The Issue Whether or not the Respondent, James P. Walsworth, is guilty of misconduct in office, and/or incompetency, and/or willful neglect of duty, as set forth in s231.36(6), F.S., in that during the 1975-76 school year, the Respondent, James P. Walsworth, caused to be prepared and submitted, documentation, including but not limited to, State Board of Education forms ESE- 269 and ESE-135, which subsequently, qualified Horizon Elementary School for additional FTE funding for students classified as "gifted" in the fourth and fifth grades, when, during the 1975-76 school year, as Principal of Horizon Elementary School, the Respondent, James P. Walsworth, failed to provide and/or implement an appropriate program for those gifted students, in accordance with the "1975 District Procedures for Providing Special Education for Exceptional Students.", all as alleged in the first substantive paragraph of the complaint letter. Whether or not the Respondent, James P. Walsworth, is guilty of misconduct in office, and/or incompetency, and/or willful neglect of duty, as set forth in s231.36(6), F.S., in that during the 1975-76 school year, while the Respondent, James P. Walsworth served as Principal of Horizon Elementary School, he caused two children, to wit: Warren Moody and Johnny Knight to be placed in the Educable Mentally Handicapped (EMH) program at Horizon Elementary School, and these two children were not certified for such a program, thus violating s230.23(4)(m) Subsections 1 - 7, F.S., Rules of the State Board of Education of Florida, policies of the School Board of Broward County, Florida, and the "1975 District Procedures for Providing Special Education for Exceptional Students.", all as alleged in the second substantive paragraph of the complaint letter. Whether or not the Respondent, James P. Walsworth, is guilty of misconduct in office, and/or incompetency, and/or willful neglect of duty, as set forth in s231.36(6), F.S., in that during the 1975-76 school year, while the Respondent, James P. Walsworth, served as Principal of Horizon Elementary School, Respondent, James P. Walsworth, caused to be prepared and submitted documentation concerning the Special Learning Disability (SLD) students wherein, of the 79 students classified by the Respondent, James P. Walsworth, as (SLD), only 49 were certified; thereby violating the "1975 District Procedures for Providing Special Education for Exceptional Students" and s230.23(4)(m) Subsections 1 - 7, F.S., all as alleged in the third substantive paragraph of the complaint letter. Whether or not the Respondent, James P. Walsworth, is guilty of misconduct in office, and/or incompetency, and/or willful neglect of duty as set forth in s231.36(6), F.S., in that during the 1975-76 school year, while the Respondent, James P. Walsworth served as Principal of Horizon Elementary School, he prepared and submitted documentation concerning one child classified as emotionally disturbed, without proper certification; and after having designated child for additional FTE funding, the Respondent, James P. Walsworth then failed to provide and/or implement an appropriate program for said child in violation of the "1975 District Procedures for Providing Special Education for Exceptional Students" and s230.23(4)(m), subsections 1 - 7, F.S., all as alleged in the fourth substantive paragraph of the complaint letter.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, James P. Walsworth, became Principal of Horizon Elementary School at the time of its opening in the fall of 1973, and has remained the Principal of that school, except for the period of his suspension between August 19, 1976 and November 18, 1976. Horizon Elementary School is a part of the school system of Broward County, Florida and the Respondent, James P. Walsworth, is an employee of the School Board of Broward County, Florida. During the pendency of the Respondent's employment at Horizon Elementary School, there was in effect certain District Procedures of the School Board of Broward County, Florida, pertaining to the education of exceptional children. The first of these were procedures for 1973-74 and appears as Petitioner's Exhibit #12, admitted into evidence. The second document represents procedures for the school year 1974-75 and appears as Petitioner's Exhibit #13, admitted into evidence. The last document is for the year 1975-76 and is found in Petitioner's Exhibit #14, admitted into evidence. All the aforementioned procedures in Petitioner's Exhibits #12 - #14, were enacted by the School Board of Broward County, Florida. In the school year 1975-76, the Respondent, James P. Walsworth, requested and received funding for seven students in the fourth grade and six students in the fifth grade, he claimed to be "gifted" students for funding purposes. This request for funding was placed in the October, 1975, funding count and the February, 1976, funding count. It is the October 1975, count that establishes the right to funding. Petitioner's Exhibits #19 and #20, admitted into evidence show the funding request for those gifted students. Petitioner's Exhibit #28, admitted into evidence, shows the total amount of FTE monies received in the gifted program at Horizon Elementary School. (The initials FTE stand for Full Time Equivalence). In the year 1975-76 the six fourth grade students which had been placed in the gifted program were taught by Terence Byrnes. Mr. Byrnes had a total class of 27 students comprised of third and fourth grade students. The gifted students were placed with seven other students for purposes of reading instruction. Terence Byrnes is not certain of any particular instruction about the gifted program given by Walsworth at the commencement of the school year. He only understood that he was being designated as the gifted teacher for the fourth grade students who had been designated gifted and had FTE funding claimed in their behalf. Mr. Byrnes did not buy any special materials for those six gifted students, per se, but selected materials which he felt the average fourth grader could not do because, "they would not know how." The materials selected were taken from the media center and the curriculum for the gifted was constituted of math, science, social studies and reading. The six gifted students in his class were not segregated from the other members of the class at any time during the instruction period in a physical sense. Those students, together with the other members of their group who were identified as students of solid average to above average were given open ended assignments, by that, all students did not have to complete all parts. Mr. Byrnes indicated that the emphasis on the program for the gifted and others was independent study where the student would have to think. He further stated that these gifted students and other members of their group were under his supervision. Some of the items of study were the use of globes, maps, film strips and human anatomy. The anatomy subject included the examination of a skeleton model, placing x-rays of the human body over light fixtures as a supplement to the study of the skeleton model and examination of the bones of animals to show the action of the sockets of those bones. The students then used tracing paper to outline the bodies of their fellow students and to place the skeleton and organs of the human body in the outline tracing. Mr. Walsworth commented that this skeleton model had been bought for sixth and seventh grade students. Approximately one hour per day was spent on the gifted program. Warren Smith was the teacher of the fifth grade students who had been labeled as "gifted" and had funds requested for their program. There were seven of these students who were placed with fifteen or sixteen other students in the top reading group. The other students were indicated to be academically talented. The gifted students were not physically separated from the other students. The type of assignments for the gifted and academically talented were open ended assignments and materials provided were materials provided for the gifted and academically talented. Mr. Smith remembers the instructions from Mr. Walsworth at the beginning of the school year 1975-76 as being, "to provide enrichment materials for the gifted," but Mr. Walsworth did not indicate what that program would consist of. The fifth grade "gifted" students read certain stories and wrote sequels to those stories. Some of the members produced a play and others wrote scripts and productions for television. The persons involved in the reading and writing assignments were "gifted" students; however, it was not clear what the involvement of the academically talented students were in this program. In addition, there was a clay and rock model in the curriculum area of a social studies unit on Western Movement and this program was an appropriate program for "gifted" students. Again it is not clear whether the "gifted" students alone worked on the Western Movement project, as opposed to the" gifted" and academically talented. During the school year 1975-76, Virginia Barker, the art teacher at Horizon Elementary School taught certain fourth and fifth grade students to weave on special looms, to do needlepoint on special canvas and string art, which she felt to be above the level of children in these grades. This work was done as independent study before and after school. Mrs. Barker indicated that these students had been identified to her as being gifted students, but her testimony was unclear on the question of whether those persons involved in this independent study would include children who were talented, but not necessarily identified and funded as "gifted" students. During the school year 1975-76 the students Warren Moody and Johnny Knight were placed and attended a program for Educable Mentally Handicapped (EMH) at Horizon Elementary School. Information on the child, Warren Moody, may be found in Petitioner's Exhibit #17 and Respondent's Exhibit #3, both admitted into evidence. Information on the child, Johnny Knight, may be found in Petitioner's Exhibit #16 and Respondent's Exhibit #5, both admitted into evidence. On October 1, 1973, the student, Warren Moody was given certain testing and a psychological report was rendered by Dr. Halcyon H. Carroll. The results of this testing and the conclusions of that examiner may be found in Petitioner's Exhibit #17 admitted into evidence. Dr. Carroll found that Moody did not qualify for a program for the Educable Mentally Handicapped (EMH). This conclusion and the remainder of the facts in that report are accepted as being the determination reached by Dr. Carroll. Subsequent to Dr. Carroll's report, a decision was made to place Warren Moody in the (EMH) program at Horizon Elementary. This decision was based upon a committee or staffing conference held between the teachers and school psychologist, Dr. Robert Ginsberg, conducted in the fall of 1973. Dr. Robert Ginsberg was the psychologist assigned to the Horizon Elementary School. Dr. Ginsberg made his decision notwithstanding the determination of Dr. Carroll. Dr. Ginsberg's decision was made in view of the comments of the teacher that the student was not performing at a reasonable level and in view of his own observations of the student; however, Dr. Ginsberg did not conduct any further testing on the student beyond the testing rendered by Dr. Carroll. The committee report and other matters pertaining to the October, 1973, staffing at Horizon Elementary School, at which time Warren Moody was placed, are unavailable. The record is not clear on the question of whether or not Dr. Ginsberg rendered a written psychological report in addition to the committee findings on the student Warren Moody, who was staffed in the fall of 1973. After Warren Moody was placed in the EMH program in the fall of 1973, he continued in the program through the end of the school year 1975-76. At all times his participation was in the Horizon Elementary School. In the spring of 1976, Queen M. Sampson, a school psychologist for the Broward County School System tested Moody and rendered a psychological report. Again this report is a part of Petitioner's Exhibit #17, admitted into evidence. In the report, Queen Sampson indicated that Warren Moody did not qualify for (EMH) in terms of testing and recommended return of the student to the regular classroom. On June 1, 1976, the student assessment and review committee met at Horizon Elementary School and concluded that the student should be returned to regular class. This report was entered at the end of the 1975-76 school year, and is part of Petitioner's Exhibit #17. In the school year 1972-73, the student, Johnny Knight, had been attending Royal Palm Elementary School. While attending that school certain tests were made of the student's ability to determine appropriate academic placement. Subsequent to the tests a report was rendered under the signature of Dr. Robert Ginsberg and co-signed by Dr. James R. Fisher, the Director of Psychological Services, in Broward County, Florida. The conclusion of Dr. Ginsberg was that the student did not qualify for (EMH) placement at that time, but did require much retraining and remedial help in all perceptual areas. A copy of this written report may be found in Petitioner's Exhibit #16 and the report is accepted as being an accurate depiction of Dr. Ginsberg's findings. The student was transferred to Horizon Elementary in the fall of 1973, for the school year 1973-74. After discussion with the teachers at the fall staffing for placement of students, determining that the student was not working well in the normal class setting, observing the student and reviewing the report of April, 1973, Dr. Ginsberg concluded that the student should be placed in (EMH). No written psychological report was rendered and no further tests were conducted by Dr. Ginsberg in the fall staffing committee conference. The student Johnny Knight remained in the program from the school year 1973-74 through the school year 1975-76, at which time, on June 8, 1976, per the re-evaluation committee's recommendation, he was removed from the (EMH) program. The placement of the students, Warren Moody and Johnny Knight, was for a period of three years from the fall of 1973 and was not in violation of any statutes, rules or procedures. The term, three years, means three school years. Acting on a complaint filed by John Georgacopoulos, school guidance counselor for Horizon Elementary School in the years 1974-75 and 1975-76, the Superintendent of Schools of the School Board of Broward County, Florida, ordered an audit of the Horizon Elementary records. One of the aspects of the audit was to examine certain folders on the specific Learning Disability students who were enrolled in the year 1975-76. These folders were folders that were found in the main office of the school. The audit report which is Petitioner's Exhibit #1, admitted into evidence, in part, states that 79 folders were examined in the course of the audit. In addition there was testimony by one of the auditors, that a computer print-out contained the names of those students that were found in the Specific Learning Disability program (SLD). Apparently the auditor was referring to that computer print-out which is Petitioner's Exhibit #8, admitted into evidence. That exhibit shows a color code for certain categories and (SLD) is shown in yellow. The number of (SLD) students in the year 1975-76 was determined by the auditors on the basis of the examination of the file folders in the main office and the computer print-out and this gave them the number 79. When the charge was made, it alleged 74 students were in the (SLD) program in the 1975-76 school year, but was subsequently amended during the course of the hearing to reflect the number 79, which appeared in the audit report. In fact, FTE funding in the (SLD) program of Horizon Elementary was claimed for 71 students in the October 27 - 31, 1975, count and for 74 students in the February 23 - 27, 1976, count as reflected in Petitioner's Exhibit #19, admitted into evidence. Therefore, funding would have been received for 71 students in October, 1975, in the (SLD) program. Moreover, testimony established that it was this October count which set up the process for the actual receipt of funds for such program. Of the 79 students claimed to be enrolled in the 1975-76 school year, in the category (SLD), 47 of those students whose files were examined were felt to be properly certified. Certification to the audit members meant that a school psychologist had indicated the propriety of placing that student in the (SLD) program in years prior to 1975-76, and after 1975-76 that a form known as B-1 had to be signed by the Director of Exceptional Student Education or his designee to have certification. This word certified comes from the audit summary table found in the audit, Petitioner's Exhibit #1. The original charge claimed 47 students of the (SLD) program were certified. This number was amended to read 49 as certified, such amendment being made in the course of the hearing. In addition to the audit report, there was prepared a tally sheet. This tally sheet was the product of the three auditors and pertained to the (SLD) students. The tally sheet is Petitioner's Exhibit #15, admitted into evidence. It shows 79 names, which are the names of the file folders examined in the audit. It has certain columns pertaining to items being sought, one of which columns is the aforementioned certification. Looking at this exhibit it is determined that there are 30 names of students, whom the auditors did not locate data for on the column labeled certification. Those 30 names are found in a separate part of Petitioner's Exhibit #15, In determining what data existed, the auditors had asked the Respondent to produce his files, they had looked at files in the main office and in the Specific Learning Disability room, and at the Diagnostic Center for the Exceptional Education Program in Broward County. Their examination of the Diagnostic Center files was only on a random basis. They had also spoken to the (SLD) teachers at Horizon Elementary in a general way, but not as to the specific names of students that they could not find data for. The auditors did not look in the cumulative folders, which were found with the homeroom teachers of the 30 (SLD) students. No document was offered which shows which if any of the 79 students named on the tally sheet were part of the 71 students for whom FTE funding in the (SLD) program was claimed for in the October 27 - 31, 1975, request, nor was such documentation shown for which if any of the 79 students on the tally sheet were claimed as part of the 74 students who were involved in the FTE funding count of February 23 - 27, 1976. Therefore, it is not known specifically which of the students were having funding claimed for them in October, 1975 and February, 1976. There was a great deal of testimony in the case concerning the referral process, testing, psychological evaluation, and staffing of those students in the (SLD) program at Horizon Elementary School. This discussion involved allegations and counter allegations about the conduct of the prescribed process, as to the compliance with procedures and the quality of that compliance, and the disposition of the evidence showing qualification of the (SLD) students for such a program, once placement had been made and funding requested. Essentially, the Petitioner was trying to establish, through its witnesses, that procedures were not followed in placing (SLD) students for the years 1973-74 through 1975-76 either in fact or in the quality of compliance. The Respondent, through its witnesses, countered that compliance had been achieved and that the placement of those students in the (SLD) program was correct. Within this testimony, there are claims on both sides that files either did not exist or certain data in those files had been removed. Some evidence which was offered to establish that testing was done on those 30 students whose names appear on Petitioner's Exhibit #15, will be found in Respondent's Exhibit #18 - #22, admitted into evidence. These Respondent's exhibits show materials taken from the files of the named students and compilation of tests scores kept by the (SLD) teachers, Bonnie Kirkham and Pat Sanders. These items were not seen by the audit team. Some information was in the possession of the (SLD) teachers based on notes of test scores that were take-offs of the original test booklets and documents, with the exception of one file which was mistakenly kept in the (SLD) teachers room, and the balance of the data was taken from the cumulative folders of the students, that had been kept in the homeroom teachers' rooms, which were not examined by the auditors. Other data may be found in Petitioner's Exhibits 36 - 38 which are psychological reports written by Dr. James R. Fisher, a school psychologist with the Broward County School System. These reports pertain to certain of the 30 students whom he recommended to be returned to regular class, and some of which were left in the (SLD) program from January, 1976 through the end of the school year to avoid adjustment problems. Although the psychological reports are dated September, 1975, these reports were not sent to Horizon Elementary School until January, 1976. In addition the attorney for the Petitioner after reviewing the evidence, concedes that the children, Jeanine O'Hara, Wayne Martin, Suzanne Cain, Karen Treese, Alderto Guzman, Laura Natzke and Kieth Franklin were tested and found eligible for placement in (SLD). After entertaining considerable testimony on the procedures and the whereabouts of certain data within the files of the 30 (SLD) students under discussion, and after reviewing the evidence offered to show the existence of data about the students, the undersigned is unable to conclude what the actual facts are, and for that reason it has not been shown that the procedures for placement and claiming funding were followed or not. However, there is strong evidence to show that the procedures were followed for placing the thirty (SLD) students, as shown by Respondent's Exhibits #18 - #22. On October 27, 1975, the student Anthony Buffone was tested by a school psychologist in the Broward County School System. This psychologist was Bob Lieberman, and Mr. Lieberman rendered a written psychological report, which indicated that Anthony Buffone should be placed in a program for Emotionally Disturbed children. A copy of this report may be found in Petitioner's Exhibit #18, admitted into evidence. This child was staffed and proper placement effected, in accordance with the existing law and procedures. The activity of placement transpired in the fall of 1975. The child was attending Horizon Elementary School in the school year 1975-76. The program provided for Anthony Buffone in that school year was to have him attend regular class part of the day and to spend approximately two hours a day with John Georgacopoulos, the school guidance counselor. Georgacopoulos was to help Anthony Buffone with academics, to assist in behavioral modification and to improve the student's self concept. This program was provided as needed, and this need turned out to be approximately two hours a day. In addition, the Respondent worked with the student in terms of counseling. The student spent some time in the (SLD) program but because of the disruptive nature of his conduct, was removed from that program. His attendance in (SLD) was from the beginning of January, 1976 through the spring, 1976. He was removed from the (SLD) program at the request of the (SLD) teacher. Mr. Georgacopoulos the instructor, had a BA Degree in psychology from the University of Oklahoma and a Master's Degree in Institutional Guidance and Counseling from Oklahoma City University. In addition Mr. Georgacopoulos had been approved by the Broward County School Board to do psychometric testing. Prior to coming to the Broward County School System in 1969, he had done work at the Wagon Wheel School in Oklahoma, in the field of guidance and counseling. He was not a certified psychologist, certified with the State of Florida. The Respondent recognized that the student Anthony Buffone, would have been better placed at the Castle Hill School which had a more comprehensive program for the Emotionally Disturbed, but the mother of the child did not wish this placement since it would work a hardship in transporting the child to the school, and would place the child in a location that was inconvenient to the parent.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Respondent, James P. Walsworth, be relieved of further responsibility in answering to these charges and that back pay and other benefits that he may be entitled to, be forthcoming. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of February, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: John B. Di Chiara, Esquire Suite 1500, One Financial Plaza Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33302 Emerson Allsworth, Esquire 1177 S.E. Third Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Mr. James E. Maurer Superintendent of Schools The School Board of Broward County Administration Offices 1320 S.W. Fourth Street Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33312
The Issue The issues in these cases are whether Petitioner, Osceola County School Board (School Board or Petitioner), has just cause to terminate Respondents Mona Sagar and Kristie Gilmore from their employment contracts.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is duly constituted and charged with the responsibility and authority to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Osceola County, Florida. Art. IX, Fla. Const.; ch. 1012, Fla. Stat. The School Board has the authority to discipline employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. Sagar and Ms. Gilmore were employed by the School District. Ms. Sagar has been in the education field for years. She attended “teachers college” in Trinidad and taught school there for ten years. She was hired as a paraprofessional (para) by the School District in 2011. Ms. Sagar was assigned to an autistic classroom at Discovery Intermediate School (Discovery) and later switched to an “intellectually disabled mild” (InD mild) classroom. She has not been subject to any prior disciplinary action. At the start of the 2013-2014 school year, Ms. Sagar was the para assigned to the “intellectually disabled severe” (InD severe) class. The InD severe class had a teacher and two paras,7/ and was composed of children who were mainly confined to wheelchairs or who needed special assistance to walk. Ms. Sagar completed the crisis prevention intervention (CPI) class, a class that instructs personnel on how to physically and verbally restrain, redirect, and prompt a child who is misbehaving. Ms. Gilmore became a para in exceptional student education (ESE) in 2005. She arrived at Discovery in August 2005. Ms. Gilmore worked with students with varying educational needs including: emotional behavior disorder (EBD); autism; InD mild; intellectually disabled moderate (InD moderate); intellectually disabled profound (InD profound); and regular educational students.8/ Ms. Gilmore had completed the CPI training twice before, but she was not re-certified at the start of the 2013-2014 school year. She has not been subject to any prior disciplinary action. Discovery had six self-contained ESE classrooms for the 2013-2014 school year. There were two autistic classrooms, one InD mild classroom, one InD moderate classroom, one InD severe classroom, and one EBD classroom. All six classrooms are located on the first floor of one of Discovery’s buildings, in close proximity to the office of the dean of students. Student safety is of paramount concern for School District employees. As such, every EBD classroom has a land-line telephone and a walkie-talkie for use to request assistance, to notify the appropriate office of a student’s unscheduled exit from the classroom and to provide other information. The telephone is primarily a school-based phone that has its own five-digit internal extension number.9/ In the event a walkie-talkie is not available, a teacher or para may use the telephone to communicate with other school personnel. The walkie-talkies are limited to the self-contained classrooms, guidance counselors, deans, school resource officer, administrators, principal’s secretary, academic coaches, athletic coaches, and maintenance staff. The walkie-talkies are on one channel or frequency, and when used, everyone who has a walkie- talkie can hear the conversation. Discipline referrals may be written by any adult at Discovery for any infraction in the student code of conduct. The referral form reflects the student’s name, identification number, the classroom, school, grade level, date of birth, race, sex, homeroom teacher, incident date and time, location of the incident, the problem or explanation of the problem, the action taken by the adult prior to the referral, the signature of the referring adult, and the date signed. The bottom of the referral form was for “administrative use only,” and reflects what if any action was taken. Ms. Gilmore, as the para in the EBD self- contained classroom, authored numerous discipline referrals for student J.G. During the 2013 summer, Ms. Chowdhary was notified that she would be re-assigned to Discovery’s EBD self-contained classroom for the 2013-2014 school year. Ms. Chowdhary did not want this assignment; however, Ms. Chowdhary contacted Ms. Gilmore and asked if she (Ms. Gilmore) would consent to be Ms. Chowdhary’s para in her EBD self-contained classroom. This request was based on their positive working relationship during the 2012-2013 school year in an autistic classroom. Ms. Gilmore agreed, the school administration concurred, and Ms. Gilmore was assigned to Ms. Chowdhary’s EBD self-contained classroom. At the beginning of the 2013-2014 school year there were ten male students in Ms. Chowdhary’s EBD self-contained classroom. This classroom had a walkie-talkie and telephone. Each student had an individual educational plan (IEP), a different EBD, and a medical condition. On the first day of school, each student was given a welcome packet that contained an emergency contact sheet and a health care report form. The parents are requested (but not required) to complete as much of the information as they wish, and return it to the classroom. Ms. Gilmore read the responses “thoroughly” regarding the medical conditions of students J.G. and J.C., as provided by their respective parents or guardians. In early December 2013, Ms. Gilmore was re-assigned to an InD moderate classroom as an accommodation for her pregnancy. Ms. Chowdhary requested a male para to replace Ms. Gilmore. Based on the support staff already engaged by Discovery, Ms. Sagar was transferred to work in Ms. Chowdhary’s self- contained classroom. Ms. Sagar observed and worked with Ms. Gilmore on two separate days for several hours prior to the actual transfer in mid-December. Approximately two weeks before the Christmas break, a female student, J.T., arrived in the EBD self-contained classroom. J.T. was taller and heavier than either Ms. Chowdhary or Ms. Sagar. J.T.’s language was loud and predominantly profanity-laced. J.T. did not complete her classroom assignments, and she did not follow the classroom rules regarding the use of her cellphone.10/ On January 9, 2014, Ms. Gilmore learned that Ms. Chowdhary was absent from school. Ms. Gilmore volunteered to be the substitute teacher in Ms. Chowdhary’s classroom.11/ In the early afternoon of January 9, two male students engaged in a physical altercation (Altercation No. 1) in the EBD self-contained classroom. J.T. took out her cellphone and recorded Altercation No. 1 (Petitioner’s Exhibit 6, Respondents’ Exhibit 21). That recording showed one student, J.G., standing over and taunting another student, J.C. J.G. called J.C. a “taco.” J.C. responded that J.G. should call J.C. “Taco Bell,” and added that J.G. was the dark meat in his taco. J.G. took J.C.’s remark to be a racist comment. J.C.12/ was crumpled on the floor behind a desk where J.G. grabbed J.C. by his warm-up jacket collar/shirt. J.G. pulled J.C. up by the collar/shirt and pushed J.C. into a chair at a computer cubby and small space near a wall. J.G. kept one hand on J.C. while pinning J.C. to the small space. J.G. continued to taunt J.C. and is heard to say: Next comment I’m gonna stomp on your [J.C.’s] heart, and I know you got a condition to where I stomp on it, you dead, and I don’t give a f . So you can’t keep making a racist joke. Ms. Gilmore and Ms. Sagar were both present and observed Altercation No. 1. Ms. Gilmore was sitting at the teacher’s desk in the front of the room when Altercation No. 1 started. When J.G. “dumped [J.C.] out of the chair,” [to start the altercation], [Ms. Gilmore] told J.G. to “knock it off,” and when J.G. had J.C. on the floor, she [Ms. Gilmore] “told him to quit.” Ms. Gilmore testified that she didn’t call for help because “It was over.” Her testimony is not credible because the recording shows that J.G. then pulled J.C. up to a standing position, and continued to taunt him. Further, Respondents’ Exhibit 16 is a discipline referral that Ms. Gilmore authored on January 9, the day of the altercations. Ms. Gilmore documented in this discipline referral the following “PROBLEM – EXPLAIN:” During Science class, 5th period, [J.G.] was talking about how he fights and got into an altercation with another student. Words were exchanged and [J.G.] didn’t like what the student [J.C.] said so he [J.G.] flipped him [J.C.] out of his chair, kicked him [J.C.] a couple times and threatened to kill the other student [J.C.] by stomping on his [J.C.’s] heart. Ms. Sagar was seated at a desk assisting another student, J.M., when Altercation No. 1 started. Ms. Sagar did not hear any loud shouting or threats at the beginning of Altercation No. 1, but it escalated to the point where she was “alarmed.” Ms. Sagar admitted that she got up to leave the room, then decided not to do so, telling herself: “I shouldn’t leave the class at this time.” The reason she did not leave the classroom was because the altercation “wasn’t settled like down, down, down. It still had like the talking and everybody, so I turned around and came back to my seat.” Ms. Sagar did not move to intervene or call for help. Neither Ms. Gilmore nor Ms. Sagar moved to intervene in Altercation No. 1, and neither used the walkie-talkie or the telephone to call for assistance or to alert the administration of the volatile situation. A few minutes later another altercation (Altercation No. 2) took place in the EBD self-contained classroom. J.T. also recorded Altercation No. 2 (Petitioner’s Exhibit 8) on her cellphone. J.G. was again taunting J.C. J.G. dared J.C. to “take a swing” at J.G. J.C. did not swing at J.G. J.G. proceeded to talk to the class about J.C. and other classmates. J.C. then expressed his desire to die because his life “sucks,” his father was dead, and his step-father didn’t love him. J.C. violently kicked/pushed a chair several feet away from himself, began to cry, stated that he’d be “happy if you [J.G.] kill me,” violently overturned a desk, and walked out of the EBD self- contained classroom. Again, Ms. Gilmore and Ms. Sagar were present in the EBD self-contained classroom, and observed Altercation No. 2. During Altercation No. 2, Ms. Gilmore was at the front of the class at the teacher’s desk. Ms. Gilmore confirmed that J.C. “flipped a desk and walked out of class.” Ms. Gilmore testified she “opened the door, . . . and put myself at the doorway to get the rest of the kids out of the class if I had to get them out.” Ms. Gilmore is briefly partially seen in the recording, and she is heard asking J.C. to pick up the desk before he left the classroom. J.C. did not pick up the desk. The recording shows Ms. Sagar seated at a work table with J.M. At one point Ms. Sagar rises from her seat, walks to a counter with a microwave, stays at the counter for a short time, returns to her seat, and then eats something while Altercation No. 2 is on-going. Neither Ms. Gilmore nor Ms. Sagar used the walkie- talkie or telephone to obtain assistance or alert the administration of the continuing volatile situation. J.C. went to the dean of students (Ms. Rice’s) office after he walked out of the EBD self-contained classroom. Once there, he screamed at Ms. Rice about the events that had just taken place in his classroom. Ms. Rice observed J.C. to be distraught and angry. Based on J.C.’s comments, Ms. Rice understood that a recording of the classroom events was made. Ms. Rice requested the principal to obtain the recording. Between when J.C. left the EBD self-contained classroom and when the principal arrived at the EBD self-contained classroom to retrieve the recording, yet another altercation, Altercation No. 3, occurred. J.T. started recording Altercation No. 3 (Petitioner’s Exhibit 10) on her cellphone. Student W.F. held a chair over his head and threatened to throw it at another student, D.S. The other students in the classroom can be heard urging W.F. to throw it, but W.F. did not. J.G. can be seen standing behind D.S., and heard to say he’ll “make sure it hit[s] you [D.S.].” When it became apparent that W.F. was not going to throw the chair, J.T. handed her phone to W.F., who continued to record the action, and J.T. threw the chair. J.T. testified that she did not intend to hurt D.S., but she was not “play acting.” Ms. Gilmore testified she did not remember much of Altercation No. 3. She thought she might have been writing a referral at her desk, and did not call for help because the altercation was over so quickly. Again, Ms. Gilmore and Ms. Sagar were present in the classroom, observed Altercation No. 3, and did nothing to radio or call for assistance or alert the administration of the volatile situation. There is no credible evidence that any of the altercations were pretend fights, or that they were staged for the benefit of the other students. Ms. Gilmore’s contention, that the altercations were staged, is not credible. This EBD self-contained classroom is a challenging class, one that should be closely monitored and adequately staffed to ensure learning can occur, and safety maintained. Respondents never attempted to gain control of the classroom or students. They never called for help or removed the other students from the area. Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of evidence that Petitioner has just cause to terminate the employment of Ms. Gilmore and Ms. Sagar.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Osceola County School Board, enter a final order finding that just cause exists for terminating the employment of Ms. Sagar and Ms. Gilmore. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of June, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of June, 2015.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Laverne Reaves, has been employed as a teacher by the Petitioner since the 1966-67 school year and has been a junior high English language arts teacher since the 1971- 72 school year. For the 1982-83 school year and the subsequent years, except for a period of maternity leave, Respondent was employed as an English language arts teacher at Highland Oaks Junior High School (Highland Oaks). Prior to Respondent's assignment to Highland Oaks, her yearly evaluations indicated acceptable performance. In Fall, 1982, the Dade County School Board initiated a pilot program known as the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS). Highland Oaks was one of the schools selected for the pilot program. During the time she was at Highland Oaks, beginning with the 1982-83 school year, Respondent failed to demonstrate acceptable teaching in every classroom observation and in every language arts assignment. After an absence due to a back injury, Respondent reported to Highland Oaks at the end of September or at the beginning of October, 1982, after the beginning of the school years. Respondent missed the teacher orientation session because of her injury. When Respondent arrived at Highland Oaks, Ms. Ruskin, the English language arts department head met with her, as with any new teacher, to orient her to the textbooks to be used at each level, course outlines, basic curriculum, and the teacher manuals. Parents of the students began registering complaints the second day Respondent taught at Highland Oaks, and continued to complain on a regular basis. One of the major complaints was that the children were being taught at a level beneath their ability. These were Level III students (average-above average ability) who were being taught as Level II students (below average ability). Due to a scheduling error, Respondent believed that one class of Level III student was Level II. The complaints came not only from the class in which the administrative scheduling error was made, but also from other classes. The error was soon corrected. The parents also complained about Respondent's preparation for the classes and her knowledge and ability to teach. In addition to not teaching on the level of the students; she was assigning them book reports that were at a very elementary level. She was using textbooks that were far below their level. Her language was not appropriate. She assigned work to the class but did not explain it. The parents also complained that Respondent's homework assignments were not meaningful and that when she gave homework, she did not collect it, grade it, return it, or use it as part of the instruction. She wasted a lot of class time going off on tangents. The parents also complained that Respondent lacked control of the classroom and that she did not maintain appropriate relations with the parents. They complained that she called the students names, such as "stupid" and "ignorant," and constantly told the children to "shut up." She was hostile and aggressive and sometimes embarrassed and ridiculed students. The parents stated that Respondent threatened the students if they complained to their parents. The parents wanted to have their children removed from Respondent's class. The children did not want to go to her class. The parents felt that the situation was potentially dangerous as Respondent ignored dangerous situations. Because of the parental complaints, Assistant Principal Sarah Nelson had a conference with Respondent on October 8, 1982. Ms. Ruskin met with Respondent on October 12, 1982, in an effort to assist Respondent in the problems she was having in discipline, assigning homework, and general curriculum problems. Ms. Ruskin provided additional materials to Respondent in an effort to help her. These included books, tests, balanced curriculum, classroom materials, semester course outlines, SAT outlines, and publications about writing, course objectives for advanced level students, and suggested activities for lower level students. Other teachers in the department offered help, as well. Although Ms. Ruskin indicated that she was available to help in any way, Respondent never came to her for assistance. Respondent was officially observed in her seventh grade English Level II class on October 13, 1982, by Ms. Nelson. Respondent was rated overall unacceptable, and specifically, unacceptable in preparation and planning and techniques of instruction. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because the classroom activities did not reflect evidence of effective instructional planning and Respondent had not turned in lesson plans on a regular basis, as required. The objectives were too general and the homework was not specific enough. The expectations for Level III students were not higher than for Level II students. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she failed to adapt materials and methods to the interests, needs and abilities of her students, e.g., Level II versus Level III students, and she did not use instructional strategies for teaching the subject matter to the different levels. Her level of questioning was not done in enough depth. Her lesson lacked closure, i.e., review, recap. She failed to explain words which needed explanation. Spelling and vocabulary were to be done on a weekly basis, and yet, Respondent had only given one spelling test since the beginning of school. The homework did not have any meaningful value and the students who did the homework were not rewarded by having it collected. Students who did not do the homework were not penalized in any way. Although classroom management was rated acceptable; Mrs. Nelson was concerned that it took Respondent 20 minutes out of a 50-minute period to have the class begin working. There was too much movement in the room, which distracted students who were trying to read. Mrs. Nelson recommended that Respondent establish and enforce classroom rules. Mrs. Nelson further recommended that Respondent clearly state her objectives in the next week's lesson plans and that those objectives be differentiated for the two levels taught. Mrs. Nelson discussed the deficiencies in Respondent's lesson plans with her approximately a dozen times. Mrs. Nelson also offered to make sure that Respondent had the proper books and materials and that if she needed any additional help, she would be happy to help her and indicated that Ms. Ruskin would also be able to assist. Respondent was next formally observed on November 9, 1982, by Dr. Mildred Augenstein, principal, in her seventh grade Level III class. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter, classroom management; and techniques of instruction. Based on the observation of October 13, 1982, and her own observation, Dr. Augenstein established a written prescription to help Respondent remedy her problems. Although Respondent was rated acceptable in preparation and planning at the November 5, 1982, observation, Dr. Augenstein made specific recommendations as to preparation and planning because of the unacceptable ratings on October 13, 1982. These included turning in lesson plans weekly to Mrs. Nelson. They were to be done in depth, separately for Level II and Level III classes. They were to contain specific components and were to reference the Balanced Curriculum, a School Board rule on course objectives. The requested actions were to be completed by December 3, 1982. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she made errors in subject matter, e.g., inaccurate definition of science fiction. She read off words for a spelling test without giving the students a sentence in which they could hear the words. This confused the children. Dr. Augenstein prescribed required actions for remediation and recommended resources to which Respondent could turn for help in upgrading her preparation in English language arts. These included specific exercises in the TADS prescription manual dealing with knowledge of the subject matter, to be completed by December 8, 1982. Respondent was also instructed to contact the Teacher Education Center (TEC) to identify any course offerings in the area of language arts by December 15, 1982. Respondent was to visit other language arts classrooms in order to observe the different levels of instruction prior to December 15, 1982. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because the students spoke at will without raising hands. There was a constant undercurrent of conversation, and Respondent kept "shushing" them as a whole group without dealing with the specific behavior of individuals and making corrections. Respondent did not begin the class promptly. Dr. Augenstein prescribed required actions for remediation and recommended resources to which Respondent could turn for help in classroom management. These included beginning classes promptly and establishing a set of simple class rules and following through on them by December 15, 1982. Respondent was directed to investigate a course on assertive discipline or teacher effectiveness training and to enroll in a TEC course in classroom management by March, 1983. Respondent was directed to review the faculty handbook which contained the rules and regulations of the school and was asked to work with the assistant principal, Mr. Fontana, to set up a set of classroom rules. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because she failed to employ techniques which provided stimulating, varied and productive learning experiences for the students. Her lesson was not sequenced properly in that no background was given and there was no follow-through at the end as to what had been accomplished. When the students tried to ask questions for clarification, Respondent failed to answer them. The students were very confused. Respondent failed to anticipate the problems that the students would have in the lesson. Dr. Augenstein prescribed required actions for remediation and recommended resources to which Respondent could turn for help in improving her techniques of instruction. These included the TADS manual exercise on questioning skills, verbal interaction, effective teaching strategies, and instruction sequence; to be completed by January 15, 1983. Respondent needed to learn how to ask questions which led the students into more critical thinking and analytical skills, and not simply ask low level recall questions. Respondent was to demonstrate at least one new teaching approach by January 15, 1983. Parent complaints continued and culminated in a meeting on November 23, 1982, between a group of 19 parents and the principal. The principal held a meeting with Respondent on November 29, 1982, to discuss those complaints. Thereafter, the complaints continued and were far in excess of any that the principal had ever received about any other teacher. On December 13, 1982, the principal directed a memorandum to Respondent regarding her failure to comply with provisions of the previous prescription. Respondent had failed to turn in lesson plans as directed and her plans still did not differentiate between Level II and Level III. Children were given simple spelling words, e.g., leg, heat, without being given the purpose for their study. This confused the students as to why they were being made to learn easy words. The students were given a list of adverbs to use in a sentence and the words were not all adverbs. Parent complaints continued. One complaint concerned a disturbance in Respondent's classroom. Rather than dealing with it appropriately, Respondent stated that the two students who were involved should hang themselves. Parents tended to view Respondent as belligerent, abusive, and non-responsive to the academic and emotional needs of the students. On December 14, 1982, Respondent was released from classes to observe other language arts classrooms and to obtain direct assistance from the department head who was also released for the afternoon. Respondent was next formally observed in a seventh grade class on January 6, 1983, by Dr. Augenstein. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction, assessment techniques, and teacher-student relationships. Respondent still had not completed her previous prescription. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because her lesson plans were not realistic or appropriate and were not followed through. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she used a sentence that lacked a verb, i.e., "what hour you went to bed last night?" She also gave a spelling test of homonyms, but in some of the sentences, she used two of the homonyms, and the students were confused as to which form they were supposed to spell, e.g., "I want to go there too." While Respondent was rated acceptable in classroom management, that category was minimally acceptable. There was still an undercurrent of whispering and very few students were raising their hands before speaking out. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she had difficulty in sequencing the material, explaining and clarifying it. There was no connection made to what the students had previously learned. Respondent was not able to make clear to the students what an inference was. She never went beyond the textbook definition. She did not relate the term to the students' lives. The homework assignment was given very hurriedly and was vague. The students were unsure of what they were supposed to do. Respondent was rated unacceptable in assessment techniques because there was no evidence that student compositions were being written, collected, evaluated, and redone. That is a requirement of the Balanced Curriculum. When Respondent returned some papers to the students to look at "for a minute," she did not give them time to assess their progress. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in teacher-student relationships because when a student asked a question, Respondent made no response. The teacher-student interchanges were very cold and condensed, and there was much uneasiness. The teaching climate was hostile, punitive, or retaliatory. Since Respondent had not yet completed the previous prescription, she was directed to continue working on it. On or about January 11, 1983, Dr. Augenstein gave Respondent a list of TEC courses which would be helpful to Respondent in the areas in which she needed remediation. Parent complaints continued. On or about January 19, 1983, a parent complained that the work in her child's Level III class was too elementary. Upon review, Dr. Augenstein concurred. Respondent's class schedule was changed at the end of the first semester in order to give her an opportunity to perform acceptably with students of a lower level and to eliminate some of the parental pressure. It was thought that perhaps she was most familiar with that type of student from her pervious school and that would allow her more time to complete her prescriptive activities. Respondent was next formally observed in her seventh grade Level II class by Dr. Augenstein on February 8, 1983. She was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she mispronounced words, e.g., denouement, architecture. Although "denouement" had been previously pronounced correctly in a filmstrip, Respondent mispronounced it. "Architecture" was pronounced "arch-chi-tek-chur" (as in church) in a lesson dealing with "ch" being used as a "K" sound (as in chaos). This confused the students in the major point of the lesson. Classroom management was rated unacceptable because after the lunch break, the students did not quiet down until the principal came back into the classroom. Although Respondent was not formally observed during the next period, the principal informally noted the noise coming from Respondent's classroom while she was observing the teacher in the next room. That teacher indicated that Respondent's classes were always that noisy. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she did not clarify or answer student's questions to a degree that was correct or satisfying to the students. She did not encourage and structure student participation. The lesson did not come to an end other than by the ringing of the bell, i.e., no closure. In spite of the fact that Respondent was teaching an entirely different group of students, the problems were a continuation of those seen in the prior observations. Respondent was directed to continue the prescriptive activities from November, 1982. As of the date of this observation, Respondent had not fulfilled her previous prescription. She had not demonstrated the new teaching technique to either Mrs. Nelson or Dr. Augenstein. Respondent was next formally observed in her seventh grade Level II class by Mrs. Nelson on February 17, 1983. She was rated unacceptable in classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because the students were noisy and she had a great deal of difficulty getting them settled. There was an undercurrent of noise throughout the whole class period. One student who was blowing bubbles was never reprimanded. Another student continued to get up and down out of her seat. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because there was no focal point to the lesson. Nothing was emphasized. The main points could have been reinforced on the chalkboard or by the use of some other media, e.g., overhead projector, supplementary materials, to better helped those students who are visual rather than auditory learners. Although Respondent was rated acceptable in assessment techniques, she still did not collect the homework after asking the students how many had it. Only five students had the homework and there was no reinforcement for them. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in teacher-student relationships because some students monopolized the discussion while others never participated and were completely off task. No encouragement was given to those students who did not participate. However, due to a technical error in checking the boxes on the observation form, Respondent should have been given credit for satisfactory teacher-student relationships. This technical error would not remove Respondent from prescription. Rather than writing a new prescription for Respondent, Mrs. Nelson reviewed and discussed the prescription of November 24, 1982, with her. She did this because she felt as though that that prescription was a very good one and it had not been completed by Respondent. On February 23, 1983, a conference-for-the record was held with Respondent to discuss the problems that Respondent had been having, the help that had been given to her, the status of the remediation efforts, and to clarify decisions related to employment recommendations. Respondent was next formally observed in her seventh grade Level II class on March 2, 1983, by Dr. Augenstein and by an outside administrator, Roger Frese. Both administrators rated Respondent unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. Respondent had difficulty in presenting the subject matter in a sequenced manner. While the lesson plan indicated that the students would study components of the short story, with the exception of merely mentioning the names of the components, the students jumped right into paragraph writing dealing with characterization without any development of the concept of characterization and without instruction on how to write. The written products of the students indicated confusion and misunderstanding. When the students asked questions, Respondent had an opportunity to clarify the misunderstanding: however, she failed to respond to their questions. When the students read their papers aloud, Respondent failed to indicate whether they were correct. Because Respondent did not ask questions and did not respond to the questions asked by the students; and because of the many wrong answers given and accepted by Respondent; there was no way to determine that Respondent did in fact have a grasp of the topic. There was no closure to the assignment. Respondent assigned a homework activity which was not an extension of the day's assignment. It was a new assignment given without prior instruction. In order to remediate Respondent's deficiencies, Dr. Augenstein directed her to continue the prescribed activities of the November 24, 1982 prescription. By memorandum dated April 22, 1983, Dr. Augenstein recommended course work to help remediate deficiencies in Respondent's knowledge of subject matter. Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by assistant principal, Dr. Herman Mills, on May 24, 1983. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter. The sequencing of information was illogical and unclear. Dr. Mills found that Respondent had gaps in her education, as evidenced by her statements that Canada was a French-speaking country and Korea was a city. Respondent gave the students a handout with an error. "More bigger" was used on the handout, and Respondent failed to indicate to the class that a comma was missing. This confused the students in finding a dissimilar word in a given series. Respondent gave another wrong answer because she did not recognize the dissimilar word in a series of words. During the 1982-83 school year, administrators occasionally went to Respondent's classroom so that their presence would help Respondent get the class under control. Respondent's yearly evaluation indicated that she had not remediated deficiencies in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, and techniques of instruction, and Dr. Augenstein recommended a return to annual contract, i.e., loss of tenure. That recommendation, however, was not implemented. In September, 1983, Dr. Augenstein assigned Dr. Mills the task of determining the degree of Respondent's compliance with her previous prescription. At his first meeting with Respondent, Dr. Mills discovered that she had had none of the prescriptive activities signed off. At a second meeting with Respondent, Dr. Mills verified that Respondent completed a TEC course in techniques of instruction. On September 27, 1983, Dr. Mills directed Respondent to obtain sign-offs on her prescription by September 30, 1983. When he met with her on October 5, 1983, he discovered that the only item signed off was the activity of meeting with Mr. Fontana, assistant principal, on classroom management. Respondent was next formally observed in her seventh grade Level II class by Dr. Augenstein on October 19, 1983. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because the lesson stated in the plan was not feasible. Respondent had not anticipated how long the various tasks would take, and since this was the same teaching assignment as the previous year, she should have had an idea of the reasonable time for the assignment. She listed a homework assignment that could not be done because the set of books involved was a classroom set and were not books that were sent home with the students. A large number of students did not have their books in class; thus indicating to the observer that they had not been prepared for the work to be assigned. In order to address Respondent's deficiencies in preparation and planning, Dr. Augenstein referred her to the original prescription of November 24, 1982. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because she had difficulty demonstrating the difference between homonyms, homographs, and homophones. She also assumed that the seventh grade students were knowledgeable of the parts of speech. This would not have been appropriate so early in the year for seventh grade students. In order to remediate Respondent's deficiencies in knowledge of subject matter, Dr. Augenstein referred her to the memorandum of April 22, 1983, recommending intensive study of subject matter. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she was still not emphasizing important points with the use of media, e.g., chalkboard. Student contributions ended in confusion rather than clarification since Respondent allowed the students to call out homonyms rather than using the homonyms in a correct sentence. To help remediate Respondent's deficiencies in techniques of instruction, Dr. Augenstein referred her to the original prescription of November 24, 1982. Respondent was rated unacceptable in assessment techniques because there were insufficient student papers in the students' folders and insufficient grades in the grade book to enable an administrator to make a judgment as to whether the students were making adequate progress. The criterion calls for a variety of assessment techniques, and yet, the only graded tests in Respondent's grade book were four spelling tests. The student folders contained no graded samples of homework or graded compositions. The day's homework was not called for. When Dr. Augenstein asked to see the homework, only six students turned in papers. In order to remediate Respondent's deficiencies in assessment techniques, Respondent was directed to enroll in a TEC course in assessment techniques. She was directed not to write in her lesson plans that the students should "go over the. ," but that she should be more specific on how she plans to assess the work. She was directed to provide a variety of assessments to include both written and oral work. Respondent was next formally observed in her reading lab by Dr. Mills on November 16, 1983. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because her methodology was inappropriate for a reading lab. The purpose of a reading lab is to give the students individualized work based upon their reading levels. The students should have been diagnostically placed into three groups based upon reading levels however, they were being taught as one group and had been so taught for four days. Respondent's instructions to the class were vague and unclear. Respondent did not indicate to the class what the correct responses were, but rather, she seemed to be striving for consensus among the students. The students had little idea of what a topic sentence was, and Respondent did not give them any background. In order to help Respondent remediate her deficiencies in techniques of instruction, Dr. Mills arranged for carrels to be placed in Respondent's classroom. He also had Mrs. Hoffman, a teacher on special assignment in reading, work with Respondent in setting up the reading lab. He further directed Respondent to immediately divide the 20 students into three reading groups according to the diagnostic testing and to provide the necessary materials for individualized work according to their reading levels. He assigned exercise in the TADS prescription manual. A parental complaint was lodged against Respondent for using profanity in the classroom on November 30, 1983. An investigation into the matter revealed that a student had used profanity and that Respondent, in chastising him, repeated the profanity a number of times. Respondent was advised against the use of profanity in the classroom and to use standard referral procedures in handling such matters. A conference-for-the-record was held on December 13, 1983, to discuss Respondent's performance to date. Respondent was informed that failure to remediate and improve her performance could have an adverse impact upon her employment status. On February 14, 1984, Respondent was formally observed in her ninth grade reading class by Dr. Augenstein. She was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because she continued to demonstrate the same kinds of problems she had previously demonstrated. There was no evidence that Respondent was applying the previous help from the TADS manual. No objective was given in the lesson plan. Although a homework assignment was listed in the previous day's lesson plan, none was collected. The homework assignment for this day, as listed in the plan, was never assigned. Respondent was still putting in her plan that students should "Go over today's lesson." The terminology "go over" was still being used despite an earlier prescription indicating that the term was vague. Respondent was confusing assessment activity with programmed instruction. She demonstrated a lack of understanding of programmed instruction. To remediate Respondent's deficiencies in preparation and planning, Dr. Augenstein directed Respondent to enroll in a TEC course in preparation and planning as prescribed on October 19, 1983. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because Respondent gave no feedback to the students as to the correct answers. She did not orient the students to what they were doing. When they asked questions, she was very vague in answering. In order to help Respondent remediate her deficiencies in knowledge of subject matter, Dr. Augenstein referred her to the memorandum of April 22, 1983, which suggested the need for intensive study of the subject matter. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she presented no lesson and did not carry out a question-answer sequence as indicated in her lesson plans. The students spent the entire period doing an activity which was not introduced to them and was not monitored by the teacher. There was no follow-up and the students did not get feedback as to whether the work was correct. The students who finished early sat with nothing to do. Respondent spent the period grading papers and provided assistance to a few students who asked for it. To aid Respondent in remediating her deficiencies in techniques of instruction, Dr. Augenstein referred Respondent to the pages in the TADS prescription manual which had been prescribed on November 24, 1982. Respondent was rated unacceptable in assessment techniques because her grade book contained no grades for the last four weeks of the first semester. Minimally, a teacher should have two grades per week. There was no evidence of graded homework or formal writing instruction in the grade book or the student folders. Some of the students had no papers in their folders for several months. Most of the papers that were in the folders were simply ditto sheets, quick, objective, short answer papers. The "essay" portion of the ninth grade final examination for the first semester was a multiple choice test rather than an essay test, contrary to the guidelines for final examinations in the faculty handbook and School Board Rule. In order to aid Respondent in remediating her deficiencies in assessment techniques, Dr. Augenstein referred her to the prescription of October 19, 1983. Respondent was next formally observed in her seventh grade class on March 6, 1984, by Dr. Augenstein and Zelda Glazer, supervisor of language arts. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction; and assessment techniques. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because in a lesson dealing with parts of speech,. she accepted incorrect answers from students and even put some of them on the board. She incorrectly identified a number of words as adjectives when they were actually adverbs; verbs, and nouns. When the students gave wrong answers, Respondent did not correct them. Respondent relied on rote definitions for the parts of speech. These were difficult for low level students to understand. In order to aid Respondent in remediating her deficiencies in knowledge of subject matter, she was directed to review with the language arts supervisor or the department chairperson the identifying signals for adjectives and nouns, so that rote definitions would not be the exclusive explanations made to the students. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because there was no sequence for the lesson. Respondent's lesson lacked motivation and closure. No background was given, and no re-teaching was done of areas where the students lacked knowledge. Respondent did not recognize and anticipate difficulties in the lesson. She did not answer the student's questions and did not use students' wrong answers as a teaching experience. There was no attempt to explain why wrong answers were wrong, but rather, they were simply accepted, thus confirming the student's opinions that they had given correct responses. In order to aid Respondent in remediating her deficiencies in techniques of instruction, Respondent was directed to review with the department chairperson or a school administrator the sequencing of a lesson and to write a lesson which was carefully sequenced. The lesson should include the requisite components, i.e., review, participation in a drill or repetition, and application of the skills learned. Respondent was rated unacceptable in assessment techniques because the work in the students' folders did not reflect a variety of formats. The papers were merely simple drills or exercises. There were no compositions and no opportunities for applying the skills which were taught. By this time of year, Respondent should have had approximately 15 to 20 compositions in each student's folder. In order to help Respondent remediate her deficiencies in assessment techniques, Respondent was directed to develop a unit test using writing production as one element of the test. A conference-for-the-record was held on March 6, 1984. Respondent's assessments and prescriptions were reviewed. The help afforded to Respondent was also discussed. Dr. Augenstein indicated that she would be initiating the procedure for dismissal for cause. In March, 1984, shortly after the conference for the record, Respondent began approximately one year's maternity leave. Respondent's yearly evaluation for 1983-84 indicated that Respondent ended the year on prescription for deficiencies in knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques, and that Dr. Augenstein had recommended her for dismissal. The actual evaluation form (Petitioner's Exhibit 20) contains a typographical error in that the "X's" are reversed. The unacceptable categories are marked acceptable and vice versa. Respondent returned to Highland Oaks on April 15, 1985. She was given special help to acclimate her after her year's leave. Although Dr. Augenstein had never done so before; she purchased the services of the substitute teacher who had replaced Respondent during her leave in order that Respondent could have the minimum of one full week when she returned to prepare for her classes and so that the substitute could work with her on an as needed basis. Respondent was to observe the classes during that week, go over the student's progress, and plan in depth for the rest of the school year. Dr. Mills assisted in attempting to make a smooth transition between the substitute and Respondent. Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom on May 2, 1985, by Dr. Augenstein. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. Since she had recently returned from leave, Dr. Augenstein did not rate her in assessment techniques. The class observed was an eighth grade Level IV class, the precursor to high school honors English. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because she did not demonstrate that she had knowledge of research projects and library research skills. The students were completely confused and frustrated by Respondent's teaching. They were trying to get clarification from Respondent but were not able to do so. In order to help Respondent remediate her deficiencies in knowledge of subject matter, Dr. Augenstein recommended that she observe other Level IV English classes and that she do a research project herself so that she would learn enough about it in order to teach it. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she was not meeting the needs of advanced learners. She was not using inductive and critical thinking approaches. She frustrated them by putting off their questions and giving conflicting and misleading information when she tried to answer questions. In order to help Respondent overcome her deficiencies in techniques of instruction, Dr. Augenstein directed her to design and present a lesson using strategies for inductive and critical thinking. She was to include higher order questioning skills, pre-writing strategies, and techniques for promoting student involvement. Dr. Augenstein indicated that Charles Houghton, North Area project manager for secondary language arts, would assist and critique demonstration lessons. Mr. Houghton came to Highland Oaks to assist Respondent on Wednesday, May 15, 1985. He discovered that Respondent lacked an understanding of research. Mr. Houghton indicated that he would return on Friday, May 17, 1985, in order to give assistance to Respondent. He would gather materials for her, would go over them with her during her planning period, and would stay with her through the classroom period to see how she did. When he came back on the 17th, he discovered that Respondent was absent. He left the materials for her with an open ended invitation that if she needed further assistance, to let him know. Respondent did not request further help. Respondent was next observed in her English class by Dr. Mills on May 28, 1985. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning; classroom management, and techniques of instruction. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning and techniques of instruction because although lesson plans had been made, they were not being followed. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because there was no lesson being presented. Respondent shouted at the students, but they continued to remain off task. The student behavior was almost chaotic. In an effort to help Respondent remediate her deficiencies, Dr. Mills met with Respondent and indicated that it was imperative that she follow through on the prescription Dr. Augenstein had given her. She was given further prescriptive activities which were similar to those she had been given before. Respondent was next formally observed in her eighth grade class on June 6, 1985, by Mrs. Nelson and Mrs. Glazer. Respondent was rated unaccepted in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships. Mrs. Nelson did not see much of an improvement over her prior observation done in 1982. Respondent was teaching a lesson in similes and metaphors in the poem, "Danny Deever" by Rudyard Kipling. "Danny Deever" is a ballad written in cockney dialect about the public hanging of a solider in the British army. The poem contains no similes or metaphors. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in preparation and planning because the plan was not followed. The poem which had been indicated as a homework assignment was the one used for class discussion and was an inappropriate choice for simile and metaphor discussion. Respondent could not provide an example of a metaphor when asked by a student, thereby indicating that she did not have knowledge of what a metaphor was. In order to help Respondent remediate her deficiencies in preparation and planning, she was referred to the previous prescription of May 28, 1985. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she made many errors in the interpretation of "Danny Deever." She referred to the dialect of the poem as United States southern dialect and misinterpreted the meanings of dialectical words, resulting in completely misinterpreted lines. Respondent did not contemporize the poems to the children's lives in order to help them better understand the poem. In order to help Respondent overcome her deficiencies in knowledge of subject matter, she was referred back to the previous prescription of May 2, 1985. In addition, she was directed to review her lessons carefully in order to be prepared for student questions and to be able to provide appropriate examples. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because she took ten minutes to take the roll. Even after roll call, there was considerable socializing among the students. Quite a few students were late to class, but they were not questioned as to why they were late. With a seating chart, Respondent would have only needed two minutes to take attendance. The average teacher learns who her students are in less than a week, and Respondent had had the students since April 15, 1985. No attempts were made to prevent off task behavior. Inappropriate student behavior was mildly noted but was not effectively handled with firmness or suitable consequences. Respondent was absent. He left the materials for her with an open ended invitation that if she needed further assistance, to let him know. Respondent did not request further help. In order to help Respondent remediate her classroom management, she was referred to the previous prescription of May 28, 1985. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because the sequence of the lesson was erratic or haphazard. The students were asked to read the poem aloud, and they had great difficulty with the dialect. Therefore, the poem was not a positive experience for them. Respondent provided no background information in order to set the tone for the study of "Danny Deever." She gave no background on the poet or on the form of the poem. Correct and incorrect responses were accepted in exactly the same fashion without comment or question. Respondent misinterpreted the meanings of the dialectical words, thereby resulting in irrelevant interpretation of the poem. The students never came to realize that the poem was about a hanging. All of the topics which should have appropriately been covered in the poem were ignored. Respondent failed to anticipate the confusion or misunderstanding in the class. Therefore, no attempt was made to clarify the lack of student understanding or appreciation. In order to help Respondent remediate her deficiencies in techniques of instruction, she was referred to the two previous prescriptions, since they had never been completed nor had her problems been remediated. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in teacher-student relationships because student responses were ignored; neither praised nor questioned. Non-participants were not called upon or encouraged to participate. There was a quiet disrespect in the class. In order to help Respondent remediate her deficiencies in teacher-student relationships, she was referred to specific exercise in the TADS prescription manual dealing with feedback, interacting with students, and recognizing correct and incorrect responses. Petitioner's yearly evaluation for the 1984-85 school year indicated that Respondent remained deficient in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships, and that the principal recommended dismissal for cause. A conference-for-the-record was held on May 30, 1985, to discuss Respondent's end-of-the-year evaluation and the principal's recommendation for dismissal. Respondent's final examinations for June, 1985, indicate that Respondent still lacked an understanding of what constitutes an objective examination. In addition to the formal observations, Respondent was observed informally numerous times. These informal observations substantiated those deficiencies found on the formal observations. Her room was often noisy and Respondent could be heard yelling in an attempt to try to gain control of the class. The students were often out of their seats until an administrator walked in. Her class was noisy regardless of the time of the day or the portion of the period. Respondent was generally seated at her desk with students congregated around her. Rarely was instruction going on and rarely were students on task. When seen in the library, the class was fooling around and little was being accomplished. It is the consensus of opinion of those administrators who observed Respondent and/or those who reviewed her records, that Respondent repeatedly failed to communicate with and relate to the students in her class to such an extent that they were deprived of a minimum educational experience. These administrators also were of the opinion that Respondent lacks adequate command of her area of specialization, i.e., English language arts, in that she lacks the minimum skills and competencies in both content and methodology to teach English language arts. Dr. Mills believes that Respondent should only teach basic skills English classes, if she teaches at all. Unfortunately, the evidence compels the same conclusion. At least 90% of Respondent's prescription for remediation was not met. Given the time, effort, and assistance expended on Respondent's behalf, she did not make the minimum effort necessary to overcome her deficiencies. She lacked basic knowledge which could have been obtained by pursuing the course work that was prescribed. No matter who the observer was or what the specific teaching assignment was; Respondent failed to demonstrate an acceptable level of teaching. Respondent's certification should have enabled her to teach any of the related components within the field of English language arts, including different ability levels. Respondent demonstrated her lack of knowledge of the subject area during the hearing when she was unable to answer questions that a junior high school teacher should be able to answer, such as the signals which help identify a noun and the noun, verb, adverb and adjective forms of common words. Effective September 4; 1985; Respondent was suspended from her employment with Petitioner, and Petitioner instituted proceedings to dismiss Respondent from employment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County enter a Final Order sustaining the suspension of Respondent Laverne Reaves, and dismissing Respondent, Laverne Reaves, as a teacher in the Dade County Public Schools. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of May, 1986; in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of May, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Suite 301 1450 N. E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Curtis L. Jones, Jr., Esquire P. O. Box 105182 Miami, Florida 33101 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Karen Barr Wilde Executive Director Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2); Florida Statutes; on all proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact of Petitioner Proposed findings of fact 1-3 and 5-151 are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1-3 and 5-151. Proposed finding of fact 4 is rejected as not supported by the evidence and argumentative. Ruling on Proposed Findings of Fact of Respondent Proposed finding of fact 1 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 1. Proposed finding of fact 2 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 2. Proposed finding of fact 7 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 6. Proposed finding of fact 8 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 4. Proposed finding of fact 9 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 4. Proposed finding of fact 14 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 6. Proposed finding of fact 15 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 6. Proposed finding of fact 16 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 8. Proposed finding of fact 20 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 12. Proposed finding of fact 22 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 24. Proposed finding of fact 26 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 57. Proposed finding of fact 31 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 112. Proposed finding of fact 32 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Facts 25 and 82. Proposed finding of fact 35 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Facts 102 and 105. Proposed finding of fact 44 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Facts 69 and 85. Proposed finding of fact 45 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Facts 69 and 85. Proposed finding of fact 46 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 148. Proposed finding of fact 47 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 111. Proposed finding of fact 52 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 72. 20. Proposed findings of fact 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 19, 21, 41, 48, 49, 50, 53, and 57 are rejected as irrelevant. Proposed findings of fact 17, 18, 23; 25, 29, and 51 are rejected as not supported by the competent, substantial evidence. Proposed findings of fact 24, 27; and 54 are rejected as being unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence and as being argumentative. 23. Proposed findings of fact 28, 30, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 40, 43, 55, and 56 are rejected as unnecessary. Proposed finding of fact 38 is rejected as unnecessary and argumentative. Proposed finding of fact 42 is rejected as being misleading and incomplete and therefore not supported by the competent, substantial evidence.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Education Practices Commission is the state agency charged with the duty and responsibility to revoke or suspend, or take other appropriate action with regard to teaching certificates, as provided in sections 1012.795 and 1012.796, Florida Statutes. § 1012.79(7), Fla. Stat. (2017). Petitioner, as Commissioner of Education, is charged with the duty to file and prosecute administrative complaints against individuals who hold Florida teaching certificates and who are alleged to have violated standards of teacher conduct. § 1012.796(6), Fla. Stat. (2017). Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate 880641, covering the areas of Middle Grades Integrated Curriculum, Physical Education, Social Science, and Exceptional Student Education (ESE), which is valid through June 30, 2022. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was employed as an ESE teacher at GHS in the Alachua County School District. Respondent began his teaching career at GHS in 2002 teaching ESE classes. The incident that forms the basis for this proceeding occurred on May 12, 2016, during the 2015-2016 school year. Teachers employed by the Alachua County School Board are subject to the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Alachua County School Board and the Alachua County Education Association, the local teachers’ union. Article IX, Section 21(a), of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, which was in effect during the 2015-2016 school year, provides that: Subject to the approval of the principal or his designee, a teacher may leave the campus of his particular school if appropriate arrangements are made to insure that students are not left unsupervised. Approval is required for each circumstance or situation. The principal or his designee will not unreasonably deny such a request. A teacher will use this privilege only in unusual circumstances. At the beginning of each school year, before students report, a faculty pre-planning meeting is held at GHS to go over information provided by the school district. Supervision of students is among the topics of discussion, and teachers are advised that they are not to leave students unsupervised in their classrooms. The reason for the instruction is obvious -- GHS, being responsible for the safety of its students, should take all reasonable measures to ensure their safety on campus. In addition to the instruction provided at the pre- planning meeting, GHS sent periodic emails to teachers throughout the year reiterating that students were not to be left unsupervised in classrooms. On April 5, 2016, an email was sent directed to the general problem of unsupervised students “walking around A, B, and C hallways” during the lunch periods. The email noted that some teachers allowed students to come to their classrooms during the lunch period for mentoring, which was recognized as a laudable activity. One teacher responded the next day expressing appreciation for the reminder, noting that “[t]here are students all over upstairs in A & B wings. They also hang out in the stairwells, especially on the West end.” On April 7, 2016, Mr. Shelnutt sent an email to all teachers reiterating that it was “fantastic” that teachers allowed students in their classrooms during the lunch period, but that students were not to be “roaming around.” The email emphasized that “if you chose to allow students in your classroom during your lunch, you are assuming responsibility for supervising them.”2/ During the lunch shifts, school employees were routinely stationed in areas where general education students were allowed to eat lunch in order to provide adult supervision while their teachers took their 30-minute lunch break. As will be described herein, ESE students were subject to a different lunchtime regimen. During the 2015–16 school year, Respondent was assigned to teach a self-contained class of 4 to 7 students with intellectual disabilities. The “self-contained” setting means that students generally remained in the Gaines building on the GHS campus with other students with disabilities. Respondent’s students were intellectually disabled, but functioned at a higher level than their ESE peers in other classrooms, who had more severe disabilities. Respondent’s students identified more with general education students, and were much more likely to interact with general education students than with those in the other ESE classrooms.3/ The Gaines building was a “community of classrooms,” in that a teacher could request and receive assistance from teachers or paraprofessionals in the other two classrooms in the building. The ESE classrooms surround a small courtyard at the Gaines building. The courtyard has a table and seating, and students would most often sit there to eat their lunch. One of the three ESE teachers usually oversaw the courtyard, and the courtyard could be seen from the ESE classroom windows. There is also a basketball court and track behind the Gaines building, which were occasionally used by ESE students before and after school, and during lunch period. The school day at GHS has six periods. Respondent taught ESE students for five of the six daily periods. During the period when Respondent’s ESE students were at their P.E. class, Respondent was assigned to teach a general education history class. Mr. Shelnutt indicated that “[e]very teacher [at GHS] should have a 30-minute duty free lunch in addition to a planning period.” Mr. DeLucas testified that Respondent was in “a very unique situation. The other self-contained rooms had multiple paraprofessionals. He did not have multiple paraprofessionals.”4/ Consequently, Respondent was the only teacher in his classroom and was assigned students every period of the school day with no planning period. Because of the circumstances, if it became necessary for Respondent to leave the classroom, he would ask one of the teachers or paraprofessionals from the other ESE classrooms to watch his class. Unlike the situation that was the subject of the April 5, 2017 and April 7, 2017, emails referenced above, which appears to describe a general education student lunch period, ESE “self-contained” students were allowed to get their lunches and then return to their classrooms, to avoid the crowds and the lines. It was apparently not uncommon for special needs students to go to the cafeteria during the 20-minute break between the end of A-Lunch at around 11:55 a.m. and the beginning of B-Lunch at 12:15 p.m. when there is not a standard lunch shift. Respondent’s only break in the school day was during his students’ lunch period, from 12:15 p.m. to 12:45 p.m. Since ESE students typically had lunch in the Gaines building courtyard or their classrooms, even Respondent’s “duty free lunch” was not free of duties. On May 12, 2016, Respondent released his students -- which on that day were only B.S., B.H., and N.C. -- around 12:05 p.m. to get lunch from the cafeteria. Respondent’s students had been watching a movie, and wanted to finish the movie during the lunch period. Respondent agreed to let the students return to his classroom to finish watching the movie. Before the students returned to the classroom, Respondent received a telephone call from the baseball booster club president regarding an upcoming banquet. When the students returned to the classroom, Respondent continued the telephone call outside. When Respondent ended the telephone call, he realized that the lunch period was “counting down.” Respondent left the Gaines Building, with the students unattended in his classroom, and drove to a sandwich shop several blocks away. There was no explanation as to why Respondent did not ask one of the other ESE teachers or paraprofessionals to watch his classroom. During Respondent’s absence from the classroom, another of Respondent’s students, J.H., entered the classroom and saw male ESE student, B.S., emerging from a storage closet in Respondent’s classroom, and thereafter discovered female ESE student, B.H., in the closet crying. J.H. went to the office and told Ms. Conyers what he had seen. Ms. Conyers radioed for a dean or an administrator to report to Respondent’s classroom. Ms. Gantt and Mr. Bauer arrived at the classroom at about the same time. Ms. Gantt questioned B.H. as to what had happened, and Mr. Bauer went to the nearby basketball court where B.S. had been reported to have gone. B.H. and B.S. were taken to the Dean’s office for questioning. At some point after Ms. Gantt and Mr. Bauer arrived at Respondent’s classroom, and approximately 15 minutes after his departure from campus, Respondent returned from the sandwich shop. There was considerable evidence devoted to the events that occurred in Respondent’s classroom closet during his absence. All of the evidence was hearsay. However, what was established (and agreed upon) is this: On May 12, 2016, while Respondent was absent from his classroom, during which time students were left unsupervised in the classroom, an event occurred that was of sufficient severity that the police were called in, that the police conducted an investigation, and that the police ultimately completed a sworn complaint charging B.S. with lewd and lascivious molestation of B.H. Alachua County Public Schools charged Respondent with violating school board policies regarding student supervision, specifically a policy that required teachers to obtain the permission of the school principal before leaving school campus, and recommended his termination from employment. Respondent contested the recommendation of termination. On February 16, 2017, the Alachua County School Board, the Alachua County Education Association, and Respondent executed a settlement agreement, providing that: (1) the superintendent would rescind the recommendation for Respondent’s termination; (2) Respondent would take an unpaid leave of absence beginning March 1, 2017, until June 6, 2017; Respondent would agree to complete Safe Schools online training regarding classroom supervision and school safety; and upon completion of the Safe Schools training, Respondent would be returned to paid status as an employee of Alachua County Schools. Respondent fulfilled the terms of the settlement agreement and, with regard to the Safe Schools training, exceeded the required courses. For the 2017–2018 school year, Respondent has been assigned as a P.E. teacher at the Sidney Lanier Center, a K-12 public school in Alachua County. Sidney Lanier is a specialized school for ESE students. The principal of Sidney Lanier was aware of the events of May 12, 2016, when Respondent was assigned. It should be acknowledged that Respondent taught ESE classes at GHS for 14 years without incident. He had no prior discipline and received uniformly good evaluations. He was well regarded as a teacher and a coach, and was generally acknowledged to have had a positive impact on students’ lives. Respondent expressed genuine remorse about leaving students unattended in his classroom, and credibly testified that he would never again do so. The incident did not involve Respondent denigrating or disparaging students, or improperly or abusively making physical contact with students. Nonetheless, Respondent violated a clear and direct requirement that he not leave students unattended. Although he believed his students would not engage in the activity described, such action on the part of a high school student was certainly not unforeseeable. There was conflicting evidence as to whether B.H.’s mental health was actually affected by the incident. A preponderance of the evidence indicates that it had some negative effect. However, rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. “does not require evidence that Respondent actually harmed [a student]'s health or safety. Rather, it requires a showing that Respondent failed to make reasonable efforts to protect the student from such harm.” Gerard Robinson, as Comm’r of Educ. v. William Randall Aydelott, Case No. 12-0621PL, RO at 76 (Fla. DOAH Aug. 29, 2012; Fla. EPC Dec. 19, 2012). Under the circumstances described herein, Petitioner proved that Respondent, though without specific intent or malice, failed to make reasonable effort to protect his students from conditions harmful to their mental or physical health, or safety, pursuant to rule 6A- 10.081(2)(a)1.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reached herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent violated rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. It is further recommended that Respondent’s educator’s certificate be suspended for a period of 30 days, that he be issued a letter of reprimand, and that he be placed on probation for a period of two years following his suspension, which penalty is within the range of penalties established in rule 6B-11.007(2). DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of November, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of November, 2017.
The Issue As to DOAH Case No. 12-2859TTS, whether Rhea Cohen (Respondent), a classroom teacher, committed the acts alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed by Robert Runcie, as Superintendent of the Broward County Schools (Superintendent) and, if so, the discipline that should be imposed against Respondent’s employment. As to DOAH Case No. 13-0704PL, whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed by Pam Stewart, as Commissioner of Education (Commissioner) and, if so, the discipline that should be imposed against Respondent’s teacher’s certificate.
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 Broward County, Florida; and Robert Runcie was Superintendent of Schools. At all times material hereto, the Commissioner has been the head of the state agency responsible for certifying and regulating public school teachers in the State of Florida; and Pam Stewart was the Commissioner. Respondent has been employed by the School Board since 2002 and holds a Professional Services Contract, issued in accordance with section 1012.33(3)(a). During the time relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was an ESE classroom teacher at Crystal Lake. During the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent was employed as an ESE classroom teacher at Atlantic West Elementary School teaching students on the autism spectrum. During that school year, the Education Practices Commission (EPC) reprimanded Respondent for sleeping in class while students were present and for using restraints inappropriately to control or manage autistic and exceptional student education students. The EPC imposed an administrative fine against her in the amount of $500.00. Thereafter, Respondent transferred to Crystal Lake. Respondent taught ESE students at Crystal Lake for the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years. The events at issue in this proceeding occurred during either the 2010-2011 school year or the 2011-2012 school year. Exact dates were available for some of the events, but unavailable for other events. Respondent’s classroom at Crystal Lake for those two school years was divided into two halves, separated by tables and rolling chalkboards that did not form a solid wall. For the 2010-2011 school year, Respondent taught her class of ESE students on one side of the divided classroom and a Ms. Knighton taught on the other side. For the 2011-2012 school year Respondent shared the classroom with Mr. Montalbano. On one side of the classroom was Respondent’s class, consisting of 11 ESE students. On the other side of the room was Mr. Montalbano’s class, consisting of seven ESE students. Mr. Montalbano’s class was smaller because his class functioned at a lower level than Respondent’s class. On October 4, 2011, student J., a non-verbal, wheel chair-bound boy, and student D., a boy with Down’s syndrome, were sitting next to each other in Respondent’s classroom. Student D. did something to irritate student J. Student J. balled up his fist as if to strike student D. Respondent, in front of the entire class, Lisa Phillips (an ESE paraprofessional), and Ms. Sorren, made the following statement: “So is the cripple [student J.] going to beat up the retard [student D.]”./4 Other students in the classroom laughed at student J. and student D. Student J.’s wheelchair is motorized. After making the statement quoted above, Respondent attempted to move student J. into a corner. When student J. moved the wheelchair away from the corner, Respondent unplugged the wheelchair’s battery and made the statement: “Now who has the power. I am in control, not you.” The other students laughed at student J. Respondent then moved student J. to the corner./5 On October 11, 2011, Respondent sent student J. to Mr. Montalbano’s classroom and commented that “he’s too much of a bother.” One day at dismissal, student J. asked Respondent three or four times to be taken to the bathroom. Respondent did not respond to student J. The bus arrived, but the driver refused to accept student J. because of his request to go to the toilet. Mr. Montalbano, who overheard student J.’s requests to Respondent, took over the responsibility for student J. Respondent became frustrated while helping student J. with the computer after student J. got the wires to the headphones tangled. Respondent ripped the headphones out of the back of the computer leaving the male connection in the female end of the computer. In a private discussion with Mr. Montalbano, Respondent referred to student D. as being a “moron.” Respondent sent her 11 students to Mr. Montalbano’s side of the classroom, which housed ten computers. There was a disturbance because one student did not have a computer. Respondent came to Mr. Montalbano’s side of the classroom and told student D. to give up his computer. Student D.’s first language is Bulgarian. When student D. muttered in protest, Respondent yelled at him to express himself in English. When student D. left the computer, his place was quickly taken by another student. Student D. began to cry. Respondent walked back to her side of the classroom, leaving student D. crying in Mr. Montalbano’s side of the classroom. On October 11, 2011, student Mi., an 11 year-old female on the autism spectrum, was playing with a puzzle during free time when she spotted an open computer. Student Mi. left the puzzle pieces out to go to the computer. Respondent noted the puzzle on the table and yelled out, “Who left this puzzle out?” Student Mi. hid under a table in reaction to Respondent’s statement. Respondent came to the table, roughly grabbed student Mi., and pulled her out from under the table. Respondent led student Mi. to the table with the puzzle and yelled in front of the class: “I don’t know what your mother teaches you at home, but you’re a little, spoiled brat and I am not going to clean up after you.” Respondent then took student Mi.’s doll away from her and put her in time out for the remainder of the day, approximately 30 minutes. On another occasion, Respondent had the other members of the class imitate student Mi., after student Mi. had engaged in self-stimulatory behavior. The other students laughed at student Mi. In October 2011, Ms. Hudson discovered Respondent and student Mi. in Mr. Montalbano’s half of the classroom with the lights dimmed. Ms. Hudson thought student Mi. had been crying. Ms. Hudson reported the incident to her principal, but she did not question Respondent, nor did Respondent volunteer to Ms. Hudson an explanation of the circumstances that resulted in Respondent being in the darkened classroom with student Mi. At the formal hearing, Respondent explained that student Mi. had run into traffic while waiting to be transported from school. Respondent testified, credibly, that she was trying to calm down student Mi./6 Ms. Sorren testified, credibly, that during the short time she was in Respondent’s classroom (approximately three school days), she heard Respondent address the students as morons, monkeys, jungle monkeys, and animals. That testimony was consistent with the other testimony as to the language used by Respondent in her classroom. Petitioners established that Respondent repeatedly yelled at her students to “shut up,” described a student’s behavior as being “stupid,” and called at least one student a “brat.” Student Mo., a female on the autism spectrum, was new to Respondent’s class. On an unidentified date, Respondent directed student Mo. to go to timeout. After student Mo. refused to go to timeout, Respondent shoved student Mo. into the timeout area. During the 2010-2011 school year, Respondent became upset with student C., a female, and ordered her out of her classroom. When student C. talked back to Respondent, Respondent threw student C.’s backpack and her shoes over the chalkboard that divided the classroom. Ms. Knighton and her class were in the part of the classroom into which Respondent threw the objects. Student C. became very upset. Respondent became upset with Ma., a male student. Ma. had a snack on his desk. Respondent knocked the snack to the floor and smashed it with her foot. Petitioners established that Respondent engaged in a pattern of misconduct. Respondent’s effectiveness in the school system has been impaired.
Recommendation The following recommendations are based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law: As to Case No. 12-2859TTS, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Broward County, Florida, 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 uphold the suspension without pay of Rhea Cohen’s employment and terminate that employment. As to Case No. 13-0704PL, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission 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 suspend Rhea Cohen’s educator’s certificate for a period of five years, to be followed by probation for three years with conditions to be set by the Education Practices Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of July, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 12th day of July, 2013.
Findings Of Fact At the administrative hearing which was scheduled for the time and place shown above, Mr. Carlos Viciedo, Sr., father of the minor student named as Respondent herein, announced that his son, Carlos Viciedo, Jr., had been moved to Los Angeles, California, by his Mother. The student, Carlos Viciedo, Jr., has been enrolled in the school system of Los Angeles, and removed from the Dade County School system. The principal at South Miami Junior High School where Carlos Viciedo, Jr., was enrolled prior to the transfer to Douglas MacArthur Senior High School -- South, verified that papers have been received from the Los Angeles, California, school system to demonstrate that the student has requested a transfer from the schools in Dade County to the schools in Los Angeles. Mr. Carlos Viciedo, Sr., plans to join his family in Los Angeles, and the enrollment of his son in the school system there is permanent.
Recommendation On the basis of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County dismiss the proceeding it initiated to effect a transfer of the Respondent, Carlos Viciedo, Jr., from South Miami Junior High School to the Alternative Education Program at Douglas MacArthur Senior High School -- South. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 17th day of February, 1983. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of February, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Neimand, Esquire Suite 300 3000 Executive Plaza 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Carlos Viciedo, Sr. 1122 Southwest 134th Place Miami, Florida 33183 Phyllis O. Douglas, Esquire Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public School 1410 Northeast 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Dade County School Board 1410 Northeast 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following pertinent facts are found: Respondent Wieland has been employed with the Broward County school system for approximately twenty-three years. In the school year 1973/74, he held the position of Director of Exceptional Child Education. His immediate superior was the Program Director of Educational Services, Mr. Larry I. Walden, a member of the superintendent's staff. Dr. James R. Fisher served as Director of Psychological Services on Dr. Wieland's Exceptional Child Education staff. During the 1973/74 school year, several rather drastic changes were occurring with regard to the administration of the exceptional child education program. This was the year of decentralization in Broward County, where concepts of authority, decision-making, accountability and responsibility were filtering down to the building or school levels through the various principals. Also, the Florida Educational Financial Program began in that year. This program related to state funding for students based upon a particular weight factor assigned for students in different programs. The cost factors for programs for exceptional students is considerably higher than for basic programs. Beginning with the 1973/74 school year, the actual responsibility for placement of children and implementation of programs resided with the principals of the individual schools. The role of the Exceptional Child Education staff was then reduced to one of consultation, advice and administration. Prior to decentralization, psychological testing was conducted under the direction or supervision of the Exceptional Student Education Department at the Diagnostic Center. With decentralization, testing psychologists became a part of the staff of the area offices and were answerable to their respective area superintendents. With this change, they were repeatedly instructed that their functions were consultative and that they were simply to test students upon receipt of a request from a school's principal. Beginning with the 1973/74 school year, school psychologists, as well as the then Director of Psychological Services, were constantly concerned with the pressures being placed upon them by the school principals and area superintendents to rapidly test and certify students for eligibility in the various exceptional education programs. A count of such eligible students was to be made in October and February of each school year. The results of such counts had a tremendous effect upon the school principal's budget. Many school psychologists felt that students were being placed in programs without sufficient diagnosis or data. This, along with inadequate personnel, was a constant topic of discussion both among school psychologists and at meetings on the staff level. Mr. Walden, respondent's immediate superior, was informed by Dr. Fisher of files containing insufficient data and other procedural irregularities. Mr. Walden also attended some of the staff meetings at which various problems were discussed. No specific problems at Horizon Elementary School were discussed between Fisher and respondent Wieland during the 1973/74 school year. In fact, Dr. Fisher was unaware of any discrepancies or procedural irregularities at Horizon during that year. Conditions did not improve during the 1974/75 school year, according to various school psychologists and the exceptional education staff. They still felt pressure to rapidly identify eligible students for exceptional education programs in order to generate funding and they still felt there was inadequate staffing for psychological services. During this year, Mr. Joel Kieter assumed respondent's position of Director of the Exceptional Education Program and respondent became Coordinator of Special Services, formerly called Psychological Services. Thus, Mr. Kieter was respondent's immediate superior. During this year, Mr. Kieter's office had no direct role in the certification of students for the various exceptional education programs. The 1974 "District Procedures for Providing Special Education for Exceptional Students" specifically provided that: "In the process of decentralization the exceptional student personnel at the district level have been relieved of direct responsibility for administration and instruction. The respon- sibilities of such personnel are now consultative and advisory in nature. The primary responsibility for administration and instruction is at the building level." However, Mr. Kieter's staff did attempt to give guidance to school psychologists and administrative personnel regarding the criteria for placement and the required procedures to be followed. Among the duties of respondent Wieland during the 1974/75 school year was direct responsibility for the Diagnostic Center, which was a repository for some 35,000 to 40,000 student files. School psychologists were instructed to obtain a case number from the Diagnostic Center for all new student files and to send a copy of the completed file to the Center. At one time, they were told that they could retain the folders as long as they thought the case was active. Student files were also to be kept at the student's school and in the area superintendents' offices. Inasmuch as the school psychologists were accountable to the area superintendents, the Center and its staff had no authority and could do little more than request them to promptly forward the files to the Center. At times, staff at the Diagnostic Center would return files for parental consent forms. Numerous staff meetings were held by Director Kieter during the 1974/75 school year. During these meetings, the school psychologists complained of their heavy caseload, the lack of secretarial help and other staff, pressures placed upon them by principals and area superintendents to place children in programs, inappropriate testing and lost or misplaced files. These were general discussions and specific incidents were not related. Dr. James Fisher, who was the team leader for psychologists in the North-Central area, had general discussions with both Dr. Wieland, Director Kieter, and even Mr. Walden concerning the pressure he felt with regard to the rapid testing of children and the inadequacy of data in the files of children who had already been placed. Dr. Fisher expressed to them his fear that emphasis was being placed upon the filling of classes, rather than upon the individual students. During the school year 1975/76, respondent again occupied the position of Coordinator of Special Services and Joel Kieter was again the Director of the Exceptional Education Program. The building principal of the referring school or the school enrolling the student was directly responsible for placement in the appropriate exceptional student program. ("1975 District Procedures for providing special Education for Exceptional Students," p. 199, H(2)(c) and p. 3). The exceptional student education staff was responsible for the determination of eligibility of individual students (p. 3 of the 1975 District Procedures). This determination was to be based upon the report of the testing psychologist. In the first portion of the 1975/76 school year, Director Kieter signed the eligibility determination forms (also referred to as the B-1 form). This responsibility was delegated by Mr. Kieter to respondent Wieland in mid- December, 1975. Prior to this delegation, Mr. Kieter occasionally signatured some B-1 forms without having seen the psychological report. This was done because of a backlog in clerical assistance and processing, and to expedite the procedure. Mr. Kieter was assured by the school psychologists that if the B-1 form had been sent to him for execution, proper testing had been completed, the report was in the process of being written and the data was available. Simultaneous with the time that the authority to sign B-1 forms was delegated to Dr. Wieland, Mr. Kieter issued a memorandum to all school psychologists stating that B-1 forms without the completed psychological report attached thereto would no longer be entertained. In the Fall of 1975, Mr. Fisher communicated with Director Kieter concerning the absence of certain psychological data in the files of some ten to twelve students at Horizon Elementary School. Mr. Kieter instructed Mr. Fisher to make up any deficiencies in those folders. Mr. Kieter also discussed the folders with the principal of Horizon, Mr. Wallsworth. Other than this incidence, Director Kieter was not informed of any specific irregularities or abuses in the exceptional education program at Horizon during the 1975/76 school year. Mr. John Georgacopoulos worked in the Diagnostic Center as a psychometrist from 1969 to 1971, and at Horizon Elementary School as a guidance counselor in the school years 1974/75 and 1975/76. As a guidance counselor, he attended "staffings" or meetings with school psychologists pertaining to the placement of students in the various programs. He was also involved with the testing of students at Horizon. In the school year 1974/75 -- his first year at Horizon -- Mr. Georgacopoulos perceived that there were problems in the running of Horizon's exceptional student program. These problems included the misclassification of students, the placing of students into programs without certification and without proper testing, the nonexistence of programs for which children were certified and mimeographed certifications with the students' name placed thereon at a later time. Mr. Georgacopoulos informed Horizon's principal, Mr. Wallsworth, of these irregularities on numerous occasions during the 1974/75 school year. He also states that he discussed these problems with Mr. Fisher, Director Kieter and respondent Wieland. Both Dr. Wieland and Mr. Kieter denied being informed by Mr. Georgacopoulos of any irregularities at Horizon during the 1974/75 school year. According to Mr. Georgacopoulos, problems at Horizon continued in the 1975/76 school year. These included the misplacement of children, improper or inadequate testing of students, nonexistence of programs, inadequate data in student files and the lifting of signatures onto psychological reports. In March of 1976, Georgacopoulos obtained from Mr. Wallsworth's office a computer printout of students funded for the various exceptional education programs at Horizon. He then checked the files of these students both at the Diagnostic Center and at Horizon and found that many did not have case numbers assigned to them, that many contained inadequate or no data and that, for some students, files did not exist at all either at the school or the Center. In March of 1976, Georgacopoulos went to respondent's office and talked to respondent about the alleged irregularities existing at Horizon. It is difficult to discern from Georgacopoulos' testimony what specifics were related to respondent. It appears that Wieland was informed that children were certified as gifted when no gifted program existed at Horizon, that children were being placed in the wrong programs, that children were being placed without appropriate or adequate testing and that the information in the student files was inadequate. At the time of this discussion, respondent had a difficult time following Georgacopoulos' conversation. He appeared to respondent to ramble and to be upset and confused. Respondent felt that Georgacopoulos simply disagreed with the psychologists' reports as well as the contents of the gifted program. As a result of this conversation, respondent told Georgacopoulos that some information might be in the files at the Diagnostic Center and offered him the opportunity to check these files with the assistance of his staff. Georgacopoulos told respondent that he had discussed these irregularities with Principal Wallsworth. On May 27, 1976, Robert Lieberman, a school psychologist at Horizon, went to respondent's office and told him of irregularities that existed at Horizon. These included the lack of programs for gifted and emotionally disturbed students, the misplacement of certified children, inappropriate "staffing" of children, inappropriate and/or inadequate testing before placement and the pressures placed upon school psychologists to test and place numerous students within a short amount of time. Lieberman was concerned that he would lose his job at Horizon and Respondent told him to try to finish out the school year without sacrificing his professionalism. Dr. Wieland also offered to help him get an interview for a job at the county level. Sometime between May 27th and June 9, 1976, Ms. Queen Sampson, a school psychologist from the area office, talked to respondent and confirmed the statements made by Georgacopoulos and Lieberman. On June 9, 1976, respondent again discussed the irregularities at Horizon with Mr. Georgacopoulos. During this conference, Mr. Georgacopoulos specifically placed the blame upon Principal Wallsworth and he was more emphatic and specific in his allegations concerning the irregularities. He also mentioned the falsification of psychological reports via the "lifting" of signatures, and stated that this had come to his attention in May of 1976. Respondent was aware at this June 9, 1976, meeting that Mr. Georgacopoulos was leaving the Broward County school system. Mr. Georgacopoulos testified that he had discussed specific irregularities at Horizon with Director Joel Kieter during the 1975/76 school year. Mr. Kieter denied that there had been any such discussions and testified that he had never even met Mr. Georgacopoulos prior to June 9, 1976. About an hour after talking to Mr. Georgacopoulos on June 9, 1976, respondent Wieland went to the office of William T. McFatter, Assistant to the Superintendent. He related that Georgacopoulos had made serious allegations against Mr. Wallsworth and asked for McFatter's advice. Mr. McFatter remembers that respondent mentioned the possibility of double funding and the qualification of students for the gifted program at Horizon. McFatter advised respondent to go straight to superintendent Mauer with the allegations. McFatter and respondent then went to the superintendent's office and a brief ten to fifteen minute meeting ensued. This was the last day of the school year for students and the superintendent was quite busy at this time. The possibility of double funding was an explosive issue to the Superintendent and this is the only irregularity he recalls having been mentioned by respondent on June 9, 1976. The superintendent immediately called a Mr. Cox, who deals with pupil accounting, and related to him his concern with double funding of students in the exceptional education program. Mr. McFatter, Mr. Mauer and respondent then went to the office of Mr. Cox and respondent Wieland was assigned the task of determining the existence or nonexistence of double funding. None was found and respondent so reported to Mr. Mauer. Subsequently, respondent and two other persons were assigned the task of auditing the records of the exceptional student program at Horizon. The auditors were unable to verify either the existence or nonexistence of certain records, forms and psychological reports for many students. It was clear that many files were incomplete and there was no evidence that either the gifted or emotionally disturbed programs existed at Horizon. Respondent Wieland explained the delay between the first March 1976, meeting with Mr. Georgacopoulos and his June 9, 1976, report to Mr. McFatter and the Superintendent as follows. Respondent (as well as others) classified Georgacopoulos as a "child advocate," and respondent felt at the March meeting that Georgacopoulos was merely expressing his disagreement with psychological reports and the contents of certain existing programs. During the March meeting, his allegations were general in nature and his discussion of irregularities appeared to ramble and be confusing. Respondent was more concerned with the demeanor of Georgacopoulos than with what he was saying. When Mr. Lieberman related similar and more specific irregularities, which were thereafter confirmed by Queen Sampson, respondent felt that disclosure of Lieberman's and Sampson's statements would be detrimental to their future employment with the school system. Upon confirming that Georgacopoulos was leaving the school system, respondent felt that the charges could be attributed to Georgacopoulos without injury to Lieberman and Sampson. He therefore had another conference with Georgacopoulos on June 9, 1976, and decided to seek advice from the Assistant to the Superintendent, Mr. McFatter. Various other events have transpired since June 9, 1976, concerning Horizon Elementary School exceptional education program irregularities. These include a letter from Mr. Georgacopoulos to the Superintendent, which letter appears to have instigated an investigation by the Security Office or the Internal Affairs Division. Such later events are not deemed relevant to the present charges against respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that respondent be immediately reinstated to his former position and that any back salary be paid to him for the reason that the charges against him were not sustained by the evidence. Respectfully submitted and entered this 3rd day of December, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: School Board of Broward County 1327 S.W. Fourth Street Ft. Lauderdale, Florida John B. Di Chiara DiGiulian, Spellacy, Bernstein, Lyons and Sanders Suite 1500, One Financial Plaza Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33394 Robert M. Curtis Saunders, Curtis, Ginestra & Gore P.O. Drawer 4078 1750 East Sunrise Boulevard Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33338
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Certificate Number 227135, regular, valid through June 30, 1982, covering the areas of biology, science and social studies. Respondent received a bachelor's degree in history, zoology and education from Parson's College in 1967, and a Master of Science degree from the Florida Institute of Technology in 1980. During the 1976-77 school year, Respondent was employed as a science teacher at Nims Middle School in Tallahassee, Florida. Respondent, a licensed professional photographer, also worked with the photography club at Nims Middle School during the school years from 1975 through 1978. On or about May 30, 1977, while Respondent was employed as a science teacher at Nims Middle School, two students, Linda McKenzie and Linda Underwood, were excused from their regularly scheduled sixth period classes to go to Respondent's classroom to look at laboratory animals kept there. At all times material hereto, Respondent aid the two students mentioned above were the only occupants of the classroom. Respondent and the two students engaged in conversation, during which Respondent discussed taking photographs of the two students. As the two students began to leave the classroom, Respondent placed his hands on Linda Underwood's waist and "French-kissed" her. Ms. Underwood was shocked and embarrassed, and quickly left the classroom. The incident was not reported to Ms. Underwood's parents, but was reported to school officials by Ms. Underwood several days after the incident occurred. Prior to the above-described incident, Ms. Underwood had called Respondent on the telephone at his home, and had also written him letters. None of these letters were introduced into evidence in this proceeding. Ms. Underwood apparently also made several telephone calls to Respondent after the incident occurred. Neither the content of these telephone conversations nor any other evidence of record in this proceeding is sufficiently clear to demonstrate that Ms. Underwood was so biased against Respondent to have fabricated her testimony. Having observed the demeanor of the several witnesses testifying on this issue, and having considered their interest, if any, in the outcome of this proceeding, Ms. Underwood's version of the incident is accepted as persuasive. While Respondent was employed as a science teacher at Nims Middle School, he drove to the home of Mrs. Juanita Jackson accompanied by two Nims Middle School students, Carlotta Wolfe and Lori Taylor. The two students were dressed in either bathing suits or shorts, and rode in the front seat with Respondent. had offered the two students a ride when he observed them walking, and was asked by them to drive to the Jackson home. Respondent did not know the purpose of the visit to the Jackson home. One of the students apparently requested that Mrs. Jackson's daughter be allowed to get into the car with Respondent and the other students, but Mrs. Jackson refused to allow her daughter to do so. Although Mrs. Jackson testified that she observed Respondent's arm on the back of the seat while Carlotta Wolfe was seated next to him, there is insufficient evidence of record from which to conclude that any impropriety was intended by Respondent, or in fact occurred. Respondent was granted a leave of absence by the Leon County School Board for the 1979-80 school year, and was reassigned to Godby High School for the 1980-81 school year. On August 4, 1980, Respondent met with William J. Montford, principal of Godby High School, and other administrative personnel. During that meeting Respondent was specifically warned about inappropriate and improper comments and behavior directed toward students. During the 1980-81 school year Ms. Kelly Moore was one of Respondent's students. On one occasion when Ms. Moore was tardy to class and was in the process of signing a late sheet in compliance with school policy, Respondent told her to put her telephone number by her name "...in case I get horny one day." On another occasion, when Respondent inquired and was told that Ms. Moore worked in the lingerie department at Maas Brothers department store, he observed to Ms. Moore that he "...could really get into panties, especially yours." Each of these comments was made in Respondent's classroom, in the presence of other students, and for no appropriate reason. Respondent denies making these remarks, but it is specifically concluded that the testimony of Ms. Moore is more persuasive concerning these incidents. While employed as a teacher at Godby High School, Respondent engaged in a conversation with Dorothy Bryant, Yolanda Jenkins and Kendra Green, three of his students. During the course of this conversation, Respondent told these students that he would like to take them out and get something to drink and smoke with them. During the course of this conversation, Respondent either used or agreed to the use of the term "orgy" in connection with the above-described offer, and wrote a mathematical equation on the blackboard, and inquired of the students "How many times can one go into three?" During the 1980-81 school year at Godby High School, Traci Lingel was another of Respondent's female students. On one occasion when Ms. Lingel sought a pass to leave Respondent's classroom, Respondent remarked to her "Just because I'm your teacher and because I'm older than you doesn't mean that we can't go to bed together." On another occasion, Respondent remarked to Ms. Lingel that he had met her sister, also a student at Godby High School, and that he knew that it was her sister because she had "sexy eyes" just like Ms. Lingel. Further, Respondent observed to Ms. Lingel that he would award her an "A" in his course if she could arrange a date for him with her sister. On still another occasion, Respondent inquired of Ms. Lingel's boyfriend if Respondent could blow in Ms. Lingel's ear. On other occasions Respondent told two of his students, Debbie McCauley and Leeann Nelson, during class periods that he thought they had "nice legs." In addition, Respondent on one occasion told Ms. Nelson that he would like to go to bed with her. On several occasions during his tenure at Godby High School, Respondent related to various of his students that he was "hung over," had gotten drunk the preceding weekend and/or had smoked marijuana. On at least one other occasion, upon sending a male student to Respondent's vehicle to retrieve some items left there by Respondent, Respondent told the student that a bottle of liquor was under the seat in the truck, and the student could take a drink if he wished to do so. This latter remark was made in the presence of other students. Respondent spoke on the telephone with another of his students, Theresa Tran, about taking photographs of her. Respondent inquired of Ms. Tran concerning her favorite alcoholic beverages, and remarked to her that he could take her photographs and afterwards take her out for a drink. Respondent also on one occasion remarked to Traci Lingel, another of his students mentioned earlier in this order, that he and Ms. Lingel could get drunk or high and he could take her photographs. Respondent received a written reprimand dated February 10, 1981, from his principal, William J. Montford, concerning his improper conduct with female students. Respondent was again reprimanded by his principal by written reprimand dated March 17, 1981. On or about June 6, 1981, a presentation designed to inform high school students about the dangers of drug abuse was made in Respondent's classroom. A student attending a drug abuse program outside Godby High School participated in the program to share his negative experiences with drugs with other students. During a break in the program, Respondent engaged in a conversation in which the above-mentioned student and a representative of the Florida Alcohol and Drug Abuse Association participated. During the course of this conversation, Respondent related that he obtained high-quality cocaine through his girlfriend from the New York or Boston areas, and that the quality of drugs so obtained was better than could be obtained in the Tallahassee area. Respondent's remarks to female students were often made openly in a classroom setting so that the students who were the subject of the remarks were embarrassed before their peers and Respondent's predilection for making such remarks became common knowledge among his students. As a result, many of his students were uncomfortable attending his classes. Because of the frequently open and notorious nature of his conduct as hereinbefore related, Respondent's effectiveness as an instructional employee has been seriously reduced. Respondent generally denies that the incidents related above ever occurred. There is, accordingly, a sharp divergence in the various accounts of these activities as related by several of the witnesses. In resolving these testimonial discrepancies, the Hearing Officer observed the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying and considered the interests, if any, of these witnesses in the outcome of this proceeding in determining which of the various versions of these occurrences were the more credible. Both counsel for Petitioner and Respondent have submitted proposed findings of fact for consideration by the Hearing Officer during the course of this proceeding. To the extent that those proposed findings of fact are not included in this Recommended Order, they have been rejected either as not having been supported by evidence of record or as being irrelevant to the issues involved in this proceeding.
Recommendation Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, through its undersigned Hearing Officer, William E. Williams, held a public hearing in this cause on September 17 and 18, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida.
