessary to hold a teacher accountable for his or her students. The 2013-2014 School Year at Scott Lake Refusal to teach basic Spanish In May 2013, near the end of the 2012-2013 school year, Principal Rochelle advised Respondent that he would be teaching a kindergarten class for the 2013-2014 school year and that he would be required to teach them one hour of introductory Spanish. In an email to Principal Rochelle, Respondent asserted that he believed he was being assigned to teach Spanish to the kindergarteners in retaliation for his extensive reporting of student SCMs. In that same email, he advised her that he did not want to teach Spanish. Prior to being advised of this assignment, the School District conducted a language proficiency assessment for Respondent with both a written and verbal component, which he passed. Principal Rochelle had personally seen Respondent speak fluent Spanish to her school secretary and the art teacher. Because Respondent spoke fluent Spanish, or, at least, “conversational” Spanish (as admitted by Respondent’s counsel in his opening), she gave him the assignment. Moreover, as a principal, she had the right to assign Respondent as she saw fit. School Board Policy 3130 - Assignments reinforces this assertion stating, in relevant part, “Instructional staff members may be reassigned to any position for which they are qualified in order to meet needs of the District and pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement.” In order to teach the one-hour basic Spanish component of the class, Respondent did not need to be certified to teach Spanish. He only needed an elementary education certification, which he had. He even attended a training class on the implementation of the Spanish program. Respondent admits he can speak Spanish, write basic Spanish, has taken Spanish classes and passed the School District’s proficiency exam. Curiously, he objected to them giving the proficiency exam to him based on the grounds he was “singled out” for having a Hispanic last name, having been overheard speaking the language, and because he is not from a Spanish-speaking country. These are not reasonable objections when the School District explained the objective reasons listed above regarding Respondent’s qualifications to provide the basic- level Spanish instruction. Respondent persisted in his belief that he is “not qualified” to teach kindergarten Spanish despite all the evidence to the contrary. Respondent simply refused to do something that he was entirely capable of doing and that was within his ambit of responsibilities. He described one of the lessons he was allegedly incapable of teaching as follows, “You put a CD in the player. The kids sing songs in Spanish. The kids cut out pictures of objects and match them to a picture with the word in Spanish.” The kindergartners in his class did not speak Spanish; they spoke English. The Spanish component of the class was very basic and involved things like vowels, colors, puppets, basic books, and vocabulary words. Contrary to Respondent’s assertions, no complex grammar or sentence structure was involved. Such things are not even part of ordinary English kindergarten instruction, as admitted by Respondent. Moreover, he was provided with materials from which to draw the instruction. Principal Rochelle does not speak Spanish herself, yet believes she could teach the Spanish component, as it is a “piece of cake.” Respondent filed a grievance regarding the Spanish assignment. In order to appease and accommodate Respondent, Principal Rochelle eventually sent a Spanish teacher to his room to teach the Spanish component. However, Respondent then complained that the grades she was entering still had his name attached to them in the computerized grading system. Finally, the principal decided to move him to a first-grade class in early November 2013. Undoubtedly, the requests of Respondent led to this assignment change. Formal IPEGS observation On March 11, 2014, Principal Rochelle performed her formal observation of Respondent pursuant to IPEGS. On that day, no performance deficiencies were noted. However, throughout the year, Principal Rochelle had conducted many informal observations and walkthroughs of his classroom and had already provided him feedback regarding his performance and her expectations. Examples of that feedback can be found in an August 27, 2013, email from Principal Rochelle to Respondent. Moreover, according to Principal Rochelle, teachers tend to be on their best behavior during these observations–-which makes sense, because they know the boss/evaluator is watching. The formal observation is also only a snapshot in time of the teacher’s performance on a particular lesson; it is not a reflection of the entire year’s performance. Respondent has argued that Principal Rochelle has retaliated against him. If that were the case, this observation would have been a perfect opportunity to retaliate against him. However, she found no deficiencies in his performance on this day. Scott Lake SPE—Professional Practice Throughout the rest of the school year, Principal Rochelle made other credible observations regarding Respondent’s performance. Despite her counseling that he meet with parents, he refused to do so. He refused to participate in activities, including field trips, school celebrations, and award ceremonies. Other teachers actually had to hand out awards for him at the ceremony. He refused to implement group instruction techniques and did not take advantage of the presence of reading and math coaches. He refused to implement progressive discipline and “red, green, yellow” behavior management techniques. He refused to implement various discipline strategies laid out in the Student Code of Conduct and school-wide discipline plan prior to writing SCMs on students. Principal Rochelle recalls that he wrote approximately 25 SCMs on one student within the first nine weeks of school and made no attempt to address the behavior issues with the student’s parents. At one point Principal Rochelle accommodated his request to have a student removed from his class. Since this was only Principal Rochelle’s first full year as principal of Scott Lake, and she was still new to the school, she tended to give the teachers the benefit of the doubt when completing their SPEs. She also had a few teachers who had to be terminated for lack of professionalism that were more of a priority for her than Respondent. As such, she rated Respondent as “effective” in six standards on his SPE and as “developing/needs improvement” for the Communication standard. In her view, “effective” is akin to a “C” grade, whereas “highly effective” is “A plus/high B” status, “developing/needs improvement” is a “D,” and “unsatisfactory” is an “F.” When asked what Respondent would have rated himself in these seven standards, he testified he would have given himself five “highly effectives” and two “effectives.” He believes Principal Rochelle rated him lower than she should have as a result of retaliation against him for him not wanting to teach Spanish. This is Respondent’s second claim of retaliation against Principal Rochelle, and third claim of retaliation overall. Principal Rochelle’s denial of such retaliation is credited based upon her testimony at hearing and the exhibits offered in support. Despite the fact that Respondent’s 2013-2014 SPE seemed adequate to a casual observer (with the only obvious blemish being the “developing/needs improvement” in the Communication standard), when compared to his peers, a different story emerges. His professional practice points total put him in the bottom .8 percentile for all teachers district-wide and in the bottom 2.6 percentile for all first-grade teachers district-wide. Without belaboring the data, Respondent’s professional practice scores are at the bottom of the barrel, regardless of how you spin them. Scott Lake VAM and overall SPE Rating Respondent’s Local VAM score for learner progress points was 12.5 points–-the lowest possible score. He was one of 11 first-grade teachers district-wide who scored the bare minimum, putting him in the lowest (0) percentile. His overall SPE Rating for the 2013-2014 school year was “Needs Improvement.” Only 29 percent of his first-grade students met or exceeded their performance expectations. Respondent’s VAM was based on the performance of his first-grade students. Respondent believes that, since he was moved to the class in early November 2013, and the SAT exam was given in April, he should not be held accountable for their performance. In order for him to have a fair shake, he claims he would have had to be there instructing the students on week one. Respondent says the amount of time he was given was not fair because, “if I’m the lowest teacher in Miami-Dade County, and here for termination, no, sir, I don’t think it was fair.” If the rule Respondent proposes were implemented as policy, any teacher could simply avoid responsibility for their student’s performance by requesting a transfer sometime after the first week of the year. It is also not uncommon for teachers to have students added or subtracted from their classes throughout the year for a multitude of reasons. This is a fact of life that teachers have to be able to cope with in the ordinary course of business for the School District. Moreover, and somewhat ironically, if another teacher had been teaching Respondent’s students for a portion of the year, based on his SPE Ratings and student achievement data, Respondent probably would have had better scores. The students would likely have been getting a more effective teacher than he. Respondent also claims Principal Rochelle gave him a lower functioning group of students, who were behind in their learning. He explained that he knew they were low-functioning because he gave them “STAR tests” to gauge their ability levels. When pressed on cross-examination, Respondent admitted that he only tested his own students and never anyone else’s. Therefore, it would be impossible for him to know whether his students were any lower-functioning or further behind than any other teachers’ students. Respondent’s doubtful claim is further undercut by Principal Rochelle’s credible testimony that she selected the members of his first-grade class at random from overcrowded classrooms. Respondent’s claims that he was robbed of instructional time by field trips and fundraising activities, matters that are required of all teachers, are unconvincing excuses for his students’ poor performance. The 2014-2015 School Year at Norwood Shortly after the start of the 2014-2015 school year, Respondent requested a hardship transfer to Norwood Elementary School (“Norwood”) because the school day at Scott Lake was going to be increased by one hour. Despite the fact that he would have been compensated approximately $4,500.00 for this time, he chose to transfer schools. Principal Kevin Williams (or Dr. Williams) had a teacher on leave so he assigned Respondent to fill that gap. Respondent started teaching a kindergarten class, but was moved to a second-grade class during the first week of school. Prior to conducting a formal IPEGS observation of Respondent, Dr. Williams had performed several walkthroughs of his classroom. Based on these walkthroughs, Dr. Williams advised Respondent that he was not properly implementing the school discipline plan. Respondent also refused to implement “grouping” of the students during instruction time. Dr. Williams also had a reading coach model lessons for Respondent and assigned him a teaching assistant. Respondent was the only teacher who received this level of assistance. Dr. Williams even went so far as to have two meetings with UTD prior to his formal evaluation of Respondent in order to help him. By October 2014, Dr. Williams had already explained his expectations to Respondent. Formal IPEGS observation On October 1, 2014, Principal Williams performed the formal IPEGS evaluation of Respondent. Principal Williams noted no deficiencies on that day. Generally speaking, Principal Williams does not view these observations as punitive. Over the years, Dr. Williams has conducted approximately 240 observations of teachers, and, generally, the employees are “on point” when being watched. Moreover, like Principal Rochelle, Dr. Williams views these observations as a snapshot of teacher performance while the SPE captures the year- long performance. In the report of the observation, Dr. Williams suggested that Respondent promote interactions with students, encourage more student participation, connect to prior student knowledge and interests, and present concepts at different levels of complexity, among other items. Norwood SPE—Professional Practice After the formal observation, Dr. Williams continued to conduct walkthroughs of Respondent’s class. He observed the same issues with refusing to use “grouping” and refusing to properly implement the discipline plan. Respondent never took advantage of the modeling techniques that were provided for him. He also was not implementing differentiated instruction. Dr. Williams himself held a professional development class on campus for the school discipline plan, which, instead of attending, Respondent attended a social studies class off campus. Instead of following the prescribed discipline plan, Respondent was trying to control the behavior of his students with treats. Similar to his time at Scott Lake, he refused to participate in field trips, staff gatherings, award assemblies, and student activity days. Respondent had lesson plans, but did not always follow them. He would spend an inordinate amount of time on vocabulary. He gave some tests, but would refuse to grade other tests. The pattern of his teaching was inconsistent, at best. On his SPE, Principal Williams rated Respondent as “effective” in five standards, “highly effective” in one, and as “developing/needs improvement” for the Learning Environment standard. Dr. Williams’ rating for Learning Environment was lower because Respondent failed to implement appropriate discipline strategies despite being told to do so. In eight years of being a principal, this was the first time he had ever given a teacher a “needs improvement” rating. He mostly gives his teachers combinations of “highly effective” and “effective,” if they do what they are supposed to do. Nevertheless, Dr. Williams testified he still went easy on Respondent because he was new to the school. In terms of his SPE professional practice points, Respondent scored in the bottom two percentile for second-grade teachers district-wide and was the worst rated second-grade teacher at Norwood. Instead of following the discipline plan, Respondent was using the emergency call button, writing SCMs, and writing to the superintendent to have ten students removed from his class. Another teacher at the school, Mr. W, had the exact same set of students as Respondent, only he taught them in the afternoon and not in the morning. He had none of the same behavior management issues Respondent had with this same group of children. Respondent claimed that Mr. W was able to manage the children better because, like the students, he was African-American. When asked how Respondent would have rated himself in these seven SPE standards, he would have given himself six “highly effectives” and one “effective.” He believes Principal Williams rated him lower than he should have as a result of retaliation against him for writing SCMs and because he complained about the size of his initial kindergarten class. This marked Respondent’s fourth claim of retaliation overall. Principal Williams credibly denied such retaliation at the hearing. Norwood VAM and overall SPE Rating Respondent’s Local VAM score for learner progress points was 8.75 points-–the lowest possible score, again. He was one of 50 first-grade teachers district-wide who scored the bare minimum putting him in the lowest (0) percentile. His overall SPE Rating for the 2014-2015 school year was “Needs Improvement.” Only six percent of his second-grade students met or exceeded their performance expectations. Respondent believes that his VAM points from Norwood should not be considered because of his students’ behavioral issues. He also stated he did not have enough textbooks to send home with students. Much like at Scott Lake, he believes he was intentionally given bad students. This is peculiar for two reasons. First, Dr. Williams first tried to assign Respondent another class, but Respondent complained that one was too big. To accept this argument, the viewer would have to believe Dr. Williams knew Respondent would reject the larger class, and the principal had another one in the wings filled with “bad” students to make Respondent look ineffective. Second, Mr. W had none of the same problems Respondent did with this same group of students in the afternoon. To accept this contention, Principal Williams’ plan only “worked” on Respondent, since he was singled out for retaliation. This line of argument is nonsensical, at best. The 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 School Years at Aventura Waterways K-8 In looking for the right fit, Respondent was sent to Aventura Waterways K-8 (“AWK8”) for the 2015-2016 school year. He remained there for the 2016-2017 school year until he was dismissed from his employment in March 2017. As at his previous school assignments, the administrators at AWK8 tried to work with Respondent and the UTD to let him know their expectations prior to the formal observations. During these two school years Respondent was observed formally by Principal Luis Bello and Assistant Principal Ileana Robles on no less than nine occasions. In both years, during his initial observations, his performance was found to be deficient; and he was immediately placed on support dialogue and, eventually, 90-day performance probation. During these two probationary periods, he was provided assistance through improvement plans and completed all his improvement plan assignments. The goal was to help him remediate his deficiencies. The only change he ever implemented was switching from block to weekly lesson plans. Both his instructional delivery and the learning environment never improved. During these observations, Principal Bello and Assistant Principal Robles both observed the same repeated deficiencies, which they described in meticulous detail at the hearing. Summarizing their testimony, the issues concerning Respondent were: Pacing. Respondent spends too much time on issues and did not complete entire lesson plans. Questioning students. Respondent only uses basic, easy to answer questions; does not ask enough questions; or is dismissive of questions. Failing to properly explain concepts to students or to activate prior knowledge. Respondent fails to prompt students in order to generate interest in the subject matter and holds no conversations about the material in class. Not using challenging enough material. Respondent’s material was so basic that parents were concerned their children were getting grades they did not deserve and not learning grade- appropriate material. Principal Bello described Respondent’s instruction as “robotic” and lacking any semblance of “passion.” AWK8—Professional Practice On his SPE, Principal Bello rated Respondent as “effective” in two standards, and “unsatisfactory” in five standards. Principal Bello’s ratings were in line with the repeated deficiencies discussed above. He awarded Respondent “unsatisfactory” ratings because Respondent never remediated his deficiencies. Principal Bello credibly stands by his SPE Ratings as honest and admits to spending a great deal of time on them. In terms of his SPE professional practice points for 2015-2016, Respondent scored in the bottom (0) percentile for fifth-grade teachers at AWK8, all teachers at AWK8, fifth-grade teachers district-wide, and all teachers district-wide. When asked what Respondent would have rated himself in these seven standards, he would have given himself seven “highly effectives.” He believes Principal Bello rated him lower than he should have been rated, but could not say why. AWK8 VAM and overall SPE Rating Respondent’s State VAM score for learner progress points was 8.5 points-–the lowest possible score, for the third year in a row. He was the only one of 98 fifth-grade teachers district-wide who scored the bare minimum, putting him in the lowest (0) percentile. His overall SPE Rating for the 2014-2015 school year was “Needs Improvement.” Only 32 percent of his fifth-grade students met or exceeded their performance expectations. Respondent believes that his VAM points from AWK8 are not legitimate for a variety of reasons, none of which relate to his own shortcomings. Respondent’s excuses and the reasons not to credit those excuses are as follows: Respondent argues that his VAM cannot be counted against him because his afternoon class of fifth graders were ELL, and they spoke a variety of languages, including French, Russian, Hebrew, Portuguese, Spanish, and Turkish. His theory was that they performed poorly because of their poor grasp of the English language. For VAM scoring purposes, this excuse should not be credited because the VAM already takes into account their ELL status by comparing them only to other ELL students with identical demographics and prior test scores; and they are not expected to perform as well as non-ELL students. However, by Respondent’s own admission his afternoon ELL class was the best class he had had in ten years of teaching. He said they had emotional balance, presence of mind, and good parental engagement. He even explained how his ESOL certification assisted him in understanding how to teach them. According to him, by the end of the year, the students were at the level where they would be having conversations. Respondent also had another ESOL-certified teacher assist him for a portion of the year, which was a standard practice. Finally, ELL students, who are brand new to the country, are not calculated into the VAM because there are no prior year scores for which they can be compared “apples to apples.” Respondent himself testified that the lowest level ELL students did not get graded. This makes sense because Respondent testified that his afternoon ELL class was 31 students-–yet only 15 ELL students were factored into the data used to calculate his VAM score for 2015-2016. In sum, the grades of the lowest English language functioning students were not even held against him. Respondent next argues that the numbers of students in both his morning and afternoon classes at AWK8 exceeded class size restrictions. Respondent “believes” his morning class had 24 or so students, but only 18 after the special education students were removed. When the student data is examined, it appears that Respondent only had 15 non-ELL students factored into his VAM score. As for the afternoon ELL class, otherwise considered by him the best class he has ever had, Respondent claims there were 31 in that class. Even assuming Respondent’s numbers are accurate (and they do not seem to be, given the VAM data), these class sizes do not run afoul of class size restrictions and are commonplace at AWK8. The School District operates on averages for class size compliance and everyone teaching fifth grade at AWK8 had similar class sizes. None of those other teachers had the same problems Respondent did. Moreover, Respondent reported the alleged class size violations to the FDOE, and they did nothing about it. Respondent further argues that his morning group of students was once again a “bad” group that did not give him a “fair shot.” According to Respondent, he had a student who would sit in a garbage can and another that would tell him “F_ _k you” every day. He had behavior concerns with four to five students in the morning class. Eventually, the student who sat in the garbage can was removed from the class. Respondent then testified that these behavior issues were exacerbated by his absence from the classroom when he was performing his improvement plan activities. He now appears to be placing his behavior concerns on the administration for doing their job by trying to assist him and by remediating his deficiencies. Behavior management is integral to being a teacher. A teacher must not be allowed to escape his or her own responsibility for performance shortcomings by blaming it on the students. At every school where Respondent has taught, he has admittedly written a large number of SCMs, had behavior issues with his students, and believes he was purposely given “bad” students. The only common thread among these schools is Respondent. Nevertheless, he refuses to acknowledge that he might possibly be even a part of the problem and believes he has done nothing wrong. Respondent also blames his poor VAM on the fact that fundraising activities, book fairs, student activity days, and dances all detracted from instructional time at AWK8. This is the same excuse he used for his poor VAM at Norwood and holds no weight, since these are activities that all teachers at all schools must cope with as part of the instructional process. Respondent’s Termination by the School Board Respondent’s case was the first of its kind brought pursuant to section 1012.33(3)(b) (“3-year provision”), since this was the first time the School District had the requisite number of years’ data available. Of the thousands of teachers working for Miami-Dade County Public Schools, Respondent was part of a singular group of seven to nine teachers who fell into the three-year provision of the statute having the necessary combination of “needs improvement” or “unsatisfactory” final overall SPE Ratings. Of that handful of teachers, Respondent was the single worst. Respondent’s performance actually declined each year despite the assistance provided for and made available to him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order terminating Respondent’s employment as a teacher. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of March, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. Suite 110 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North Clearwater, Florida 33761 (eServed) Christopher J. La Piano, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board Suite 430 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 (eServed) Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board Suite 912 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132-1308 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Pam Stewart, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact During the 1977-78 school year, the Respondent, Erma Frederick, was employed as a classroom teacher in the Dade County Public School System, assigned to Buena Vista Elementary School. On October 10, 1977, a conference was scheduled between the Respondent, United Teachers of Dade, Representative, Ms. Mattie Squire and Ms. Linda E. Stuart, Principal of Buena Vista Elementary School. During the conference, Respondent was advised that based on two years of unsatisfactory evaluations (1973-74 and 1974-75) deficiencies in her teaching performance existed which, if not corrected by December 1, 1977, would affect her status as an employee in the Dade County Public School System and which, if not corrected by December 1, a complaint of incompetency would be filed seeking Respondent's dismissal. The substance of this conference was reduced to writing by letter dated October 10, 1977, and cited the following deficiencies: Failure to maintain pupil control by establishing and maintaining discipline. Failure to file instructional plans. Failure to implement lesson plans and to present materials correctly. Failure to correctly grade student papers and maintain accurate grade books. Failure to properly maintain cumulative records and to maintain attendance and other data entries on report cards. Failure to accurately take attendance. Failure to follow class schedules. Failure to maintain supervision of pupils at all times. Based on the Respondent's failure to otherwise remedy the above cited deficiencies to Petitioner's satisfaction, Petitioner suspended Respondent from her position as an instructional teacher on March 9, 1978. Respondent, although properly noticed, failed to appear at the hearing to refute the cited deficiencies relied on by Petitioner in suspending her as an instructional employee at Buena Vista Elementary School. Based thereon, and in the absence of any evidence having been offered by Respondent to refute or otherwise negate the above-cited deficiencies, they must be, and are, considered meritorious.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent's appeal of her suspension by Petitioner be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of April, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been employed by the School Board of Dade County, Florida, as a continuing contract teacher for some years. The contract between the Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade, introduced as Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, contains the terms and conditions of Respondent's employment. The contract states that the superintendent has the authority to assign or reassign the Respondent to any school within the system. The superintendent or his designee may, when deemed in the best interest of the school system, involuntarily transfer a teacher. Before a teacher is involuntarily transferred a conference shall be held with the area superintendent or his designee or appropriate division head, except where such transfers are the result of a legal order. The contract further provides for the filing of grievances by employees concerning the application or interpretation of the wages, hours, terms, and conditions of employment as defined in the contract. The contract defines a grievance as a formal allegation by an employee that there has been a violation, misinterpretation or misapplication of any of the terms and conditions of employment set forth in the contract. Respondent was involuntarily transferred from a sixth grade teaching position at Edison Park Elementary School to a first grade teaching position at Primary C Elementary School. Prior to the transfer he was afforded the opportunity of a conference with a designee of the Area Superintendent at which time he unsuccessfully challenged his transfer. The Respondent believes that the conference which was held was a sham and was not meaningful. Respondent continued to be dissatisfied with the transfer and continued to seek a solution to his problem by engaging in subsequent conversations with the Area Superintendent and others within the Dade County School System. Respondent did not follow the provisions for grievance filing contained in the contract but rather reported for duty on August 25, 1976. On or about that date, he notified his principal and Mr. Steve Moore, the Assistant Superintendent for Personnel, that he would not and did not intend to remain at his assigned position. Respondent worked on August 26, 1976, but then departed, calling in sick for the work days up to and including October 8, 1976. This period of absence constituted authorized sick leave. On October 8, 1976, Respondent advised Dr. West and other members of the school system administrative staff that he was available for assignment to another school but would not report to work at Primary C Elementary School. Up to and including the date of the hearing, Respondent has failed and refused to report for duty at his assigned work location and has in fact performed no duties as a teacher during that time. The school system administration has at no time authorized Respondent's absence from duty from October 8, 1976, to the date of the hearing.
