The Issue Should Petitioner, Pinellas County School Board (School Board or Board), terminate the employment of Respondent, Rose M. Dacanay, for the reasons that follow: Violation of Board Policy 4140A(9), incompetence? Violation of Board Policy 4140A(9)(a), failure to perform the duties of the position? Violation of Board Policy 4140A(19), failure to correct performance deficiencies? Violation of Board Policy 4140A(20), insubordination? Violation of Board Policy 4140A(24), failure to comply with Board policy, state law, or contractual agreement?
Findings Of Fact The Pinellas County School District has employed Ms. Dacanay since August 2005. She has worked as a teacher assistant and as an exceptional student education (ESE) associate. At the beginning of the 2011-2012 school year, Ms. Dacanay worked as an ESE associate assigned to the Paul B. Stephens Exceptional Student Education Center (Paul B. Stephens). The Center serves vulnerable students with significant developmental disabilities and medical needs. ESE associates work under a classroom teacher's direct supervision. They must assist the teacher in all aspects of both the care and the education of the students. During the first semester of the 2011-2012 school year, Ms. Dacanay worked in the classroom of Paulette Pickering. Because Ms. Dacanay's performance in Ms. Pickering's class was not satisfactory, the principal, Gail Cox, reassigned her to the classroom of Linda Vest for the second semester, which started January 2012. Ms. Cox selected Ms. Vest's classroom because it did not have as many students as Ms. Pickering's, and the class was not as demanding. The reassignment was to give Ms. Dacanay an opportunity to improve her skills and continue working at the school. Also during 2011, Ms. Cox, along with other administrators and a teacher's union representative, met in October and November with Ms. Dacanay four times to review multiple deficiencies in her performance and offer improvement plans. In the meeting held November 10, 2011, Ms. Cox encouraged Ms. Dacanay to apply for other positions in the school system that would not be so demanding and would be a better fit for her. In January of 2012, Ms. Cox spoke to Ms. Dacanay and told her very directly, "This is not working, Rose. You need to find a different job. Even though everyone is nice and polite, you're still not doing your job, and you need to find another one that better fits your skills." Ms. Dacanay did not take this advice. She worked the remainder of the 2011-2012 school year at Paul B. Stephens. After summer break, she returned to employment in the 2012-2013 school year. She was assigned to assist Kim Gilbert. The students of Paul B. Stephens have emotional, mental, and physical disabilities. Many have severe and multiple disabilities. They are dependent upon the services of their teachers and teacher assistants. One of the students in Ms. Gilbert's class required the use of Dynamic Ankle Foot Orthotics (DAFOS). These are hard plastic inserts positioned around a child's foot before putting on the child's shoe. They must be positioned and wedged on carefully to avoid hurting the student. After correct placement, they are strapped on. The DAFOS are individually made for each wearer's feet. Ms. Dacanay had been instructed and trained on how to put DAFOS on. DAFOS position a child's foot to cure or resist deformity. They are uncomfortable even when properly applied. When DAFOS are put on the wrong foot, they are painful and can cause blisters and sores. They also do not properly perform their rehabilitative function. On October 23, 2012, Ms. Dacanay put a student's DAFOS on backwards. This would cause the student pain and eliminate the benefits of the DAFOS. Fortunately, Ms. Gilbert spotted the mistake and corrected it. The same student also needed and wore an arm splint. Ms. Dacanay had been instructed and trained on how to fasten the arm splints. On October 24, 2012, Ms. Dacanay was improperly fastening the arm splint. Ms. Gilbert noticed and corrected her. In 2012, Ms. Dacanay's duties included placing wheelchair-bound students in the bus and securing their wheelchairs. This service is critical to the students' safety and the safety of the other students. It requires properly fastening the students in their chairs with chest and foot straps to prevent them from falling from the chair or injuring their feet during transportation. Ms. Dacanay was trained in securing the students and their wheelchairs for transport. On October 29, 2012, Ms. Dacanay did not fasten the chest straps on one student's wheelchair. On October 30, 2012, Ms. Dacanay did not properly secure a student's feet for transport on the bus. Fortunately each time, other employees noticed the errors and corrected them. On another occasion, Ms. Dacanay did not properly fasten the chest strap of a student in a wheelchair on the bus. Another ESE associate checked the student's straps and tightened them properly. The students' wheelchairs were also strapped tightly in the bus to prevent movement or falling. Ms. Dacanay was properly trained on how to secure the bus hook-up straps. From October forward, Ms. Dacanay routinely failed to properly secure students for the bus. A fellow ESE associate regularly observed this and began routinely checking and tightening the straps for the students. Specifically, Ms. Dacanay did not properly fasten the wheelchair hook-ups on November 14 and December 4, 2012. Despite the fact that properly securing the wheelchairs was one of her duties, on December 4, 2012, Ms. Dacanay asked a student why he had not hooked up the side straps on his wheelchair. Ms. Dacanay's neglect of the task of securing students in their wheelchairs was so common that the other ESE associates who worked in Ms. Gilbert's class were concerned for the children's safety. Consequently, they regularly checked the wheelchairs of students for whom Ms. Dacanay was responsible to ensure that the students were properly secured and safe. They often found the straps loose and secured them. Swimming was part of the curriculum and services for some students. On November 5, 2012, while bringing students back from the pool, Ms. Dacanay used only one hand to push a student in a tall, cumbersome therapy chair. The chair was tall, unstable, and very difficult to maneuver along the sidewalk. With her other hand, Ms. Dacanay was escorting another student. Two other ESE associates yelled at her to stop. Ms. Dacanay did not, and the chair "wobbled" and went off the sidewalk. Ms. Dacanay was taking prescription medicine. She did not properly secure it, and a pill fell to the bathroom floor. Ms. Gilbert found the pill and gave it to the school nurse, Tomeka Miller. Ms. Dacanay went to Ms. Miller and asked her to return the pill. She also asked if anyone else knew about the pill. Ms. Miller advised Ms. Dacanay that Ms. Gilbert knew. The ready availability of the pill to the students with disabilities represented a potential risk to the students. One of the students for whom Ms. Dacanay was responsible was blind and had other issues. In the words of his teacher, Ms. Gilbert: That was my student who was blind. In addition to having a lot of other issues, he's a student who is transported in a wheelchair and he kind of cruises around furniture, but it's not a walker. He's very, very difficult, very strong, very stubborn. He has a lot of sensory issues, so you can't hurry him to do anything. It just makes the problem worse. Ms. Dacanay was aware of the student's issues and needs. On November 8, 2012, Ms. Dacanay was hurrying the student back into the classroom. She was urging him on and saying "come on, let's go." He became agitated. Ms. Gilbert instructed Ms. Dacanay to let the student calm down. Ms. Dacanay did not. This detrimentally affected the rest of the morning routine, including the student's therapy schedule. Ms. Dacanay denied each of the events described above. Her denials are not credible judged in light of the conflicting testimony, consistency of testimony among several witnesses, and consistent reports in contemporaneously created documents. In addition, Ms. Dacanay regularly displayed an inability to perform her work or learn her duties. Despite repeated instructions, she failed to correctly perform routine functions. When she worked with her students and the physical education teacher, Darlene Tickner, Ms. Tickner had to repeat instructions and requests multiple times to get her to work. Ms. Dacanay's inability to understand her duties caused Ms. Tickner to develop a "Teacher Associate Class Expectations" worksheet to help remind Ms. Dacanay and the other associates of their fundamental duties. Although the worksheet was given to all associates, Ms. Dacanay's repeated inability to perform the duties of her position was the reason Ms. Tickner prepared the worksheet. Although Ms. Dacanay was only responsible for seven students, she could not even remember their names. Ms. Dacanay also demonstrated a pattern of not paying attention to the students, preferring instead to perform chores. For instance on September 19, 2012, when Ms. Dacanay should have been assisting with a student activity, she left the classroom area for about ten minutes and spent her time folding and storing student bathing suits. This was after she had read and signed the "Class Expectations" worksheet that listed "Focus on the students and the activity, not chores" first. On another occasion, Ms. Dacanay neglected to bring a blind student who also needed a wheelchair, because of cerebral palsy, to the physical education class. Ms. Tickner asked Ms. Dacanay where the student was. Ms. Dacanay said "she didn't know." Ms. Tickner sent Ms. Dacanay back to the classroom to get the student. Ms. Dacanay returned without the student and said "she couldn't get him into his chair." Ms. Tickner had to go get the student and bring him to the class. As the "Class Expectation" worksheet notes and Ms. Tickner had emphasized, class participation was important for the students and participation with the students was an important part of the associate's job. Once when Ms. Tickner specifically instructed Ms. Dacanay to work with the other associates getting the students in and out of the pool, Ms. Dacanay disobeyed. Instead, she followed a mobile student who did not need assistance around. On another occasion, Ms. Dacanay was supposed to prepare the students for swimming. She removed the diaper from a child who was not going swimming. Similar issues and concerns about Ms. Dacanay's focus and attention to her duties caused the physical education teacher the year before, Mark Manley, to conclude that he could not leave the room if Ms. Dacanay was working with the students. She repeatedly demonstrated problems "focusing on tasks, staying on task . . . inability to stay with a program all the time." The problems Ms. Dacanay had during the 2012-2013 school year were similar to earlier performance failures during her time at Paul B. Stephens when she was working with Ms. Pickering. Ms. Cox met with Ms. Dacanay on October 18, 2012. The letter of reprimand following that meeting summarized the failings identified above and others. The letter advised Ms. Dacanay: [Y]ou appear to avoid work, especially toileting/changing student. Your ability to learn your job or perform your work responsibilities has been questioned and requires your teacher to constantly monitor you to ensure student safety. For example you appear not to remember which student uses which chair nor how to secure students in their chairs. This has happened several times. After 3-4 weeks in school you still needed direction to assist students with table activities before morning group. You have been off-task during PE and you were not able to monitor students assigned to you when they were in the pool. You also fell asleep during music class. In addition to classroom issues the assistants on the bus with you have stated that you pretend to forget how to hook up wheelchairs and harnesses, and do not do your share on the bus. You also fall asleep regularly on the way home in the afternoon which also puts more work on the other assistants. Before working at Paul B. Stephens, Ms. Dacanay received less than satisfactory ratings on her evaluations beginning on February 20, 2007, at Largo High School, where her evaluation noted that she needed to improve punctuality and that she left her assigned area without notifying the teacher. In all, between February 20, 2007, and February 10, 2011, Ms. Dacanay's evaluations reflect 16 instances of being evaluated as unsatisfactory or in need of improvement in areas that include punctuality, judgment, job knowledge, quality of work, quantity of work, initiative and attendance. The weight of the persuasive, credible evidence established that Ms. Dacanay was not competent to perform her duties, did not perform her duties, and did not improve her performance despite being given repeated opportunities to improve.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Pinellas County School Board enter a final order finding that there is just cause to terminate Ms. Dacanay's employment and terminating her professional service contract for just cause pursuant to section 1012.33, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of November, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 27th day of November, 2013.
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein concerns the appeal of the Board's assignment of Jesus Valladares to Youth Opportunity School South, an alternative school placement.
Findings Of Fact Jesus Valladares, date of birth April 11, 1970, is an eighth grader who was enrolled at Rockway Junior High School during the 1983-84 school year in the Dade County School System. By letter dated March 14, 1983, Respondent was advised by the Director, Alternative Education Placement, William Perry, Jr., that in lieu of expulsion, Jesus was being administratively assigned to the opportunity school program. The basis of that administrative assignment stems from an incident on February 16, 1984 wherein Respondent carried a knife on his person while attending school at Rockway Junior High School. On February 14, 1984, Respondent displayed the knife to several students and threatened one student with the knife. On February 16, 1984, Lewis Plate, Principal of Rockway Junior High, took the knife from Respondent's person. As noted herein above, Respondent, or a representative on his behalf, did not appear to contest or otherwise refute the basis upon which the Petitioner administratively assigned him to Youth Opportunity School South.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of of law, it is hereby recommended: 1. That the Petitioner, School Board of Dade County, Florida, enter a Final Order of assignment of Respondent, Jesus Valladares, to Youth Opportunity School South, an alternative school placement. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of July, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of July, 1984.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner, the Nassau County School Board, has just cause to terminate the employment of Respondent, D. Lynn Owen, a teacher on a professional services contract.
Findings Of Fact The School Board employs Respondent D. Lynn Owen as a teacher. Dr. Owen holds a professional service contract with the School Board pursuant to section 1012.33, Florida Statutes.2/ During the 2011-2012 school year, Dr. Owen taught at West Nassau High School ("West Nassau") in Callahan. Fall 2011-2012 Debate 4 class During the 2011-2012 school year, West Nassau operated on a four-period block schedule rather than the six-period schedule followed by most Florida public schools. Under the block schedule, the school year consisted of two semesters, fall and spring. Students took four classes per day, each class lasting 90 minutes. Students received a full credit per semester for each of the four classes. In addition to her qualifications as an English teacher, Dr. Owen is a nationally ranked speech and debate coach. During the 2010-2011 school year, Dr. Owen started a debate team at West Nassau. She taught Debate 3 during the 2010-2011 school year with a class consisting largely of freshmen recruited from her honors English class. The debate team enjoyed some success in debate competitions and the students wanted to continue taking a debate class in the 2011-2012 school year. West Nassau Principal Ronald Booker was amenable to establishing a Debate 4 class, but was concerned that Dr. Owen's other duties would preclude her teaching the class given the limits of a four-period school day. After some discussion, Dr. Owen volunteered to teach Debate 4 class as a "fifth-period" class to be held after the close of the regular school day. The regular school day began at 9:05 a.m. and ended at 3:25 p.m. Thus, during the Fall Semester of the 2011-2012 school year, Dr. Owen taught Debate 4 as an elective honors class that convened daily from 3:30 until 4:15. In the block schedule system, this class was referred to as a "skinny" block. Unlike the regular block courses, a skinny block met every day for 45 minutes for the full 180 days of the school year. The skinny block class was graded in quarters rather than semesters, and a full credit was earned only if the student remained in the class for the entire school year. Because the Debate 4 class was taught outside of regular school hours, Dr. Owen was not paid to teach the course. West Nassau had several "zero-period" classes that met before the start of the regular school day. Mr. Booker testified that Debate 4 was the only fifth-period class he knew of at the start of the 2011-2012 school year. He testified that he only learned about another fifth-period class, Band 2, after the school year began. William Eason, the band director at West Nassau, testified that he taught Band 2 as a fifth period class during the Fall Semester of the 2011-2012 school year. Mr. Eason testified that Mr. Booker approved the class for credit during the summer before the start of the school year. Mr. Eason stated that he was paid for the class, receiving a stipend for after- school instruction. Mr. Eason's testimony regarding the provenance of the Band 2 class is credited. Both Mr. Eason and Mr. Booker appeared to be testifying honestly, but Mr. Booker's recollection on this point was imprecise. Mr. Booker clearly recalled his approval of Debate 4 but was fuzzy as to when Band 2 came about, though he recalled discussions about the need for the class. Mr. Eason taught the class and naturally had a more specific recollection of the approval process than did the principal. Band 2 met daily at 3:45 p.m. until roughly 5:00 p.m. This was the time during which the marching band rehearsed for its appearances at West Nassau football games and for band competitions. Mr. Eason testified that he had no attendance problems with his Band 2 students. He took regular attendance at the start of the class. Also, if a student were missing, the hole in the marching band formation would be obvious. Three students, A.H., L.C., and C.P., were enrolled in Dr. Owen's Debate 4 class and in Mr. Eason's Band 2 class. It fell to Dr. Owen to fashion a solution to this conflict because it was critical that these students attend band practice every day after school, particularly A.H., who was the band's drum major. No flexibility could come from the Band 2 side of the conflict. Mr. Booker asked Dr. Owen to "work with" these students to provide a way for them to make up missed class time in Debate 4. If they had to miss two days because of band, then Dr. Owen should meet with them for a longer class period on the remaining three days to make sure they met the seat time requirement.3/ Dr. Owen testified that she understood Mr. Booker's instruction to mean that she should be flexible regarding regular class attendance for her Debate 4 students, provided they put in the time required to receive credit for the course. Eight students were in the course at the start of the year, and three dropped out. Dr. Owen stated that the five who remained in Debate 4 met their seat time requirement for the 2011-2012 school year. C.P., now a tenth grader at West Nassau, was in the marching band during Fall Semester of the 2011-2012 school year. He was enrolled in Band 2 and stated that the marching band practiced every day at 4:00 p.m., except for Thursdays when band practice convened at 4:30. C.P. enrolled in Debate 4 during September 2011, on Dr. Owen's recommendation, creating a conflict with his attendance at Band 2. On a few occasions, C.P. split his time at Band 2 and Debate 4. On most days, he would attend Debate 4 from 3:30 until 4:00 p.m. and then go to band practice. If there was no band practice, he would stay in Debate 4 until 5:00 p.m. On Thursdays he was able to stay in Debate 4 for a full hour, but on Fridays during the football season he was not able to attend Debate 4 at all due to his band commitments. C.P. testified that Dr. Owen allowed him to make up the missed time by coming in early in the morning, before first- period began at 9:05 a.m. In this way, C.P. was able to put in at least 30 minutes daily on his Debate 4 assignments. C.P. estimated that 95 percent of his class time was spent performing research on debate topics with his debate partner, which facilitated working independently of the regular class period. C.P. testified that his grade in Debate 4 was based on class participation, including debate practice once a week, and that there were no term papers or written assignments in the conventional sense. Dr. Owen testified that sixty percent of the grade for Debate 4 was based on class work, twenty percent was based on writing, and twenty percent was based on her assessments of the students. She stated that C.P. was not doing things that he would normally do in an English class for "writing," but that she graded the students based on their research, their notes, and their debate outlines, all of which are components of "writing" under the Sunshine State Standards. Her assessments were based on weekly practice debates. C.P. stated that his classmates A.H. and L.C. eventually dropped out of Debate 4 because they were unable to keep up with the requirements of the class in addition to their Band 2 commitments. The School Board has alleged that although C.P., A.H., and L.C. attended fifth-period band practice virtually every day during the Fall Semester of the 2011-2012 school year, and although band practice directly conflicted with Dr. Owen's fifth period Debate 4, those students were marked "present" in the Debate 4 class when they were not present. In fact, the fifth-period classes overlapped but did not conflict at all points. Mr. Eason testified that the band class began at 3:45, but C.P. testified that in practice the class did not commence until 4:00 p.m. C.P. was able to attend debate for thirty minutes, from 3:30 until 4:00 p.m., and then attend the band class starting at 4:00 p.m. C.P.'s testimony was entirely credible on this point. The evidence establishes that it was possible for the three students enrolled in both classes to attend at least portions of both classes. Assuming that the "flexibility" urged by Mr. Booker included the ability for students to make up class time at other times of the day, it was possible for C.P., A.H., and L.C. to meet the seat time requirements for Debate 4 while also maintaining their attendance at the fifth-period Band 2 class. A.H. and L.C. dropped out of Debate 4 halfway through the school year, each receiving a half-credit for the class. C.P. remained in Debate 4 for the entire school year. C.P. testified that A.H. and L.C. dropped the debate class because they were unable to put in the time to meet the seat requirements for the class while maintaining their level of participation in band. Dr. Owen's handwritten attendance sheets for August 29 through October 13, 2011, indicate a total of 16 absences from Debate 4, including five absences for A.H., the band's drum major. However, the attendance records submitted by Dr. Owen for the school's official records show no absences at all from Debate 4 until October 19, 2011. Dr. Owen did not have an adequate explanation for this discrepancy. In response to a direct question as to whether she had marked the students absent on the official attendance sheet, Dr. Owen said, "I don't know. Probably not." Because Dr. Owen was teaching the Debate 4 class voluntarily, without pay, the school would not pay for a substitute teacher. Therefore, Dr. Owen did not have a substitute teacher to fill in for her when she missed Debate 4. Records produced at the hearing indicated that Dr. Owen was absent from the West Nassau campus on September 14 and 23, October 4, November 9, December 8 and 9, and December 14 through 16, 2011. However, Dr. Owen's handwritten attendance sheets show that on September 14, when Dr. Owen was at the hospital for her husband's surgery, four students spent the entire class period in Debate 4 and four others at least checked in with Dr. Owen. The attendance sheets show that on September 23, when Dr. Owen was attending a conference in Baltimore, three students spent the entire fifth-period in Debate 4, three other students checked in, and two were absent. Dr. Owen had no adequate explanation for these discrepancies. On October 4, Dr. Owen was out of school for AVID professional training. Dr. Owen was the AVID coordinator for West Nassau. AVID, or Advancement Via Individual Determination, is the curriculum component of GEAR UP (Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs), a grant program established by the U.S. Department of Education to increase the number of low income students who are prepared to enter and succeed in postsecondary education. West Nassau was part of a three-year GEAR UP grant. Dr. Owen's handwritten attendance sheets for October 4 indicate that six students were present for the entire class period and two others checked in with Dr. Owen. In this instance, Dr. Owen explained that the AVID training session in Jacksonville concluded at the end of the school day and that she immediately drove to Callahan to be there for the Debate 4 class. As to Dr. Owen's other listed absences, the record contains no handwritten attendance sheets with which to compare them. In her deposition, Dr. Owen testified that she kept handwritten attendance sheets for the entire school year, but that during its initial investigation the School Board asked only for her attendance sheets for the first quarter of the 2011-2012 school year. She was subsequently suspended and barred from the West Nassau campus and therefore unable to provide the rest of the attendance sheets in response to the School Board's discovery request. West Nassau also generated a daily "subsequent period absentee report." The first-period teacher would take the roll of the students in her class and send the results to the school office. The office would then generate a report of absent students that would be distributed the next day to teachers of subsequent classes. Those teachers would check their own attendance record against the report and mark whether the students were present or absent for their classes. The subsequent period absentee reports for November 9, and December 14 and 15, 2011, each indicate that A.H. was marked absent for her first period class but was marked "present" for Debate 4. On all three of these dates, Dr. Owen was not present at the school. West Nassau maintains a "teacher sign-in sheet for payroll" that is treated as the official record of when a teacher comes into and leaves the school every day. Several of these sheets for the 2011-2012 school year were submitted into evidence. The sheets indicate that on most days, Dr. Owen worked well in excess of eight hours, often well into the evening hours. However, the sheets also indicate several days during the Fall semester on which Dr. Owen signed out of the school at 3:30 p.m. or before, indicating that she could not have been present to teach Debate 4: August 16, September 1, October 26 and 27, and November 2, 2011. There were also a few dates on which Dr. Owen left school after 3:30 but before the 4:15 dismissal time for Debate 4: September 20, October 25, and November 3, 2011. The handwritten attendance sheets for Debate 4 indicate that the class convened on August 16 and September 1, 2011, despite the fact that Dr. Owen had signed out of the school at 3:30 p.m. The evidence indicated that on at least two occasions Dr. Owen chaired meetings of the West Nassau AVID teachers at 3:45 p.m., in conflict with Debate 4. Dr. Owen testified that the AVID meetings occurred 15 minutes after the start of Debate 4, and that she was able to take roll and get the class started on independent work before the AVID meeting started. The AVID meetings were in the same connected suite of classrooms in which Dr. Owen conducted her classes, so that she was at all times within earshot of the Debate 4 class. She could not, however, state with certainty that the students were in the class and working during the class period. The School Board has also alleged that Dr. Owen did not establish or follow any discernible academic standards for the Debate 4 class. The School Board offered little evidence to support this allegation.4/ Dr. Owen provided a detailed course syllabus that included cognitive and behavioral objectives, targets for subject matter mastery, and the specific Sunshine State Standards met by the course. She also provided the students with a classroom management plan with clear rules for the functioning of the classroom and a set of student, parent and teacher expectations requiring the signatures of all parties. Regarding the lack of traditional writing assignments in the Debate 4 class, Dr. Owen testified as follows: If I had any less experience, maybe I would have to have a piece of paper for every single thing that they did. But I didn’t have to have that because I have been trained to assess everything a student has learned in ten minutes or less. And the minute they start talking, whether it's a national competition or in my classroom, in ten minutes or less I can tell you whether they've done any or all of the work that they have been given to do. It's part of knowing how to judge and coach debate. Dr. Owen's testimony on this point is credible. Debate 4 was a performing arts class, and as such did not fit the profile of a standard academic classroom course. To prepare for debates, students were required to perform extensive research and to demonstrate complete mastery of the materials they compiled. At the suggestion of the West Nassau principal, Dr. Owen provided the students some flexibility in making up their seat time due to the recognized conflict during the fifth-period. C.P., for example, made up his seat time by coming in early in the mornings and staying past 4:15 on afternoons when he could be in the class. Dr. Owen estimated that C.P. put in 130 hours of seat time during fourth quarter alone as he prepared for a national competition, when only 135 hours were required to obtain credit for the entire school year. Dr. Owen's clear mastery of the subject matter entitled her to some deference as to the extent to which the students were able to work independently of her. However, on this point, Superintendent of Schools John Ruis testified persuasively that regardless of how much independent study the student is responsible for, there is an expectation that instruction will occur in the classroom and that the students will be under the supervision of the teacher who is responsible for them. Dr. Ruis believed that some arrangement should have been made for supervision of the class in Dr. Owen's absence, regardless of the time the class convened. In summary, as to the allegations regarding the Debate 4 class, the School Board failed to demonstrate that Dr. Owen did not establish or follow any discernible academic standards for the class during the Fall Semester of the 2011-2012 school year. The School Board did demonstrate that Dr. Owen falsified records pertaining to the fifth-period Debate 4 class. It is understood that "falsification" carries a connotation of intentional action. Based on all the evidence, there is simply no way to find that Dr. Owen's actions constituted anything other than an intentional misreporting of student attendance in her Debate 4 class. Dr. Owen submitted attendance reports that were clearly incorrect, showing students present for classes that could not have taken place because Dr. Owen was not present on the West Nassau campus at the time in question.5/ When she filled out the attendance reports, Dr. Owen had to know that she was submitting inaccurate records. Spring 2011-2012 Speech 1 class During the Spring Semester of the 2011-2012 school year, Dr. Owen taught an AVID Speech 1 class at West Nassau. As noted above, AVID is the curriculum component of the federal GEAR UP grant program, the purpose of which is to increase the number of low-income students who are prepared to succeed in postsecondary education. The program's emphasis is on students who show the potential to do college work but who lack the financial and family resources to prepare in the manner available to their more well-to-do classmates. The elective AVID program aims to nurture these students and inculcate in them a desire to succeed in college.6/ The final exam for the Spring Semester AVID Speech 1 class consisted of four parts, each worth 200 points. The 800-point final exam counted for roughly one quarter of the student's grade for the nine-week period.7/ One of the 200-point segments of the final exam was a written essay test. The exam's instructions provided as follows: Please choose ONE (1) essay question. Your essay response should be a minimum of three (3) pages, and a maximum of four (4) pages. Please include an introduction, body, and conclusion. Your response is based off of your own experiences, not just the class's as a whole. Write your responses on a separate sheet of notebook paper. There followed a list of five essay questions: Compare and contrast your 1st semester at WNHS to your 2nd semester. What has changed? How have you improved, and what can you do to continue to improve? What recommendations would you give to the freshman class next year to prepare them for high school? Describe your experience with your first AP/Honors class. What do you think you could have done differently to help your grade? How do you think you could have been prepared in 8th grade, to be ready to go, when the class started? Describe what you think your life is to be like in 15 years. Where do you see yourself? Be as descriptive as possible. Do you believe that a person is born with individual determination, or is it acquired over time? What makes individual determination such a good thing but also a very bad thing? Give examples. Twenty-two students took the essay test. Twenty-one of the students received the same grade, 186 points out of a possible 200. The remaining student received a grade of 160.8/ Dr. Owen made no marks on any of the exams, most of which were replete with spelling errors, grammatical errors and sentence fragments. Three of the essays did not meet the three page minimum, and one of the essays was five and one-half pages long, in excess of the four-page maximum. In explaining her actions, Dr. Owen testified that some of the students were very concerned about their grades as they approached the written essay portion of the exam. Two parts of the final exam had been completed and were "non-negotiable as far as AVID was concerned," in Dr. Owen's words. One of these was the Tutorial Request Form, which Dr. Owen described as a "very stylized Socratic methodology form that they have to use Costa's higher-level order of thinking in order to put together.9/ And that is a killer sheet that they had to do twice a week all year." The second "non-negotiable" part of the final exam was a grade for the binders that the students were required to keep all year. Dr. Owen testified that some of the students had not done well on these two portions of the final exam, for which the AVID program allowed her no leeway to adjust the grades. She testified that these students "needed something to mitigate the damage that had been done in . . . the other two parts of the exam." Some of the students were further concerned that they could not write three pages on the essay test. Therefore, she orally amended the exam instructions, telling the class, "I will look at your essays to determine if you have addressed the prompt and if you have reflected on what you're doing. And if you've worked the whole period and you're working hard and I can tell, then I don't think anyone will be disappointed with their grades." Dr. Owen testified that she had taken this essay test, including the instructions, from an AVID website. She stated that she had never written an exam that called for a minimum or maximum number of pages, and that she did not believe that such a requirement should be strictly enforced. Dr. Owen noted that she had one student whose handwriting became larger and larger as she became more nervous, which caused her to fill more than four pages on the essay test. Another student's primary language was Spanish, but he managed to write a page and a half in English that addressed the prompt. In both of these instances, Dr. Owen declined to discount the students' grades for failure to meet the three-page minimum or four-page maximum. Dr. Owen testified that she has been trained as a professional test scorer and did not need to place marks on the papers. She stated that she took notes on a separate note pad to assist her in grading the papers, though she was unable to produce these notes at the hearing. She also knew that this was the last exam before summer break and that the students would not be coming back for the tests. She intended to place the exams in the students' permanent AVID folders to use as part of their first project for the next school year. The project was to involve peer editing, and she did not want the students to be influenced by marks she had placed on the papers. The essay exam was not intended to be "punitive." It was meant to be "reflective," something she could use at the beginning of the next year as a starting point for further study of the students' personal growth. Dr. Owen noted that the essay test was only one-fourth of the AVID Speech 1 final exam. This part of the exam did not change anyone's grade average because it amounted to so little of the total grade. Dr. Owen testified that it is appropriate to give all the students the same grade provided they "put into it what I ask them to put into it." In her deposition, when asked why 21 out of 22 students received the same score, Dr. Owen replied, "Probably because I liked what they wrote and they maintained the rubric."10/ She testified that she read every word of every essay. The fourth part of the final exam, also worth 200 points, was a "mandala autobiography" project. Each student was required to draw a mandala, or circle, containing five symbols that represent unique and varied aspects of the student and/or his life. According to the written rubric for the project, a "very effective" mandala would demonstrate its symbolic purpose, would be visually appealing, and would have a purposeful and unifying connecting design. Accompanying the mandala would be an essay that "thoroughly describes and explains the symbols contained in the mandala. The essay would use "strong sensory details to bring each symbol to life." The "very effective" essay should be well-organized, use "well-crafted transitions to propel the reader forward," contain varied sentence structure and have "few, if any, mechanical errors." All 22 students in the AVID Speech 1 class received a grade of 190 out of 200 on the mandala autobiography project. Dr. Owen made no marks of any kind on any of the project materials submitted by the students. Dr. Owen explained that this project was the culmination of "an entire year's worth of reflection through AVID." As well as writing explanatory essays, the students were required to present the mandalas to the class and explain each symbol and color used in the drawings. Dr. Owen testified that the mandala autobiography was something of a group project, with all of the students working on the rubric together. Again, she did not make marks on the papers because the mandalas were going to be used during the next school year. Dr. Owen testified: [A]t the beginning of this year, we were going to take those mandalas, and we were going to turn that into the second project, which was: over the summer, how have you changed? How have your collages changed? How did the symbols change? Are they still valid? And so I wasn't going to mark on anybody's artwork, and I didn't need to mark on any of them because the students' rubrics and things . . . I had them all together in one place. Dr. Owen conceded that some students produced more materials than others and that some projects appeared to have had more effort put into them, based on the detail of the written materials. Nonetheless, Dr. Owen testified that each one of the students in the class "absolutely" earned the grade he or she received. Dr. Cynthia Grooms, the assistant principal at West Nassau who conducted the initial investigation into the allegations against Dr. Owen, testified that she found it unusual that so many students received the same grades on the essay test and the mandala project, especially because there were no marks on the papers. These facts raised concerns as to whether Dr. Owen reviewed the exams, graded them properly, documented her grading process, and provided feedback to the students. Dr. Ruis also found it "highly irregular" for 22 students in a class to receive an identical grade on a written assignment. Dr. Ruis believed the probability of such an occurrence "would normally be very slim." As to the essay test in particular, Dr. Ruis stated: It would be difficult not to read these essays and make some distinctions between them with regard to quality of the product that the students produced. However, that was not reflected in the scores that they were assigned . . . It suggested that they were not reviewed objectively, that they were not graded in accordance with the guidelines that were issued, and done haphazardly. Even Mr. Booker, the former West Nassau principal who testified on behalf of Dr. Owen, stated that it would be unusual for all 22 students in a class to receive the same grade on a written project. If he were shown 22 written essays, all of which received the identical grade and none of which had a mark on them, Mr. Booker would conclude that the teacher had not graded them. The School Board's allegation is that Dr. Owen "falsified and/or negligently failed to maintain accurate grading records for her fourth period Speech I class." It is found that Dr. Owen did not "falsify" records for the class because there is no evidence that Dr. Owen intended to create inaccurate or misleading grading records. The undersigned finds Dr. Owen to be a dedicated teacher and a sympathetic witness, and has attempted to give her the benefit of every doubt in this proceeding. The AVID Speech 1 class was an elective class designed to encourage potential first-generation college students to pursue higher education. The class was designed more to encourage reflection and self- examination than to exert academic pressure on the students. It is found that, given the nature and goals of the class, Dr. Owen had some measure of discretion to apply a more relaxed grading standard. However, by her own admission, Dr. Owen negotiated with her students the terms of the AVID Speech 1 essay test after the students saw the written instructions to the test, essentially telling them to disregard the instructions and promising them a good grade if she believed they were working hard. She then proceeded to give 21 of 22 students a score of 186 out of 200, or a solid "A," without apparent regard to the manifest differences in quality among the essays. She made no marks on any of the papers, failing to correct for spelling and grammatical errors. Dr. Owen testified that she took notes in a separate note pad that she was unable to produce at the hearing. She stated that the students received the same score because they all wrote according to her undisclosed personal "rubric." The undersigned credits Dr. Owen's testimony that she read every word of every essay, but cannot credit her conclusion that all of these essays were of precisely the same quality meriting precisely the same grade. Based on these facts, it is found that Dr. Owen negligently failed to maintain accurate grading records for her fourth-period Speech I class as to the essay portion of the final exam. As to the mandala autobiography, there are factors apart from those discussed as to the essay test that incline the decision toward Dr. Owen. The mandala project had an objective rubric against which the finished product could be judged. Though each student produced an individual mandala, the overall project was visualized as a group effort, providing some justification for Dr. Owen's decision to award all 22 students with a grade of 190. A reasonable person could disagree with Dr. Owen's method of grading the mandala autobiography project, but her grading decision cannot be found to constitute a negligent failure to maintain accurate grading records. Evidence as to Dr. Owen's fitness and effectiveness Mr. Booker was the principal of West Nassau and Dr. Owen's direct supervisor throughout her tenure at the school. He described Dr. Owen as a "fabulous teacher," a "master" at keeping her students "highly engaged and involved in the educational process." Mr. Booker stated that he had no concerns about Dr. Owen's professionalism and had never known her to neglect any of her duties. His only concern was as follows: I've had concerns about her work ethic, because she works, you know, nonstop pretty much every day, every day, every night, weekends. She's a very dedicated teacher, puts in more hours as one teacher probably than three or four other teachers do. I used to have to try to kick her out of the building. Dr. Owen received the highest score possible on her annual evaluation for the 2011-2012 school year. She received an overall score of 97 out of 100 possible points on her 2010-2011 annual evaluation. She was subject to two evaluations during the 2009-2010 school year, for which she received scores of 94 and 100 out of a possible 100 points. Iris Coleman is a retired teacher and administrator for the School Board. In the 2008-2009 school year, Ms. Coleman was acting principal at the Student Educational Alternative School ("SEAS") at which Dr. Owen was a teacher. Ms. Coleman testified that her performance evaluations of Dr. Owen were very good, and that Dr. Owen was "one of the most competent teachers that I have ever observed." Ms. Coleman never knew Dr. Owen to neglect her duty, stating that, "I have never seen anything but the finest of performance academically, professionally, and socially." Melody Spruell, the former English department head and AP coordinator at West Nassau, testified that she had observed Dr. Owen's Debate 4 class 15 or 16 times and her AVID Speech 1 class about a dozen times. She noted that Dr. Owen's students posted "stellar" scores on the FCAT exam. Dr. Spruell stated that Dr. Owen "makes the rest of us kind of look like, you know, chopped liver." Dr. Spruell testified that if she had ninth- grade children, "my kids would be in her class." Maureen Lullo is an English teacher who shared the same suite of classrooms with Dr. Owen and worked closely with her in the AVID program. Ms. Lullo described Dr. Owen as "a brilliant mind and really one of the best teachers that I have been exposed to in my 24 years of teaching." Dr. Ruis testified as to the factors that led him to recommend Dr. Owen's dismissal: Well, I think to go back to the Code of Ethics of the teaching profession of the State of Florida, teachers have an obligation to present information honestly; they have an obligation to the profession and to the students and to the parents to not produce information that would misrepresent the facts or be submitted fraudulently. I think that's a very serious breach of the Code of Ethics. And my expectation for all of our teachers would be that they perform and that they act in a manner that's of the highest character, as exemplifying the Code of Ethics, because that is certainly something that we need to model for our students. And when that does not happen, I think it -- you know, it reduces the effectiveness of someone in the instructional position with students under their supervision. Dr. Ruis concluded that it would be "very, very difficult" for Dr. Owen to remedy her impaired effectiveness at West Nassau or in the Nassau County School District.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Nassau County School Board enter a final order finding D. Lynn Owen guilty of incompetency and misconduct in office and imposing the sanction of suspension without pay for the 2012-2013 school year. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of February, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 5th day of February, 2013.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent, Diane Velez, violated section 1012.795(1)(g) and (j), Florida Statutes (2017), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the demeanor of the witnesses, the testimony given, and the documentary evidence received, the following Findings of Fact are made. Respondent holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 789520, covering the areas of Elementary Education, English for Speakers of Other Languages, (ESOL), and Exceptional Student Education (ESE), which is valid through June 30, 2020. At all times relevant to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as an ESE teacher at Stillwell Middle School (Stillwell) in the Duval County School District. She has been teaching for approximately 20 years, with no prior discipline. Respondent teaches in a wing at Stillwell that is referred to as the SLA Unit, which stands for Supported Level Academics. The students in the SLA Unit are cognitively delayed and have all of their classes in this self- contained unit. The SLA Unit is located in a wing at the back of the school, near the bus loop. If someone is looking down the hall from the doors closest to the rest of the school, there are female and male bathrooms for students to the left and right, respectively, closest to those doors. From those bathrooms, there are five classrooms on each side of the hall. Ms. Velez’s classroom is the third classroom on the right-hand side of the hallway. There are additional restrooms in the wing, all congregated in the area between the third and fourth classrooms on the left hand side of the hallway. At least one of those bathrooms is entered from within a classroom. Stillwell had a policy that if a student was given permission to leave the classroom, the student should not be gone for more than eight to ten minutes without the teacher calling for assistance to locate the student. Teachers could call for assistance from Ronald Messick, the lead ESE teacher; send a paraprofessional to look for the student; or call the front office or a resource officer. The eight-to-ten minute window was not a written policy, but was discussed during pre-planning meetings at the beginning of the year, as well as at faculty meetings. While attendance logs from pre-planning and faculty meetings were not introduced to establish that Respondent was present during faculty meetings or pre-planning meetings, no evidence was presented to indicate that she was absent. In addition, the 2017-2018 Faculty Handbook (Handbook) for Stillwell had more than one section that addressed supervision of students. For example, under the caption “Supervision of Students,” beginning on page 12 of the Handbook, it states:1 It is the responsibility of the school to provide supervision for students in attendance. It is the teacher’s responsibility to make sure that students in his/her charge are supervised at all times. Teachers should be aware of the legal and progressive discipline aspects of failure to provide adequate supervision. Students should always have adult supervision. Under the caption “Hall Passes,” on page 16 of the Handbook, it states: Hall passes are to be used for emergencies only. In an effort to reduce the number of students out of class during instructional time, each classroom will have either a lime/orange vest or a Colored clipboard. Students needing to leave the classroom are required to wear the vest or carry the clipboard. Please make sure students continue to sign-out when leaving/returning to your classroom so if the vest/clipboard disappears, you will know who was in possession of it last. Only one student per class may be on a hall pass at any given time. If it is necessary that a student leave your classroom to go to an Administrative Office and your vest/clipboard is already being used, security will need to escort student(s) to and from the classroom. While it is our desire that no student be in the halls during instructional time, there are absolutely NO hall passes for any reason during the first/last 30 minutes of each class and NO hall passes during 2nd block each day unless called by an Administrator. Students who are found out of class during the first/last 30 minutes of the block will have the vest or clipboard taken and given to the Assistant Principal for you to retrieve. Students who are out of class, unaccompanied by security, and do not have a vest/clipboard will be 1 All italics, underlining, and bold used in the quoted material is as it appears in the Handbook. considered skipping and appropriate consequences will be assigned. The teacher will also be held accountable if not following school procedure. Finally, under the heading “Hall and Campus Monitoring,” it states in all capitals and bold letters, “STUDENTS SHOULD NEVER WALK BY THEMSELVES.” On or about January 11, 2018, J.L. was an 11-year-old female student in the sixth grade. J.L. was assigned to Respondent’s classroom, and has an Individual Education Plan (IEP). J.L. was a student in a class containing students who functioned cognitively at the lowest level for students at Stillwell. While those who testified could not state definitively what the IQ level was for the class, it was generally around 67-70. Ms. Velez described the class as one for which there was “a need to have eyes on them.” J.L. was new to the school during the 2017-2018 school year. On August 22, 2017, Ronald Messick sent an email to J.L.’s teachers, including Respondent, stating that J.L. could not be left alone and that she would “leave with a complete stranger.” He advised that when J.L. uses the restroom, she likes to play in it, and directed that the teacher who has J.L. the last period of the day needed to make sure she used the restroom. J.L.’s mother had called Mr. Messick the first week of school with concerns that J.L. had been unsupervised in the bus pick-up area. Her mother explained her concerns to Mr. Messick regarding J.L.’s need for constant supervision. The email referenced making sure that J.L. went to the bathroom before boarding the bus simply because she would have a long ride home from school. An IEP meeting was conducted for J.L. on October 12, 2017. Mr. Messick was present as the LEA (lead educational agency) representative, along with Ms. Velez, who wrote the IEP, and three others. J.L.’s IEP states that “[s]he has Williams Syndrome which is a developmental disorder that affects many parts of her body.” The IEP also states that J.L. “is a very trusting child and will walk away with a stranger. She does not distinguish friend from stranger and this causes danger to her safety,” and that J.L. “needs increased supervision to ensure her safety.” The statement that J.L. needs increased supervision to insure her safety is included in two separate sections of her IEP. Respondent was J.L.’s case manager. As her case manager, Respondent reviews, completes entries, and inputs other appropriate data in J.L.’s IEP. She was aware of the information contained in J.L.’s IEP. On January 11, 2018, J.L. was present in Ms. Velez’s classroom during the last period of the day. At approximately 2:05, she asked for, and received, permission to go to the bathroom. Ms. Velez allowed J.L. to go by herself. No adult or other student accompanied her. Allowing J.L. to go the restroom alone was not permitted by her IEP. Further, it appears to violate the policies outlined in the Handbook, which prohibits allowing hall passes for the first 30 minutes of each class. The final class of the day began at 2:05.2 It also runs afoul of the email sent by Mr. Messick at the beginning of the school year, which specifically directed that J.L. not be left alone. After J.L. was permitted to leave the classroom, T.B., a male student in Respondent’s class, also asked to go the bathroom, and was allowed to leave the classroom. Ms. Velez did not check to see where J.L. was before letting T.B. leave the classroom. T.B. was also unaccompanied. J.L. was absent from the classroom for approximately 24 minutes. There are no credible circumstances presented at hearing by which a student should be absent from the classroom for that length of time, regardless of 2 The Administrative Complaint does not charge Respondent with violating this policy, and no discipline is recommended for apparently doing so. It is included simply to show that there were multiple guidelines in place to prohibit allowing J.L. outside of the classroom alone. their mental capacity, the policy contained in the Handbook, or any policy discussed at faculty meetings. T.B. returned to the classroom before J.L. After he entered Ms. Velez’s classroom, T.B. apparently told Ms. Velez that J.L. was in the boys’ bathroom. Ms. Velez testified that she was about to look for her when J.L. returned to the classroom. Ms. Velez testified that she noticed J.L. had “a lot of energy,” and was breathing hard and her hands were shaking. Ms. Velez asked J.L. if she had been in the boys’ bathroom, and testified at hearing that J.L. responded that she did not want to get in trouble. J.L. became upset and asked to speak with the school nurse. Ms. Velez allowed her to go to the nurse’s office, this time accompanied by an eighth grade girl. While Ms. Velez described the child who accompanied J.L. as “very responsible,” it is noted that she was also a child in this classroom of children who represented the lowest functioning students at Stillwell. Lana Austin was the school nurse at Stillwell, and her office was down the hall from Ms. Velez’s room in the SLA wing. She testified T.B. was in her office when J.L. arrived. It was not explained at hearing whether T.B. had also asked Ms. Velez to go to the nurse’s office or just how he came to be there. When she arrived at the nurse’s office, J.L. was crying and somewhat distraught, and T.B. was also getting upset. Ms. Austin tried to get J.L. to tell her what was wrong, and J.L. kept saying they were trying to get her in trouble. J.L. wanted to call her mother, and Ms. Austin let her do so, because she believed it would calm her down. A paraprofessional came into Ms. Austin’s office while J.L. was on the phone with her mother. So while the paraprofessional was in the office with the students, Ms. Austin contacted Ms. Raulerson, the principal at Stillwell, and notified her there might be a problem so that someone could look at the hallway video and find out if anything happened. Ms. Austin knew that J.L. was a student who needed to be escorted. She was always brought to the nurse’s office by an adult. On this occasion, there was no adult. Jennifer Raulerson was the principal at Stillwell during the 2017-2018 school year. She is now the executive director for middle schools in Duval County. Ms. Raulerson testified that J.L.’s father came to the school immediately after J.L.’s telephone call home, and started asking questions. Because of the nature of his questions, consistent with school protocols, Ms. Raulerson contacted Stillwell’s school resource officer (SRO), Officer Tuten, as well as Mr. Messick and Ms. Hodges, who was the dean of students, to discuss with J.L.’s father what needed to be done to investigate what actually happened.3 The following morning, Ms. Raulerson, Ms. Hodges, and Mr. Messick spoke to J.L., T.B., and M.N., another student in the hallway, about what happened the day before. Based on their answers, Ms. Raulerson gave Ms. Hodges a basic timeframe, and asked her to check the cameras to see if she saw anything that would indicate that something happened involving J.L. and T.B. Ms. Hodges testified that a person can type in a date and time on the computer and look at a specific timeframe on the video, which is what she did. Once she viewed the video and realized how long a student had been out of the classroom, she went to Ms. Raulerson and they looked at the video again. Mr. Messick also watched the video with them. Administrators at the school could access the surveillance video on their computers. The surveillance video software has dates and times from which you can retrieve a time period to watch. However, when you download 3 Although they were under subpoena, neither J.L. nor J.L.’s father appeared to testify at hearing. Any statements attributed to them cannot support a finding of fact for the truth of the matter asserted. § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat. Statements by J.L. that are included in this Recommended Order are not intended to establish the truth of her statements, but rather, to explain why teachers and administrators took the actions they did in response to the situation. a section of the surveillance video, the downloaded portion does not include the timestamp. When Ms. Raulerson viewed the surveillance video on the computer screen, she could see the time stamp. While the video in evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 17E does not contain the time stamp, Ms. Raulerson credibly testified that it is the same video she and the others viewed to determine whether J.L. and T.B. were out of the classroom and how long they were out of the classroom. Petitioner’s Exhibit 17E is a type of evidence commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent persons in the conduct of their responsibilities as a school administrator. There is no evidence that the tape itself has been altered, edited, or tampered with in any way. The lack of a time stamp is not all that important. What is important is not so much the time of day when J.L. and T.B. were absent from Respondent’s classroom, but the length of time that they were absent.4 Ms. Velez admits that she allowed both students to leave her classroom on January 11. She simply disputes how long J.L. was gone. The surveillance video is 39 minutes and 53 seconds long. The times given in the summary of the video activity below are based on the times recorded on the video, as opposed to the time of day. A comparison of those timeframes with the timeline made by Ms. Austin and Mr. Messick shows that the timelines are essentially the same. The video shows the following: 4 Respondent claims she is prejudiced by the admission of the video, because she was not able to view it with the time-stamps to verify that it was, in fact, the video for January 11, 2018. It is noted that Respondent initiated no discovery in this case. Petitioner filed an exhibit list that included a reference to a video as early as July 24, 2020, some three weeks before hearing. Moreover, the Order of Pre-Hearing Instructions specifically requires not only a list of all exhibits to be offered at hearing, but also any objections to those exhibits and the grounds for each objection. Respondent did not note any objection in the Second Amended Joint Pre-Hearing Statement to the admission of any of the videos admitted as Petitioner’s Exhibit 17. At eight minutes, 17 seconds, J.L. leaves Ms. Velez’s classroom and heads down toward the girls’ bathroom at the end of the hall.5 She is wearing an over-sized jacket, but is not wearing a vest or carrying a clipboard. At nine minutes, 15 seconds, she comes out of the girls’ bathroom and speaks to an adult in the hallway, and then heads back to the bathroom. At the 13-minute, 4-second mark, T.B. walks down the hall from Ms. Velez’s classroom and, curiously, walks over toward the girls’ bathroom before going over to the boys’ bathroom. At 14 minutes, 39 seconds, T.B. comes out of the boys’ bathroom and walks over toward the girls’ bathroom a second time. After approximately ten seconds, he exits the area near the girls’ bathroom and heads back to the boys’ bathroom. At approximately 15 minutes into the video, and almost seven minutes after leaving Ms. Velez’s classroom, J.L. comes out of the girls’ bathroom, peers down the hallway in both directions, and goes over to the boys’ bathroom. At this point, she is still wearing her jacket. At approximately 18 minutes, 16 seconds into the video, a second male student, later identified as M.N., walks down the hall. M.N. is not in Ms. Velez’s class during this class period. He also goes toward the girls’ bathroom first, and then stands in the hallway outside the boys’ bathroom. After approximately 30 seconds, he walks down the hall and back, before going toward the boys’ bathroom and out of sight at 19 minutes and 40 seconds. At 20 minutes, 16 seconds into the video, other students start lining up in the hallway. Approximately four classes line up in the hallway, with no one coming out of the boys’ bathroom. At approximately 29 minutes, 5 Respondent established at hearing that one cannot actually see students enter and exit the bathrooms from the surveillance video. The sight line for the video stops just short of the doors to the two bathrooms. However, the only other alternative to going in the bathrooms would be for students to exit the SLA unit through the doors near the bathrooms. If that were the case, J.L. would be subject to harm as well, given that the doors lead to the rest of the school and the bus loading zone. 26 seconds, girls in line outside the bathroom are seen looking toward the boys’ bathroom and appear to be laughing. J.L. comes out of the boys’ bathroom at the 29-minute, 53-second mark, followed by T.B. J.L. is not wearing her jacket, and her belt is undone. T.B. throws J.L.’s jacket on the floor and walks down the hallway with his hands up in the air. Both J.L. and T.B. walk down the hall toward Ms. Velez’s room, and then turn around and return to their respective bathrooms. At the 31-minute, 53-second mark, J.L. comes out of the bathroom with her shirt tucked in and her belt fastened. She is still not wearing her jacket, a small portion of which can be seen on the floor of the hallway. She does not pick it up, but stays in the hallway until T.B. comes out of the bathroom, then both go down the hall toward Ms. Velez’s class, with T.B. running and J.L. walking. J.L. re-enters Ms. Velez’s classroom at 32 minutes, 21 seconds into the video. Finally, at 32 minutes, 30 seconds, M.N. comes out of the boys’ room, picks up J.L.’s jacket and heads down the hall. Based on the surveillance video, J.L.was out of the classroom for slightly over 24 minutes. T.B. was absent from the classroom for over 18 minutes. Ms. Velez is never seen in the hallway. There is no admissible evidence to demonstrate what actually occurred during the time that J.L. appeared to be in the boys’ restroom. Regardless of what actually happened, no female student should be in the boys’ bathroom, and a female student already identified as needing increased supervision should not be allowed to be unsupervised outside of her classroom at all, much less for such a lengthy period of time. The potential for harm was more than foreseeable, it was inevitable. Ms. Velez did not go in the hallway or send Ms. Kirkland, the paraprofessional present in her classroom that day, to check on J.L. or T.B. She did not call the SRO, the front office, or Mr. Messick to ask for assistance in locating either child. She also did not contact Ms. Raulerson, Mr. Messick, or J.L.’s parents after T.B. told her that J.L. had been in the boys’ restroom. She testified that, while J.L. certainly should not be in the boys’ restroom, there was nothing that led her to believe or suspect that there could be neglect or abuse. Ms. Velez acknowledged that she allowed J.L. to go to the bathroom unsupervised, and stated that she was training J.L. to go to the bathroom by herself. If that was the case, doing so was directly contrary to Mr. Messick’s email of August 22, 2017, and to the requirements of J.L.’s IEP. Ms. Velez had approximately 18 students in her classroom. Her focus, according to her, was on providing instruction to the students in her class. She denied losing track of time, but stated that once the students were engaged, she took her time with the lesson, which “led me to not noticing what time it was as normally as I should,” and she “possibly got distracted.” She did not take any responsibility for her actions. Instead, she blamed the situation on the fact that, at the time of the incident, she did not have a full- time paraprofessional assigned to her classroom. While the paraprofessional position for her class was not filled at the time of this incident, Ms. Kirkland traveled with the class and was present in Ms. Velez’s class when J.L. was allowed to leave the classroom. Ms. Velez also appeared to minimize the importance of providing increased supervision for J.L., and claimed that she was training her to go to the bathroom by herself. Yet, she described the class as a whole as one that needed “eyes on them” at all times. Further, J.L.’s parents clearly felt the increased supervision was crucial, and called early in the school year to make sure that staff knew J.L. was not to be left alone. Ms. Velez gave no explanation as to why she would “train” J.L. to leave the room unsupervised (and one wonders what training could be taking place, if the child is allowed to go alone outside the classroom), when she knew that to do so was clearly contrary to J.L.’s parents’ wishes. On January 22, 2018, the Duval County School District (the District) began an investigation into the incident concerning J.L. that occurred on January 11, 2018. During the District investigation, Ms. Raulerson notified the Department of Children and Families (DCF) and law enforcement of the incident. Both entities conducted investigations. The results of those investigations are not part of this record. On March 16, 2018, the District reprimanded Respondent and suspended her for 30 days for failing to provide adequate supervision of her students. The School Board’s approval of the suspension and the basis for it was reported in the press.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j) and rule 6A- 10.081(2)(a)1. It is further recommended that Respondent pay a fine of $750, and that her certificate be suspended for a period of one year, followed by two years of probation, with terms and conditions to be determined by the Education Practices Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of October, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of October, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 (eServed) Stephanie Marisa Schaap, Esquire Duval Teachers United 1601 Atlantic Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207 (eServed) Lisa M. Forbess, Interim Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief Office of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact In the 1984-1985 regular school year. Eduardo Hernandez was in the 7th grade at Nautilus Junior High School. On December 4, 1984 Eduardo disrupted science teacher Ralph William Schmidt's science class by speaking loudly in Spanish and called the teacher a pejorative name in Spanish before the entire class. He was assigned classroom detention by Mr. Schmidt which he did not serve. On December 6, 1985 Mr. Schmidt tried to send him to the principal, Mr. Walker, with a note of detention but Eduardo ran out of the room. On that date, Eduardo wrote some obscene notes to Mr. Walker containing curse words in Spanish and passed the notes in class. On February 6, 1985 Eduardo wrote with blue magic marker on a science lab table. Thereafter, the same markings (fancy signature marks and cartoons) were discovered in bathroom stalls, on desks, and other parts of the school and Eduardo and another boy were discovered in the vicinity with blue magic markers in their possession. Dr. Paul Smith, assistant principal of Nautilus Jr. High School confirmed that Eduardo was referred for discipline as a result of this incident. In this year, Eduardo's science grades were mostly failures with many absences. He frequently disrupted the concentration of other students in the class. Some days he was cooperative and other days he was not. In most cases he was disruptive and discourteous to the teacher and students. In response to many referrals by Mr. Schmidt, Dr. Paul Smith, spoke to Eduardo on a number of occasions. Very frequently Dr. Smith was required to speak with him about tardiness and cutting classes. In the first nine weeks grading period alone Eduardo was absent without proper excuse two times from one class, two times from another class and three times from another. On December 11, 1984 Dr. Smith counselled with Eduardo due to a disruptive behavior referral from another teacher, Mr. Lawless. On January 18, 1985, Dr. Smith personally received Eduardo when he was brought to school by the police as a truant. On another occasion, Dr. Smith caught Eduardo "skipping" or truant after lunch period. On March 19, 1985 Dr. Smith counselled with Eduardo on a referral for disruptive behavior in the classroom of another teacher, Mr. Burger. On April 1, 1985, Eduardo was brought to the office for refusing to work in class and he thereafter left the office without permission from Dr. Smith. Throughout the 1984-1985 school year, Eduardo's unexcused absences increased and his grades decreased. Eventually he was absent 20 days out of 45 in a grading period. His highest grade was a "D" and the others were failing or - unsatisfactory, designated as "F3F." In Dr. Smith's opinion, Eduardo cannot successfully complete a regular school program and although the Opportunity School may not be the only acceptable program, it was selected as the best solution under present circumstances. Jorge A. Hernandez opposed the alternative school assignment on the basis of danger from other students behavior to his son. He did not challenge the existence of his son's prior disruptive behavior but submitted that a telecommunication program would be a better alternative if Eduardo cannot be returned to a regular school program. He offered that Eduardo's behavior will change since Eduardo is now living with his father and certain family stresses contributing to his disruptive behavior have been resolved.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the School Board enter a final order continuing the alternative placement of Eduardo Harnandez at Jan Mann Opportunity School-North until such time as an annual or other evaluation indicates other appropriate assignment. DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of September, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of September, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools, Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Frank R. Harder, Esquire Twin Oaks Building Suite 100, 2780 Galloway Road Miami, Florida 33165 Mr. Jorge Hernandez 461 Southwest 10th Street, Apt 2 Miami Beach, Florida 33130 Mrs. Maeva Hipps School-Board Clerk 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Room 401 Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Mrs. Maeva Hipps School Board Clerk 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Room 401 Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue Whether Respondent, Robert P. Sulcer, as principal of Riverland Elementary School, is guilty of "incompetency, and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty" as charged in a 28-count "Amended Petition for Dismissal from Broward County School System," filed September 6, 1984, and should be dismissed from employment with the Petitioner, Broward County School Board.
Findings Of Fact RESPONDENT: BACKGROUND AND PAST PERFORMANCE In 1955, Respondent received a Master's Degree in Education, Supervision, and Administration from Southern Illinois University. He moved to Broward County in 1957 and was first employed by the School Board as a teacher at McNab Elementary School. He has been employed as a principal for 25 years. In 1960, he became the principal of McNab Elementary and continued as a principal in various elementary schools until 1971 or 1972, when he became a principal at Pompano Beach Middle School for seven years. He was assigned the principalship at Lake Forest Elementary School for 5 years, then became principal of Riverland Elementary School in 1982. When he was suspended without pay on August 2, 1984, based on the charges which are the subject of this proceeding, he had a continuing contract (as principal) with the School Board. His supervisors evaluated (in writing) his performance as a principal during each of the 25 years he was a principal, including the 1982-83 and 1983- 84 school years. All evaluations were positive and described his performance as satisfactory. There were no negative comments. II COUNTS 1 AND 2: CONSISTENT DISCIPLINE PLAN Count 1 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish and/or maintain and/or formally present consistent rules and/or regulations regarding student discipline and/or student behavior for the staff and student body at Riverland Elementary School for the 1982-83 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 2 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish and/or maintain and/or formally present consistent rules and/or regulations regarding student discipline and/or student behavior for the staff and student body at Riverland Elementary School for the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Counts 1 and 2 center on the "development of a consistent disciplinary plan" at Riverland Elementary School, including rules and regulations for the 1982-83 and 1983-84 school years. To sustain these charges the School Board must demonstrate that there was no consistent disciplinary plan including rules and regulations in effect at Riverland Elementary School for the years 1982-1983 and 1983-84 and that such omission constituted incompetency, misconduct in office or willful neglect of duty. The evidence not only fails to substantiate these two charges but affirmatively establishes that a consistent formal disciplinary plan and procedure was in effect at Riverland Elementary School during the 1982-83 and 1983-84 school years. A. 1982-83 During the 1982-83 school year, the Student Conduct and Discipline Code ("Discipline Code") for Broward County was in effect and fully utilized. Riverland Elementary School received its accreditation at the conclusion of that year and there was no reference to an inconsistent or non-existent disciplinary plan. There were no reports of a non-existent or inappropriate disciplinary system at Riverland Elementary School during 1982-83 made to School Board administrators at any time prior to the lodging of initial charges in March 1984. (R-2; TR-IV, p.467; TR-V, p.712; TR-XI, pp.42,108) The Discipline Code delineated the teachers' responsibilities for student discipline as well as the consequences for student misconduct. During school year 1982-83, Respondent utilized the disciplinary referral system and handled student discipline problems in a manner consistent with the Discipline Code. (Conversely, there is no evidence demonstrating that Respondent failed to follow the Student Discipline Code in any instance, whatsoever during the year 1982-83.) He made sure (that parents, teachers, and students were aware of the Discipline Code. When he became principal of Riverland he discussed discipline with the students during an orientation assembly. He met with the grade level chairpersons on a daily basis and discussed discipline with them. They, in turn, were instructed to direct the teachers under their jurisdiction to review the contents of the Discipline Code with their students and ensure that students took the Code pamphlets home to be signed by their parents. In connection with the SACS review process, a student assembly was held to discuss discipline. Because of the type of children in the school and the age of the majority of the students, however, school-wide assemblies to discuss discipline proved to be less effective than small group discussions. Respondent's preferred use of small group settings and his utilization of the Discipline Code was deemed acceptable by his immediate supervisor. Other teachers followed a similar practice without objection. (TR-III, p.372; TR-IX, p.40, TR-X, p.83, TR-XIII, p.77, TR-XV, pp.38 169,2,192-193; TR-XVI, pp.8-9,16,48-49) B. 1983-84 During school year 1983-84, the Discipline Code remained in effect. Respondent continued to utilize it as the foundation for the disciplinary process in place at Riverland Elementary School. Indeed, use of the Discipline Code, as adopted by the School Board of Broward County, was mandated. Although several teachers testified that there should be a school-wide code which overlaps or supercedes the official county-wide Discipline Code, there is no showing that a school-wide code, other than the Discipline Code, was required or even customarily used in the school system (TR-I, pp.89,90, TR-II, p.201; TR- IV, p.467, TR-V, p.712; TR-IX, p.38; TR-XI, p.108; TR-XV, p.16) Several teachers critical of Respondent's performance testified that he should have adopted a code listing infractions which would automatically lead to specific consequences. To comply with this request, Respondent would have had to enact a code inconsistent with the Discipline Code mandated by the School Board. Page 6 of the Code sets forth the criteria to be used by a principal or his designee in meting out discipline. The Code attempts to match specific conse- quences with specific behavior. The numbers in brackets which follow each rule refer to consequences which may be used if misbehavior occurs. With the exception of Attendance, consequences are listed on page 24. Under certain circumstances, specification is mandatory and is so identified by an asterisk (*). When discipline problems occur in the pres- ence of a teachers it is the responsibility of the teacher to handle the situation until all strategies available to the teacher according to the School Board Policy have been exhausted. School personnel are encouraged to employ realistic and appropriate methods of disci- pline not necessarily outlined in this Code. For example, cleaning desk tops is an appro- priate consequence for writing on them. When determining the consequences, the fol- lowing circumstances should be taken into consideration: age and/or grade level of student; frequency of misconduct; seriousness of particular misconduct; attitude of student; student records; any other relevant factors including but not limited to, handicapped students who are governed by provi- sions outlined in School Board Policy 5006.1. (e.s.) Under this disciplinary scheme, a principal administers discipline not only to punish students but to encourage behavior modification. To accomplish the latter a principal is given alternatives and combinations of alternatives for use based on the unique circumstances of each situation. Factors to be taken into account include the number of prior referrals, the seriousness of the situation, the child's previous disciplinary record, the age of the child, the intellectual level of the child, the emotional level of the child, and any learning disabilities that might be associated with the child. Respondent followed the Discipline Code and administered discipline based upon the referrals he received from teachers. There was no showing that he failed to follow the student Discipline Code. If the charge is that the Discipline Code, itself, lacks "consistent rules and regulations," or fails to conform to "consistent rules and regulations" such charge is more appropriately directed at the School Boards which adopted the Coded than Respondent who merely implemented it. (TR-XV, pp.38-39, 54; TR-XVI, p.31) At the outset of the 1983-84 school year, Respondent again directed his grade level chairpersons to disseminate the Code to teachers and instruct them to teach the Code to their students. The teachers were instructed to use the Discipline Code in conjunction with I.T.V. programs during the first week or two of school. The teachers carried out these instructions. Students were taught the Code, and their understanding of the Code was reinforced throughout the year. (R,4, TR-II, pp.184, 189,201; TR-V, pp.638,640; TR-X, p.126; TR-XVI, pp.48-49,5-6) In addition to the grade level chairpersons' meetings, Respondent disseminated various bulletins dealing with discipline, specifically Bulletin 83-9, which set forth the steps the teachers were to utilize in the disciplinary process. He issued Bulletin 83-9 because some teachers were not following the Discipline Code and meting out the appropriate discipline in the classrooms (per the Code) before sending students to his office. This bulletin was intended to reinforce the Code's recognition that teachers are primarily responsible for discipline in the classroom. The Code recognizes that classroom management is an integral part, if not the most important component, in the disciplinary process: When discipline problems occur in the pres- ence of a teacher, it is the responsibility of the teacher to handle the situation until all strategies available to the teacher according to the School Board Policy have been exhausted. (R-4; TR-III, P.394; TR-V, p.708)(R-2, p.6, TR-XV, p.31) COUNTS 3 AND 4: INCONSISTENT METING OUT OF DISCIPLINE Count 3 You are hereby charged with failing to admin- ister discipline consistently and/or effec- tively for students referred to you by staff members during the 1982-83 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 4 You are hereby charged with failing to admin- ister discipline consistently and/or effec- tively for students referred to you by staff members during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. These charges allege inconsistency in the meting out of discipline by Respondent as opposed to the failure to establish or maintain consistent disciplinary rules alleged in Counts 1 and 2. Although inconsistent discipline was alleged, none has been shown. The only evidence offered to support these charges was innuendo and vague, elusive accusations or perceptions by several teachers, most of which were based on hearsay consisting of generalizations uttered by others. The record is devoid of specific, concrete examples of "inconsistent" disciplinary action by Respondent. The complete lack of specific evidence is not due to want of records. Detailed records of every disciplinary action taken by Respondent during 1983-84 were available for analysis. (743 discipline referral slips covering school year 1983-84 were retained by Respondent and available for review.) There is no evidence, however, that anyone critical of Respondent's meting out of discipline ever took the time to, or went to the trouble of, reviewing them. Indeed, no one on behalf of the School Board even asked to see them.) It was Respondent who offered all referral slips (identifying details of each infraction and Respondent's action) into evidence. Some teachers testified that there were too many steps in the referral process although how this complaint relates to inconsistency was not shown. Others testified that they had to go through every single disciplinary step in order to refer a child to Respondent for discipline. The opposite was proven to be true. If a situation was serious enough, the disciplinary steps prescribed by Respondent (which were essentially the same steps as those prescribed by the Discipline Code) could be short, circuited and an immediate referral made. When serious disciplinary problems occurred, teachers brought students directly to Respondent's office and he handled the situation. (TR-II, p.219; TR-III, p.425; TR-IV, p.475; TR-X, p.15; TR-XI, P.24) Respondent made an effort to insure that the disciplinary process at Riverland was rational, and known to and followed by all. In addition to Bulletin 83-9 (delineating the steps in the process), Respondent disseminated numerous other bulletins and materials dealing with assertive discipline as part of the Faculty Handbook. He met with the faculty and discussed the disciplinary process. He insisted they use the detailed referral process which he established. The referral slips themselves show that he used all of the allowable disciplinary consequences--individually or in combination--including, but not limited to, student conferences, verbal reprimands written punishments, parental contacts, internal suspensions, corporal punishments, and external suspensions based upon the unique circumstances of each case. (TR-III, P.427; TR-XVI, pp.15,31; R-1; R-2) A. 1982-83 Count 3 alleges that Respondent failed to administer discipline in a consistent manner for the school year 1982-83. There was no meaningful evidence of any inconsistent discipline administered in 1982-83. There was no testimony or documentation of one specific incident which Respondent could cross-examine or refute. 2/ Indeed the record supports an inference that discipline was meted out consistently during 1982-83. There was a detailed Discipline Code in effect, known to all, and he insisted that it be followed. The SACS Report, prepared by the teachers at Riverland, and the grant of accreditation do not reflect that discipline was being inconsistently administered. Ms. Swilley, the Department of Education's competence reviewer, doesn't find inconsistent discipline; she refers to materials appended to her report, and then states the referrals reflect the teacher "concerns." The appended material only contains referrals from 1983-84 gathered together by Ms. Elmore, one of Respondent's harshest critics. The official Broward County School Board Progress Reports for Riverland Elementary School during 1982-83 and 1983-84, reflect teachers', students', and parents', attitudes, all of which are extremely high. (Teachers- -86 percent, parent--92 percent, and students--88 percent) There is no evidence that this alleged deficiency was ever complained of or mentioned in any memoranda, read-react-and-return memo, grade level chairperson minutes, faculty minutes, correspondence to Respondent's supervisor or Board administrators, notes or minutes of the P.T.A., parents advisory group, Respondent's performance evaluation, or any other document. (R-4; Appendix 14; P-4; P-3; R-19) B 1983-84 Similarly, no factual basis has been shown for the charge that Respondent inconsistently administered discipline during the 1983-84 school year. This charge, too, is unsubstantiated. No systematic analysis of the 1983-84 disciplinary records of particular students was done to demonstrate that students were disciplined differently when the facts indicate they should have been disciplined the same. Although some witnesses generally testified that Respondent disciplined students inconsistently during 1983-84, their conclusions were not substantiated. Although one teacher, Ms. Ordway, claimed inconsistency in the meting out of discipline, she could not give one specific example. Similar negative conclusions by Ms. Ross, another teacher, were based on "what the [other] teachers would say." The testimony of Ms. Kasmarik, another teacher, supports the opposite conclusion: Q. (By Mr. Panza) Ms. Kasmarik, let me ask you do you know what--can you give me specific instances that Mr. Sulcer treated two children with disparate consequences for the same act? Can you give me an example? A. That I personally saw it or that I heard about it? Q. No. You are the witness. What you saw, personally were involved in. A. With the referrals that he wrote up, Mr. Sulcer--The only referrals I wrote up were for fighting. That's the only referrals I wrote up, and when I got the response from that, Mr. Sulcer had used corporal punishment on both children. Q. So they were consistent as it goes to your personal observations? A. As my personal observations, it was consistent, yes. (e.s.) (TR-VI, p.826, TR-X, p.147) Likewise, Ms. Bullock, another teacher critical of Respondent's performance, testified: A. I would say that the punishment was consistent. Now, the problem is I didn't feel it was severe enough because it didn't prevent them from repeating the same incidents. (TR-XI, p.23) Mr. Dandy, Respondent's supervisor throughout, and the person who initially pressed him to correct alleged deficiencies, was unable to recall any specific instance of inconsistent discipline being meted out; rather, his criticism of Respondent only reflected the "teachers' perceptions." The unsubstantiated "perceptions" of other teachers based on nothing more than generalized complaint or hearsay are patently insufficient to sustain the charge. (TR-XIII, pp.82- 83,92,97) Respondent followed a set procedure in disciplining students. Before referral the child would describe, in writing, the misbehavior so that the child would understand the significance and inappropriateness of the conduct. On referral to the principal the child would bring with him or her the written description of the incident. Respondent would discuss the situation with the child review any prior disciplinary problems, and then determine the appropriate consequence based on the Discipline Code. He often gave verbal reprimands arranged for parent conferences, or wrote letters to parents. (TR- XVI, pp.10,11,20,31) Witnesses who complained of Respondent's disciplinary actions at hearing never stated what they expected him to do other than to formulate an additional code specifying an automatic consequence for every conceivable infraction. Such a rigidly defined code is neither required nor customary in Broward County. Moreover, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to construct a code with such mathematical precision. The effective disciplining of students is an art, not a science, involving many human variables. It requires flexibility and the exercise of professional judgment. A rigid code which precludes a principal from taking into account the unique circumstances of each case would be inconsistent with the Discipline Code adopted by the Board. COUNTS 5 AND 6: DETERRENCE OF CHRONIC BEHAVIOR OFFENDERS Count 5 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish adequate deterrent as a result of your action of causing or allowing students to become chronic or serious behavior offenders as a result of your inadequately disciplining said, students referred to you by teachers during the 1982-83 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 6 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish adequate deterrent as a result of your action causing or allowing students to become chronic or serious behavior offenders as a result of your inadequately disciplining said students referred to you by teachers during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Here, the Board charges that Respondent failed to establish adequate deterrents and, as a result, he allowed or caused students to become chronic or serious behavior offenders during school year 1982-83. A. 1982-83 The Board has not shown what a "chronic behavior offender" 3/ is or how many students, out of the total student population of approximately 600, fit this category. Neither was it shown that there were a significant number of chronic offenders that "were caused" by Respondent's disciplinary actions. There was student misbehavior at Riverland Elementary School while Respondent was principal, as there was prior to his arrival and after his departure. It has not been shown that the misbehavior was caused by Respondent's efforts to enforce the Student Discipline Code. Many of the children at Riverland came from poor families. These children had little respect for authority and had attitude problems stemming from background and upbringing. Many came from single-parent homes. Many of the children who had behavior problems at school came from homes where discipline was lax or nonexistent. The student population was transient--students were constantly checking in or out of the school. Some students had repeated at least two grade levels so there were several children 13 or 14 years old. Some children had learning disabilities and could be disciplined only in accordance with their prescribed plans. (TR-II, pp.193,222; TR-X, pp.39, 40, 131; TR-XI, p.27; TR-XV, pp.39, 44, 46) Given the diversity and nature of this student body, it has not been shown how the repetitive misbehavior of five to ten of the students can be fairly or logically imputed to Respondent's action or inaction. These students, which the Board (at least for the purpose of this proceeding) classifies as "chronic offenders," were not identified, neither was each incident of misbehavior together with Respondent's disciplinary action, analyzed, compared and critiqued by qualified witnesses. Finally, though some students were referred numerous times, it has not been shown that there was an inordinate number of such students, given the nature and diversity of the student population. Neither does it appear that such repetitive referrals became a problem of serious concern to teachers. The SACS Report, prepared by the teachers at Riverland, does not indicate that a "chronic offender" problem existed at the school. (R-13) B. 1983-84 The nature of students at Riverland Elementary School during 1983-84 was similar to that of the previous year and the Board's failure of proof is, likewise, the same. Respondent applied the district-wide Discipline Code in disciplining the students. The teachers were responsible for the teaching of the Code to students, and for the management of students in their classrooms. All acknowledged that the proper disciplining of students is a joint or cooperative effort by teachers, administrators, and principals. The evidence fails to show that there was an inordinate number of repetitive referrals, neither does it disclose the identity of these children (including their particular acts of misbehavior and the discipline administered) or how Respondent's action was deficient. To the extent some children were repeatedly referred for misbehavior, it has not been shown that Respondent's disciplinary action was the cause. It may well be that the teachers of these children failed to properly control and prevent their misbehavior, or the misbehavior may be due more to the unique personality and family context of each child. (R-2) Indeed, the parents of some of these children tried, without success, to modify their behavior. There were occasions when Respondent would have two or three parental conferences concerning a child's misbehavior, yet--a few weeks later--the child would revert to inappropriate conduct. Several teachers who testified were critical of the effectiveness of Respondent's disciplinary action, but failed to indicate action that would have been more effective. Some teachers favored more use of external suspensions, but under School Board policy external suspensions are to be used only as the last resort. Respondent did suspend some students and the referral slips for 1983-84 showed he used corporal punishment extensively. (R-66) As with school year 1982-83, the record does not establish the identity and number of the "chronic or serious behavior offenders". A reasonable estimate would be that there were between five and ten children (out of 600 students) who had repetitive disciplinary referrals. There is no basis to conclude that this is an inappropriate or unusually high number. In a student population of this nature and diversity, it is perhaps unavoidable that there will be some students who will be repetitively referred for disciplinary action. This condition existed before Respondent arrived at Riverland--and has persisted since he left. COUNTS 7 AND 8 VERBAL AGREEMENTS-1982-83 AND 1983-84 Count 7 You are hereby charged with repeatedly ac- cepting or entering into verbal agreements with students who are repeat offenders that they will not repeat said negative behav- ior/offense in lieu of providing appropriate discipline which has resulted in a negative impact on student behavior and/or student discipline at Riverland Elementary School during the 1982-83 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 8 You are hereby charged with repeatedly ac- cepting or entering into verbal agreements with students who are repeat offenders that they will not repeat said negative behav- ior/offense in lieu of providing appropriate discipline which has resulted in a negative impact on student behavior and/or student discipline at Riverland Elementary School during the 1983-84 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. A. 1982-83 In order to substantiate this charge, it was incumbent on the Board to identify those "repeat offender" students with whom Respondent entered into verbal agreements not to engage in the same conduct to specify the circumstances surrounding the infraction and to show that such verbal agreements were inappropriate. The appropriateness of a disciplinary action (otherwise authorized) cannot be determined without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The Board has failed to substantiate its charges with concrete and specific evidence. Indeed the record is devoid of evidence establishing that Respondent even entered into verbal agreements with students during 1982-83, under any circumstances. (The Board apparently assumed that he entered into verbal agreements with children who were repeat offenders, that such agreements were "in lieu of providing any appropriate discipline," and that such action had a negative impact on student behavior and student discipline at Riverland Elementary School.) It was not shown that Respondent inappropriately used the Student Discipline Code in any instance when he "counseled" with students concerning inappropriate conduct. 4/ To determine appropriate discipline for an individual student, all of the factors contained on page 6 of the Discipline Code would have to be considered in light of the specific infraction. Because of the flexibility and discretion given school principals, any analysis less definitive would be incomplete. (R-2) B. 1983-84 In 1983-84, Respondent--who continued to use the Student Discipline Code--entered into verbal agreements with students, whereby the students agreed not to engage in further inappropriate conduct. It has not been shown that he entered such verbal agreements in lieu of any other more appropriate discipline, or that, in any particular case, the verbal agreement was inappropriate. "Repeat offenders" were not identified nor Respondent's action in any particular incident shown to be improper. As already mentioned, the Board has not demonstrated that Respondent failed to follow the Student Discipline Code in the meting out of discipline. Under this Code, the use of verbal agreements, as part of the overall discipline process, is appropriate. Thus the critical factor is not the entering into of verbal agreements (because verbal agreements are permitted), but rather whether he did so in lieu of other more appropriate discipline. But disciplinary action--otherwise permissible--cannot be found inappropriate without knowing the specific facts of an incident. Such facts have not been shown. COUNTS 9 AND 10 RAMPANT DISRESPECT AND VERBAL ABUSE Count 9 You are hereby charged with unacceptable performance in administering the school discipline program during the 1982-83 school year and said performance has led to rampant disrespect by students toward teachers through verbal abuse and defiance of teacher instructions, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 10 You are hereby charged with unacceptable performance in administering the school discipline program during the 1983-84 school year and said performance has led to rampant disrespect by students toward teachers through verbal abuse and defiance of teacher instructions, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. A. 1982-83 Here the Board charges Respondent with "unacceptable performance" in administering the school discipline program during school year 1982-83. Respondent's discipline program was based on the Student Discipline Code and it was not shown that he ever violated that Code. The Board further charges that Respondent's disciplinary performance led to "rampant disrespect" by students towards teachers through verbal abuse and defiance of teachers' instructions. The evidence is insufficient to sustain a finding of rampant disrespect for teachers by students. 5/ Neither was it shown that any specific incident of disrespect was attributable to Respondent's implementation of the Student Discipline Code. Once again, this charge rests on supposition and generalization and lacks a factual foundation. Assuming, arguendo, that a student verbally defies a teacher's instructions, the question becomes whether the defiance is attributable to a principal's conduct. There are several plausible reasons as for defiance of a teacher's instructions, many of them unrelated to a principal's actions or inactions. Teachers may fail in managing their classrooms and earning the respect of their students, parents may have neglected to teach their children to respect and obey teachers. Here, the Board has not established a causal relationship between Respondent's conduct and any defiance of teachers by students. Speculation or generalization cannot substitute for specific and concrete evidence. (TR-X, pp. 100,101) B. 1983-84 For similar reasons, the charge relating to school year 1983-84 is unsubstantiated. Rampant disrespect for teachers has not been shown. (TR-X, pp.9,10,16,17) It has not been shown that Respondent violated the Discipline Coded the foundation of his disciplinary process, during 1982-83 or 1983-84. Neither has rampant disrespect for teachers been shown. The SACS Report completed by the teachers at the conclusion of the 1983 school year, makes no mention of it. Neither do any memoranda, documents, or other school records support this claim. If student disrespect and defiance had been so widespread, it is likely that it would have been brought to the attention of School Board officials long before Mr. Dandy came to Riverland to listen to teachers' grievances on February 17, 1984. (R-13) COUNTS 11 AND 12 CONTRIBUTING TO SERIOUS DISCIPLINE AND/OR BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS WHEREIN STUDENTS EXHIBITED DEFIANCE Count 11 You are hereby charged with contributing to the serious discipline and/or student behav- ior problems which occurred at Riverland Elementary School during the 1982-83 school year, wherein students exhibited defiance and disrespect toward authority figures and toward fellow students which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 12 You are hereby charged with contributing to the serious discipline and/or student behav- ior problems which occurred at Riverland Elementary School during the 1982-83 school year, wherein students exhibited defiance and disrespect toward authority figures and toward, fellow students which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Counts 11 and 12, virtually identical to Counts 9 and 10, are, likewise, unsubstantiated by the evidence. The record is inadequate to support a conclusion that Respondent contributed to serious discipline or student behavior exhibiting defiance and disrespect toward teachers and fellow students. It is likely that student disrespect for or defiance of teachers occurs, at least occasionally, in every elementary school. Relevant questions are what was the frequency and magnitude of the defiance and disrespect; who were the offenders, and what factors or combination of factors caused or contributed to it? The evidence offered by the Board is non-specific and incapable of supplying answers to these questions. Count 13 THE LOCKING OF THE BATHROOMS BECAUSE OF VANDALISM Count 13 You are hereby charged with failing to di- rect, administer and maintain a program to foster proper student behavior in the halls to such an extent that during the 1983-84 school year one set of bathrooms had to be locked because of fights among students and vandalism of bathrooms during the school day, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon- duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Here, alleged student misbehavior (establishing Respondent's incompetence and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty) was so bad that one set of bathrooms had to be locked because of fights among students and vandalism. This charge is unsubstantiated by concrete factually meaningful evidence; it is based, in the main, on hearsay and the unsupported conclusions of several teachers. It was not shown that vandalism in the bathrooms at Riverland Elementary increased or was at an unacceptably high level during 1983-84, or that any property damage was attributable to Respondent's performance of his duties. An occasional act of vandalism or damage to school property cannot, by itself and without more, support a conclusion that a principal is guilty of incompetency, misconduct in officer or willful neglect of duty. Neither was it shown that there were students fights in the bathrooms, or that fights occurred with such frequency that Respondent was forced to close the bathrooms. Rather, students would gather in the bathrooms prior to school starting and get into mischief. Mary Jo Sluder a teacher who was also Safety Patrol Director and supervised the school hallways, complained to Respondent that she was having problems watching both sets of bathrooms before school started. Respondent asked if it would help if one set of bathrooms remained locked until the second bell at 8:15 a.m., signaling the start of school. Ms. Sluder replied that it would be helpful and the plan was implemented. So one set of bathrooms remained locked for approximately 15 minutes, between 8:00 a.m. and 8:15 a.m., while children were at school. At 8:15 a.m., it was opened. (TR- XVI, pp.41,42; TR-IV, p.452) This was an acceptable strategy used by other principals under similar circumstances, and violated no rule or policy of the School Board. Between the first (8:00 a.m.) and second (8:15 a.m.) bells, bathrooms were always accessible to students. Respondent's action was a rational measured response to a problem perceived by the Safety Patrol Director and it obtained positive results without imposing a hardship on anyone. The danger of relying on hearsay and generalized conclusions of others is illustrated by the testimony offered to support this charge. Mr. Dandy, Respondent's immediate Area Supervisor and an individual who identified Respondent's action as deficient, admitted that he had no specific facts to support this charge; he had only talked to teachers and had reviewed no vandalism records at the school. Of the teachers who testified, one did not know if vandalism had increased during Respondent's tenure over that which had occurred under his predecessor; one did not know how long the bathrooms were closed. Although one teacher testified that it was common knowledge that the bathroom was locked because of vandalism--and this was the extent of her knowledge--vandalism was not discussed at the faculty meetings. Teachers would sometimes stop in the girls' and boys' bathrooms, to tell them to quit playing around. One teacher who complained of vandalism never witnessed conditions inside the bathrooms, never wrote disciplinary referrals for students who congregated in them, and never sent them to Respondent's office. (TR-V, pp. 578,774, TR-II, pp.242, 243, 245, 324; TR-IV, pp. 433, 451; TR-VI, pp. 871,872; TR-X, p.150) COUNTS 14 AND 15: TOO MUCH TIME OFF-CAMPUS AND NOT ENOUGH ON-CAMPUS VISIBILITY Count 14 You are hereby charged with spending too much or inordinate amounts of time in your office and/or off campus and not making yourself visible enough among students which has contributed to poor student disci- pline/behavior problems at Riverland Elemen- tary School during the 1982-83 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon- duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 15 You are hereby charged with spending too much or inordinate amounts of time in your office and/or off campus and not making yourself visible enough among students which has contributed to poor student disci- pline/behavior problems at Riverland Elemen, tary School during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon, duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. These charges accuse Respondent of spending too much time off-campus or in his officer and not making himself "visible enough" among students, thus contributing to poor student disciplinary behavior. Once again, as with the other charges, there is no evidence that Respondent, during 1982-83, spent too much time or an inordinate amount of time in his office or off-campus. This was not identified as a problem by the SACS Report or documented by any exhibit in evidence. A principal is evaluated based on his or her performance. Respondent's evaluations for the years 1982-83 and 1983-84 were totally acceptable. Neither indicates Respondent spent inordinate amounts of time in his office or off-campus, or that he did not make himself "visible enough." Respondent, charged with the responsibility of administering an entire school, attended numerous off-campus functions such as county directed meetings, parent conferences, visitations, professional meetings, and community service projects relating to Riverland Elementary School. His attendance was legitimate and, in most instances, required. (TR-I, p.74; TR-VIII, pp.40,42; TR-XIII, pp.14,16,20; TR-XV, p.46, R-45) It was not shown (nor was it alleged) that Respondent was unlawfully or inappropriately engaging in personal activities off campus. The charges focus on the frequency of his absences, not his whereabouts. The school district official who prepared this charge had no independent knowledge of Respondent's absences, and did no analysis to determine the extent of his absences from campus. Rather, he simply relied on and reiterated vague conclusions offered by several teachers dissatisfied with Respondent's performance. (TR-II, p.246; TR-IV, p.888; TR-VIII, pp.23, 24, 143) Mr. Stephenson, the school district official who helped prepare the charge, never asked Respondent about his alleged excessive absenteeism from campus because (according to Stephenson) that would be a normal routine matter discussed between a principal and his Area Superintendent (Mr. Dandy). But Mr. Dandy never asked Respondent about alleged excessive absenteeism either. (TR- XIII, p.140) The evidence is insufficient to support a conclusion that Respondent was absent from campus for an inordinate amount of time. The only evidence in support of the accusation is sporadic hearsay, or conclusions by others lacking a factual basis. Rather, the evidence establishes that Respondent's presence on campus was sufficient and that, if he left campus, he handled any disciplinary problems (that arose in his absence) upon his return. His secretary always knew where he was. A teacher could find out where he was by simply asking his secretary. (TR-I, p.75; TR-X, p.32) As to Respondent's alleged poor visibility among students, there is no specific factual information pertaining to 1982-83, so this charge is unsubstantiated. As for 1983-84, the evidence was also insufficient to support a conclusion that Respondent was not "visible enough." No standard of visibility was established against which Respondent's conduct could be measured. There is no evidence in the record that anyone (teachers, parents, or administrators) complained to Respondent about his visibility or asked that he become more visible on campus. (TR-VIII, p.91) Testimony by several teachers on this subject was inconsistent and contradictory. Some offered critical opinions, but their conclusions lacked factual support, they simply had a feeling that he should have been more visible. In contrast, some teachers felt that Respondent was "sufficiently visible;" Ms. Kasmarik testified that he was always around the campus and always walking down the halls: CROSS-EXAMINATION Q. (By Mr. Panza) Ms. Kasmarik, isn't it a fact that it's your opinion that you're better off with discipline when Mr. Sulcer was there than you are right now with the new principal? Isn't that a fact? Isn't that what you just said within the last couple of weeks? A. We have the same kinds of problems that we had when Mr. Sulcer was there. Q. Same kinds of problems with the new principal, is that right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Are those same kinds of problems based upon the type of children, in your opinion, that are in that school? A. Yes. Q. Now, you mentioned--Just kind of working backwards a little bit--that visibility was a problem or--not was a problem, is not a problem. You said Mr. Sulcer was walking the hall? A. Yes. Q. Mr. Sulcer went into classrooms, is that correct? A. Yes. He was in and out of the classroom all the time. Q. So teachers could see him around the school. He wasn't--he was there physically in the school? A. Yes. (TR-X, pp.121-122) Ms. Bullock, another teacher critical of Respondent's performance, admitted that he had been visible and had visited her classroom 15 to 20 times: DIRECT-EXAMINATION Q. (By Mr. Montante) Did you ever tell him it was necessary to come down [to observe her class? A. No. Q. Did you ever tell him it was necessary to become visible? A. No. Q. Did he ever offer to become visible to you? A. No. I felt he was visible. Q. Several times a year? A. Yes. Q. How long is the school year, ma'am? A. From August until June. Q. August until June? A. Yes. Q. That's a period of 11 months. A. Ten months. The school year is ten months. Q. He came down to the classroom several times: A. Several times. Q. Three times in 11 months. A. I didn't say three times. Several. How many is several? A. Ten, 15, 20. (e.s.) (TR-XI, pp.61,62) Although Ms. Ross, another teachers claimed that his visibility was almost non- existent, her location in the library (where she worked) was such that she would not have known when he was out of his office or in it. Ms. Bullock, another teacher, never asked him to come to her room because it wasn't necessary. (TR- VI, pp. 823,828; TR-XI, p.61) The vague and indefinite charge of not "enough visibility" must be based on more then the subjective, unsubstantiated judgment of a critical teacher. To be meaningful, the charge must be put in a factual context. In a letter to Dr. Stephenson, the district administrator involved in preferring the charges, Respondent's counsel asked for specific information on the charge so that Respondent could comply with Mr. Dandy's March 21, 1984 directive requiring improvement in this area: 4. Monitor hallways frequently through- out the school day (in an attempt to assist in undesirable behavior on the part of students (Effective immediately) Mr. Sulcer will, as he always has, monitor the hallways. As I am certain you are well aware, it is impossible to be in the hallway all day if one is expected to be a Principal of a school. Once again, I would request specific instances of when Mr. Sulcer was negligent in his monitoring of the hallways which allowed undesirable behavior to take place. I would also like to have the specif- ic set of circumstances that the administra- tion of the School Board can demonstrate that there was undesirable behavior on the part of students because of Mr. Sulcer's conduct. I would like to know the exact amount of time required by Mr. Dandy so Bob Sulcer can comply. If Mr. Dandy is going to evaluate Bob Sulcer in this area, he (Dandy) must know exactly how much time he expects Sulcer to spend. (R-50) This letter went unanswered. COUNTS 16 AND 17 SUPPLIES Count 16 You are hereby charged with failing to supply teachers with basic materials and supplies such as paper, crayons, scissors, etc., thus depriving student [sic] from essential mate- rials necessary for optimum instructions during the 1982-83 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 17 You are hereby charged with failing to supply teachers with basic materials and supplies such as paper, crayons, scissors, etc., thus depriving student [sic] from essential mate- rials necessary for optimum instructions during the 1983-84 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. There were no records of any kind, type or description, offered in evidence to support the allegations that school supplies were inadequate during 1982-83. One team chairperson during 1982-83 and 1983-84 never heard a complaint about lack of supplies. Dr. Stephenson, the school district administrator who helped prepare this charge, became aware of the alleged budget problem through information he received in writing from Ms. Elmore, a teacher critical of Respondent's performance. Based on Ms. Elmore's submittal, he concluded that there was a lack of materials and supplies at Riverland, a situation which should not have existed because adequate funds were available. He never independently investigated to determine if Ms. Elmore's statements were correct. (TR-XI, p.19; TR-VIII, pp.11,151) Ms. Elmore, a Faculty Chairperson at Riverland, had been told by the school bookkeeper that there was a freeze on supplies in 1983-84. She never personally asked Respondent for supplies, and he never told her that funds were unavailable. She felt that it was unnecessary to bother Respondent "with things that minor." (TR-V, pp.771,776) Ms. Ross, a grade level chairperson responsible for coordinating the ordering of supplies for teachers under her control, had no difficulty ordering supplies or books except that, when the funds were frozen, she "couldn't spend the money in my budget for awhile." (TR-VI, p.819) (She never asked Respondent if the budget was frozen.) She had all materials needed to currently teach her students. (Funds were temporarily unavailable only while the F.T.E. count was underway, a situation which was not unusual in the school district). When told the budget was frozen during F.T.E. count, she simply delayed ordering until the count was completed, she "had enough (supplies) to carry (her) over past the F.T.E. count." (TR-VI, p.865) After the count, she was allowed to order whatever she needed. (TR-VI, pp.819, 862, 864, 865) Ms. Ordway, a fifth grade teacher, who had switched to kindergarten, testified that she was unable to get necessary books and supplies for her kindergarten class. However, Ms. Callender, her Faculty Grade Level Chairperson, testified that Ms. Ordway as well as the rest of her grade group, had supplies the entire year. Ms. Callender also testified that Ms. Ordway was given permission to go to the A.B.C. Store to purchase whatever supplies she needed. Ms. Callender's testimony, more precise and less emotional than Ms. Ordway's, is accepted as persuasive. (TR-X, pp.28,48) Respondent did not turn down any supply order for materials that were needed for classes during 1982-83 and 1983- 84. The charge that teachers lacked supplies in 1983-84 is unsubstantiated by the evidence. (TR-XVI, pp.57,58,61) Finally, Ms. Elmore, one of the teachers most critical of Respondent's performances testified that she did not have enough supplies for 1982-83 and 1983-84. Her testimony was conclusory and is rejected as lacking in credibility. Finally, the SACS Report does not mention any problem with supplies at Riverland Elementary School for 1982-83. It is likely that if there was a supply problem of the magnitude alleged, it would have been mentioned in the SACS Report. The evidence does not establish that any children at Riverland were denied instructional materials due to lack of supplies. These charges are unsubstantiated. (TR-V, p.580; R-13) COUNTS 18 AND 19: SECOND IN COMMAND Count 18 You are hereby charged with failing to desig- nate a teacher as second in command and/or failing to inform the faculty which teacher would be in charge during your absence during the 1982-83 school year, thereby leaving the school unsupervised during your absences from campus, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office/and or willful neglect or duty. Count 19 You are hereby charged with failing to desig- nate a teacher as second in command and/or failing to inform the faculty which teacher would be in charge during your absence until approximately January 1984 of the 1983-84 school year, thereby leaving the school unsupervised during your absences from cam- pus, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Respondent appointed a second in command or designee at Riverland Elementary School for years 1982-83 and 1983-84. For 1982-83, Respondent appointed Polly Jones as his second in command or designee. There was no requirement to identify the second in command by posting a notice. However, Mr. Dandy, the Area Superintendent, required principals within his area to advise him of the name of the second in command at the commencement of the school year. Respondent notified him in accordance with this requirement. (TR-I, p.32; TR- VII, p.92; TR-XVI, p.7) During 1982-83, Ms. Jones handled discipline referrals during Respondent's absence and signed as designee. Teachers who were unaware of who the second in command needed only to ask. Respondent's secretary, the office personnel, and administrative staff were informed that Ms. Jones was the appointed second in command. (TR-XVI, pp.7,104) The contention that problems resulted from some teachers not knowing who was second in command during 1982-83, is unsupported by the evidence. No teacher asked Respondent who was second in command--either in person (at grade level chairperson meetings, faculty meetings, in the halls, at SACS Committee Meetings) or by memorandum. Ms. Elmore who was Faculty Chairperson during 1982- 83, never placed the question of who was second in command on the faculty agendas though she had the authority to do so. Although she testified that she did not know who was second in command in 1982-83, she did not ask Respondent or her grade/level chairperson who, ironically, was Ms. Jones, the second in command. In any case, most teachers at Riverland knew Polly Jones handled disciplinary problems in Respondent's absences and expected her to do so. (TR- V, pp.598, 763) For school year 1983-84, Respondent designated Elaine Callender as his second in command. Again, he informed Mr. Dandy of his action at the beginning of the school year. Although most teachers knew that she was the second in command, they did not hear it officially from Respondent. They knew that Ms. Callender could, and did, administer corporal punishment in Respondent's absence. Finally, teachers in 1983-84 knew, or should have known, that Ms. Callender was the second in command because she signed referral slips above the signature line marked "Designee": copies of the completed slip are normally returned to the referring teacher. (TR-I, pp.34,35; TR-X, p.5, TR-XVI, p. 175) These charges must fail since Respondent did, in fact, appoint a designee, and the teachers knew or could have known by simply asking him. Although it was suggested (through hearsay testimony) that students were disciplined by secretaries, there is no substantial evidence to support that implication. When the issue of who was second in command surfaced up at the faculty meeting on November 15, 1983 (as part of 12 identified concerns) would it not have seemed reasonable at the time for someone to ask Respondent who was second in command? The Faculty Council, after it was organized and operational in the early part of January, did ask Respondent, stating that some teachers claimed they did not know who was second in command and wanted this information posted. Respondent posted his second in command that very day. (Mr. Dandy's testimony that the second in command was not posted until mid-February is rejected as clearly erroneous.) (TR-XII, p.87; TR-XIII, p.123) COUNTS 20 AND 21: MORALE Count 20 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish and maintain positive lines of communi- cation with the faculty and students during the 1982-83 school year at Riverland Elemen- tary regarding student discipline which has contributed to the decline of faculty morale toward the principal relative to student discipline, which constitutes incompetency, and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 21 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish and maintain positive lines of communi- cation with the faculty and students during the 1983-84 school year at Riverland Elemen- tary regarding student discipline which has contributed to the decline of faculty morale toward the principal relative to student discipline, which constitutes incompetency. These two Counts center on the issue of faculty morale as it related to student discipline caused allegedly by Respondent's failure to maintain positive lines of communication with faculty and students during schools years 1982-83 and 1983, 84. Morales a somewhat amorphous term, is defined in the American Heritage Dictionary as "the state of the spirits of an individual or group as shown in willingness to perform assigned tasks, confidence, cheerfulness, and discipline." Although affected by many variables, morale is not a subject incapable of measurement. Instead of utilizing an objective or standard method to determine the level of morale at Riverland the School Board presented the testimony of selected teachers, for the most part, the same teachers who were on the ad hoc disciplinary committee and among Respondent's most avid critics. Their testimony lacks credibility and fails to support a conclusion that morale was lowered due to Respondent's handling of discipline problems. They were the teachers who complained most about morale. They gave secret testimony to Dr. Stephenson, the ranking administrator, who developed the charges against Respondent and they were, generally, unwilling to cooperate with Respondent and other teachers (led by the Faculty Council), who were attempting (between November, 1983 and March 1984) to develop ways to improve discipline at Riverland. 6/ No systematic evaluation of faculty morale, using any acceptable and reliable method, was ever undertaken. A poll was conducted at Riverland Elementary in connection with the Official Progress Report of the School Board. The poll indicated that 86 percent of the teachers thought that Riverland was a good school. Ninety-two percent of the parents with children at Riverland responded, "this is a good school." (TR-IV 34 p.461) These results detract from the weight to be given the adverse opinions of the several teachers (testifying at hearing) most critical of Respondent's performance. (TR-IV, p.461; R-19) COUNT 22 FAILING TO DISCIPLINE A STUDENT Count 22 You are hereby charged with failing to disci- pline a student who said to a teacher's aided "Fuck You," during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon- duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. On one occasion during the 1983-84 school year, a child cursed at a teacher's aide, Ms. Williams, who promptly referred the student to Respondent's office. Respondent asked the student for an explanation and the child admitted that he had said the disrespectful words and was ready to be spanked. Respondent asked Ms. Williams (the aide that was cursed at) to enter the office and witness the corporal punishment. After she entered, the child refused to submit to the spanking and constantly moved around, putting his hands across his buttocks and fidgeting making it difficult for Respondent to administer corporal punishment without injuring him. Under these circumstances, Respondent decided not to administer the corporal punishment for fear of injuring the child's hands. Instead, he telephoned the child's parents and told them the child refused the spanking. The parents told him they would punish the child, by using a belt. (TR-XVI, pp.53-54; TR-X, pp.67-68,85) This particular child did not have any further behavior problems at Riverland Elementary. Respondent did not ignore, dismiss, or fail to discipline this child. His handling of this incident of disrespect toward an aide was appropriate and consistent with the Discipline Code. (Although the Board faults him for not reporting the incident to the Department of Internal Affairs, Board Policy 4018, reasonably construed, does not require the reporting of every instance of student disrespect toward a teacher.) Since Respondent properly disciplined the child, the charge must fail. COUNT 23 RAT-INFESTED ROOM Count 23 You are hereby charged with failing to take appropriate action to remove kindergarten students at the request of the teacher from a rat infested room after being informed by the teacher that rats were prevalent in the area, subjecting kindergarten students to rat poison which had been placed by custodial personnel in the students' classroom, and refusing from approximately February 28, 1984, to March 7, 1984, to relocate said kindergarten students from said classroom to an empty portable on the school site which action had been formerly requested by the complaining kindergarten teachers which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. On March 1, 1984, Ms. Ordway, a kindergarten teacher at Riverland Elementary, complained to Respondent about a mouse she had seen in her classroom. He told her that he would get the custodian on it right away, which he did on that same day. The custodian set out traps that night, Respondent also went to Ms. Ordway's classroom that night to make sure that the traps were placed so that there would be no danger to the children. He continued to periodically check the room after school throughout the week, he looked for evidence of mice, but found none. Meanwhile, Ms. Ordway did not ask to have her class moved and her class remained at its regular location. (TR-XVI, pp.71- 73,87,155,254) On Thursday, March 8, 1984, approximately one week after Ms. Ordway had complained of a mouse, Mr. Dandy telephoned Respondent and told him of a complaint he had received (presumably from Ms. Ordway) concerning the mice situation. Respondent immediately called the Area Maintenance Office and requested assistance, then contacted Omni Pest Control and asked them to come out that day. (Respondent had not called the exterminator prior to this because neither he nor the custodian had found evidence of mice, and the custodian was actively addressing the complaint.) (TR-XVI, pp.72,154,157) Omni Pest Control came out on Monday, March 12, 1984, around noontime. Respondent immediately relocated Ms. Ordway's class since he assumed that the exterminator might use chemicals hazardous to children. The exterminator treated the classroom and returned two days later to do a follow- up. At 7:30 a.m. on March 19, 1984, the exterminator returned to check the classroom. Respondent, unavailable to talk to him at that time, called him later to check on the classroom's condition. The exterminator, having found no evidence of mice, told him that the mouse sighting "must have been a fluke." (TR-XVI, pp.72-73,86,88,155,157,159) The evidence does not support a conclusion that Ms. Ordway's classroom was infested with mice or rats. She is the only person who sighted one, and her testimony about what she saw, and the frequency of her sighting's, was inconsistent. No other mice were sighted and no evidence of mice was found by those who investigated and responded to her complaint: Respondent, a Health Department inspector, the school custodian, and the professional exterminator. Respondent reacted to Ms. Ordway's complaint in a reasonable and timely manner. The school custodian was the person who would normally investigate and handle such a complaint. When Respondent received a second complaint, he immediately contacted a professional exterminator despite the fact that he and others had found no evidence of mice in the classroom. This charge is based on the exaggerated complaint of Ms. Ordway, a teacher who, seemingly, Respondent could not mollify. COUNTS 24 AND 25 FAILING TO COOPERATE Count 24 You are hereby charged with failing to util- ize the suggestions of parents and teachers and/or work cooperatively with said groups to improve the declining [sic] student disci- pline/behavior problems at Riverland Elemen- tary during the 1982-83 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 25 You are hereby charged with failing to util- ize the suggestions of parents and teachers and/or work cooperatively with said groups to improve the increasing student disci- pline/behavior problems at Riverland Elemen- tary during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. The School Board failed to substantiate its charge that during 1982-83 or 1983-84, Respondent failed to utilize the suggestions of parents and work with them to improve student discipline at Riverland Elementary. Indeed, there is no evidence that any parents made specific suggestions to Respondent concerning ways to improve student discipline. Even if, arguendo, suggestions were submitted, there was no showing that Respondent was obliged to follow theme irrespective of their merit. Although the School Board also charges Respondent with failing to utilize the suggestions of, and work with, teachers, the opposite was shown. Respondent relied on the teachers of Riverland. He routinely asked them to address problems, and suggest specific changes, usually he implemented their suggestions. One of his management techniques to maximize participation was to set up committees of teachers to address problems and make recommendations. His conviction was that since teachers were a vital part of the school, they should have a say in how it was run--and what changes should be made. He respected their views and welcomed their comments. For example, in late 1983 and early 1984, he encouraged the Faculty Council to devise ways to improve student discipline. When the Council presented him with a School Wide Disciplinary Plan (suggesting numerous changes to improve student discipline) he promised to implement it. (In contrast, some teachers refused to cooperate with either the Faculty Council or Respondent, and were determined to leave student discipline problems to Respondent--alone--to solve.) Another example was his formation of a Cafeteria Committee (of teachers) to address student misbehavior in the cafeteria--a focal point of student "horseplay" in most elementary schools. The Committee met and formulated a plan, which Respondent approved and implemented. Both charges must be dismissed for failure of proof. (TR-III, p.387; TR-V, p.708; TR-VI, p.819; TR-XI, pp. 143,149,150,162; TR-XV, pp.59,110; TR-XVI, p.76) COUNT 26 THE CAFETERIA Count 26 You are hereby charged with failing to prop- erly maintain student control and discipline in the cafeteria and/or inadequately super- vising and/or providing inadequate supervi- sion of students which has resulted in chaos throughout the 1982-83 school year and has continued through the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon- duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. The School Board has not established a standard against which the adequacy of the supervision and control of students in school cafeterias can be judged. Elementary school students abound with energy and will sometimes run in cafeterias. Such running occurred prior to Respondent's arrival at Riverland, and continues, even now. As one witness summed it up, "Every child runs." . . . [and] "Kids are kids." (TR-X, p.78) These cafeterias are noisy, relatively unstructured places where children, within limits, are free to be themselves. No evidence was presented showing that, on a comparative basis, student behavior in the Riverland cafeteria was any worse than that prevalent in the other elementary schools. Indeed, Dr. Gail Daly (an experienced elementary school principal and chosen by the School Board to investigate Respondent's performance at Riverland) visited the school's cafeteria and found student behavior acceptable. (TR-XV, p.59) Although some teachers were critical of Respondent's visibility in the student cafeteria, they rarely ate their own lunches there (to help maintain order)-- even though they could leave school a half-hour early for doing so. Since most teachers did not eat their lunches with the students, supervision of student behavior in the cafeteria was left, for the most part, to teachers' aides. This was an acceptable practice in the various elementary schools. Any student misbehavior which may have existed in the cafeteria was not serious enough to warrant being brought to Respondent's attention, either by the group of teachers who identified "12 concerns" at Riverland or to Mr. Dandy, the Area Supervisor who responded to them. The teachers "12 concerns" do not mention misbehavior in the cafeteria, neither do Mr. Dandy's letters of February 24, and March 1, 1984 (which identify deficiencies in Respondent's performance and require corrective action). This charge must fail for lack of proof. (P-5, P-6, R-2) COUNT 27 FAILURE TO PERFORM DUTIES AS ALLEGED IN COUNTS 1-26 Count 27 You are hereby charged with failing to ade- quately perform your duties as principal with respect to student discipline/behavior as enumerated in the above counts during the 1982-83 and 1983-84 school years to such an extent that your effectiveness as a principal in this area has been impaired serious enough to warrant your dismissal as principal for "good and sufficient reasons, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. The efficacy of this charge depends on a positive finding that Respondent failed to adequately perform his duties as principal with respect to student discipline during 1982-83 and 1983-84, as alleged in the foregoing counts, Nos. 1 through 26. Since these counts were not sustained by the evidence, the charge fails. COUNT 28 SWILLEY REPORT Count 28 You are hereby charged with failing to demon- strate competent performance as an adminis- trator in one or more of the following areas: the administrative and supervisory require- ments and/or communication skills and/or management techniques and/or exercise learn- ing and goal achievement and/or human and interpersonal relationships for the school year (or any part thereof) 1983-84, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Dr. Stephenson, then Associate Superintendent of Personnel, requested a review of Respondent on April 3, 1984, for the purpose of determining his competence. The Department of Education selected Henrietta Swilley (from Bay County) to conduct the competency review. She visited Riverland Elementary from May 1, 1984, to May 3, 1984, (2 1/2 days) one-half day short of the three-day observation required by 6B-5.02(12) Florida Administrative Code. On or about July, 1984, she sent to the School Board her undated and unsigned report. This report was placed in evidence by the School Board as an attachment to a deposition taken of Respondent. Neither Ms. Swilley nor any School Board official testified about the contents of this report, or vouched for its accuracy. Consequently, Respondent's ability to challenge the accuracy of its opinions and conclusions, or examine those who developed or relied on it, was limited. The report, however, is hearsay which, though admissible, can be used only to explain or corroborate other evidence, it cannot, in itself, support a finding of fact. See, 120.58(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Apart from this limitation on its use, the report is replete with factual errors, misstatements, and inconsistencies. It appends materials which do not correspond to references in the report. These errors detract from the weight which might otherwise be given to the report, and place in doubt the credibility of its assertions and conclusions. Several examples should suffice. On pages 4 and 5 of the report, Ms. Swilley reviews teacher observations and evaluations. Of the eight teachers listed, the evaluations of only four were included in the appendix. She indicates that Respondent held conferences with all eight teachers on the same day, May 17, 1983. The four evaluations appended, however, show that the conferences were held on March 3, 16, and April 12 and 15, 1983. On page 5, she faults Respondent of using similar or "patterned" comments on seven of the eight teachers evaluated. But she does not show how this violated any rule or standard of practice. (Mr. Dandy, Area Supervisor, using a similar form, includes no comments, whatsoever, on his evaluations of principals, a practice which, in his views was perfectly acceptable. (TR-XII, p.43).) On page 6, she states: From studying the 1983 evaluations of Ms. Elayna Cross and Ms. Catherine Phoenix it was unclear to this reviewer as to how much time Mr. Sulcer spent observing these teachers. Yet, the time Respondent spent in observing Ms. Phoenix (9:15 to 10:15 on March 3, 1983) is shown on the top of her evaluation contained in the appendix. On page 6, Ms. Swilley further states: If the sampling of evaluations studied is an indication of administrative progress in the area of assessment, all other continuing contract employees on staff would have to be evaluated within 25 days from my visit in order to stay within the confines of the negotiated contract [which prohibited princi- pals from conducting evaluations during the last week of school]. But the evaluations in her sampling were completed, and applied only to the prior school year--1982-83, not 1983-84. Thus her conclusion lacks support. (In fact, Respondent had approximately ten teachers left to evaluate after Ms. Swilley's visit in May, 1984 [TR-XVI, p.77].) Finally, on pages 6,7, Ms. Swilley questions whether Respondent acted as an instructional leader at Riverland. She opines as to what Respondent would have observed if he had visited the classrooms, and includes the results of her interviews with an unknown number of teachers. Among those teachers were Ms. Ross, Ms. Sluder and Ms. Elmore. (These were Respondent's most vociferous critics and members of the original ad hoc faculty committee which identified "12 concerns" at Riverland.) The assertions of Ms. Ross and Ms. Sluder--hearsay, once removed--concerning Respondent's alleged failure to visit or observe their classes are rejected in favor of Respondent's more persuasive testimony to the contrary. (TR-X, p.121; TR-XVI, pp.46-47) The School Board has not shown, by independent evidence, that Respondent failed to demonstrate competence in any of she areas described in this charge. Thus the Swilley Report, even if internally consistent, cannot support a finding of incompetence. This charge must also fail. FAILURE OF SCHOOL SYSTEM TO FOLLOW PROCEDURAL RULES In recommending the suspension and dismissal of Respondent, the Superintendent of Schools failed to follow procedures governing dismissal. Rule 6B-4.08, entitled, "Criteria for Dismissal Procedures," provides: 6B-4.08 Criteria for Dismissal Procedures. When an action or other matter appears to exist which may possibly result in the future dismissal of any employee, the immedi- ate supervisor of the individual should take appropriate action to advise the employee of the matter and the potential consequence if not corrected. Every possible helpful effort should be made by the immediate supervisor to aid the employee to correct the matter which could cause his or her dismissal if not corrected. Except in extremely serious circum- stances, the employee should be given suffi- cient time, following notification, for improvement. Any charges of undesirable traits or practices should be bona fide, verifiable, and clearly stated to the employee in writ- ing. Any employee thus charged should have a fair opportunity to explain or otherwise defend himself or herself, as provided in Section 231.36, Florida Statutes. These criteria mandate that an employee be advised of deficiencies which may result in his dismissals and that he be given sufficient time, following notice, to improve or correct the deficiencies. Here, Mr. Dandy, as Area Supervisor, routinely evaluated Respondent on January 31, 1984, and found him satisfactory when judged against all performance criteria. On February 17, 1984, approximately two weeks later, Mr. Dandy--at the invitation of Ms. Elmore or Ms. Sluder--came to Riverland Elementary and met with some teachers who had gathered to complain to him about lack of student discipline. After hearing the complaints of several teachers, Mr. Dandy--precipitously--told them he was now in control, that they should hence forth come directly to him. Some teachers were intimated by his manner and aggressiveness. Instead of asking individual teachers about any perceived problems, he asked, "Do you feel the rest of the teachers feel . . . is a problem?" or words to that effect. On February 21, 1984, three days later, Mr. Dandy met with the teachers again and, this time, invited Respondent to attend. Respondent, though genuinely surprised by this turn of events, came to the meeting and responded to each of the complaints or concerns raised by the teachers. On February 24, 1984, three days later, Mr. Dandy wrote Respondent outlining the teachers' complaints or concerns and asked for a written response by March 1, 1984. Respondent complied, submitting a timely response addressing, as specifically as possible, each of the concerns. Mr. Dandy responded with a second letter on March 21, 1984, directing Respondent to take eight corrective actions (Mr. Dandy never subsequently evaluated Respondent to determine if those directives were satisfactorily carried out, though he admits improvements were being made.) On March 22, 1984, one day after receiving Mr. Dandy's eight directives, the Superintendent filed the charges against Respondent which later (with one added count) became the basis for Respondent's dismissal. (P-5; P-6; P-19; TR-XII, p.47; TR-XIII, pp. 14, 47, 72, 128, 129) The complaint about Respondent's performance voiced by some teachers to Mr. Dandy were never thoroughly, and conscientiously, investigated or verified by Mr. Dandy prior to his undermining Respondent's authority and, to some extent, taking control of the school away from him. When Respondent was finally informed of the complaints he responded to each in a professional and meaningful way. He was then given "directives," quickly followed by charges, without being given a fair opportunity to take corrective action and effectively respond to the complaints. In their hasty action, school board officials disregarded or were oblivious to the requirements of Rule 6B-4.08. This is all the more perplexing in light of the fact that Mr. Dandy, the Area Supervisor and Respondent's immediate supervisor, never recommended--then or now--that Respondent be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That all charges against Respondent be dismissed, that he be reinstated with full back-pay and emoluments of employment; and that he be awarded reasonable attorney's fees which he actually expended in his defense or which he has legal duty to pay. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of November, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 14th day of November, 1985.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds Florida teaching certificate 195597 covering the area of industrial arts. During the school years of 1973-1974 to 1983-1984, Respondent had no persistent pattern involving professional incompetency or unprofessional conduct. The Respondent was employed as a teacher of industrial arts at Vero Beach Junior High School in the Indian River County School District during the 1983-1984, 1984-1985, and the first three weeks of the 1985-1986 school years, until his suspension effective September 16, 1985. During 1983-1984, he also apparently taught mathematics. At various times, the classes Respondent taught at Vero Beach Junior High School included some classes directed to regular students and others directed to exceptional students, including the educable mentally handicapped (EMH). EMH students have intelligence quotients (IQs) of less than 70. At all times, all of the industrial arts classes taught by Respondent were elective. THE 1983-1984 SCHOOL YEAR Mr. Marion Bass was the Respondent's supervising principal at all times material to the administrative complaint. As the Respondent's supervising principal, Mr. Bass observed and evaluated the Respondent's teaching performance. Prior to evaluating the Respondent's teaching performance, Principal Bass received formal training in the evaluation of teachers and had 12 to 13 years of practical experience in conducting teacher evaluations. Principal Bass observed the Respondent's teaching performance informally on two or three occasions during the 1983- 1984 school year and twice formally at the end of that school year. In his observations and evaluation of Respondent, Bass found the Respondent's performance to be unsatisfactory. Specifically, Bass observed that the Respondent did not satisfactorily control students in his classroom, his planning was not as complete as it should be, implementation of his lesson plans was not acceptable, and Respondent's "voice procedures" (i.e., diction and volume) were unsatisfactory. Bass opined that the Respondent did not have a specific structure to his industrial arts class. Even if students were knowledgeable of their assigned task on a given day, the students were not always on-task. Instead, they would be out of their seats, moving around the room and discussing topics unrelated to class work. In Bass' view, Respondent failed to provide proper supervision of the students, and as a result, the students did not appear to respect the Respondent's instructions. Bass observed that students ignored Respondent's instructions to sit down and be quiet. On other occasions, he observed that the Respondent ignored some students' off-task behavior while he was involved with others. However, none of Bass' observations in the 1983- 1984 school year were reduced to writing nor formally discussed with Respondent, and the formal year-end evaluation of Respondent of March 16, 1984, by Laurent Smith, Assistant Principal, rated Respondent as overall satisfactory and his contract was subsequently renewed for the 1984-1985 school year. On or about May 15, 1984, Bass inadvertently discovered that the Respondent was not knowledgeable of his mathematics students' progress in their skills continuum. This was particularly disturbing to Bass in that each student is required by the Indian River County School Board to accomplish at least 70 percent proficiency in state-mandated skills in order to be promoted to the next higher grade. Thereafter, Bass made an attempt to ascertain the level of skills accomplishment by the students in Respondent's classes. While doing so, Bass questioned Respondent about the matter. The Respondent indicated that certain students were in the Compensatory Education Program. Bass subsequently learned that those students were not compensatory education students but were Level Two students. It alarmed Bass to discover that the Respondent did not even know what level of students he had been teaching for seven months. THE 1984-1985 SCHOOL YEAR On September 17, 1984, Bass prepared a memorandum to Dr. Douglas King, Director of Personnel for the School Board. In that memorandum, Bass outlined his concerns regarding Respondent's teaching performance. The memorandum addressed seven general areas of deficiency: failure to control students' behavior; failure to provide meaningful structure and direction and failure to support an enthusiasm for learning; failure to demonstrate the ability to plan a course of study with overall goals and objectives providing direction and continuity in the subject matter; difficulty in implementing what lesson plans the Respondent did develop; addressing only a small percentage of the students in his class when presenting a lesson; difficulty with proper grammar and diction; and a demonstrated lack of understanding for the basic academic and social skill needs of his students. Following preparation of his September 17, 1984 memorandum, Bass continued to make observations of the Respondent's teaching performance. Bass observed the Respondent's teaching performance on October 15, 1984 and completed a Classroom Observation Instrument containing his notes of that observation which rated the Respondent's performance in the classroom as "extremely poor, one of great concern." The notations on the Classroom Observation Instrument itself indicate that the Respondent gave directions to a limited number of students, assisted only a small number of students, engaged in very little class communication, did not enunciate well, used poor diction, utilized "very poor" classroom management, and failed to keep the students on task. Following Bass' observation of the Respondent on October 15, 1984, he prepared a written memorandum of his concerns and his suggestions for improvement. He met with the Respondent and discussed both his concerns and suggestions for improvement. The Respondent received a copy of the memorandum. During this conference, Bass told the Respondent that he was there to help him in any way that he knew how to help. Bass expressed similar sentiments in other conferences with Respondent regarding Respondent's teaching performance and offered to allow Respondent to visit other schools and other teachers both in and out of the school district in an effort to help Respondent remediate his observed deficiencies. On September 13, 1984, Theresa Wagner, chairperson of the vocational department of Vero Beach Junior High School, sent all teachers within that department a memorandum establishing dates for computer usage. One of the components of the Respondent's industrial arts curriculum was demonstration of computer literacy. Respondent received a copy of the memorandum. On October 15, 1984, the first day of the Respondent's assigned time block for use of the computers, the Respondent advised Ms. Wagner that his class was not ready to use the computers and would probably not be ready the following week. However, until that date, Respondent had expressed no problem with the time block assigned to him and had requested no assistance in preparing for this new function of the curriculum. When Ms. Wagner reminded him that computer skills were a part of his required curriculum at that time, Respondent replied that he could not understand why he had to teach something he did not know anything about. Further, he stated that he could not learn it. Respondent apparently made two attempts to learn the computer and gave up. Respondent's failure to adapt himself to the new computer programming time blocks inconvenienced Ms. Wagner and others who were required to share the single computer during the finite time available in a school day/school year. At hearing, Respondent advanced the theory that because his major was in TIE (Trade Industrial Education), he ought not to be required to adapt to teaching manufacturing, woodworking, and computer literacy, which are outside of his expressed field of interest, but which apparently are very much contemplated within the general field of industrial arts. Additionally, he felt he certainly should not be required to adapt to teaching all these "new" areas at one time. However, it appears he had been teaching woodworking for some period of time anyway. Overall, Respondent made it clear he did not want to teach the curriculum assigned to him. As a part of her assigned responsibilities as department chairperson, Ms. Wagner was required to observe each of the teachers within the vocational department. On October 10, 1984, she observed the Respondent. Her memorandum to the Respondent dated October 10, 1984, outlined her observations as well as her suggestions for his improvement. Ms. Wagner had difficulty understanding the Respondent when he was teaching. She suggested that he talk louder and make a special effort to enunciate clearly. She observed that the Respondent failed to provide a handout for one girl in the class. The girl raised her hand and had it up for five minutes before the Respondent noticed the student and gave her the handout. Ms. Wagner observed a lot of non-essential, non-productive movement of students in the classroom. Finally, she noted among other things that the last lesson plans which the Respondent turned in were for the week of September 17, 1984, although he was on notice that he was supposed to turn in lesson plans weekly. Ms. Wagner observed little, if any, instruction being provided by the Respondent. The students failed to respond to the Respondent's directions and did not pay attention to him or obey his directions. In fact, the majority of the students ignored the Respondent during this observation by Ms. Wagner. Lesson plans were an on-going problem between Ms. Wagner and Respondent. Only when Ms. Wagner specifically asked the Respondent for lesson plans did she receive them. Those which she did receive from the Respondent were not satisfactory. In her opinion, any substitute teacher would have had a very difficult time teaching effectively based upon the plans which Respondent did submit to her. Although other departmental personnel sometimes missed turning in lesson plans timely, everyone except the Respondent eventually "caught up" with their lesson plans. Ms. Wagner later observed Respondent on several other occasions. Those observations of the Respondent's teaching performance were consistent with her observations on October 10, 1984. On September 14, 1984, Richard Thomas, Vero Beach Junior High School Dean and Assistant Principal, observed the Respondent's classroom performance. Mr. Thomas is trained for such evaluations. Using the teacher evaluation form containing 39 observable "behaviors," Thomas rated the Respondent as "needs improvement" in 14 of the 39 categories based upon his observations on September 14, 1984. Thomas categorized the Respondent's performance on that date as incompetent. On September 20, 1984, Thomas became aware that the Respondent was sending a large number of student referrals to the Guidance Department for the purpose of having the students seek reassignments from his classes to other classes. Respondent's action was creating problems for the Guidance Department, the students, and the Respondent himself because by that point in the school year, a change of classes under the circumstances was impossible. Thomas prepared a letter dated September 20, 1984 to Respondent requesting that he refrain from such conduct. In the letter, Thomas offered to discuss the matter with the Respondent. Respondent's reasons for his acceleration of referrals was never made entirely clear. However, one explanation offered by the Respondent at formal hearing was that when he had behavioral problems with students in his classes and was not permitted to lock them out of the class (see findings of fact 21, 32, and 33 infra.) and was not otherwise "backed up" by Principal Bass and Assistant Principal Thomas, Respondent felt justified, as a strict disciplinarian, in referring those students whom he viewed as troublemakers to the Guidance Department either to be dealt with by Thomas or for reassignment elsewhere. Under the circumstances, this explanation by Respondent of strict discipline is flawed and unreasonable and evidences lack of classroom control. At hearing, Respondent expressed his objection to having exceptional and special education students in his classes due to their low IQs, even though he admittedly had taken courses in this area. Although all school and School Board personnel assumed Respondent was certified for EMH students, Respondent was not specifically so-certified. He maintained that because of their low IQs, EMH students created special discipline problems, which fact was confirmed by Mr. LaPointe and Mr. Bass. However, Mr. LaPointe, a specialist in the field, also opined that an industrial arts certificate should qualify Respondent to teach industrial arts to EMH students. Respondent attributed much of his professional troubles to the inability of the exceptional education students to learn as opposed to his own inability to teach. At first, Respondent further suggested Bass and Thomas had also assigned students with disciplinary problems to both his regular and exceptional classes. However, he could not substantiate this premise in light of the elective nature of all industrial arts classes. Overall, Respondent only made it clear that he did not want to teach the students assigned to him. On October 17, 1984, as a follow-up to his September 14, 1984 visit, Thomas observed Respondent teaching and prepared a Classroom Observation Instrument. He concluded that the Respondent's "with-it-ness" was poor because Respondent was oblivious to a fight which was about to break out between students in the back of his classroom and because a student had to approach the Respondent and almost physically pull on the Respondent's arm to get his attention. Thomas observed that the Respondent was not in control of his class and that he failed to maintain the attention of all students. Thomas observed no improvement in Respondent's performance on his October 17, 1984 return, except that on that particular date, the Respondent did attempt to implement some organizational structure through the use of an overhead projection covering four items. On November 9, 1984, Thomas wrote the Respondent a letter in regard to the manufacture of weapons by students in the Respondent's manufacturing class. Prior to that date, Thomas had verbally cautioned the Respondent about the manufacture of weapons by students in his class. No direct competent substantial evidence nor any corroborated hearsay supports a finding of fact that "weapons" per se were in fact created in Respondent's class with his knowledge. It was, however, demonstrated that various lathe-produced wooden objects, possibly intended by Respondent for use as chair legs, were smuggled out of his class by students. Although Respondent denied certain items described as "swords" and "paddles" were weapons and even that some of the "chair legs" were made in his class, the fact that he admitted that a paddle and certain "chair legs" could have been smuggled out by students indicates an appalling nonchalance for his duties of supervision of young people. It was further demonstrated that a sign bearing the expression "I LOVE SEX" and that a paddle bearing the expression "DUCK BUT!" [sic] were manufactured in Respondent's class without his disapproval. On October 16, 1984, Jean Carter, the Director of Vocational Adult and Community Education for the Indian River County School District, observed the Respondent's second period class. Ms. Carter is a qualified observer with the Florida Performance Measurement System. During her observation on October 16, 1984, Ms. Carter noted that the Respondent did not begin his class promptly. Students talked in loud voices and milled around the room. The Respondent had difficulty communicating with his students. Most of his comments were inaudible. The Respondent turned his back on some students when he spoke to other students. Few students attempted to write the notes shown on the overhead projector as the Respondent ordered. Other students never faced the projector, and the Respondent seemed to be unaware that they were not taking notes. Ms. Carter observed several students off task. Four or five students were throwing paper and spitballs around the room. The word "important" was misspelled on the transparency. Respondent exhibited no enthusiasm for the subject matter, never praised the students, spoke positively, or smiled. He did not appear to enjoy teaching. In November 1984, a request was made to the Florida Department of Education to provide an assistance review of the Respondent's teaching performance. The purpose of the assistance review was to provide the Respondent with assistance in becoming a more proficient teacher. Following the assistance review, a very lengthy, detailed report was prepared by the reviewer and submitted to the Indian River County School District. On February 7, 1985, a conference was held involving Superintendent Burns; Principal Bass; Dr. Eddie Hudson, Personnel Coordinator; Mrs. Shirley Hanawait, Assistant Superintendent; Ms. Carolyn Sheppard, CEA President; Jean Carter, Director of Vocational Education; Dr. Douglas King, Director of Personnel; and the Respondent. The purpose of the conference was to review the report prepared by the Department of Education assistance reviewer and to make arrangements to provide Respondent with additional help and assistance as needed. In that conference, Respondent's supervisors made arrangements to correct, repair, or adjust equipment in Respondent's classroom; to have another industrial arts teacher assist Respondent; to provide Respondent with relief time to observe other professional teachers in the same vocational area; to send the Respondent to two professional conferences; to provide Respondent with professional journals; to provide Respondent with assistance through the department head; and to provide assistance from Mr. Bass in the areas of grading, lesson plans, supervision, management, and organization. Mr. Bass, Superintendent Burns, and Dr. King emphasized to Respondent that he must begin to show improvement in his performance immediately. Respondent was advised that if no improvement were demonstrated immediately, Respondent could be removed from continuing contract status or dismissed altogether. The Respondent received a copy of the conference summary prepared by Dr. King as a reminder of the action Respondent was expected to take to improve his classroom performance. Ms. Carter participated in the conference held with the Respondent on February 7, 1985, to review the assistance review report and to provide the Respondent with help. Her purpose in attending the conference was to provide the Respondent with assistance in any way possible to improve his performance. Ms. Carter later made sure that all of the Respondent's equipment was in proper working order, that he had copies of the performance standards mandated for the courses he taught, that he received professional journals, and that he was authorized to attend two conferences relating to his subject matter area. Respondent did not, however, attend either conference. Subsequent to the February 7, 1985 conference, Bass conducted five classroom observations of the Respondent's teaching performance. On each occasion, Bass completed a Classroom Observation Instrument. On March 8, 1985, Bass observed the Respondent's class and found that no valid learning activity was going on in the classroom. On March 12, 1985 at 7:35 a.m., Bass observed the Respondent's industrial arts class for exceptional education students. There were seven or eight students in the class. Bass observed that the Respondent gave the students approximately 15 vocabulary words to look up while the Respondent straightened up the classroom. In Bass' opinion, such an assignment for exceptional education students was inappropriate due to their limited intelligence, attention span, and the purpose for which such students were enrolled in the course. Mr. Bass characterized Respondent's performance on that date as poor. Subsequently, on the same date, Bass observed the Respondent teaching manufacturing to a regular class of about 17 students. Although Bass characterized Respondent's performance in this class as better, he still gave it an overall score of poor because Respondent's presentation lacked continuity and his discourse was "disjointed." Bass continued to note that the Respondent had difficulty with grammar, enunciation, and projection of an enthusiasm for the subject matter. On March 18, 1985, Bass again observed Respondent's manufacturing class for exceptional students. Although Bass also termed this observation better than those he had made of Respondent in the past, he still considered it a below average observation. On the observation instrument itself, Bass noted that the Respondent was late to class, wasted time by marching the students to a film which was set up in a classroom in a separate building, provided no orientation or preview prior to showing the film, and conducted no discussion of the film after it had been shown. He further noted that the Respondent performed much of the project work himself, thereby limiting the hands-on experience that the students were in the class to receive. That same day, Bass observed the Respondent's manufacturing class for regular students, which viewed the same film as had been shown to the exceptional education students. The content of the film would have been acceptably pitched for both types of classes if Respondent had appropriately introduced the film and had led post-film discussions appropriate to each level, which he did not. Bass felt that once again a lot of time was wasted, there was scant review of the film's content, and there existed the same problems with diction and discourse by the Respondent. Bass concluded that the Respondent's teaching performance remained virtually unchanged from what it had been prior to the assistance review. Bass' March 27, 1985 Annual Teacher Evaluation for Respondent's 1984- 1985 school year resulted in a rating of "needs improvement" in 23 of the 39 "behaviors" evaluated on the form. Bass met with Respondent on March 28, 1985 to review the evaluation and discuss it with him. Before Bass could begin discussion of the evaluation, Respondent stated, "Let me make a long story short, Mr. Bass, I am not going to sign my evaluation even if we talk all week. You're 100 percent right on what you wrote, but I'm still not signing it." On more than six occasions, Thomas found the Respondent's students out of class when they were supposed to be in his room. On certain occasions Respondent locked them out. When the Respondent locked students out of his classroom, those students were free to roam the halls with the excuse that they had been locked out of their classroom. On one occasion, school staff members caught one of the Respondent's students committing a theft at a time when he was supposed to be in Respondent's class. Although the theft incident was not conclusively tied to a date Respondent locked students out of his classroom, Respondent was still responsible for indicating to the administration that the student was "cutting" and had not done so. On June 4, 1985, Bass learned that the Respondent was locking his students out of his classroom. Final examinations were being conducted at the time. The Respondent told Bass that he could not make the students stay in class without this procedure, which he had designed to catch students when a student still in the classroom tried to let those who had left the classroom back into the classroom from the outside. Respondent also told Bass he could not give an examination and control the students if the door were not locked. Respondent repeated this explanation from the stand at formal hearing as if his plan were designed to catch those who "cut" class, but Respondent also maintained it was a method of timing the number of minutes students remained out of class so that Respondent could tell their parents why he would not permit them ever to leave the room again, apparently even for reasons as mundane and urgent as using the bathroom. Such reasoning process is flawed and unreasonable, if not downright silly. The Respondent refused to sign the incident report resulting from this incident and further refused to discuss the incident report with Mr. Bass. As a vocational education teacher, Respondent was required to submit end of the year reports to Ms. Carter as a part of state and federal funding requirements. Ms. Carter had informed Respondent of the requirement that he prepare and submit the reports prior to leaving school. Respondent testified he submitted the required reports at the end of the 1984-1985 school year by placing them in the school office mail box of Ms. Wagner. Ms. Carter testified that she did not receive them. The problem with transmittal of the reports appears to be one that could have been resolved by Ms. Wagner or someone notifying the Respondent immediately by telephone that they had not been received. This was not done, although Ms. Carter and Dr. King followed up with written reproofs. Such an infraction under these circumstances will not support discipline of Respondent. Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1984-1985 school year, dated March 27, 1985 and referenced above, was not satisfactory, but Respondent's contract was subsequently renewed for the 1985-1986 year. THE 1985-1986 SCHOOL YEAR On September 3, 1985, Howard LaPointe, then a staff associate in the Exceptional Education Program of the Indian River County School District, observed Respondent teaching exceptional students in his manufacturing class. Although school had begun on August 17, 1985, Respondent took his class on a tour of the other building on September 3, 1985. Mr. LaPointe observed numerous deficiencies during his observation and noted that the Respondent needed assistance in the areas of classroom management, instructional materials, orientation to class work, utilization of student notebooks, and competency based upon the curriculum guide. On September 13, 1985, the Respondent met in Principal Bass' office with Bass, LaPointe, Carolyn Sheppard (president of the teachers' union) and Dr. King to review LaPointe's observation conducted on September 3, 1985 and to discuss suggestions for Respondent's professional improvement. As Mr. LaPointe began to present his plan for providing assistance to the Respondent, Respondent became angry and upset. After a sharp exchange between LaPointe and Respondent, wherein LaPointe asked Respondent "What the hell do you expect the children to do?" or some similarly-phrased question, Respondent left the meeting and did not return. Bass and Dr. King walked down to the Respondent's office, a glass- enclosed room. They could see Respondent was in a highly emotional, agitated state. The Respondent had knocked his personal television set onto the floor. It was not demonstrated that Respondent damaged a projector or any other school property or that two obscenities uttered by Respondent were heard by anyone other than a fellow teacher, Mr. Humphrey, who had entered the enclosed room as a friend to calm down the Respondent. Had Bass and King not followed Respondent to his own office they would not have even observed his agitated state. Respondent was excused for the remainder of the school day after Mr. Humphrey calmed him down. Later that day, Superintendent Burns suspended the Respondent without pay. Respondent was subsequently terminated by the School Board for incompetence, misconduct, and gross insubordination. On December 12, 1985, Dr. King notified the Florida Department of Education that the Respondent had been dismissed from his position of employment. Dr. King recommended that the Respondent's teaching certificate be permanently revoked. Based upon Bass' observations and evaluations of the Respondent's teaching performance over a period of more than two years, Bass holds the professional opinion that the Respondent is an incompetent teacher. Bass would not recommend the Respondent for employment in Indian River County or any other school district. In Bass' professional opinion, students in the Respondent's regular classroom did not receive even a minimal educational experience and the exceptional students received only a minimal educational experience. No evidence whatsoever supporting the allegations of unprofessional conduct at Clemans Elementary School was offered and no such unprofessional conduct is found. No direct competent substantial evidence nor any corroborated hearsay supports the allegation that Respondent used profanity in the presence of students and no such conduct is found. Respondent's pre-1983-1984 school year evaluations are technically irrelevant to the charges at bar but were admitted to give Respondent every opportunity to "prove up" his allegations that his current problems arose from personal or personality conflicts with Bass and Thomas. Unfortunately for Respondent, these exhibits show some of his deficiencies are long-standing but were sporadic as opposed to forming a consistent pattern early on. Otherwise, these exhibits are too remote in time to have great weight. Respondent also defended, pursuant to Rule 6B-4.08(2), Florida Administrative Code, upon the premise that after a bombardment of evaluations and conferences he felt he was being harassed rather than given corrective assistance and that he was given too little time in which to make the adjustments required. Rule 613-4.08(2) requires Respondent's immediate supervisor to make all efforts possible to aid Respondent to correct the matter which caused his dismissal. Although this is a questionable defense when, as here, Petitioner and the School Board are not one and the same entity, some of Respondent's allegations have a mitigating effect. There is some merit to his allegations with regard to the timeframe and limited assistance provided but none as to the allegation of harassment. Respondent did unsuccessfully apply for transfer and volunteer to accept a custodial job at the same pay in order to avoid his problems with Bass and Thomas, but he could not demonstrate at formal hearing any reason other than his own attitude and teaching performance for Bass' and Thomas' poor evaluations and refusal to transfer him. Moreover, the consistency of the other observers' analyses belies any conspiracy or vendetta against Respondent on the part of Bass and Thomas. There is some evidence that Respondent made some minimal improvements in technique after assistance was provided by the professional reviewer, which assistance Mr. Bass characterized as the only significant remediation provided the Respondent. Upon his superiors' advice, Respondent also conferred with at least one other teacher in his field who came to his school. Ms. Carter testified that Respondent was authorized to attend two professional conferences and he did not, in fact, attend, but it is unclear from her testimony and the supporting documentary evidence whether federal grant monies were ever authorized for Respondent's attendance at either of these conferences. Mr. LaPointe's evidence that special assistance with regard to exceptional students was offered by him but rebuffed by Respondent is indicative of Respondent's poor attitude. There is evidence that equipment was repaired for Respondent and although not stated by any one witness in so many words, it may be inferred from the collective testimony of several witnesses that Respondent could have requested time off to observe other industrial arts classes and confer with other industrial arts teachers outside his own school but failed to do so. In light of Respondent's satisfactory rating in the 1983-1984 school year, the fact that significant efforts to assist Respondent did not commence until November 1984 (reviewer visit) and that internal assistance did not begin in earnest until the February 7, 1985 conference, I find Respondent had really only from February to March 1985 to avoid an initial unfavorable annual evaluation. From March 1985 to school's closing in June and part of August and September in the 1985-1986 school year was all the time permitted Respondent for remediation because he was dismissed in mid-September 1985. Even so, he showed some minimal improvement which has been considered.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent's Florida teaching certificate be suspended for three years with provision for reinstatement as provided by statute. DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of June, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of June, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-4101 The following constitute rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (FOF). Petitioner's Proposed FOF: Covered in FOF 1. Covered in FOF 3. Covered in FOF 5. 4-5 Covered in FOF 6. 6-8 Covered in FOF 7 but amplified to conform to the record as a whole. Covered in FOF 8. Covered in FOF 9. Accepted that there were such reports but rejected as set forth in FOF 41. Covered in FOF 10. Covered in FOF 11 except as to the subordinate and unnecessary. 14-15. Covered in FOF 12 except as to the subordinate and unnecessary. Covered in FOF 25. Covered in FOF 26. 18-19. Covered in FOF 27. 20. Covered in FOF 29. 21-23. Covered and amplified in FOF 30 to conform to the record, but eliminating the legal argument from proposal 23. 24. Covered in FOF 31. The commentary about the presence of a secretary and Respondent's mood are rejected as immaterial in light of no charges of insubordination. Further, mild anger in the presence of the Principal's secretary is hardly likely to impair Respondent's effectiveness. 25-26. Covered, modified and amplified as necessary in FOF 33 to convey the full scope of the material facts of record. That which is cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary has been rejected. 27. Covered in FOF 36; what is rejected is subordinate and unnecessary. 28-29. Covered in FOF 39; what is rejected is cumulative. 30-31. Covered in FOF 13-14 and amplified to more accurately convey the evidence of record as a whole. Covered in FOF 16 but modified for clarity. Covered in FOF 18. Except for elimination of the cumulative, covered in FOF 17. Except as cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary, covered in FOF 19. Covered in FOF 19. 37-38. Covered and amplified in FOF 20 to more accurately reflect the evidence of record as a whole. 39-42. Except as cumulative, subordinate or unnecessary, covered in FOF 22. 43-46, and 49 Rejected as not supported by the direct, credible competent substantial evidence of record as a whole. 47-48. Accepted that reports were written but rejected on the basis of uncorroborated hearsay, unsupported by direct credible competent substantial evidence in the record as a whole as covered in FOF 41. 50. Covered and amplified to more accurately reflect the record evidence as a whole in FOF 32. See also FOF 33. 51-53. Except for the cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary, covered in FOF 24. Covered in FOF 28 and 42. Rejected as not supported by the record as a whole. All witnesses are entirely credible on this point and Respondent's testimony is not truly contrary to other testimony. The benefit of the doubt must be resolved in his favor in this penal procedure. 56-58. Rejected as stated as not supported by the credible competent substantial evidence of record as a whole which is set out in FOF 37. 59. Covered in FOF 38. 60-61. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary except as covered in FOF 38. 62. Covered in FOF 38. 63-65. Rejected as irrelevant except as covered in FOF 42. Rejected as cumulative. See FOF 20, 21, 32 and 33. Accepted but covered as set forth in FOF 23 since the proposal does not constitute an ultimate, material fact. Rejected as legal argument except to the extent it is peripherally covered in FOF 42. Respondent's Proposed FOF: 1-3. Accepted but cumulative upon the acceptance of similar proposals by Petitioner. 4. Rejected as stated in that it constitutes argument but the topic is covered in FOF 7, 21 and 42, as supported by the record as a whole. 5-8. Accepted but cumulative upon the acceptance of similar proposals by Petitioner. This proposal is not a sentence and is therefore rejected. Accepted that Respondent had the feelings and made the statement but rejected as stated as misleading of the record as a whole. See FOF 37. Except as covered in FOF 4, rejected as irrelevant, although true. Accepted but this goes to Respondent's overall incompetency and is not an ultimate material fact and therefore not adopted. See FOF 21. Rejected as some of these were not admitted in evidence and those in evidence do not support the proposal, neither does the record evidence as a whole. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire Post Office Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Charles L. Hendley, Esquire 1500 Delaware Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 33450 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Marlene T. Greenfield Administrator Professional Practices Services 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 =================================================================
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the letter from the Petitioner dated January 16, 2003, and in the Notice of Specific Charges filed February 27, 2003, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Article IX, Florida Constitution; Section 230.03, Florida Statutes (2002).3 At the times material to this proceeding, Mr. Lefkowitz taught emotionally handicapped and seriously emotionally disturbed students in North Miami Beach High's Bertha Abbess exceptional student education program. He has been employed by the School Board since 1993, and is currently employed under a professional services contract. At the times material to this proceeding, Mr. Lefkowitz and at least one other person were making a music video for a course they were taking at Florida International University. Alvarro Gutierrez was working with Mr. Lefkowitz on the video, and Mr. Gutierrez had chosen the girl who would sing and would choreograph the dances for the video. Mr. Gutierrez did not, however, have any dancers, and Mr. Lefkowitz told Mr. Gutierrez that he knew some girls "from school" who were dancers and that he would ask them if they wanted to dance in the video. J.D. was, at the times material to his proceeding, an 11th-grade student at North Miami Beach High, although she was not a student of Mr. Lefkowitz. Rather, J.D. met Mr. Lefkowitz in a school hallway, while she was selling candy for her French class, and they apparently had several conversations during school hours. In one of these conversations, Mr. Lefkowitz mentioned that he was filming a music video for a college class. J.D. asked if she could be in the video, and Mr. Lefkowitz agreed and asked J.D. if she had any friends who could also dance in the video. J.D. introduced Mr. Lefkowitz to her friend N.F. N.F. was, at the time, an 11th-grade student at North Miami Beach High, but she did not know Mr. Lefkowitz until J.D. introduced them. Mr. Lefkowitz did not know at the time he met her that N.F. was a student at North Miami Beach High. J.D. also introduced Mr. Lefkowitz to Glamour Legros, whom she knew because she and Ms. Legros attended the same church. Prior to introducing Mr. Lefkowitz to Ms. Legros, J.D. had told him on a number of occasions how much Ms. Legros wanted to meet him.4 Ms. Legros and N.F. shared an apartment. Ms. Legros was not a student at the times material to this proceeding, and she was older than N.F. and J.D. J.D., N.F., and Ms. Legros agreed to dance in the music video and went to Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment several times to discuss, rehearse, and shoot the video. Mr. Lefkowitz picked up J.D., N.F., and Ms. Legros and drove them to his apartment on the occasions when they were working on the video. Mr. Lefkowitz also took J.D. and her friends home on these occasions. M.D., J.D.'s brother and a student at North Miami Beach High at the time, went to Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment once, and H.D., another student at North Miami Beach High, was at Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment on at least one occasion, when she danced for the music video. These two students also rode with Mr. Lefkowitz in his car on at least one occasion. In addition to her visits to Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment and her rides in his car, J.D. spoke with Mr. Lefkowitz numerous times on the telephone. When working on the video, J.D. went to Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment with her friends. She was alone with Mr. Lefkowitz once, after her friends left Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment; Mr. Lefkowitz took her home after about an hour. Mr. Gutierrez did not observe Mr. Lefkowitz engage in any improper behavior with J.D. or her friends at Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment during the time they were discussing, rehearsing, and shooting the music video. On April 21, 2003, Ms. Legros called the police and she and N.F. reported that Mr. Lefkowitz had come to their apartment, beat on the door, and threatened them verbally. According to the police incident report, the police were dispatched at 10:09 p.m. and arrived at Ms. Legros's and N.F.'s apartment at 10:12 p.m. Mr. Lefkowitz had outpatient surgery on April 18, 2002. Mr. Lefkowitz's mother was with him at his apartment from April 18 through the morning of April 22, 2002, the day he returned to work. According to Ms. Lefkowitz, Mr. Lefkowitz was in bed, asleep, on the night of April 21, 2002. On April 22, 2002, Raymond Fontana, the principal of North Miami Beach High, received a telephone call from a woman who identified herself to Mr. Fontana's secretary as J.D.'s aunt and who told Mr. Fontana that an exceptional student education teacher named "Neil" was having a relationship with J.D., a student at North Miami Beach High; the caller also reported that the teacher had been involved in an "incident" that had been reported to the police. Ms. Legros was the person who called Mr. Fontana.5 Mr. Fontana called Allyn Bernstein, an assistant principal at North Miami Beach High, into his office and asked her to look into the allegations made by the caller. Dr. Bernstein called Mr. Lefkowitz into her office and, before she could say anything, Mr. Lefkowitz told her that he knew why she had summoned him, that an ex-girlfriend had threatened to make trouble for him because he wouldn't give her money. When Dr. Bernstein questioned Mr. Lefkowitz about his relationship with the student J.D., Mr. Lefkowitz denied knowing her. Dr. Bernstein also called J.D. into her office. In response to Dr. Bernstein's questions, J.D. denied knowing Mr. Lefkowitz. She stated that she did not have a social relationship with any teacher outside of school and that she had never met any staff member outside school. After Dr. Bernstein reported to Mr. Fontana that she believed that there might be "something there,"6 Mr. Fontana reported the matter to the school district personnel, who referred the matter to the Miami-Dade School Police Department, and an investigation was initiated. Once the investigation was initiated, Mr. Lefkowitz was placed on alternate assignment at his home effective May 3, 2002. The investigator, Detective Victor Hernandez, interviewed N.F., Ms. Legros, J.D., H.D., M.D., and Mr. Lefkowitz. During the course of his investigation, Detective Hernandez was told that Mr. Lefkowitz and N.F. had dated and that they had had sexual intercourse. When Detective Hernandez interviewed Mr. Lefkowitz, Mr. Lefkowitz denied that he knew either J.D. or N.F. In a report dated September 2, 2002, Detective Hernandez described his investigation and set forth the substance of the statements given by the witnesses. Detective Hernandez concluded that the charges that Mr. Lefkowitz had violated Rules 6B-1.001 and 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code, and School Board Rules 6Gx13-4.109 and 6Gx13-4A-1.21 were substantiated. A Conference-for-the-Record was held on October 2, 2002, with Paul Greenfield, District Director, presiding. Mr. Lefkowitz attended the Conference-for-the-Record, together with the School Board's Director of Region II and Mr. Fontana. Mr. Lefkowitz requested that his attorney be allowed to attend, but this request was denied.7 Mr. Greenfield reviewed Mr. Lefkowitz's history with the Miami-Dade County public school system and presented the results of the investigation. Mr. Lefkowitz denied having met J.D. and N.F. and denied that they were ever in his apartment. After the Conference-for-the-Record, Mr. Fontana recommended to the Superintendent of Region II that Mr. Lefkowitz's employment be terminated. Mr. Lefkowitz lied to Dr. Bernstein, to Detective Hernandez, and to the participants in the Conference-for-the- Record about his relationships with J.D. and N.F. because he knew it was improper for the students to be in his apartment and for him to associate with students outside of school. Mr. Lefkowitz expressed remorse at his behavior and acknowledged that his conduct was not appropriate. J.D. testified that she and Mr. Lefkowitz never dated or had sexual intercourse. Ms. Legros testified that she did not know whether Mr. Lefkowitz and J.D. had had sexual intercourse. She claimed, however, to have observed Mr. Lefkowitz and J.D. at Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment hugging and kissing and acting like "boyfriend and girlfriend to me."8 Ms. Legros has no personal knowledge that Mr. Lefkowitz had sexual relations with N.F., but testified that N.F. told Ms. Legros that she had had a relationship with Mr. Lefkowitz. An 11th-grade student testified at the hearing that he considered Mr. Lefkowitz to be a good teacher, a role model, and a teacher that he would remember after high school. Mr. Fontana testified that he thought Mr. Lefkowitz's effectiveness as a teacher had been impaired because of the "manner in which he dealt with students, having students come to his apartment, dealing with students that are out of the realm of his teaching responsibilities." Mr. Fontana observed that "once you breach that student/teacher relationship and you lose that professionalism I don't think you can ever go back and have the same degree of effectiveness as a teacher."9 In making his decision to recommend that Mr. Lefkowitz be terminated from his employment as a teacher, Mr. Fontana considered Mr. Lefkowitz's employment history with the Miami- Dade County public school system. Mr. Lefkowitz was twice referred for evaluation as to his medical fitness to perform his duties as a teacher and was twice found fit to perform these duties. Mr. Lefkowitz was the subject of three allegations of battery on a student, one in February 1995, one in February 1999, and one in March 1999; the February 1995 charge was substantiated,10 and Mr. Lefkowitz was given a verbal warning; the remaining two charges were unsubstantiated. Finally, in August 1995, Mr. Lefkowitz had an unacceptable annual evaluation, was given a TADS Category VII prescription in the area of Professional Responsibility, and successfully completed the prescription within the specified time. Summary The greater weight of the credible evidence presented by the School Board is insufficient to establish that Mr. Lefkowitz dated either J.D. or N.F. or that Mr. Lefkowitz had sexual intercourse with N.F. The School Board presented no direct evidence establishing that J.D. and Mr. Lefkowitz had a romantic relationship or that N.F. and Mr. Lefkowitz had a sexual relationship. The School Board relied exclusively on Ms. Legros's testimony to establish that these relationships existed,11 and most of her testimony was based on hearsay, not personal knowledge. Ms. Legros had no personal knowledge that N.F. had sexual relations with Mr. Lefkowitz, and the only behavior that Ms. Legros testified that she personally observed was Mr. Lefkowitz and J.D. in Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment hugging and kissing and, in Ms. Legros's estimation, acting like boyfriend and girlfriend. Ms. Legros is found not to be a particularly credible witness, and her uncorroborated testimony is not sufficiently persuasive to establish that Mr. Lefkowitz and J.D. more likely than not were dating or that the hugging and kissing, if she indeed observed such behavior, was sexual in nature. Both J.D. and Mr. Lefkowitz denied having a romantic relationship, but it is difficult to credit fully their testimony, given that both J.D. and Mr. Lefkowitz lied to School Board personnel about knowing one another and that Mr. Lefkowitz lied to School Board personnel about being acquainted with N.F. However, on reflection and after a careful review of the evidence, the testimony of J.D. and Mr. Lefkowitz is credited over that of Ms. Legros. The greater weight of the credible evidence presented by the School Board is not sufficient to establish that Mr. Lefkowitz telephoned N.F. on April 21, 2002, and threatened her or that he went to the apartment shared by Ms. Legros and N.F. on the night of April 21, 2002, and made threats to harm them. Mr. Lefkowitz's mother testified unequivocally that she was with Mr. Lefkowitz from April 19 through the morning of April 22, 2002, and that he was recovering from surgery and sleeping on the night of April 21, 2002. The School Board presented no evidence that Mr. Lefkowitz telephoned N.F. and threatened her, and Ms. Legros was the only witness to testify that Mr. Lefkowitz came to her apartment and made threats. The testimony of Mrs. Lefkowitz is credited over that of Ms. Legros.12 The evidence presented in this case is sufficient to establish that Mr. Lefkowitz failed to exercise the best professional judgment, failed to maintain the highest ethical standards, and used his position as a teacher to his personal advantage by recruiting young women students to perform as dancers in the music video he was filming as part of a college assignment. Mr. Lefkowitz admitted that he had engaged in inappropriate conduct: He had had a personal relationship outside of school with both J.D. and N.F.; J.D. and N.F. danced in a music video he made for a college project; J.D. and N.F. were in his apartment several times; and he drove J.D. and N.F. in his car to and from his apartment. The contents and tone of the written statement Mr. Lefkowitz adopted as his testimony supports an inference that he was on very familiar terms with both J.D. and N.F., and with Ms. Legros as well.13 Mr. Lefkowitz's poor judgment in developing significant social relationships outside of school with two female students at North Miami Beach High and his inappropriate behavior in having these students as guests in his car and in his apartment reflect poorly on him as a teacher employed by the School Board. Mr. Lefkowitz also failed to exercise the best professional judgment and to maintain the highest ethical standards with respect to his dealings with the School Board during the investigation of his conduct. Mr. Lefkowitz lied to Dr. Bernstein and Detective Hernandez and at the October 2, 2002, Conference-for-the-Record when he said he did not know J.D. or N.F., and he admitted at the final hearing that he lied because he knew that he should never have involved these students in making the music video, should never have given these students rides in his car, and should never have invited the students to his apartment. Mr. Lefkowitz's lack of truthfulness reflects poorly on him as a teacher employed by the School Board. The evidence presented by the School Board is also sufficient to establish that Mr. Lefkowitz engaged in one instance of inappropriate behavior involving students M.D. and H.D. Mr. Lefkowitz admitted that, on one occasion, he picked up these two students in his car and drove them to his apartment, where H.D. danced in the music video and M.D. observed Mr. Lefkowitz and cohorts filming the music video. Mr. Lefkowitz did not have repeated out-of-school contacts with these two students, as he did with J.D. and N.F., but his behavior with M.D. and H.D. reflected poorly on him as a teacher employed by the School Board. The evidence presented by the School Board, which consisted only of Mr. Fontana's conclusory and general statements, is not sufficient to establish that Mr. Lefkowitz's conduct impaired his effectiveness as a teacher in the Miami- Dade County public school system. The evidence presented by the School Board is, however, sufficient to permit an inference that Mr. Lefkowitz's effectiveness as a teacher was impaired. Mr. Lefkowitz encouraged students to develop personal relationships with him and to spend significant amounts of time with him in his apartment. Even though J.D., the young woman with whom he was primarily involved, was not a student in his class, his willingness to become involved with this student and her friends brings his personal and professional judgment into question and necessarily affects the school administration's assessment of his fitness for supervising high school students. It may also be inferred that Mr. Lefkowitz's effectiveness as an employee of the School Board was also impaired because he lied to the principal and assistant principal of his school and to the regional superintendent of the Miami-Dade County public school system about even knowing J.D. By not being truthful with the school system administrators, Mr. Lefkowitz diminished his credibility as a professional educator.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order; Finding that Neil D. Lefkowitz is guilty of having committed misconduct in office and of violating School Board Rules 6Gx13-4-1.09 and 6Gx13-4A-1.21; Suspending Mr. Lefkowitz without pay for a period of 24 months, retroactive to the date on which the School Board suspended him from his employment without pay; and Imposing such conditions on Mr. Lefkowitz upon his return to employment as the School Board deems appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 31th day of July, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31th day of July, 2003.
Findings Of Fact Before his current assignment to a textbook depository, respondent Kerby Clifton Smith taught school for the Duval County School Board for 26 years. Mr. Smith holds a teacher's certificate, No. 145127, authorizing him to teach physical education to sixth through twelfth graders and science to seventh, eighth and ninth graders. In 1980-81, respondent received an unsatisfactory evaluation, which he attributed to the distraction of his mother's terminal illness, culminating ultimately in her death on Thanksgiving Day 1981. Otherwise, his annual evaluations were satisfactory through the 1986-87 school year. He began in August of 1963 as a physical education teacher at Lake Shore Junior High School. He ended that school year and spent all the next at "Paxon Junior High School teaching physical education, coaching track, baseball and basketball." (T.557) Mr. Smith returned to Lake Shore Junior High School in the fall of 1965. Until 1967, all his classes were physical education classes. In 1967, when he began teaching three science classes, he continued to teach two physical education classes, and to coach after school. After 1974, although he continued to work as a coach, he did not teach physical education classes, with the exception of a single physical education course for hearing impaired students. Instead, he taught physical science and earth science (or earth and space science) to junior high or middle school students, mainly with ninth-graders. Leaves Lake Shore With the intention of pursuing computer science training, respondent requested a leave of absence for the school year 1986-87. Request granted, he began at Jacksonville University in the fall of 1986. But when he began to run out of money toward the end of the first semester, he decided to return to work. Because his position at Lake Shore was filled, he was sent to Fort Caroline Junior High School, where he substituted for eight days before he took over a retiring science teacher's five earth science classes, effective February 2, 1987. Soon after Mr. Smith began teaching the science classes, the principal at Fort Caroline Junior High School, Mr. Pratt-Dannals, conducted a formal observation, the first of at least three he conducted before the academic year ended. He gave respondent special attention because, during the school years 1981-82 and 1982-83, when Mr. Pratt-Dannals was dean of boys at Lake Shore Junior High School, he had concluded that "a general lack of proper classroom decorum" (T.43) in one or more of Mr. Smith's classes accounted for an "inordinate number of referrals" (T.53) to the dean's office. But he evaluated Mr. Smith's teaching in the spring of 1987 as satisfactory over all. He also offered criticisms of various aspects of his performance as a teacher, telling him he needed to improve. He urged Mr. Smith to enroll in certain methodology courses in the summer of 1987, but Mr. Smith declined because he "had the summer planned." T. 617. When Mr. Smith returned in the fall, he found himself without a classroom of his own. As a "travelling teacher," he moved from one classroom to another in the course of the school day. This may have accounted for some of his classes' getting off to less than a smooth start. T. 573. 1987-88 Observations On September 15, 1987, Mr. Pratt-Dannals observed Mr. Smith teaching an earth science class. On a "Summative Observation Instrument" he kept track of specified behaviors classed either as effective, or as ineffective, indicators. The former outnumbered the latter, and Mr. Pratt-Dannals commended respondent for "asking a large number of questions on the film strip" which he saw as evidence of a "desire to involve students in the discussion." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5. But, from where he sat, Mr. Pratt-Dannals saw "students openly cheating on the quiz," (T.88) (although he took no action against the supposed offenders.) Mr. Smith did not see students cheating. T.594-5. "Mr. Smith warned a student to stop talking. The student continued to talk, and there was no repercussion." (T.88) On October 21, 1987, Mr. Pratt-Dannals observed another of Mr. Smith's earth science classes devoted, except for 18 minutes, to a test. He saw "13 students . . . openly sharing answers on the test," (T.88) again without taking any action. Again Mr. Smith did not see students cheating. T.594-5. Using the same "Summative Observation Instrument," Mr. Pratt-Dannals identified about as many "ineffective indicators" as "effective indicators." Among the ineffective teaching behaviors Mr. Pratt-Dannals made note of on October 21, 1987, was Mr. Smith's defining "seismograph" for the class without giving an example. (T.90) When one student said to another, "You do and I'll beat your butt," (T.88) and the other responded, "Faggot," neither the principal nor the teacher intervened, although respondent later reprimanded both students outside the class. T. 582. Mr. Smith recognized the voice of only one of the protagonists, and decided against "ask[ing] a class of 35 which one of you said, you're a faggot?" T.585. From the owner of the voice he recognized, he learned the identity of the other miscreant. On November 5, 1987, Mr. Pratt-Dannals observed Mr. Smith administering yet another test to yet another earth science class. Using the same form as before, he recorded more ineffective indicators than effective indicators. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7. Mr. Pratt-Dannals testified: There's some additions and corrections to the test at the beginning of the period that created some confusion. These were said orally, so the student had to understand what he was saying orally and write it down on his test in order to do well on the test. I suggested Mr. Smith write these on the board if there were corrections necessary. The cheating continued, particularly where students sat next to each other. This was when Mr. Smith was helping another student. There is a term called with-itness, and that is where a teacher is able to do two things at one time. One of the things that would be required in this situation would be to assist a student who may have a question about the test while continuing to look over the rest of the class to determine if any cheating was going on. He told one student that he would deduct 10 points the next time he was talking. This was on the test. The student talked, and he did not deduct the points. In written remarks made at the time, Mr. Pratt-Dannals noted, "While there was some cheating going on, it was less than before," and suggested, "It looks like it is time to rewrite the 'House Rules' on your cart. The pencil scribble detracts from the impact." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7. When Mr. Pratt-Dannals next observed respondent's teaching, on December 1, 1987, he perceived no "classroom management problems." (T.100) But he felt "[t]here were problems with presentation of content," id., specifically the effort to discuss dinosaurs, AIDS, the space program and the greenhouse effect in the same class period. He nevertheless commended respondent on a "[g]enerally good question/answer time with extension or correction as needed," Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8, and recorded many more "effective indicators" than "ineffective indicators." Id. Biweekly the science department received 50 student issues and a teacher's edition of Science World, a magazine to which the school subscribed. "There were eight science teachers and one set of magazines." T.591. The chairman of the science department asked science teachers to include all topics pertinent to their courses covered in the magazine "in our lesson plan biweekly." T.586. The then current issue contained articles on dinosaurs, AIDS, the space program, and the greenhouse effect (as well as numerous other topics) and respondent had passed copies out to the students. On February 18, 1988, Mr. Pratt-Dannals again observed respondent teaching and again recorded many more "effective indicators" than "ineffective indicators." But "problems with classroom management persisted, specifically open talking, interrupting and socializing." (T. 117) Nevertheless, according to Mr. Pratt-Dannals, "almost half of [Mr. Smith's] interventions were effective." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 9. Mr. Pratt-Dannals commended Mr. Smith for "[g]ood use of materials, orienting statements, and beginning review . . [g]ood circulation during seatwork . . . [and a]dequate coverage of 4 of 6 of the concepts," Petitioner's Exhibit No. 9, he explicated on February 18, 1988. The two concepts Mr. Pratt-Dannals felt received inadequate coverage "were that light passing through a prism gives a spectrum . . . [and] that the earth is spherical, therefore, that the light hits the earth directly at the equator, but it hits it at an angle at the poles. [Mr. Smith] stated those but did not give any kind of application." T.118. Finally, Mr. Pratt-Dannals again observed respondent's teaching on March 2, 1988. He saw Mr. Smith stop misconduct effectively on three occasions, but, on nine occasions, misconduct extended beyond a reasonable period of time. In other words, he might say, Okay, that's enough, stop talking, and the talking continued for a period of time following that. It may be that the talking continued throughout the whole period [, while the principal sat, mutely observing.] In many cases it continued for a longer period of time than was reasonable if the students were responding to his correction. T. 124. Mr. Smith also failed to give examples of several (but not all) of the terms he defined. According to Mr. Pratt-Dannals, the "problem . . . was that a definition was provided with no example . . . similar to," (T.124) the situation with "seismograph." In conjunction with his observations that school year, Mr. Pratt- Dannals read Mr. Smith's lesson plans for each of the half dozen classes he sat in on. These, he found, "minimally covered what is required." T.130. Aside from these six, he read no other lesson plans Mr. Smith prepared that year. He evaluated Mr. Smith's performance as a teacher as unsatisfactory principally because of classroom management problems. T.131. At Mr. Pratt-Dannals' behest, Gloriden J. Norris came to the school to evaluate respondent's teaching and test administration on December 18, 1987, and again on January 20, 1988. After her first visit, she reported, "[n]o major problem identified from these observations." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 26. On her second visit she recorded 30 effective teaching behaviors and only two ineffective teaching behaviors. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 28. Both Mrs. Norris and Mr. Pratt-Dannals gave Mr. Smith advance notice before observing his teaching. On the other hand, Daniel L. Weems, one of the science teachers whose classrooms respondent made intermittent use of, had occasion to enter his room without notice, during his own free period, while Mr. Smith was teaching there, "in the range of once a week," (T.188) for from two to 15 minutes at a time. Not infrequently he found that Mr. Smith did not have all the students' full attention. He observed "[o]n a number of occasions things such as heads down on the desk, writing notes or letters to one another, just talking with one another, being teenagers." T.177. MLST Petitioner requires students in its earth science courses to pass a Minimum Level Skills Test (MLST) demonstrating mastery of a specified fraction of about 19 percent of the course objectives, in order to pass the course. In March of 1988, Mr. Pratt-Dannals told Mr. Smith he was concerned that his students would not be properly prepared for the standardized test; and encouraged him to make special efforts to prepare them. Mr. Smith did make special efforts. The percentage of his students who passed the science MLST the first time they took it was higher than comparable percentages for two other science teachers' students, but lower than the comparable percentage for one of the other science teachers' students. Respondent's Exhibit No. 5. Mr. Smith's students' scores on the earth science MLST were not significantly better or worse than their scores on minimum level skills tests in other subject areas. 1988-89 At respondent's request, he was transferred from Fort Caroline Junior High School after Mr. Pratt-Dannals gave him an unsatisfactory evaluation. That summer he signed up for two of the three education courses Mr. Pratt-Dannals recommended that he take during the summer, but they were cancelled for lack of adequate enrollment. The third recommended course was already completed by the time he looked into it. Mr. Smith's request to teach physical education during the 1988-89 school year was not honored. Instead, he was assigned to teach two science courses, four classes of life science, which he had never taught before, and one class of physical science at the Eugene J. Butler Seventh Grade Center (Butler). His physical science students had all failed earlier attempts to pass the seventh grade. For the first two weeks of school or longer, Mr. Smith called students' names, and they raised their hands when he took roll, but after that he would simply "darken in the circles" (T.603) on a "bubble sheet" that listed the class roll. Once he had learned their names, this procedure saved class time, he felt. In each class, he asked a student to remind him to fill in the sheet before the hour was up. Before conducting his initial formal observation, Butler's principal, Kenneth Leon Manuel looked for respondent's lesson plans, but did not find them on file. When he did see the lesson plans, he concluded they "did not comply with the format of objectives, instructional strategies, materials and evaluation." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 14. In the classroom, he noticed several students "discours[ing] while [Mr. Smith] was talking," (T.259) on September 13, 1988, and again on October 18, 1988. Also on September 13, 1988, "several students walked in and out of the classroom. Like one kid would walk in with the hall pass. And by the time he put the hall pass down, another kid would get up, get the hall pass and walk out." T.260. Carole Lippert Benson, Butler's vice-principal, conducted a "formal observation" in one of Mr. Smith's classes on September 28, 1988. Even though class began four minutes late, five students were tardy. "The teacher usually makes some sort of notation that the child was tardy, or gives them some sort of reprimand," (T.404), but respondent did neither. When he began his presentation, one student was at the pencil sharpener and three others were out of their seats. He stood at an overhead projector with his back to half the class. Some students talked. One put his head down and went to sleep. A girl put on make up. Mr. Smith did not have the attention of several students. Kathleen Bowles, the science and health department chairperson at Butler had her planning period second hour during the 1988-89 school year. She walked through respondent's second period class on her way to the science department's storage rooms, "probably 20 times or more, throughout the entire school year." T.246. She saw children talking among themselves, writing notes and out of their seats. She even saw some listening to radios or cassette players with headphones. School policy forbids Walkman radios on campus. Mr. Smith violated departmental policy by letting the children "dissect pumpkins" without safety goggles, and nearly violated department policy "when he was going to dissect earthworms, and the safety contracts had not been signed." Although Ms. Bowles reported a "very high" noise level, a classroom teacher nearer by was not disturbed. On November 9, 1988, Kathleen Marie Poe, who then worked for petitioner as "a science consultant with professional development" (T.454) attended one of respondent's classes in order to conduct a scheduled formal observation. When the tardy bell rang two boys were arguing over which should retrieve a desk that had been moved for an earlier class. A student arrived late. One of the students walking around the room refused to obey several exhortations to sit down, so Mr. Smith ordered him to leave the class room "and that child wouldn't step outside, so they finally negotiated that he asked him to sit in the back of the room." T.455. But, when a girl finished sharpening her pencil, the recently seated student rose to sharpen his pencil. After these preliminaries, and a quiz, Mr. Smith made use of an overhead projector and began a far ranging lecture on sea life, mentioning (without defining that day) mollusks, bivalves, scallops, univalves, stingrays, echinoderms and the Great Barrier Reef. During the lecture, one girl put on make up, another did her English homework. On November 17, 1988, a student arriving for Mr. Smith's sixth period class told him he did not feel well, and asked to go home. Mr. Smith answered, "[S]ee if you can't tough it out one more period. Your mom's not going to want to come over here. Go . . . put your head down." T.624. Instead of putting his head down, the child lay down on a table. Mr. Manuel and Levi Garrett, another administrator in petitioner's employ, were present for the first five minutes of this class. Mr. Smith introduced Mr. Garrett to the students before proceeding with a scheduled VCR presentation. Neither Mr. Manuel's testimony that, "There were several kids that walked in and just lay down on the table," (T.266) nor his assertion that respondent's lesson plans were not on respondent's desk has been credited. On February 1, 1989, Ms. Norris observed respondent at Mr. Manuel's request. "Other than the inadequate preparation and delivery of content, [she] also concluded that there were some problems in inconsistency in . . . effective strategies . . . used to manage student conduct." T.384. On the test he gave that class, "there's a mixture of multiple choice and matching without directions." T.386. On February 15, 1989, Mr. Manuel conducted another formal observation, this time of respondent's third and fourth period classes. With regard to the third period class, Mr. Manuel reported: [B]asically the behaviors that were in that particular class during that time, there was a lot of deviant behavior. Mr. Smith, at one time, responded to the deviant behavior, "Neil, you better get busy. You guys get busy." There was continuous conversation with a student that had a missing lunch ticket. During the period of time in this particular classroom, Mr. Smith did circulate around the classroom. There were numerous misconducts [sic] of students going on. He had the opportunity to cease and desist some of that; however, in some cases he did not. Also, in that particular one, in that specific case, one student had indicated to Mr. Smith that he had completed the assigned task [an essay] . . . [A]nd Mr. Smith explained to him to continue to work on the essay. The child just went ahead on. T.275-7. About a third of the class finished the essay early, and had no additional assignment other than (possibly) homework. The fourth period class was the physical science class, full of students who were repeating. Several students "were continuously off task." T.279. Mr. Smith told a student she should have raised her hand, and she said he had not required another student to do that. After two warnings, Mr. Smith "wrote [a student] up on a referral, told him to leave the classroom." T.280. Another student was playing with the thermostat. Still another student "was constantly talking and complaining." T.281. On February 28, 1989, Ms. Poe again observed respondent, whose strength she had earlier described as "science content/knowledge." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 33. In connection with her February visit, she prepared written comments. "Some conduct problems - 4 students out of their seats - talking back - frequent interruptions. One was sent out on a referral (girl) transparencies were clearer as were his directions. He never raised his voice and was calm throughout the hour." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 33. Ms. Poe felt respondent "need[ed] to provide positive feedback to students' answers and . . . for correct behavior and to be consistent with his own set of classroom rules." Id. She also noticed that "he kept calling on the same students, the ones who were paying attention, to answer the question." T. 459. Two boys played "paper football across the desk," (T.456) a boy threw "basketball paper wads . . . three of them in a row", id, a distance of about six feet, and "[t]here were a couple of paper airplanes being flown around the room." T.456. Mr. Manuel conducted a final observation on March 13, 1989. After this observation he told respondent that he wished he had taught so well for the whole year or words to that effect. He told him that this was the type of teaching he had been looking for and was generally complimentary. Nevertheless the next day he made a final evaluation that Mr. Smith's work for the year had been unsatisfactory. After January 30, 1989, respondent did not file lesson plans until June 14, 1989, when he filed lesson plans for some four months' classes late. MLST At Butler Of the 21 students in Mr. Smith's year-long physical science class, only ten passed the physical science MLST the first time it was administered. T.302. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 23. Even fewer students passed the course itself. "That's the class that were repeaters . . . ." T.603. Most of the students who flunked the class "failed because we had an attendance policy. If you missed more than seven days [in "[e]ach grading period" (T.607)] . . . you automatically received an F or an E in the class." Id. Students in Mr. Smith's four first semester life science classes passed the life science MLST at rates of 34.8, 52.0, 52.2, and 63.6 percent, as compared to a 77.7 percent pass rate for all teachers' first semester life science students. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 24. But students in Mr. Smith's second semester life science classes passed the life science MLST at rates of 92.0, 93.8, 94.1 and 94.7 percent as compared to an average 93.9 percent for all teachers' life science students that semester. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 25. Popular With Colleagues A number of respondent's colleagues testified for him at hearing. Paul Z. Martin, a teacher at Lake Shore Junior High School from 1954 to 1976, said, in answer to counsel's questions: A He got along fine. I got jealous of him a lot of times, because he could handle the students so well, and the students liked him, and he had no problem there at all. And another thing -- let me say right there -- you know, things will happen, which is natural. They'll come up in class, or maybe under me or maybe under another coach. And, well, two or three times I recall where I would ask Kerby to go see if he could resolve that situation, and he did. He did a good job. He's a good disciplinarian. Q Good disciplinarian? A Good disciplinarian. And his work in his classroom was very efficient. (TR 344) Barbara Miller who taught at Lake Shore Junior High School for twenty- six (26) years and who, like Mr. Martin, had no personal knowledge of respondent's performance at Fort Caroline Junior High School testified: I think he is a very competent teacher. I say this due to the fact that when I walked into his classroom the many, many times that I did, that his class was in order, that he had control of his classroom, that his test scores were good, that his grades were better than mine, that he did take an interest in the children. And I have one real criteria for being a good teacher, and that is it involves the heart and the love of your job and the love of the children, and I absolutely will say under oath that Kerby has these things, that he enjoyed his job, he loved the kids, and he gave to them beyond the capacity of just your 7:30 - to - 2:40 requirement. And that says a lot for me. (TR 359, 360) A former principal, John Rowell, who served as principal at Lake Shore Junior High School, until 1969 testified: I would say he tries to reach every student that he can. He's very pleasant, and he -- for me, he maintained good order in the classroom and a well-disciplined gym class, and his teams that he coached were well-disciplined teams. He called on the kids to recite. He would explain, and they would recite. Q Do you think he was a competent teacher? A Yes. He was a competent teacher for me. Between 1963 and 1969, he was a very competent teacher." (TR 484-485) Another colleague who had not taught with Mr. Smith since he left Lake Shore Junior High School was Betty Tut who had herself taught for some twenty- five (25) years. She said: Did you ever observe Kerby Smith in the classroom? A No, not observe him in the classroom, but we taught P.E. kind of together. Sometimes we would be outside, but this was some time ago, not recent. Q But you could see each other? A Yes. Q What was his conduct with the class when you observed him? A Very caring and compassionate about them and wanting them to do well. He was very concerned about each of the kids and wanted them to do exceptionally well in what he was doing. I know that much. Q Did he seem to have control of his class? A Being outside, he had pretty good control outside. But when he was inside, I did not observe him. (TR 494) Another Lake Shore colleague, Floyd Watson, who taught at Lake Shore Junior High School from 1966 to 1988, answered counsel's questions, as follows: Q How did Mr. Smith conduct this classes? A What do you mean? Q You saw him in some of his classes. What were they like; well-run, poorly-run, whatever? A Of course, I'm not a science teacher, so I can't say that sort of thing. Q Did you find any atypical disciplinary problems in his classes, as compared to the others that you were familiar with? A No. Q Did he seem to have a rapport with the students or lack or rapport? A He seemed to have a good rapport. I think, with the latter part of the years, I was just thinking, when I came down here the other day, that he seemed to have a right good rapport, especially with minority students. Not all teachers have that." (TR 502) "Q In your opinion, from '63 to '85, was Mr. Smith a competent teacher? A Yes. Q And the reason for that statement? A Well, I think he's knowledgeable in his subject matter. I think he put the material across to the students. He did have a classroom management so that a student that wanted to learn could learn. He was able to talk with the students and get along with them reasonably well. Of course, like any teacher, you don't satisfy all of them. That never happens. But, overall, I think he got along very well with the students, and they tend to respect him. He made it such that if they wanted to learn they could, and he would try to teach them. (TR 503, 504) Robert A. Birmingham, an occupational specialist at Lake Shore Junior High School, 1985-1990, testified: Q What was the conduct of his classroom when you were there? A They're junior high kids, you know. In an educational setting, there can be noise, and it's educational noise, and there can uncontrolled noise. And I don't recall anything that I was unhappy with. (sic) (TR 510) Phil Valla, a 20-year teacher who taught with respondent early in his career, testified: Q How did he conduct his classes, as far as demeanor and the rest of it? A How did he conduct his classes? Q Yes. From your viewpoint as a teacher, yourself, do you have an opinion about how Kerby conducted his classes? A His classes were fine. Q Do you think he's a competent teacher? A Yes, sir. Q And could you tell the Hearing Officer why you think he's a competent teacher? A When we worked together, we seemed to accomplish everything we set out to do with the kids, and he seemed to get along real well with the kids and fellow coaches. Q How was discipline in his class? A Fine. Q What rapport, if any, did he have with his students? A It was excellent. He had superior rapport with the students. Q Do you think the students respected him? A Yes, sir. Q You say he accomplished everything he wanted to accomplish; was that subject matter? A Yes, sir. Q Do you think that got across? A Yes, sir. We taught -- our goals were to teach skills in physical education, and we accomplished that in those years. (TR 516, 517) And Georgette Macarthur, a teacher with 28 years of experience, offered her opinion, in response to counsel's questions: Q Do you have any opinion about how he conducted his classes? A Yes. He had a real special, I think, rapport with the students, and they liked him, and they performed for him. And I don't think he had a military discipline style, but that mold -- everybody doesn't fit that mold. His style of discipline was a little more relaxed, but the students learned well, I think, and they all did what they were supposed to do. I'm more of a relaxed teacher, myself. And I can see that what is right for one teacher, as far as discipline goes, is not right for another teacher. And students can't learn in chaos. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that if they're all tense and tight sometimes they don't do their best. I really like the way Kerby teaches, from my memory. It's been several years, but, from what I know, I really like the way he teaches. Q You've known him for over 20 years at Lakeshore (sic)? A Right, right. Q That's a long time to observe somebody. A That's right. That -- well, go on with your questions. Q And he left to go on a sabbatical? A Yes, and then he came back. Q And then -- I don't -- if I asked you this -- did I ask you, "Do you think he's a competent teacher?" A Yes, I do. From my observations and just from what I have known, I do think he's competent. (TR 524, 525) On the other hand, Messrs. Pratt-Dannals and Manuel, along with Ms. Bowles testified that respondent was not a competent teacher. Of the 6200 teachers the school board of Duval County employed in 1988-89, it sought to terminate the employment of only three. Raymond Bailey, petitioner's "director of certificated personnel," (T.200) testified: A competent teacher is one that has knowledge of subject matter, is able to impart and deliver that subject matter to students. That competent teacher also is one that is competent in the area of classroom management, meaning managing the learning activities that take place within those four walls. He's also an individual that is effective in his delivery of curricular material to students, interpreting the curriculum of the district and, again, imparting its students. He is an individual that is charged with the responsibility of teaching the curriculum as outlined by the district and has the knowledge and background to proceed through that and to provide his students with the very best education. While it is clear respondent did not provide his students with "the very best education," the evidence fell well short of a showing that he was among the three worst teachers in the school system. At one point when respondent was teaching at Lake Shore and Mr. Wechsler was serving as principal, all five or six science teachers were evaluated by the School District's "teacher educational consultant for science" (T.369), Gloriden J. Norris. Ms. Norris, who observed all of the teachers in their classrooms, did not conclude that respondent's performance was significantly worse than any of the other science teachers' performances. (T.399-400).
Recommendation It is accordingly, recommended that petitioner renew respondent's employment contract. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-4132 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 37, 38, 39, 40, 45, 79, 87, and 89 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 7, 12, 13 and 14 pertain to matters outside the two-year period alleged by the Board, or are otherwise immaterial. Petitioner's proposed findings Nos. 15, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, 25, 32, 33, 34, 36, 46 and 81 pertain to subordinate matters. With respect to petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 19 through 22, see finding of fact Nos. 11 through 22. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 35 and 86 were not established by the evidence. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 41, the testimony was that in no other case of this kind was a teacher assigned to teach subjects he had never taught before. With respect to petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 42, 43 and 44, the evidence did not show that he was at any less disadvantage teaching life science, and the "special accommodations" were contrary to his request to teach physical education. With respect to petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 47 through 65, 82, 83 and 84, see findings of fact Nos. 27 through 45. With respect to petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 66 through 75, see findings of fact Nos. 46 and 47. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 76, 77, and 78 have been adopted in substance, insofar as material, except that Mr. Manuel's testimony that lesson plans were not on respondent's desk has been rejected. With respect to petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 80 and 85, that is the answer he gave on deposition. With respect to petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 85 and 88, petitioner proved respondent was a weak teacher, but did not prove that he was incompetent, within the meaning of the statute. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 13, 17 and 18 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 6 and 15 pertain to subordinate matters. The final two sentences of respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 7 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material, but there were not six formal evaluations. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 9, nobody testified that a traveling teacher should have any greater problems with discipline after the first few minutes of class. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 11, the evidence did not show that he actually attended summer courses. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 12, the first sentence has been adopted but it is not clear what comparison the second sentence is intended to make. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 14 is rejected. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 16, she characterized certain behavior as inconsistent. COPIES FURNISHED: The Honorable Betty Castor Commission of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Dr. Larry Zenke, Superintendent Duval County School Board 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, FL 32207 James L. Harrison, General Counsel Gail Stafford, Assistant Counsel 421 West Church Street, Suite 715 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Al Millar, Esquire 2721 Park Street Jacksonville, FL 32205
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect a student from conditions harmful to learning, or to the student's mental or physical health or safety, in violation of section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2017), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1.; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency head of the Florida Department of Education. Petitioner is responsible for investigating allegations of misconduct against individuals holding Florida educator certificates. Upon a finding of probable cause, Petitioner is responsible for filing an administrative complaint, and prosecuting the case in a chapter 120 administrative hearing if the educator disputes the allegations. Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate 633378, covering the areas of Early Childhood Education, Elementary Education, and English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), which is valid through June 30, 2024. At the time of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint (in the fall of 2017), Respondent was employed as a first-grade teacher at Millennia Gardens Elementary School (Millennia Gardens) in the Orange County 4 By agreeing to an extended deadline for post-hearing submissions beyond ten days after the filing of the transcript, the parties waived the 30-day timeframe for issuance of the Recommended Order. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 28-106.216. School District (School District). Respondent had just begun teaching first grade at Millennia Gardens that school year (2017-2018). Respondent has been employed by Orange County Public Schools (OCPS) since November 7, 1988. Before the 2017-2018 school year, she was a classroom teacher for only four years early in her career, teaching kindergarten at Pines Hills Elementary School from 1990 to 1994. For the next nine years, Respondent taught ESOL "pull-out" sessions for small groups of students who were learning English. The students would be taken out of their regular classrooms to work with Respondent for about 45 minutes per day, and then they would return to their regular classrooms. In 2003, Respondent became the curriculum compliance teacher for the ESOL program. She explained that this primarily involved paperwork, parent meetings, and student testing. Her job was classified as a non- classroom position. She did some work with small groups of students, usually on an informal basis. Instead of all-day responsibility for a full classroom, she would work with four or five students for thirty-minute sessions. Prior to the 2017-2018 school year, Respondent had been working at Grand Avenue Primary Learning Center in the ESOL curriculum compliance position for ten years. Respondent offered in evidence the annual performance evaluations for her last five years in this non-classroom position, showing she achieved overall ratings of effective or highly effective.5 Grand Avenue Primary Learning Center closed after the 2016-2017 school year. The School District placed Respondent at Millennia Gardens, where she was assigned to a first-grade classroom teaching position because there was an opening. Respondent did not request the assignment, nor did 5 Respondent did not offer her performance evaluations as a classroom teacher in evidence, from either the four-year period in the early 1990s or any period since her return to the classroom in August 2017. Respondent described her evaluation for 2018-2019, testifying that her overall evaluation was "needs improvement," with an "unsatisfactory" rating for student learning gains. She said no annual evaluations were done for the 2019-2020 school year due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the change to remote online classes. There is no record evidence as to Respondent's evaluation for the 2017-2018 school year at issue here. Millennia Gardens select Respondent following an interview process to fill the opening, but the placement was made and Respondent took the position. Respondent's re-entry into classroom teaching after a 23-year hiatus was challenging, primarily because of new technologies incorporated into teaching. Millennia Gardens was a new school, having opened in 2016, and it was fully digital in 2017. Her classroom had a Smart Board she was supposed to use to teach, and the students had individual devices (tablets or laptops). Respondent admitted she was slow to adapt to technology. The students were accustomed to digital experiences in the classroom, but Respondent often resorted to "old school" methods. The students became antsy and impatient with her fumbling and shying away from technology she was supposed to use. Some aspects of classroom teaching, however, were not new. First graders, Respondent knew, could present management challenges. As she put it, first graders all have their moments. While her students were on their best behavior for the first couple of weeks of the school year—what she called the "honeymoon" period—that ended by September 1, 2017, when Respondent began having to call for assistance from the "School Wide Assistance Team," referred to as the SWAT team. Her calls, logged by the front office, were sporadic at first, then more frequent beginning in late September 2017. Respondent's first-grade classroom was relatively small in terms of physical space and number of students (17 or 18 students in the fall of 2017). Among Respondent's 17 or 18 students were J.C., K.R., P.C., and R.D.6 Respondent described K.R. and P.C. as troublemakers—the two students most consistently engaging in disruptive behavior, and the ones for whom she would resort to calls for SWAT assistance. As for the other two, Respondent described R.D. as "a bright kid" who did not initiate trouble but would sometimes join in the disruption started by K.R. and P.C.; and Respondent described J.C. as a happy child most of the time, though on occasion, 6 These four students were all in Respondent's classroom until October 12, 2017, when K.R. was transferred to another first-grade class at Millennia Gardens taught by Ms. Rivera. something would set her off and she would talk back or refuse to follow instructions. J.C. was described by a Millenia Gardens assistant principal and the master principal7 as a very smart, articulate little girl. Inside Respondent's classroom was a bathroom designed for one occupant, with a single toilet and sink. Respondent's rule to control bathroom traffic was to require a student to raise his or her hand and receive Respondent's permission to go to the bathroom. Respondent knew that, in defiance of her rule, sometimes more than one student would go into the bathroom at the same time. Respondent acknowledged that there were multiple occasions when P.C. and K.R. would run into the bathroom together to hide when they were in trouble. (These occasions would have been before October 12, 2017, when K.R. was transferred to another class.) Another time, two girls went into the bathroom together to share chewing gum. When Respondent noticed multiple students going into the bathroom together, she would order them out, unlocking the door if necessary. Although Respondent knew that sometimes multiple students went into the bathroom together—a risky, potentially dangerous situation given the lack of any supervision—Respondent did not employ special procedures or increase her vigilance to ensure she would be aware of, and thwart, attempts by multiple students to disappear into the bathroom. In Respondent's small classroom, heightened vigilance would have meant keeping eyes on, and knowing the whereabouts of, all students—particularly the troublemakers. Respondent's classroom was set up so that from anywhere in the classroom, she would have been able to account for the whereabouts of her students. The student desks were grouped in five clusters. Four clusters had four desks pushed together, with two desks side-by-side facing two more 7 As "master principal," Ms. Lynaugh was principal of two schools in the 2017-2018 school year: Millenia Elementary School and Millenia Gardens. She was aided by two assistant principals at Millenia Gardens: Michelle Carralero and Sandra McGraw. desks side-by-side. The fifth cluster had three desks, with two desks pushed together facing each other and the front of a third desk pushed up to the side of the two desks. Respondent's desk was in the far corner of the classroom, diagonally across the room from the classroom door. Her desk faced out to the classroom, although she testified that she rarely sat at her desk, which was covered with papers in wild disarray, some half falling off the desk's surface. On November 1, 2017, Respondent gave her students an assignment to write about something they had done the previous day. While circulating, Respondent noticed J.C.'s paper. On one side, J.C. wrote: "Last night I had fun. First, Next. Movie." However, on the other side of the paper, a picture was drawn of a shape—possibly a face—with two hearts, the word "Love" next to the hearts, and immediately below, the words, "I like to have sex." Respondent asked J.C. why she wrote that, referring to the note about "sex." J.C. responded that she did not write it. However, Respondent saw that the words appeared to be in J.C.'s handwriting, comparable to J.C.'s writing on the same paper responding to the assignment. Respondent took the paper away from J.C. and wrote J.C.'s name and the date on it. However, she did not immediately report it or show the paper to an administrator, to the school counselor, or to J.C.'s parents that day, November 1, 2017 (a Wednesday), nor on Thursday, November 2, 2017, or Friday, November 3, 2017. It was not until after the school day on Friday that Respondent decided to leave a note for the school counselor, along with J.C.'s paper, in the counselor's mailbox. Her note said: "Mr. Gonzalez, I wanted you to see what J.C. wrote on the attached paper. Could you please speak with her sometime? Thank you! Jane Meister." Respondent explained: I had intended to discuss it with our guidance counselor in person, but I was, you know, we had a lot of meetings that week and I was having issues with my leg that I was not able to arrange to catch him within a reasonable period of time. So then I wrote a note asking him to discuss this with J.C. and put it in his mailbox. (Tr. 466-67). Respondent admitted she knew the counselor may well have already left for the weekend, which turned out to be the case. It was not until late morning on Monday, November 6, 2017, that the counselor, Mr. Gonzalez, checked his mailbox and found J.C.'s paper with Respondent's note. Although Respondent had not acted with any sense of urgency, Mr. Gonzalez did. He described J.C.'s note about sex as a red flag. As he and other witnesses explained, it is not normal for a first grader to use the word "sex," so J.C.'s "sex" note raised concerns about what was going on in the student's school life, family life, or community life.8 Mr. Gonzalez immediately notified assistant principal Sandra McGraw about the two notes (J.C.'s "sex" note and Respondent's note asking him to speak with J.C. "sometime"). Ms. McGraw asked Mr. Gonzalez to follow protocol and speak confidentially to J.C. about it. That afternoon, Mr. Gonzalez took J.C. out of Ms. Meister's classroom and escorted her to his office to speak to her privately. Once in the office, he asked her about the note, showing it to her. J.C. said that she did not write the note, but she also said that there were three boys involved in getting her to write the note and helping her with the spelling. She identified the three boys as R.D., P.C., and K.R. Mr. Gonzalez testified that J.C. seemed distressed and was not very forthcoming, so he did not prolong the interview. He returned J.C. to the classroom after five minutes. Mr. Gonzalez then spoke separately with each of the three boys about J.C.'s note. Each of them denied pressuring J.C. to write the note about "sex." 8 Respondent asserted otherwise in her PRO. Respondent offered this statement to suggest that J.C.'s "sex" note may not have been cause for concern: "Children of 6 and 7-year-olds [sic] begin to be curious about sex at this age." (Resp. PRO at 33). More boldly, Respondent asserted: "Children of 6 and 7-years old engage in exploratory sexual play. This is normal." (Resp. PRO at 35). These statements were not supported by citations to record evidence; there is no record support. All the credible record evidence was to the contrary. Mr. Gonzalez also spoke briefly to Respondent that afternoon, reminding her that she was required to report the "sex" note to the Department of Children and Families' (DCF) abuse hotline. She responded, "I know." She had not yet reported the "sex" note to DCF; she testified she did not call the abuse hotline to report the "sex" note until told to do so.9 Mr. Gonzalez updated Ms. McGraw and suggested that she might want to try to follow up with J.C. He testified that both Ms. McGraw and Ms. Carralero spoke with these children a lot—he called them "go-to" persons for the young students—and he thought J.C. might be more comfortable speaking to a female about the "sex" note. Ms. McGraw followed up with J.C., as suggested. On November 7, 2017, she took J.C. out of Respondent's class and brought J.C. to her office to talk. Ms. McGraw testified credibly that she already had an established rapport with J.C. and that J.C., like other students, tended to open up to and talk easily with Ms. McGraw. To encourage this, Ms. McGraw had a comfortable set-up in her office, including a beanbag for children to sit on. Ms. McGraw's purpose in talking to J.C. was to follow up about the "sex" note. She let J.C. get comfortable on the beanbag, then asked J.C. to tell her about it. To Ms. McGraw's surprise, J.C. opened up and volunteered information about a different subject: an incident in the bathroom in Respondent's classroom. J.C. told Ms. McGraw that she did not know how it happened, she thought she had locked the door, but three boys—K.R., P.C., and R.D.—followed her into the classroom bathroom. She told Ms. McGraw 9 Respondent claimed that when she called the DCF abuse hotline to report the "sex" note, someone told her the report did not meet DCF's criteria. Her testimony regarding what she was told is hearsay that would not be admissible over objection in a civil action and that neither supplements nor explains any admissible evidence. It is insufficient to support a finding of fact and no finding is made on this subject. that one boy stood guard at the door, while the other two got her down to the floor and held her down, doing inappropriate things to her.10 Ms. McGraw testified credibly that when J.C. told her about the bathroom incident, the first thing Ms. McGraw asked J.C. was where Ms. Meister was when J.C. went into the bathroom. J.C. responded that Ms. Meister was in the classroom. Ms. McGraw had J.C. write down what she was able to, but all she wrote was the names of the three boys. Ms. McGraw did not belabor the matter, as she wanted to speak with the three boys before the end of the day (November 7), contact the students' parents, and report the incident to OCPS officials, to DCF, and to the Orange County Police Department. Ms. McGraw had the three boys taken out of class and put in separate rooms. She spoke with each boy separately. Each boy admitted to a bathroom incident of some kind, and two of the boys admitted that J.C. was touched inappropriately. K.R. admitted that he and P.C. followed J.C. into the bathroom, P.C. touched her on her "private part," and J.C. tried to stop him. K.R. admitted to touching J.C.'s belly, and J.C. pushed him back. R.D. said that P.C. and K.R. went into the bathroom while J.C. was using it, and they tried to kiss her and jump on her. P.C. only said something about playing in the bathroom. Each boy wrote a short statement, signed by Ms. McGraw. K.R. had difficulty writing what he had said—he was not very good at writing yet—so Ms. McGraw arranged for Mr. Gonzalez to assist by writing down what K.R. said. When assisted statements are taken, the practice is to bring in a witness to ensure that what the recorder writes down accurately reflects what the witness said. Ms. McGraw started off as a witness to this 10 Ms. McGraw's testimony regarding what J.C. told her supplements and explains the credible testimony of both J.C. (by deposition admitted in lieu of hearing testimony) and R.D. (who testified at the hearing). It also refutes Respondent's position, raised before the hearing as the rationale for allowing expert testimony, that improper and suggestive interview techniques used in investigating the bathroom incident shaped the children's statements about the incident. See Response to Petitioner's Daubert Motion (filed Aug. 21, 2020). assisted-statement process, but was called away (because the students' parents whom she had called had arrived to speak with her) and the other assistant principal, Michelle Carralero, took her place as the witness. Mr. Gonzalez wrote down K.R.'s exact words except in one or two instances where he paraphrased what K.R. said without changing the meaning. Ms. McGraw testified that, like with J.C., her first question to R.D. and to K.R. after they each described a bathroom incident like what J.C. had described was where Ms. Meister was when the bathroom incident occurred. They each reported that Ms. Meister was in the classroom.11 Before the end of the school day, Ms. McGraw also spoke briefly with Respondent to let her know they were now looking into a bathroom incident involving J.C., K.R., P.C., and R.D. Respondent declined to talk about the incident, but commented that it would not be the first time that multiple students had been in the bathroom together. Ms. McGraw's testimony regarding what she was told by J.C. and the three boys on November 7, 2017, was generally consistent with her sworn statement provided to the Orlando Police Department later that same day.12 11 Ms. McGraw's testimony regarding what the three boys said to her about the bathroom incident on November 7 and the written statements produced and/or signed by the boys that day supplement and explain admissible evidence in the form of R.D.'s and J.C.'s testimony. 12 Respondent's PRO inaccurately stated that Ms. McGraw's written police statement "did not contain J.C.'s statements to her" and instead, Ms. McGraw wrote about what was said to others in interviews. (Resp. PRO at 11, ¶ 49). To the contrary, Ms. McGraw's statement reported what J.C. told her about the bathroom incident: "On Thursday, November 7th, as a follow-up, I pulled J.C. from her classroom to ask[ ] her more about the ["sex"] note. Then, J.C. preceded [sic] to tell me about what happened to her in the restroom. … According to J.C., there were three boys who entered the restroom. One boy, R.D., was in there blocking the door and the other two boys, P.C. and K.R., took turns holding her down and getting on top of her." (Pet. Ex. 19, Bates p. 66; children's names replaced with initials). Ms. McGraw did not include in her written police statement the fact that J.C. (as well as the boys) told her Respondent was in the classroom at the time of the bathroom incident, but Ms. McGraw testified that she told the police this, and also told them that Ms. Meister had said this would not be the first time multiple students went in the bathroom together. (Tr. 173-74). Omitting those details in her written police statement is not surprising, since the police were investigating "allegations of sexual misconduct by juvenile offenders with a juvenile victim." Amended Stipulated Motion for Protective Order, ¶ 2, filed March 16, 2020. Details relevant here to whether Respondent met her supervisory responsibilities in the classroom would not be important in a police investigation of what the boys did to J.C. in the bathroom. One open question following J.C.'s revelation of the bathroom incident was when the incident took place. Ms. McGraw testified that she filled in the "date of the incident" space on J.C.'s written statement, writing that the incident was "last week." The boys' written statements are similar. At the hearing, Ms. McGraw testified that she was uncertain whether she just assumed the bathroom incident had occurred the prior week because that is when the "sex" note was written, or whether J.C. or the boys had said the incident was the prior week. Regardless, as Ms. McGraw and other witnesses agreed, first-graders do not have a very good concept of the passage of time so as to accurately report whether past events were last week or last month. Over the next two days (November 8 and 9), two DCF child protective investigators conducted interviews of the children regarding the bathroom incident. Either Ms. Carralero or Mr. Loomis sat in on the interviews and took notes, but let a DCF investigator conduct the interviews. Ms. Carralero was asked to sit in on the interview of K.R. in Mr. Loomis's place, because she had a preexisting relationship and good rapport with K.R., having known him and his family from having worked with and supervised his older brother. Notes of interviews of J.C., R.D., P.C., and K.R., are generally consistent with admissible evidence regarding the bathroom incident, at least in most respects that are material to the issues in this case. Ms. Carralero was tasked with following up to determine a timeframe for the bathroom incident. To accomplish this, she spoke separately with J.C. and K.R. on several occasions, finding the two of them to be most forthcoming about the details (perhaps in part because of the good rapport she already had with K.R.). First, Ms. Carralero attempted to narrow the time of day when the bathroom incident occurred, using broad frames of reference such as before or after "specials" (a slot for rotating special classes in art, music, and physical education), and before or after lunch. The students separately identified the time after specials and before lunch. That time slot, according to the first-grade classroom schedule, was for math. As a cross-check, Ms. Carralero then asked each student separately what they were working on, and they both responded that they were working on math. She then took it the next step, asking each student separately if they could recall what type of math they were working on. They each responded separately that they were learning counting by tens. Ms. Carralero then separately handed each student their math workbook and asked if they could identify what they were working on in their workbook. The students each identified a workbook page. Although they were not identical pages, they were in the range of pages worked on one day apart, according to Ms. Meister's lesson plan that she was required to draw up each week and follow. J.C. identified page 250 of the workbook, which was on the lesson plan schedule for individual work on Thursday, September 28, 2017. K.R. identified page 246 of the workbook, which was on the lesson plan schedule for individual work on Wednesday, September 27, 2017. As a final step to narrow down the timeframe, Ms. Carralero asked J.C. if she recalled what she was wearing the day of the bathroom incident. J.C. responded that she was wearing something pink and something black with sparkles, and that her hair was braided. Ms. Carralero asked K.R. separately if he remembered what J.C. was wearing that day, and he also said something pink and black. Ms. Carralero then studied security video recordings for the week pinpointed by the students' identification of what they were working on in their math workbooks. Ms. Carralero found a match on September 28, 2017: that day, J.C.'s clothing and hair fit the description given by J.C. and K.R. Ms. Carralero then verified from school records that the four students and Ms. Meister were all present in class that day. Ms. Carralero's approach was reasonable, and her testimony regarding how she made her determination was clear, credible, and consistent with the evidence of Respondent's class schedule and lesson plans. While it cannot be said with 100 percent certainty that the bathroom incident occurred on September 28, 2017, that date is supported by clear and convincing evidence. In addition to the indicators determined by Ms. Carralero's studied approach, each indicator confirming and reinforcing the others, a few independent factors tend to add credence to her timeline determination. One fact establishes that the bathroom incident must have occurred before October 12, 2017: K.R. was removed from Ms. Carralero's class and transferred to Ms. Rivera's class on October 12, 2017. In addition, a review of the SWAT logs shows that, while Ms. Meister's calls for assistance began on September 1, they were sporadic until late in September.13 September 28, in particular, stands out as the first banner problem day, with three separate calls for assistance with P.C. The first call, just after the school day began, was because P.C. had locked himself in the classroom bathroom and assistance was needed to coax him out. As Respondent put it, on some days, P.C. just showed up in an unhappy state, and it seemed to get worse throughout the day. But this day-long trend was not evident until September 28, 2017. A predetermination meeting was held on December 6, 2017. Respondent and her union representative were provided the investigative file material, including the student statements and notes of interviews, and Respondent was given an opportunity at the meeting to respond. Respondent repeated what she had told Ms. McGraw on November 7—that there were a number of occasions when multiple students had gone into the bathroom together before. When asked how she could have failed to notice nearly one- fourth of her class disappearing into the bathroom at the same time, she said that she may not have noticed because she was circulating around the 13 The log of SWAT calls shows the following calls by Ms. Meister for assistance: once on September 1 for K.R.; once on September 7 for P.C.; on September 20, once at 9:02 a.m. for P.C. and once at 9:40 a.m. for "J.R." (an apparent mistaken reference to K.R.); once on September 22 for P.C.; on September 25, once at an unknown time for P.C., and again at 1:05 p.m. for K.R.; once on September 26 for both K.R. and P.C.; and three times on September 28 for P.C., at 8:53 a.m., 9:50 a.m., and 12:50 p.m. Respondent points out in her PRO that there were 31 total SWAT calls for P.C. through the end of October, but only five of those calls were before September 28, 2017. classroom. She acknowledged that as of September 28, 2017, the bathroom door made a loud noise when closed, but she said that she would not necessarily have heard the loud bathroom door close on September 28, 2017, if her class was being noisy at the time. Following that meeting, the School District's investigation was summarized in a report prepared by Mr. Loomis. Respondent was disciplined in the form of a written reprimand for misconduct, by failing to properly supervise her class. She also received a non-disciplinary directive reminding her that she was required to adequately supervise her students. Respondent points out inconsistencies in the details regarding the bathroom incident, as set forth in the reports, statements, notes from interviews, and hearing testimony, which Respondent contends undermines the reliability of all the evidence. Respondent's point might be well-taken if this were a proceeding to determine whether one of the three boys had committed specific acts against J.C. during the bathroom incident, because the inconsistencies are in the details of who did exactly what to J.C. However, that is not the issue for determination in this case. Respondent offered testimony from an expert in child interview techniques, to point out that "best practices" for interviewing children were either not followed in the investigations of the bathroom incident or it cannot be discerned whether they were followed. The "best practices" guidelines offered in evidence provide a template for law enforcement officers to follow in interviewing alleged child victims of sex abuse. Examples of "best practices" to follow were: developing rapport with a child before delving into the sex abuse topic; interviewing the child in a comfortable, child-friendly place; not asking leading questions; limiting the number of adults in the interview room to one, ideally; limiting the times a child is interviewed; video recording interviews of child witnesses; and keeping a written record of the questions asked to ensure they were not leading. Since the interviews of children in this case were not recorded and Respondent's expert could not determine whether other best practices were followed, she offered the opinion that the children's statements could have been tainted by the process. She opined that the children's statements may have been born not of true memories of what happened, but rather, memories of what they may have been led to say or write, reinforced in repeated interviews that did not follow best practices or may not have followed best practices. In the context of this case, the expert opinions were not persuasive. While the concepts of the "best practices" guidelines in evidence may have some application beyond the context of a police officer interviewing an alleged child victim of sex abuse, there are some obvious differences with interviews conducted by school personnel investigating classroom matters. The initial interviews were conducted by the assistant principals and school counselor with whom the children frequently talked—they were the "go-to" persons—who already had good rapports established with these children, and who were all well-trained and experienced in conducting interviews of children to carry out investigations in school matters. That is very different from the first encounter of a police officer with an alleged child victim of sex abuse; rapport-building would be necessary before diving into the topic of sex abuse. In addition, Respondent's expert had the impression that the initial interviews were in a conference room with multiple strangers participating. Those were the second interviews controlled by DCF child protective investigators (who, presumably, were also well-trained in interviewing children, since that is their job). Respondent's expert did not have the benefit of Ms. McGraw's testimony regarding the child-friendly beanbag set-up in her office where J.C. first revealed the bathroom incident. Of note, Respondent's expert acknowledged that an alleged victim's first interview is the strongest evidence, particularly if the child witness volunteers the critical information rather than providing it in response to leading questions. In this case, it was striking that the first reveal of the bathroom incident came from J.C. volunteering the information, not in response to any question because no one knew to ask about it. Ms. McGraw's testimony regarding J.C.'s surprising reveal of the bathroom incident was clear, credible, and compelling to refute Respondent's argument raised before hearing that the way in which the interviews and investigation were carried out may have infected the children's statements. Although the expert testimony offered by Respondent addressed interviewing children generally, the "best practices" guidance document offered in evidence was specific to interviewing alleged child victims of sex abuse. Respondent's expert did not address the fact that in this case, interviews involved more than the alleged victim, J.C.; they extended to the alleged perpetrators. Here, three boys each admitted, to varying degrees, that they were involved in a bathroom incident in which J.C. was the unwilling recipient of kisses and touches on her "private part." The fact that each of the boys tended to point the finger of blame for specific offensive kisses and touches at one of the other boys might be an impediment to finding that one particular boy committed a particular wrongful act, but that is not the issue in this case. Here, that phenomenon adds force to the collective story told by these boys who were admitting, against their self-interest, to participating in a bathroom incident, while trying to minimize their personal culpability. The credible hearing testimony of R.D. and J.C., nearly three years after the bathroom incident, painted a clear big picture that three boys (K.R., P.C., and R.D.)14 went into the bathroom in Respondent's classroom with one girl, J.C., and while the four students were in the bathroom together, there were one or more occurrences of unwelcome and inappropriate touching of J.C.'s "private part." This clear and convincing big picture was supplemented, 14 In her deposition, J.C. named all three boys by their first names: K., P., and R. When converting the boys' first names to first and last initials for the transcript, the court reporter combined two boys' first initials, merging two boys into one. See Pet. Ex. 23 at 8 and 10 (referring several times to two boys, KP and RD, instead of three boys, K.R., P.C., and R.D.). The video recording of the deposition shows that all three boys were named, rather than two. explained, and corroborated by the statements and interviews of these children. By admitting their involvement, each of the three boys ended up serving a suspension. Respondent's expert failed to offer an explanation as to why boys would admit to their own involvement in the bathroom incident if there had been no such incident. Respondent has maintained that she was not aware of the bathroom incident. She attempted to suggest the possibility that the bathroom incident may have occurred during one of the "few occasions" in all of fall 2017 when she left the classroom, a couple of times to go to the office and a couple more times to go to the restroom, leaving a paraprofessional in charge. However, Respondent also admitted that it was entirely possible that the four students could have been in the bathroom together for as long as five minutes while she was in the classroom without her even being aware of their absence. When asked how that could have happened, she testified as follows: Probably, you know, when the students were doing work in their seats, I would circulate and help the students as it was needed. So if it was -- if I was helping a student on the far side of the room I would have had my back turned to the restroom. And, you know, if I was focused on the child I was talking to and their work on the desk in front of me, I would not have seen what was going on behind me. * * * Probably not five whole minutes with one student. But it would be entirely possible that I moved from one student to another sitting right next to that student without turning my back or without turning around again. (Tr. 495-97). Respondent's testimony stands as an admission that she was inadequately supervising her class. Having her back to her whole class— including the known troublemakers and the bathroom that they were known to run into and hide—for as long as five minutes is unreasonable and unacceptable. It is incomprehensible that while helping one student, she would not position herself to see the rest of the class in her peripheral vision, or regularly swivel her neck to make eye contact with the other students— particularly the known troublemakers. Rather than making this reasonable effort to protect her students from harm, she created conditions that were harmful to the physical and mental health and safety of one student. The credible testimony of both J.C. and R.D. established that Respondent was in the classroom at the time of the bathroom incident. J.C. testified that Respondent was the one who gave her permission to go to the bathroom when J.C. raised her hand. R.D. also testified that Respondent was in the classroom when he, K.R., and P.C. went into the bathroom. And both J.C. and R.D. testified that Respondent was in the classroom when they came out of the bathroom. J.C. added that Respondent was on the school phone when J.C. left the bathroom. While there were details that neither J.C. nor R.D. could recall about the bathroom incident, testifying nearly three years after it occurred, their testimony was clear, credible, and consistent regarding Ms. Meister's presence in the classroom at the time of the bathroom incident.15 Their testimony on this point was corroborated by Ms. McGraw's 15 Respondent's PRO argued that testimony of J.C. and R.D. should be discounted or ignored as the product of leading questions. No "leading" objections were made during J.C.'s deposition. As for R.D., Respondent's counsel did not object to R.D.'s testimony that he, P.C., K.R., and J.C. were all in the bathroom in Ms. Meister's classroom. A single "leading" objection was made after the following two questions and answers: Q: Okay. Now, before you all went into the restroom, was Ms. Meister in the classroom? A: Yes. Q: When you all came out of the restroom, was Ms. Meister in the classroom? A: Yes. Ms. Parker: I'm going to object. Leading the witness. (Tr. 121). The belated objection was overruled. That a question calls for a yes or no answer does not make it leading; instead, a question is leading if it suggests the answer. Happ v. State, 922 So. 2d 182, 185 (Fla. 2005) ("This court has long held that a question is not necessarily leading simply because it calls for a "yes" or "no" answer. Instead, a question is leading when it points out the desired answer."); Porter v. State, 386 So. 2d 1209, 1211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (abbreviated definition of a leading question as one calling for a "yes" or "no" answer is misleading; the real test is if a question suggests only the answer yes or only the answer no). clear testimony that J.C. and the boys told her Ms. Meister was in the classroom at the time of the bathroom incident when that incident was first revealed on November 7, 2017. Respondent presented evidence of circumstances which she asserted should mitigate against any disciplinary consequences. She argued that Millennia Gardens' administration was to blame by assigning her to a classroom with very difficult students to manage and not giving her more help to learn the new technologies while trying to manage her classroom. Yet Respondent acknowledged the importance of her supervisory responsibilities as a first-grade teacher. She was responsible for the care and safety of the students in her classroom who were under her charge. As the master principal of Millenia Gardens put it: "Supervision is number one. You've got to have your eyes on the children at all times." Respondent identified two students who were involved in the bathroom incident, K.R. and P.C., as the ones who were most consistently disruptive in her class. She testified that at some point during the fall of 2017, she submitted a recommendation that the two boys should be evaluated for possible special education status. This evaluation process, referred to as the "MTSS" (multi-tiered student support) process, cannot happen quickly. If a school determines that a child should be evaluated for possible support, notice must be given to the parents and a meeting must be coordinated with the parents and a multidisciplinary team of school personnel. At such a meeting, a discussion ensues regarding the child's needs, possible interventions, and possible areas for professional evaluation. If and only if it is agreed that professional evaluation should occur, and the parents give their informed written consent, then a 90-day professional evaluation process begins. At the end of a 90-day evaluation process, it is possible that the school's determination would be that no special support is warranted; or it is possible that the school determines that student support in some form is warranted. If the latter determination is made, then the school would draw up an individual education plan (IEP) for the child, providing for such measures to be taken as are appropriate for the child, based on the evaluation results. In addition to an IEP, one possibility for a child with behavioral problems is the development of a behavioral improvement plan (BIP). No particular measures are employed in all IEPs or BIPs. One possibility is that a child would remain in a regular classroom with an aide assigned to help the child; however, that is only one of many possible measures that may be employed. Respondent was unable to say exactly when during the fall she submitted her recommendation that K.R. and P.C. go through the process for possible evaluation for special education. Although the evidence was not clear in this regard, at the time of the bathroom incident, Respondent may have been just about to make that recommendation or possibly may have just made that recommendation. The evidence was clear that at the time of the bathroom incident, the process had not gone forward to the point where parents had been contacted, a meeting set up, or parental consents for professional evaluations obtained. It would be sheer speculation to say what determinations could result following a 90-day evaluation period that had not yet been authorized or begun. Respondent cannot simply abdicate her responsibilities upon identifying two students for whom she recommended that such an evaluation process should start, as if that step created an entitlement to a particular end result. Respondent's claim that these two disruptive students made it impossible for her to manage her classroom is particularly troubling in the context in which it is being raised. Respondent cannot claim that she was oblivious because she was distracted by the two disruptive students. Those two disruptive students were secreted away in the bathroom. This makes it all the more incomprehensible that Respondent was unaware that nearly one-fourth of her class had disappeared.16
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j) through a violation of rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., and imposing the following as penalties: suspension of Respondent's educator's certificate for a period of two years from the date of the final order; probation for a period of two years after the suspension, with conditions to be determined by the Education Practices Commission; a requirement that Respondent take a college level course in professional ethics for educators; and payment of a $750.00 fine. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of December, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR 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 29th day of December, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Tobe M. Lev, Esquire Egan, Lev, Lindstrom & Siwica, P.A. 231 East Colonial Drive Orlando, Florida 32801 (eServed) Heidi S. Parker, Esquire Egan, Lev, Lindstrom & Siwica, P.A. 231 East Colonial Drive, 2nd Floor Orlando, Florida 32801 (eServed) Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 (eServed) Lisa M. Forbess, Interim Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief Office of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
