The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner should terminate Respondent's professional service contract for his failure to correct his performance deficiencies within his 90-calendar-day probation period.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Jose L. Rojas, has been employed by The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, as a teacher pursuant to a professional service contract. During the 2004-2005 school year, he taught regular sixth-grade math classes at Redland Middle School. Teachers employed by the School Board, including Respondent, are evaluated pursuant to the Professional Assessment and Comprehensive Evaluation System, known as PACES. PACES was collectively bargained with the teachers' union and approved by the Florida Department of Education in 2001 as being in statutory compliance for teacher evaluations in Petitioner's school district. PACES focuses on student learning and teacher professional development, as well as on teaching behaviors. In PACES, there are seven domains: six are to be observed during a classroom observation, and the seventh domain deals with professional responsibilities demonstrated outside the classroom observation. The domains reflect the required statutory competencies of Section 1012.34, Florida Statutes. Each domain has teaching and learning components, and each component has indicators, 44 of which are required to meet standards under PACES. The 44 indicators are fundamental units of observation that are used to make professional judgments about the quality of learning and teaching. They represent the basic level of teaching to be demonstrated by all teachers in Petitioner's school district, i.e., the minimum requirements. They are the objective standards described in the PACES manual. Teachers have PACES manuals and access to the PACES Internet website. The standards are also repeated in any professional improvement plan, known as a PIP. It takes only one unacceptable indicator for a domain to be rated below performance standards. One below-standard domain indicates a teacher's non-compliance with statutorily- required competencies. The Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) measures student performance on the State's objectives for Florida's required curriculum, the Sunshine State Standards. While Petitioner's school district, as a whole, must utilize the FCAT data and indicators of student performance, there is no similar requirement for evaluating teachers by the results of the performance of their students on the FCAT (or other local assessments for subject matters not covered by the FCAT). Individual evaluations of teachers, however, must address student performance. PACES addresses student performance in every domain. What is assessed is whether the teacher is monitoring and gauging student progress in the classroom, making sure that the students are mastering the required curriculum. Teachers are expected to use their students' FCAT scores from the prior year for planning, pursuant to PACES domain I, to meet the students' deficiencies. Redland utilizes FCAT results in this manner. Further, a teacher's teaching strategies and activities are required to address FCAT expectations. At the beginning of the school year, teachers at Redland receive copies of the scope and sequence for what the students are to learn during the school year. The teachers develop the curriculum and timelines for meeting benchmarks to be covered during the school year. PACES domain II, as another example, deals with the teacher's management of the learning environment. If time is not managed and is, instead, wasted, the students' achievement of the Sunshine State Standards will be impacted, which will affect FCAT scores. PACES domain IV, as yet another example, requires teachers to informally assess the students' engagement in learning to assess their performance to ascertain whether the students are mastering the Sunshine State Standards. All of the administrators who were PACES observers in this case have had extensive training in the standards to be observed and evaluated in teacher performance and student learning and are, therefore, authorized to perform PACES observations, which are based upon what the observer objectively observes while in the classroom. The performance probation process in Petitioner's school district, like the PACES teacher evaluation process, was collectively bargained with the teachers' union. The process is as follows: if there is an observation conducted by an administrator that indicates a teacher is performing below standards, it becomes the "initial observation not of record." The administrator meets with the teacher, goes over the observation, makes suggestions for improvement, and notifies the teacher that he or she will be observed again in approximately three weeks. The administrator offers the teacher the assistance of a professional growth team (PGT). Use of a PGT is voluntary on the part of the teacher at this point. The PGT is part of the professional development aspect of PACES. PGTs are composed of experienced peer teachers who are extensively trained in PACES and are authorized to give support and assistance to teachers to improve classroom instruction. The same administrator who conducted the "initial observation not of record" must conduct the next observation, the "kick-off observation," which is the first observation of record in that school year. If this observation reveals below- standards performance, a conference-for-the-record (CFR) is held. A PGT and a PIP are provided to the teacher. The performance probation period begins the day after a PIP is given to the teacher. The teachers' union and Petitioner then mutually agree on the calendar for counting the 90 days. There must be two official observations during the performance probation period. The teacher must meet all 44 required indicators in order to meet performance standards during the teacher's performance probation. If any indicators are below performance standards, PIPs are again given. There are four levels of PIP activities, which are progressively more complex. A "confirmatory observation" takes place after the 90th day to determine whether the teacher has corrected his or her deficiencies. The "confirmatory observation" must be completed within 14 days after the conclusion of the performance probation, and the evaluator must forward a recommendation to the Superintendent of Schools. Within 14 days of receiving the evaluator's recommendation, the Superintendent must notify the teacher whether he will recommend to the school board that the teacher's employment be continued or terminated. It is not sufficient for the teacher to improve on only some of the deficient indicators. It has been the custom and practice under the collective bargaining agreement that remediation occurs only when the teacher meets standards in all of the required indicators. Respondent's initial observation was conducted by Assistant Principal Fahringer on September 23, 2004. Respondent was teaching a class of 20-23 students. Respondent told the students to take out their agenda books which contained their homework. As Respondent went around the classroom checking each student's homework, the remainder of the students just sat and talked, waiting for a lesson to begin. They were not working on math. Out of the two-hour block of class time, the class was off-task about 25 percent of the time. Respondent failed to meet performance standards in components and indicators of domain II, managing the learning environment, and domain IV, enhancing and enabling learning. Pursuant to the agreed-upon procedures, the observation became "not of record." Assistant Principal Fahringer met with Respondent September 28, 2004, went over the evaluation, and explained why Respondent had not met performance standards. Fahringer gave Respondent suggestions for improvement and advised him that she would return to do a follow-up observation. She offered Respondent a PGT, which he accepted. On October 19, 2004, Fahringer performed Respondent's first observation of record, the "kick-off observation." Respondent was giving a lesson on fractions, decimals, and percentages to 32 students using cups of M&Ms and a chart. Respondent told the students to divide into groups of four. There followed much noise and confusion. As Respondent went from group to group, he did not monitor the other seven groups. Students threw M&Ms and paper wads. Respondent did not meet performance standards in components and indicators of domains II and IV. He did not meet standards in domain II because the learning did not begin promptly. After a five-minute delay, another five minutes were wasted while Respondent counted out the M&Ms. Ten minutes wasted at the beginning of the class is a significant amount of time since time spent on-task improves achievement. There were delays in the organizational and teaching/learning activities. When Respondent told the students to divide into groups of four, some students appeared uncertain as to what group they were in and, instead, milled around talking noisily. Some students remained off-task throughout the lesson. Respondent did not address the off-task behavior because he did not appear to even notice it while he focused on one group at a time. Students came to Respondent with their agenda books, "visiting" other students and talking with them on the way. Eight students were distracted, noisy, and off-task, but Respondent failed to redirect them. Respondent's expectations about acceptable behavior had apparently not been made clear to the students. Although he told them to raise their hands and not to talk, they continued to talk noisily to each other for 50 minutes. Respondent failed to effectively monitor the class throughout the lesson. When he was with one group, he did not use management techniques to diffuse the unacceptable off-task behavior of the other groups. The remaining seven groups did not work (no learning took place) while they waited for Respondent to come to them. Respondent did not meet standards in domain IV because he did not introduce the purpose of the lesson. The students were told how to count the M&Ms and complete a chart, but there was no explanation as to what they were to learn. The students did not understand that they were learning the relationship among fractions, decimals, and percentages. Respondent did not give clear and complete directions. He told the students that they were going to "integrate" decimals, percents, and fractions, a meaningless word choice. The directions did not include any explanation of content or integration of mathematical concepts. Respondent did not demonstrate accurate content knowledge. He gave inaccurate and unclear information to the students. He counted the various colored M&Ms and put the numbers on the chart. On the chart, he explained that the decimals--.35, .10, .25, .17, .03, and .71--equal one, when in fact they equal 1.61. Also on the chart, Respondent explained that the percentages--35%, 10%, 25%, 17%, 3%, and 71%--equal 100%, when in fact they equal 161%. The students accepted the inaccurate information. On the line of the chart indicating the fractions, Respondent reduced some of the fractions leaving different denominators, which made the addition of those fractions difficult. On October 29, 2004, Principal DePriest and Assistant Principal Fahringer held a CFR with Respondent to address Respondent's sub-standard performance, his performance probation, recommendations for improving the specific areas of his unsatisfactory performance, and Respondent's future employment status with Petitioner. Respondent's input was sought, and he was formally assigned a PGT. Respondent was given a copy of the summary of the CFR and a PIP on November 1, 2004. The PIP required him to read and summarize pertinent sections from the PACES manual by November 22, 2004. Respondent's performance probation period began November 2, 2004, the day after he received the PIP. He was provided assistance through his PGT and his PIP to help him correct his deficiencies within the prescribed time. Respondent's PGT provided assistance to him throughout his performance probation. Respondent failed to complete his PIP activities by the November 22 deadline. On December 2 he was given another 24 hours to comply, which he did. On November 24, 2004, Respondent was formally observed in his classroom by Principal DePriest. Respondent was presenting a lesson to 19 students, but the classroom was too chaotic for learning to take place. Respondent again did not meet performance standards in domain II. Learning did not begin promptly. Respondent wasted 12 minutes reprimanding students, taking roll, and answering his personal cell phone while the students were not engaged in learning. There were also inefficient delays in organizational and teaching/learning activities. The students went to the board, one by one, to solve math problems. Respondent spent approximately five minutes with each student at the board while the rest of the class became noisy, walked around, or slept. Respondent failed to monitor off-task behavior or the behavior of the entire class. As Respondent focused on the one student at the board, the other students were off-task for up to five minutes at a time throughout the lesson, talking, putting their heads down, tapping their pencils, and making inappropriate comments such as "Can someone choke me?", "Can someone kill me?", and "Can I die now?". One student simply played with her hair for six minutes. Essentially, everyone was talking, and no one was listening to Respondent. Yet, Respondent did nothing to redirect the students. He did not appear to have classroom conduct rules in place. Thus, Respondent failed to make his expectations about behavior clear to the students. He instructed them not to talk without raising their hands. Nevertheless, eight of the students talked out-of-turn for 20 minutes without raising their hands. DePriest met with Respondent on December 2, 2004, to review the observation. DePriest provided assistance through a PIP to help Respondent correct his deficiencies. The PIP required Respondent to observe other teachers and to view PACES vignettes on the PACES Internet website. Respondent was to maintain a log and discuss techniques and strategies with DePriest. Respondent's deadline to complete his PIP was January 6, 2005. On January 10, 2005, Respondent was formally observed by Assistant Principal Janice Farrell. Respondent was presenting a lesson on perimeters and surface areas to 22 students. The lesson was disorganized, and there was an "air of confusion" in the class. Many students were being unruly and exhibiting off-task behavior. Therefore, not much learning was taking place. Respondent still did not meet performance standards in domains II and IV that had been previously identified. He also failed to meet performance standards in components and indicators not identified in the kick-off observation of October 19, 2004, and, therefore, not the subject of Respondent's 90-day performance probation or this Recommended Order. Respondent caused inefficient delays in organizational and teaching/learning activities. The learners were instructed to complete a "bellringer" activity, i.e., an activity that is used at the beginning of the class period to engage the students in learning as soon as they enter the room. Although they were instructed to complete it, eight of the 22 students did not receive a bellringer worksheet. Students were asking for materials and attempting the activity unsuccessfully on their own. Respondent appeared unaware of the problem Respondent failed to monitor off-task behavior and disengagement from learning throughout the lesson. One student continuously called out Respondent's name, louder and louder, for five minutes. Students talked and copied each other's answers. While a student walked around stamping the other students' agenda books, they became off-task. A group of three students at a back table remained off-task throughout the lesson, talking, copying each other's answers, and throwing papers. Respondent did not redirect any of these students until the last five minutes of the class. Respondent failed to monitor the whole class effectively. When he went to the back of the room to address a tardy student without a pass, he turned his back on the other 21 students who changed seats, threw papers at each other, and hit each other with rulers. Respondent did nothing to redirect his students. He failed to make the purpose or importance of the learning tasks clear to the students. He did not give a rationale for the bellringer activity, which consisted of answering questions about perimeters and areas of geometric shapes. He also gave the students inaccurate information. He incorrectly calculated the perimeter of a square as 3+3+3+3=15. DePriest and Farrell met with Respondent to review the observation. Farrell made recommendations with respect to the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance and provided assistance through a PIP to help Respondent correct his deficiencies. Respondent's PIP required him to complete self- assessment activities through the PACES website. He was to watch vignettes provided by the website in order to understand what the PACES indicators required of him. Respondent's deadline to complete his PIP was February 11, 2005. Because Respondent's second observation within the performance probation period was below performance standards, a confirmatory observation was required after the expiration of the 90 days to determine whether Respondent had corrected his deficiencies. Principal DePriest performed that observation on February 22, 2005. On that day, management of the learning environment and classroom discipline were non-existent. Respondent was presenting a lesson on geometric shapes to 18 students. While he did have instructions written on the board, there were still the same kinds of delays seen previously, and the students were still not engaged in learning. Overall, the class environment was chaotic. One-third to one- half of the class was off-task at any given time. The class was completely disorganized; the students were not engaged; the students did not pay any attention to Respondent, and very little learning took place. Each time supplies were distributed, commotion resulted. When colored paper was distributed so that the students could trace the shapes, they got into arguments over the different colors, negotiated the trading of colors, and asked Respondent for different colors. When rulers were passed out, the students were not instructed to use them to draw the geometric shapes. Some had already drawn the shapes freehand. Others were dueling with the rulers. Some tore the shapes, rather than waiting until they received scissors. Respondent again did not meet performance standards in domain II as identified in the kick-off observation. Learning did not begin promptly. Respondent spent 10-11 minutes taking roll and reprimanding tardy students. There were inefficient delays in organizational and teaching/learning activities. Respondent allowed students to talk and distract others. Students were not paying attention. Respondent accepted a phone call and made a phone call during the class. He failed to monitor the off-task behavior caused by the manner in which supplies were distributed and failed to redirect the students, including while they argued about paper, scissors, and rulers. DePriest notified Respondent on February 23, 2005, that Respondent had not satisfactorily corrected noted performance deficiencies during his performance probation period and that DePriest would recommend to the Superintendent of Schools that Respondent's employment be terminated. On that same day, DePriest transmitted such a memorandum. On March 9, the Superintendent notified Respondent that the Superintendent would recommend that the School Board terminate Respondent's employment contract for Respondent's failure to correct his noted performance deficiencies during his performance probation. Petitioner has met all procedural requirements and statutory time frames. The FCAT was administered to Florida students in late- February to early-March, 2005. Petitioner received Respondent's students' scores on May 17 and the district-wide FCAT results on May 19, 2005, the day before the final hearing in this cause. The district as a whole showed "tremendous" progress over the prior year. Even though Redland is a "low-performing" school, it likewise showed progress over the prior year in reading and mathematics. Respondent's students, however, failed to follow this trend. Petitioner does not use a teacher's current students' FCAT scores in assessing a teacher's performance because the scores are released too late in the school year. PACES, however, addresses student performance, as statutorily required. Where a teacher's students are observed as being noisy throughout lessons, being confused, not paying attention, and being given erroneous lesson content, there is a clear lack of student performance, and they are not engaged in learning.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Respondent failed to correct his performance deficiencies and terminating Respondent's professional service contract, effective April 13, 2005. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of July, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of July, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Honorable John L. Winn Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Rudolph F. Crew, Ed.D, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: The Board is responsible for the operation of the public schools within the Dade County School District. Teachers assigned to the various schools are recommended to the Superintendent for employment or contract renewal by their respective principals. The Superintendent, in turn, presents a recommendation regarding the teacher's employment to the Board. At all times material to the disputed facts of this case, Respondent was a teacher employed by the Board and assigned to a public school within the district. Teachers employed by the Board are evaluated pursuant to the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS). This system records deficiencies which may have been observed during the evaluation review and provides a prescription (a plan) for performance improvement. At all times material to this case, the TADS method was employed to evaluate the Respondent's performance. Respondent began employment with the Dade County public schools in September, 1961, and taught until February 13, 1963. She returned to teaching in March, 1982, and was employed pursuant to a professional service contract. During the 1986-87 school year, Respondent was assigned to a second grade class at Ojus Elementary School (Ojus). Jeanne Friedman was the principal at Ojus and was primarily responsible for Respondent's TADS evaluation. At the conclusion of the 1986-87 school year, Respondent was given an annual evaluation. This evaluation found the Respondent deficient in four of the seven areas of evaluation. Specifically, Respondent was found to be in need of remediation in the following categories: knowledge of the subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relations. A prescription was devised to assist Respondent improve in the areas deemed to be deficient, and she was informed that should she not improve in the areas noted by the end of the next year, that she would not be recommended for employment for the 1988-89 school year. The evaluation for the 1986-87 school year was predicated on observations which had been conducted on December 5, 1986, January 22, 1987, and March 2, 1987. On December 5, 1986, Jeanne Friedman conducted a TADS evaluation of the Respondent. Ms. Friedman met with Respondent on December 11, 1986, to review the evaluation and to assist in the implementation of the prescription. On December 18, 1986, a conference for the record was held to address the Respondent's performance and her future employment status. At this meeting, Respondent was reminded of the suggestions given to correct the deficiencies noted in the evaluation conducted December 5, 1986. Those deficiencies were related to Respondent's preparation and planning. On January 22, 1987, Respondent was evaluated in follow-up to the December review. This observation was discussed with the Respondent on January 23, 1987. Respondent's prescription for the deficiencies noted in this evaluation required corrections to be implemented by February 2, 1987. The deficiencies were in the area of preparation and planning. On March 2, 1987, Respondent was evaluated by Jeanne Friedman and Emilio Fox. The evaluations were performed during the same class period, language arts, but the evaluators did not communicate with one another nor compare their notes regarding Respondent's performance. Both evaluators found the Respondent to be deficient in three of the areas of evaluation: preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, and techniques of instruction. Respondent had failed to follow the lesson plan book for the entire class time, had failed to plan the activity which was conducted, wrote several erroneous items on the class board, and did not explain the nature of the lesson to the class. Several of Respondent's errors were brought to her attention by the students (second graders). Margaret Roderick and Leeomia Kelly evaluated Respondent on April 27, 1987. These TADS assessments found Respondent deficient in the areas of knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships. On May 29, 1987, a conference for the record was held regarding Respondent's poor performance year. At that time, Respondent was advised that if she failed to remediate the areas noted to be deficient by the end of the 1987-88 school year, she would not be recommended for continued employment. At her request, Respondent was assigned to a kindergarten class at Ojus for the 1987-88 school year. Approximately 30 students were initially enrolled in Respondent's section. A second kindergarten section was taught by Ms. Kramer. A TADS evaluation conducted by Leeomia Kelly on September 17, 1987, found Respondent to be acceptable in all categories reviewed. After this evaluation, several parents wrote to Ms. Friedman asking that their children be moved from Respondent's class to Ms. Kramer's section. The number of students enrolled in Respondent's class dropped to approximately 23. On October 22, 1987, Jeanne Friedman conducted an observation of the Respondent's class. This evaluation found the Respondent deficient in the area of classroom management. Ms. Friedman met with Respondent on October 23, 1987, to go over the prescription for improvement and outlined a time deadline for each suggested resource. A second evaluation conducted on November 30, 1987, also found the Respondent deficient in the area of classroom management. On December 11, 1987, a conference for the record was conducted to review Respondent's performance. Respondent was reminded that a failure to correct deficient areas would result in termination of employment. Doretha Mingo and Leeomia Kelly conducted evaluations of Respondent on March 1, 1988. These evaluators found Respondent deficient in the areas of classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships. On March 9, 1988, a conference for the record was held to summarize Respondent's work performance. At that time Respondent was given an annual evaluation which found her to be unacceptable in the following areas of performance: classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher- student relationships. Respondent was notified at this conference that the principal would be recommending nonrenewal of the employment contract. Respondent was observed on April 13, 1988, by Ms. Friedman and Michael Conte. Both evaluators found Respondent to be deficient in the areas of classroom management and techniques of instruction. In each of the TADS reviews given to Respondent, conclusions of deficiency were based upon objective observations made during the class period. For example, students found to be off task were observed to be disregarding Respondent's instructions and findings of inadequate planning were based upon inadequacies found in Respondent's plan book (not describing the lesson taught or incompletely stating the subject matter). In each instance, Respondent was given a prescription as to how to correct the noted deficiency. Respondent was given copies of the evaluations at the time they were reviewed with her. Further, Respondent was given copies of the memoranda kept regarding the conferences for the record. Resources were offered to Respondent to assist her to make the corrections required. On April 25, 1988, Respondent was notified that the subject of her continued employment would be raised at the Board meeting to be conducted April 27, 1988. Respondent was advised that the Superintendent intended to recommend nonrenewal of Respondent's contract which, if accepted, would preclude future employment. This letter was written by Patrick Gray, Executive Assistant Superintendent. The Board accepted the Superintendent's recommendation and acted to withhold a contract from Respondent for the 1988-89 school year. On April 28, 1988, Patrick Gray wrote to Respondent to advise her of the Board's action. In each of the years for which she received unacceptable evaluations, Respondent's students performed satisfactorily on school-administered standardized tests. Such tests were not, however, gauged to measure the subject matter which Respondent had been responsible for teaching in those years. During the 1987-88 school year Respondent failed to correct the deficiencies in performance which had been identified during the 1986-87 school year. Respondent repeatedly failed to perform the duties which were expected of her despite many attempts to assist her with any remediation needed. Further, by her failure to remediate in the areas of classroom management and techniques of instruction, Respondent failed to communicate with her students to such an extent that they were deprived of a minimum educational experience.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the School Board of Dade County enter a final order sustaining the decision to terminate Respondent's employment by the nonrenewal of her contract. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 20th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of March, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2798 RULINGS ON PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: Paragraphs 1 through 3 are accepted. The first 3 sentences of paragraph 4 are accepted. The last sentence is rejected as irrelevant commentary. Paragraphs 5 through 12 are accepted. The first two sentences of paragraph 13 are accepted. The last sentence is rejected as irrelevant commentary. Paragraphs 14 through 19 are accepted. With the deletion of the phrase "sometime in February, 1988," and the following qualification, paragraph 20 is accepted. The opinions expressed by the parents were based upon the observations made and not necessarily the comment of their children. The parents drew the conclusions based upon their observation but no conclusion is reached by the undersigned as to the accuracy of those conclusions. It will suffice for the purposes herein that the-parents believed their conclusions to be correct. No time was clearly established for the parental comments regarding Respondent's ability or performance. Paragraph 21 is accepted. With regard to paragraph 22, with the following qualification, it is accepted. The opinion expressed by Conte that students "were not comprehending what they were doing or what they were supposed to be doing ..." Such comments have not been considered as Mr. Cote's ability to read the minds of the children. Rather, such comments have been read to more accurately mean: based upon his experience and expertise, "the students did not appear to comprehend, etc." The last sentence of paragraph 22 is rejected as argument. Paragraphs 23 through 25 are accepted. Paragraphs 26 through 28 are rejected as irrelevant, argument, conclusions of law or comment not appropriate for a finding of fact. Paragraphs 29 and 30 are accepted. RULINGS ON RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AS SET FORTH IN THE AMENDED RECOMMENDED ORDER (HAVING PRESUMED IT SUPERSEDED THE EARLIER FILED RECOMMENDED ORDER): Paragraph 1 is accepted as to Respondent's age but the balance is rejected as unsupported by the record. The weight of the evidence established Respondent has not taught for 32 years. She has been a teacher by profession that long but not working all that time. Paragraphs 2-4 are accepted. Paragraph 5 is rejected as argument or a conclusion of law not accurate under the facts of this case. Paragraph 6 is accepted to the extent the subject matter is qualified and addressed in finding of fact paragraph 22, otherwise is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or irrelevant to the conclusions reached herein. Paragraphs 7 and 8 are rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence presented. Paragraph 9 is accepted. Paragraph 10 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank Harder Twin Oaks Building, Suite 100 Dr. Joseph A. Fernandez 2780 Galloway Road Superintendent Miami, Florida 33165 School Board of Dade County 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue William DuFresne Miami, Florida 33132 DuFRESNE AND BRADLEY 2929 South West Third Avenue, Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 Mrs. Madelyn P. Schere Assistant School Board Attorney School Board of Dade County Board Administration Building, Suite 301 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue This is a case in which the Petitioner seeks to terminate the Respondent's employment contract as a teacher. The grounds upon which the proposed action is based are alleged in a Notice of Specific Charges of Unsatisfactory Performance dated May 13, 1998.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Petitioner was a duly-constituted School Board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida. At all times material to this case, the Respondent, Michael J. Akpan, was an employee of the School Board of Miami- Dade County, Florida. At all times material to this case, the Respondent possessed an annual employment contract as a teacher and was subject to the Memorandum of Understanding between United Teachers of Dade and the School Board. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was certified to teach middle grades science. This certification allows the Respondent to teach certain science courses to ninth and tenth grade students. During the 1997/1998 school year, the Respondent was teaching at North Miami Senior High School (NMSHS).1 The Respondent was placed in an alternative education assignment in which the students were at risk of dropping out of school. During that school year, the Respondent had difficulty controlling the conduct of students in his classroom. There were numerous instances of student misconduct and disruption of such gravity as to require intervention by school security personnel and assistant principals. Teachers employed by the Petitioner School Board are evaluated pursuant to the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS). TADS has been approved by the Florida Department of Education and is incorporated into the labor contract between the Petitioner and the United Teachers of Dade (UTD). At all times material to this case, TADS was employed to evaluate the Respondent's performance. The same TADS documents are used for all grade levels, subject areas, and teachers, whether new or veteran. TADS observers record deficiencies which are observed during the observation period and then provide a prescription for performance improvement.2 A post-observation conference is held with the teacher to discuss the prescription. Then the cycle of assessment/prescription begins again. Under the TADS procedure as incorporated into the labor contract between the School Board and UTD, teachers who are in Annual Contract Two status, such as the Respondent, must have a minimum of two observations during each school year. One of those two observations must be done by the principal. During its 1997 session, the Florida Legislature amended Chapter 231, Florida Statutes, effective July 1, 1997, to provide for a 90-calendar-day performance probation for annual and professional service contract teachers who are observed to have unsatisfactory performance. Because the statutory amendment impacted the implementation of TADS, the Petitioner and UTD negotiated a Memorandum of Understanding with respect to the implementation of the new procedures required by the 1997 statutory amendments. The Memorandum of Understanding is an amendment to the labor contract between the Petitioner and the UTD. The Memorandum of Understanding reads as follows, in pertinent part: Performance Probation Period Upon identification of any deficiency, either through the observation/assessment process OR a Category VII infraction, the PRINCIPAL MUST, within 10 days, conduct a conference-for-the-record which addresses: results of the observation/assessment, or Category VII infraction, stipulations of the Performance Probation (90 calendar days excluding school holidays and vacations), which begins upon the employee's receipt of written plan of assistance (prescription), the plan of assistance and professional development opportunities to help correct documented deficiencies within a specified period of time, future required observations/assessments and possible employment actions. A minimum of two observations/assessments must be conducted subsequent to the completion of the initial prescriptive timelines and during the Performance Probation. The annual evaluation decision will be based upon the result of the last observation/assessment as illustrated in the chart titled, Examples of Assessments/ Observations and Annual Evaluation/Employment Contract Decisions for Employees on Performance Probation. In the event that an employee is absent on authorized leave in excess of 10 consecutive workdays, the Performance Probation is suspended until the employee returns to active duty, at which time it resumes. If the Performance Probation has not been completed during the current year of employment, the annual evaluation is withheld pending completion of the Performance Probation during the subsequent year of employment. Teachers who have not completed the requirements of the Performance Probation are ineligible for summer school employment. Within 14 calendar days after the close of the Performance Probation, the evaluator (principal) must assess whether the performance deficiencies have been corrected and forward a recommendation to the Superintendent. Within 14 calendar days after receiving the evaluator's recommendation, the Superintendent must notify the employee in writing whether the performance deficiencies have been satisfactorily corrected and whether the Superintendent will recommend that the School Board continue or terminate his or her employment contract. If the employee wishes to contest the Superintendent's recommendation, the employee must, within 15 calendar days after receipt of the Superintendent's recommendation, submit a written request for a hearing. On October 13, 1997, the Respondent was observed in his classroom by Assistant Principal Carrie Figueredo for one hour. The Respondent was found to be deficient in several categories and his performance was assessed as unsatisfactory. The observed deficiencies on this occasion included a failure to maintain appropriate classroom management. More than 90 percent of the students were "off task." Most of the students were either sleeping, filling out job applications, or otherwise inattentive. On October 20, 1997, Assistant principal Figueredo held a post-observation conference with the Respondent, discussed the Respondent's deficiencies with him, and provided the Respondent with a number of prescriptive activities, which it was hoped would help him improve his performance as a classroom teacher. On November 21, 1997, the Respondent was formally observed in his classroom by Principal Charles Hankerson. Principal Hankerson assessed the Respondent's performance as unsatisfactory. Among other things, Principal Hankerson observed that the Respondent continued to have serious deficiencies in the area of classroom management. On December 2, 1997, Principal Hankerson held a conference for the record with the Respondent to address his unsatisfactory performance. During that conference Principal Hankerson made recommendations as to how the Respondent might improve the specific areas of his unsatisfactory performance, and also discussed the Respondent's future employment status with Petitioner School Board. The Respondent was placed on a Performance Probation status in accordance with Section 231.29(3)(d), Florida Statutes, and he was provided with a plan of assistance to help him correct his deficiencies within the prescribed time frame. The Respondent's 90-day probation period began on December 8, 1997, which is the day on which he was furnished with a copy of the written plan of assistance. March 8, 1998. was the ninetieth day following December 8, 1997. During the Respondent's 90-day probation period there were at least 12 school holidays and school vacation days.3 Accordingly, the Respondent's probation period extended until at least March 20, 1998.4 On January 20, 1998, the Respondent was observed in his classroom by Assistant Principal William Henderson. Assistant Principal Henderson observed the Respondent for 60 minutes. During this observation, the Respondent was found deficient in techniques of instruction. Assistant Principal Henderson observed that the Respondent was not addressing the needs of the students, that there was confusion as to the assignment, and that the Respondent wasted too much time initiating the lesson. On January 27, 1998, Assistant Principal Henderson had a post-observation conference with the Respondent, during which he discussed the Respondent's deficiencies, and provided the Respondent with a number of prescriptive activities to assist the Respondent in correcting his deficiencies. Among those activities were, that the Respondent should meet with his department chairperson and review strategies which would be appropriate for the students assigned to the Respondent's classes. The Respondent was also directed to submit lesson plans to Assistant Principal Henderson. On February 27, 1998, the Respondent was observed in his classroom by Assistant Principal Figueredo for two hours. Assistant Principal Figueredo found the Respondent to be deficient in several areas, including classroom management.5 This was Assistant Principal Figueredo's second observation of the Respondent. While she noted some minimal improvement since her earlier observation, the Respondent's performance on February 27, 1998, was still not anywhere near an acceptable level. On March 5, 1998, Assistant Figueredo held a post- observation conference with the Respondent, discussed the Respondent's deficiencies with him, and provided the Respondent with a number of prescriptive activities in order to assist the Respondent in correcting his deficiencies. Among those prescriptive activities was a requirement that the Respondent develop lesson plans to be reviewed by Assistant Principal Figueredo's and by the Respondent's department chairperson. The Respondent was also directed to maintain a time log to determine when students arrived. Additionally, the Respondent was assigned several exercises in the Activities Manual to assist him in the area of teacher/student relationships. On March 27, 1998, Principal Charles Hankerson observed the Respondent in the classroom. On this occasion Principal Hankerson found the Respondent to be deficient in three categories: classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher/student relationships. This was the confirmatory observation, which did not require a prescription. The assistance provided to the Respondent through his prescriptions was appropriate assistance related to the Respondent's observed deficiencies. The Respondent completed all of the prescriptions. Nevertheless, the Respondent continued to fail to plan for lessons, continued to fail to manage his students, and continued to fail to interact appropriately with his students. These continued failures resulted in a failure of the Respondent to meet the instructional needs of his students. As a result of the Respondent's unsatisfactory performance during each of the last three observations described above, Principal Hankerson notified the Superintendent of Schools that the Respondent had not satisfactorily corrected his performance deficiencies during the probation period, and Principal Hankerson recommended that the Respondent's employment be terminated. On April 2, 1998, the Superintendent of Schools timely notified the Respondent that he was going to recommend that the School Board terminate his employment contract because he had failed to satisfactorily correct his performance deficiencies during his period of probation.
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 sustaining the action to terminate Respondent's annual contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of April, 1999.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, Monroe County School Board, has “just cause” to terminate the employment of Respondent, Maryeugene E. Dupper, as a teacher for Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, Monroe County School Board (hereinafter referred to as 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 Monroe County, Florida. Article IX, Florida Constitution; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Specifically, the School Board has the authority to discipline employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Respondent, Maryeugene E. Dupper, has been a classroom teacher with the School Board since August 2000. She began her employment as a substitute teacher and was subsequently employed as a full-time teacher at Poinciana Elementary School (hereinafter referred to as “Poinciana”), where she worked with profoundly handicapped students. She remained at Poinciana through November 2006. Throughout her employment at Poinciana, Ms. Dupper received good performance evaluations, although they did decline over time. On November 17, 2006, Ms. Dupper transferred to Gerald Adams Elementary School (hereinafter referred to as “Gerald Adams”), where she taught a Pre-K Exceptional Student Education or ESE class for the first time. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Ms. Dupper was employed as a teacher pursuant to a professional services contract. 2006-2007 School Year. From the beginning of her employment at Gerald Adams, Ms. Dupper evidenced difficulty implementing the curriculum in a meaningful way. In particular, Ann Herrin, Principal at Gerald Adams, whose testimony has been credited, found that Ms. Dupper was having a difficult time establishing the scope and sequence of lessons and effective classroom management techniques. Among the deficiencies Ms. Herrin found with Ms. Dupper’s performance was the lack of progress notes for her students. Ms. Dupper failed to keep any notes indicating that she had performed any formal evaluation of her students. When Ms. Herrin asked Ms. Dupper how she could tell whether her curriculum was successfully reaching each student, Ms. Dupper simply replied that “I am a teacher and I just know.” After conducting two formal observations and a number of informal observations of Ms. Dupper, Ms. Herrin, in her 2006- 2007 annual teacher evaluation concluded that Ms. Dupper “Needs Improvement” in Management of Student Conduct, Instruction Organization and Development, Knowledge of Subject Matter, and Evaluation of Instructional Needs. Ms. Herring used a Teacher Annual Assessment Plan Comprehensive Assessment Form for this evaluation. Overall, Ms. Herrin rated Ms. Dupper as “Needs Improvement” noting that “Curriculum content is lacking – making the learning environment unacceptable and unmanageable.” Subsequent to Ms. Herrin’s evaluation of Ms. Dupper, Ms. Herrin issued a Professional Development Plan for Ms. Dupper dated May 30, 2007. Ms. Dupper, who had been provided assistance throughout the school year by Gerald Adams administrative staff, was offered guidance in the Professional Development Plan intended to improve her performance as a teacher. That guidance is accurately described in paragraph 9 of the School Board’s Proposed Recommended Order. At the beginning of the 2007-2008 school year, the School Board instituted a new curriculum for use by Pre-K teachers. That curriculum, the Galileo Curriculum (hereinafter referred to as “Galileo”), is a computer-based program which includes lessons plans and benchmarks and goals for teachers to use in assessing student performance. Although Galileo includes a means for teachers to keep track of student progress, Galileo is not a student evaluation instrument intended for use in “testing” student progress. 2007-2008 School Year. During the 2007-2008 school year, Ms. Dupper was observed on October 11, November 8, and December 18, 2007, and on March 20 and 26, and May 6 and 22, 2008. Despite efforts to provide Ms. Dupper with professional assistance and making several changes in the teacher’s aide assigned to assist her, Ms. Dupper’s performance remained inadequate. Ms. Dupper was provided with assistance by teachers at Gerald Adams, including a “mentor," and by the head of the Exceptional Student Education department and an Exceptional Student Education Program Specialist. Ms. Dupper was observed on one occasion by Ms. Herrin when every student in Ms. Dupper’s “learning center” left the area while she continued to “teach.” One student stood on a table dancing, uncorrected by Ms. Dupper. On two occasions, a student left Ms. Dupper’s classroom altogether and were taken back to Ms. Dupper’s classroom before she realized they were gone. On nine different occasions during the 2007-2008 school year, Ms. Herrin requested a discipline plan from Ms. Dupper. No plan was ever provided. Ms. Dupper’s use of Galileo was minimal during the 2007-2008 school year. The system contained a checklist, by domain or skill, which was intended for use by a teacher in determining whether each student was learning the listed skills. Ms. Dupper rarely used the system, however, only logging into the Galileo system 19 times. Nine of those times were on the same day and four were on another day. Other Pre-K teachers utilized Galileo an average of 100 times more than Ms. Dupper. Ms. Herrin’s 2007-2008 annual evaluation of Ms. Dupper, dated April 4, 2008, found that her performance had declined and was “Unsatisfactory.” Ms. Herrin found Ms. Dupper “Unsatisfactory” in Management of Student conduct, Instruction, Organization and Development, Knowledge of Subject Matter, and Evaluation of Instructional Needs. Ms. Dupper’s performance in Professional Responsibilities also declined due to her failure to complete Individual Education Plans on time, incomplete and inaccurate progress notes, and her failure to follow suggestions for improvement. The 90-Day Probation Period. As a result of her continuing decline in performance, Ms. Dupper was informed on April 9, 2008, that she was being placed on a 90-day probation period pursuant to Section 1012.34, Florida Statutes. She was informed that her deficiencies included the inability to manage student conduct, lack of lesson planning, inadequate knowledge of subject matter, lack of student progress evaluation, and inadequate professional responsibility. Ms. Dupper was given suggestions for how to improve her deficiencies over the summer break, suggestions which Ms. Dupper did not follow. While on probation, Ms. Dupper was also offered an opportunity to transfer to another school, an offer which was not accepted. On June 6, 2008, at the request of Ms. Dupper’s union representative, a second annual evaluation was performed by Ms. Herrin. While Ms. Herrin found some improvement, she found that, overall, Ms. Dupper’s performance was “Unsatisfactory.” Ms. Dupper was on probation during the 2007-2008 school year a total of 62 days, excluding holidays and “professional days.” During the summer months between the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 school years, Ms. Dupper, who was not teaching, failed to follow any of Ms. Herrin’s suggestions for personal improvement opportunities. The first day of school for the 2008-2009 school year and the commencement of the 90-day probation period was August 11, 2008. Ms. Herring formally observed Ms. Dupper during the third week of September 2008, and on October 2, 2008. Assistant Principal Willis observed Ms. Dupper on October 8, 2008. Ms. Dupper’s performance and use of Galileo continued to be unsatisfactory, despite continuing efforts of the administration staff to assist her, as more particularly and accurately described in paragraphs 30 through and including 35 of Petitioner’s Proposed Recommended Order. Additionally, Ms. Dupper continued to fail to prevent her very young students from leaving the classroom without her knowledge. Excluding non-school days, Ms. Dupper was given more than 120 days from the commencement of her probation period until her probation period was considered ended in October 2008. By the middle of October 2008, Ms. Herrin concluded that Ms. Dupper had not evidenced satisfactory improvement in her teaching skills. Ms. Herrin’s conclusions concerning Ms. Dupper’s unsatisfactory performance as a teacher, which were not contradicted, are credited. The Decision to Terminate Ms. Dupper’s Employment By letter dated October 30, 2008, Ms. Herrin recommended to Randy Acevedo, Superintendent of the Monroe County School District, that Mr. Acevedo review documentation concerning Ms. Dupper’s 90-day probation period and make a recommendation pursuant to Section 1012.33, Florida Statutes, concerning her continued employment. Ms. Herrin provided Mr. Acevedo with the following information for his review: Attached please find a copy of the professional development plan and this year’s observations conducted by Assistant Principal, Grace Willis and me. The remaining documentation for the 2007 and 2008 school years have been submitted to personnel. I have also attached the follow up documentation, the review of the 90-Day plan and the observations that outline the deficiencies that still remain. This teacher’s performance remains unsatisfactory. Petitioner’s Exhibit 7. Missing from the information provided for Mr. Acevedo’s consideration was any information concerning student performance assessed annually by state or local assessment. By letter dated November 14, 2008, Mr. Acevedo informed Ms. Dupper that he was going to recommend to the School Board at its December 16, 2008, meeting that her employment as a teacher be terminated. By letter dated November 18, 2008, Ms. Dupper requested an administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, to challenge her anticipated termination of employment. The School Board accepted the Superintendent’s recommendation at its December 16, 2008, meeting, suspending Ms. Dupper without pay, pending a final determination of whether her employment should be terminated. Student Performance Assessment. The Florida legislature has specified in Section 1008.22, Florida Statutes, a “Student assessment program for public schools.” This assessment program is to be considered in evaluating student performance as part of a teacher’s evaluation. The assessment program, however, does not apply to Pre-K students. “FLICKRS” is a state assessment tool intended for use in evaluating Kindergarten students. FLICKRS allows schools to evaluate whether a Kindergarten student is actually ready for Kindergarten-level work. FLICKRS is not utilized by the School Board to evaluate the progress of Pre-K students. The School Board has not developed any means of annually assessing the performance of Pre-K students. As a consequence, the decision to terminate Ms. Dupper’s employment by the School Board was not based upon any annual assessment of her students’ performance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order: (a) dismissing the charges of the Administrative Complaint; (b) providing that Ms. Dupper be immediately reinstated to the position from which she was terminated; and (c) awarding Ms. Dupper back salary, plus benefits, to the extent benefits accrued during her suspension, together with interest thereon at the statutory rate. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of July, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 22nd day of July, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Scott Clinton Black, Esquire Vernis and Bowling of the Florida Keys, P.A. 81990 Overseas Highway, Third Floor Islamorada, Florida 33036 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761 Randy Acevedo, Superintendent Monroe County School Board 241 Trumbo Road Key West, Florida 33040-6684 Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained in the Notice of Charges, Williams was employed by the School Board in a variety of capacities. With the exception of paragraph 22, which, to preserve continuity, will be consolidated with paragraph 2 of the Notice of Charges, the allegations shall be considered seriatum. That during the 1965-1966 school year, the Respondent did receive an overall unsatisfactory rating. That the Respondent in the 1965 and 1966 school years received a poor rat- ing in the following area: "Relation- ship with others," and "Is healthy and emotionally stable;" and further received an unsatisfactory rating in the category of "works well with others," end "demon- strates professional attitude and imple- menting school policy." The evidence indicates that for the school year 1965-1966, Williams received an average score of 3.3 on his Dade County evaluation form. According to the form an average rating below 3.5 indicates unsatisfactory work in Dade County schools. On that same evaluation form Williams received a 3.0 rating for the category "Works well with others." There was no rating for "Is healthy and emotionally stable." Williams received a 2.8 rating for the category "Understands and supports school policies aid demonstrates a professional attitude in implementing them." From the 1965-1966 school year until the present Williams has consistently received satisfactory overall ratings for his work in the Dade County schools. That on or about January 16, 1968, the Respondent, while a visiting teacher with the School Board of Dade County, and more particularly assigned to Gladeview Ele- mentary School, the Respondent, did without reason or authority demanded [sic] of the principal, Mr. Leonard Wollman, his reason for having a child stand outside and perform a task signed by the principal. Said demand made by the Respondent was made in a loud, rude and unprofessional manner, and was over- heard by numerous persons located within the confines of the school. On or about January 16, 1968, Mr. Leonard Wollman was principal of Gladeview Elementary School and at that time observed a student throw an apple out a school window. When the student refused to pick up the apple, Mr. Wollman made the student pick it up along with other trash. At that time, Williams criticized the handling of the incident by Wollman and claimed that the child was being mistreated. There was a lack of competent substantial evidence to establish that Williams' inquiries as to the handling of the incident were made in a loud, rude and unprofessional manner. There was a complete absence of evidence to establish that Williams' comments were overheard by numerous persons located within the confines of the school. That during the 1969-1970 school year, the Respondent, Charles Williams, did receive an unsatisfactory evaluation in the area of personal characteristics and leadership, notwithstanding an overall average of 4.2. The Dade County evaluation form for school year 1969-1970 reflects that Williams received a score of 3.0 in each of two categories of personal characteristics and leadership. The remarks section indicates "Needs improvement in human relations and group processes, which hopefully he will develop within the year. Otherwise, performance this year has been outstanding." That during the year 1970, more particularly, during the month of October, 1970, the Respondent was required by the Director of the North Central District to submit to the district office a plan for gifted children to participate in a program as outlined by the District Office. Further, as a result of the Respondent's failure to comply with the directive of the District Office two deserving children from the Respondent's school were left out of the program. There is no evidence in the record to establish that Williams was required to submit a plan for gifted children. There was evidence to establish that Williams was required to submit the names of students in his school who qualified for the gifted child program by October 30, 1970, and that such names were submitted late. Notwithstanding the late submission, the names were still considered for the gifted child program. Furthermore, there is an absence of competent substantial evidence to establish that at deserving children were left out of the program because of the actions of Williams. In the final analysis, Williams is charged with failing to submit a plan when the evidence shows that he was not required to submit a plan. Accordingly, the charge is not supported by the evidence. That on or about November 23, 1970, the Respondent did berate and make sarcastic and provocative remarks to Mrs. Carol Kleinfeld because said teacher had sought a transfer from the school where the Respondent served as principal. On Motion of Williams at the hearing, the undersigned ruled that there was a complete absence of evidence to support this charge. That on or about March 1, 1971, the Respondent did berate Mrs. Carol Kleinfeld who [was a] teacher at the school where the Respondent is principal and further did scream and shout at [her] in a violent and threatening manner further threatening that he would fire all parties concerned. During the 1970-1971 school year, Carol Kleinfeld worked for Williams at Primary C Elementary School. From time to time, Williams and Mrs. Kleinfeld engaged in discussions concerning Mrs. Kleinfeld's performance of her duties. The evidence establishes that Williams was displeased with the performance and gave Mrs. Kleinfeld the lowest possible performance rating. The evidence also establishes that Williams pointed his finger at Ms. Kleinfeld on one or more occasions. However, there is an absence of competent substantial evidence to establish that Williams berated Ms. Kleinfeld or that he screamed and shouted at her in a violent and threatening manner. That during the 1970-1971 school year, the Respondent acted in such an unprofes- sional fashion towards teachers assigned to his school, that numerous teachers requested transfers to other schools as a result of the humiliating and threaten- ing attitudes of the Respondent. There was no competent substantial evidence to establish that Williams acted in an unprofessional manner toward his teachers or that numerous teachers requested transfers because of Williams' conduct. That on or about April 4, 1975, the Respondent did, in front of children and custodians, harass, threaten and berate one Franklin Clark, Coordinator of Primary C Elementary School, con- cerning an event which did not happen. On April 4, 1975, Franklin Clark was Community School Coordinator for Primary C Elementary School. Clark's working hours were from 2:00 to 10:00 P.M. On several occasions, prior to that date, Clark had taken extended supper without informing Williams. When Williams discovered this practice, he had occasion to correct Clark and reiterate the requirement that Clark be present at the School for the appropriate period of time. On the day in question, Williams confronted Clark with an accusation that Clark had not been present during his proper working hours the night before. Clark denied the accusation. While Williams was angry during that conversation, there was no evidence to establish that he harassed, threatened or berated Clark during the encounter. That during the year 1975, the Respondent did fail to cooperate with other school principals, more particularly Ms. Della A. Zaher, principal at Edison Park Elementary School, in that he failed to cooperate with a fellow school principal in establishing and coordinating the articulation plans for the second and third grade students. While the evidence shows that Williams did not in fact work with Ms. Zaher in establishing articulation plans for second and third grade students, the record is devoid of any evidence which would establish that Williams was required to do so. In fact, inter school cooperation was necessary only as desired by participating principals. The evidence does establish that Williams followed prescribed procedure for articulation plans and that there would have been no real benefit in deeling with Ms. Zeher as she had requested. That on or about November 19, 1976, the Respondent did leave a meeting early without authorization which meeting was for the purpose of the area superintendent to explain the alternative plans for attendance. The evidence establishes that on November 19, 1976, Williams attended a meeting of principals, directors, and area office personnel, called by the area superintendent. Williams left the meeting early. However, the evidence affirmatively establishes that no permission was required for any of the participants of the meeting to leave early. That during the month of November, 1976, the Respondent did fail to observe and follow the purposes outlined by Robert Little Supervisor of the attendance office, in his memorandum entitled, "Pro- cedures and Calendar for the Development of the 1977-78 Attendant Zone Changes," dated November 4, 1976. That by failing to follow the plan as outlined by the memorandum, the Respondent's actions created the potential for negative parent/community reaction. That the Respondent did not provide a written plan to the area office for con- sideration until February 8, 1977, and said report was scheduled to be rendered to the area office and the area superintendent on November 19, 1976. All other principals met this deadline. The evidence affirmatively establishes that the memorandum in question did not require Williams to do anything. The alternatives available in the memorandum were optional on the part of principals. On Motion of Williams, the Hearing Officer declared that there was insufficient evidence to establish the allegations of the foregoing charges. That on or about July 11, 1977, the respondent failed to be a witness for the School Board of Dade County which involved the suspension of an employee who was under the direction and control of the Respondent while he was principal at the Primary C Elementary School [sic]. That his refusal to be a witness was without foundation and further, was his duty and responsibility as an employee of the School Board of Dade County. On July 11, 1977, Williams was called to a conference regarding a hearing that was to be held that afternoon, involving another employee of the School Board. Williams went to the conference and became upset because he believed certain questions propounded to him were improper. Williams, however, was neither requested nor directed to be a witness at the hearing to be held later that day. No subpoena was issued to compel Williams' attendance at that hearing. That during the 1978-1979 school year, numerous teachers at the Primary C Elementary School, where the Respondent was assigned as principal, have sought reassignment because of the open criticism and un- warranted harassment by the Respondent. This charge is not substantiated by competent substantial evidence. While the evidence does indicate that Williams had a small number of disagreements with one or two teachers during that school year, the evidence further establishes that the overwhelming majority of the teachers at that school during that school year hold Williams in high regard. There is am absence of evidence to establish that numerous teachers sought reassignment. That on or about November 8, 1978, a principal's meeting was held for the purpose of assisting administrator's review procedures used to remediate professional personnel where performance is deficient and at said meeting, the Respondent acted in a negative and disruptive manner, so as to make the meeting ineffective for all persons concerned. This charge is unsupported by the evidence. The evidence does establish that at the meeting in question, Williams fully participated and asked pertinent, incisive questions of those conducting the meeting. That on or about January 9, 1979, the area superintendant [sic] attempted to have a conference with the Respondent con- cerning specific recommendations for improvement, and at said conference the Respondent was insubordinate, disruptive, hostile and negative toward the area superintendant [sic], in such a manner as to make the meeting an ineffective one, and thus the meeting had to be terminated because of the behavior of the Respondent. At the hearing in this cause, there was made available a complete transcript of the conference held on January 9, 1979, with Williams and the area superintendent. The document, received as Respondent's Exhibit "Y", demonstrates that Williams was neither insubordinate, disruptive, hostile or negative. In fact, the area superintendant terminated the meeting after ascertaining that Williams had no further questions regarding the recommendations for improvement which were given to Williams at the meeting. That in the school year 1969-1970 it was further noted that the Respondent needed improvement in "Human relations" and "Group processes." (As amended at the hearing in this cause.) The Dade County evaluation form for school year 1969-1970 reflects that Williams received an overall score of 4.2 for that school year. This constitutes a satisfactory rating in the Dade County School System. The remarks section says "Needs improvement in human relations and group processes which hopefully he will develop within the year. Otherwise his performance this year has been outstanding." 25. Evaluations for school years 1970-1971, 1971-1972, 1972-1973, 1973- 1974, 1974-1975, 1975-1976, 1976-1977 and 1977-1978, all show satisfactory performance ratings in the areas in question. Furthermore, these ratings reflect that while Williams is not a perfect individual, he is an outstanding educator who has made continued significant contributions to the Dade County School System and to the students under his care.
The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of violating section 1012.795(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2014)1/; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed by the Education Practices Commission (Commission).
Findings Of Fact During all times relevant hereto, Petitioner was a teacher certified by the State of Florida in the areas of elementary education and social science, and she held Florida Educator's Certificate 842941, which expired June 30, 2016. Respondent first entered the teaching profession in 1999. At all times material to the allegations in this case, Respondent was employed by the Hillsborough County School District (HCSD). During the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school years, Respondent taught social science at Madison Middle School. During the years in question, HCSD had a written system for evaluating the classroom performance of its teachers. The evaluation system was reviewed and approved by the Florida Department of Education. The evaluation system consists of multiple components which, when combined, result in a final teacher evaluation performance rating. In its broadest sense, the system used by HCSD to evaluate teacher performance relies on input from a teacher’s supervising principal, input from a teacher’s peers and/or mentors, and a value-added measure (VAM) score, which is based on student achievement. According to the Teacher Evaluation Handbook for the HCSD, the principal’s evaluation accounts for 35 percent of a teacher’s overall evaluation score, the peer/mentor’s evaluation accounts for 25 percent of a teacher’s overall evaluation score, and the VAM score accounts for 40 percent of a teacher’s overall evaluation score. Observation and Written Evaluation Throughout the course of a school year, an evaluating principal and peer/mentors (collectively referred to as evaluators) conduct a number of formal and informal classroom “observations” of the teacher being evaluated. Findings from formal and informal observations are characterized, based on a framework of four “domains,” as highly effective, effective, needs improvement, and unsatisfactory. The observations are memorialized and feedback is regularly provided to the teacher during the school year. At the conclusion of the observation cycle, the evaluators, based on the formal and informal observations, prepare a written “evaluation” which summarizes and quantifies (assigns a numerical value) the teacher’s performance for the entire school year. The framework for rating observations and scoring evaluations consists of four domains, each of which has five to six components. According to the teacher evaluation instrument, the domains and their components are as follows: Domain 1: Planning and Preparation. The components in Domain 1 outline how a teacher organizes the content and plans the instructional delivery. (1A) Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy (1B) Demonstrating Knowledge of Students (1C) Setting Instructional Outcomes (1D) Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources and Technology (1E) Designing Coherent Instruction (1F) Designing Student Assessments Domain 2: The Classroom Environment. The components in Domain 2 address the learning environment. This includes the interactions in the classroom, the classroom culture, the teacher’s use of physical space, and established routines and procedures. (2A) Creating an Environment of Respect and Rapport (2B) Establishing a Culture for Learning (2C) Managing Classroom Procedures (2D) Managing Student Behavior (2E) Organizing Physical Space Domain 3: Instruction. The components of Domain 3 embody the core of teaching –the engagement of students in activities that promote and foster learning. (3A) Communicating with Students (3B) Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques (3C) Engaging Students in Learning (3D) Using Assessment in Instruction (3E) Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities. The components of Domain 4 represent the wide range of a teacher’s responsibilities outside the classroom. These include reflecting on teaching, maintaining accurate records, communicating with stakeholders, contributing to the school and district, growing and developing professionally, and showing professionalism. (4A) Reflecting on Teaching (4B) Maintaining Accurate Records (4C) Communicating With Stakeholders (4D) Participating in a Professional Community (4E) Growing and Developing Professionally (4F) Showing Professionalism The weight assigned to each domain (within either the principal or peer/mentor category) is 20 percent, with the exception of Domain 3, which is weighted at 40 percent. Domain components 4B through 4F are only reviewed by the teacher’s principal. Domain 1 addresses “planning and preparation,” and “[t]he components of Domain 1 outline how a teacher organizes the content and plans the instructional delivery.” Domain 2 addresses “classroom environment,” and “[t]he components of Domain 2 address the learning environment [which] . . . includes the interactions in the classroom, the classroom culture, the teacher’s use of physical space, and established routines and procedures.” Domain 3, which again is weighted twice as much as the other domains, addresses “instruction,” and “[t]he components of Domain 3 embody the core of teaching–the engagement of students in activities that promote and foster learning . . . [and the] components include: communicating clearly and accurately, using questioning and discussion techniques, engaging students in learning, providing feedback to students, and demonstrating flexibility and responsiveness.” Domain 4 addresses “professional responsibility,” and “[t]he components of Domain 4 represent the wide range of a teacher’s responsibilities outside the classroom . . . include[ing] reflecting on teaching, maintaining accurate records, communicating with stakeholders, contributing to the school and district, growing and developing professionally, and showing professionalism.” For purposes of scoring a teacher’s evaluation, a zero point value is assigned whenever a domain component is given a rating of “requires action,” a single point is given whenever a domain component is rated as “progressing,” two points are given whenever a teacher is rated as “accomplished,” and three points are given for an “exemplary” rating. Value Added Measure According to the Teacher Evaluation Handbook for Hillsborough County, VAM is: statistical model that uses a variety of variables to estimate the expected one year learning growth of each student. The growth expectation estimate is then compared to actual growth, as measured by relevant course and content assessments. In order to measure a teacher’s impact on student achievement, the model controls for variables that are outside of the teacher’s control, such as past years’ learning growth trajectory, and special needs. In doing so, the teacher’s impact on student growth can be isolated and calculated. The VAM score is 40 percent of the teacher’s overall annual evaluation. 2012-2013 Observations and Evaluation Respondent, during the 2012-2013 school year, had one formal and two informal observations conducted by peer/mentors, and one formal and two informal observations conducted by her principal. Respondent, at the end of the 2012-2013 school year, was evaluated by both her peer/mentor and her principal. Katherine Hodges is one of the peer/mentors who observed and evaluated Respondent during the 2012-2013 school year. Ms. Hodges was a teacher in the HCSD from 2005-2015 where she taught eighth grade U.S. history, humanities, and served as a middle school social studies peer/mentor evaluator. Twanya Hall-Clark is another individual who conducted observations of Respondent during the 2012-2013 school year. Ms. Hall-Clark has been employed by HCSD as an educator for more than 20 years and has served as a school administrator since 2000. Ms. Hall-Clark has been trained in the use and implementation of the HCSD teacher evaluation system and has conducted hundreds of teacher observations and evaluations. Jeffery Colf also served as a peer/mentor and observed Respondent during the 2012-2013 school year. Joseph Brown served as the school principal where Respondent worked during the 2012-2013 school year, and was responsible for observing and evaluating Respondent’s performance. Dr. Brown became an educator in 1986 and a principal in 1998. Dr. Brown was trained in the use and implementation of the HCSD teacher evaluation system and has observed and evaluated hundreds of teachers during his tenure as an administrator. In determining a teacher’s evaluation rating, evaluators consider observation ratings and information provided by the teacher who is being evaluated. After considering these factors, Respondent’s peer/mentor evaluation for the 2012-2013 school year was “requires action” for component 2C; “progressing” for components 1A through 1C, 1E through 2B, 2D, and 3A through 3E; and “accomplished” for components 1D, 2E, and 4A. Respondent’s principal evaluation for the 2012-2013 school year was a rating of “progressing” for every component except 4A, for which she received a rating of “accomplished.” When quantified, Respondent’s 2012-2013 peer/mentor evaluation score was 8.80 and her principal evaluation score was 12.00, which resulted in a combined total evaluation written score of 20.80. The HCSD mean (average) for teachers during the 2012-2013 school year was 36.86. For the 2012-2013 school year, Respondent’s written evaluation score gave her a percentile rank of 1.70 percent. In other words, 98.30 percent of the teachers evaluated by HCSD for the 2012-2013 school year had a higher written evaluation score than Respondent. Respondent’s 2012-2013 VAM score was 18.7201. The HCSD mean for teachers during the 2012-2013 school year was 24.14. For the 2012-2013 school year, Respondent’s VAM score gave her a percentile rank of 2.30 percent when compared to her peers. Stated succinctly, 97.70 percent of the teachers evaluated by HCSD for the 2012-2013 school year had a higher VAM score than Respondent. Respondent’s total evaluation score for the 2012-2013 school year was 39.3. The HCSD mean for all teachers evaluated during the 2012-2013 school year was 61. Respondent’s total evaluation score for the 2012-2013 school year resulted in her achieving a percentile rank of 0.89 percent, meaning that 99.11 percent of the teachers evaluated by HCSD during the 2012-2013 school year scored higher than Respondent. Respondent’s total evaluation score of 39.3 resulted in Respondent receiving an overall evaluation rating of “unsatisfactory” for the 2012-2013 school year. For the 2012- 2013 school year, Respondent would have needed an overall evaluation score of 40 in order to secure the next highest evaluation designation of “needs improvement.” By letter dated September 18, 2013, Respondent was notified of the deficiencies in her performance and advised that she would be placed on a teacher assistance plan for the 2013- 2014 school year. Teacher Assistance Plan Respondent, as a consequence of receiving an unsatisfactory evaluation for the 2012-2013 school year, was placed on a mandatory teacher assistance plan during the 2013- 2014 school year. The stated goal of the plan is “[t]o assist teachers who earned a previous overall Unsatisfactory evaluation so that their performance reaches a satisfactory level for the current school year.” Teachers who are placed on a teacher assistance plan are assigned a support team which is composed of experienced educators. Teacher assistance plans have “areas of focus” which correspond to the four domains covered by the annual evaluation. The teacher assistance plan developed for Respondent focused on the domains of “planning and preparation (Domain 1)” and “instruction (Domain 3).” Respondent first met with her support team on October 15, 2013, where “assistance strategies” were developed for Domains 1 and 3. The specific strategies set goals of “designing coherent instruction (component 1-e)” and “improving feedback practices (component 3-d).” During the support team meeting on October 15, 2013, Respondent explained that her unsatisfactory rating for the 2012- 2013 school year was largely attributable to the fact that she “floated” between classrooms, and that she expected improvement in her performance for the 2013-2014 school year because she had her own classroom. Support team members provided Respondent with “a packet of resources” and arranged for Respondent to observe a high-performing teacher in an instructional setting. On December 18, 2013, Respondent met with members of her support team to discuss and review Respondent’s progress towards achieving the goals established in her teacher assistance plan. A summary report from the meeting provides as follows: The meeting began with a review of the Oct. 2013 action plan meeting and an update of the action steps. Ms. Patti also presented her summary notes of the observations and action she has taken since October. Those notes are included in her folder. Ms. Patti said that she observed Mr. Kline in his science class. She liked how each student had an assigned role while in group work. Ms. Patti also showed a teacher[-]made quiz she designed based off information from the LDC lesson. For the quiz she prompted students to use text marking and identify the key concepts not just the action (such as describe or discuss). Ms. Patti is using a website titled floridacivics.org for lesson plan ideas and resources. Ms. Patti also wants to observe another teacher. Dr. Brown will ask Mr. Sullins if he is willing to have Ms. Patti observe during the third nine weeks. Suggestions were made to either have another teacher observe or have a lesson video-taped for Ms. Patti to watch herself. She did not want to pursue either option at this time. Dr. Brown will follow up to set a date for the February Action Plan review. On March 27, 2014, Respondent again met with her support team. A written summary of the meeting notes that Respondent did not meet the goal of observing another teacher’s class as discussed during the meeting on December 18, 2013. 2013-2014 Observations and Evaluation Respondent, during the 2013-2014 school year, had two formal and three informal observations conducted by peer/mentors, two formal and three informal observations conducted by her principal, and one formal observation by her supervisor. Respondent, at the end of the 2013-2014 school year, was evaluated by both her peer/mentor and her principal. As previously noted, when determining a teacher’s evaluation rating, evaluators consider observation ratings and information provided by the teacher who is being evaluated. After considering these factors, Respondent’s peer/mentor evaluation for the 2013-2014 school year was “requires action” for component 3E; “progressing” for components 1A through 1C, 1E through 2D, 3A through 3E, 4A; and “accomplished” for components 1D and 2E. Respondent’s principal evaluation for the 2013-2014 school year was “requires action” for components 4F; “progressing” for components 1A through 1C, 1E through 2B, 2D, 3A through 3E, and 4B through 4E; and “accomplished” for components 1D, 2C, 2E, and 4A. When quantified, Respondent’s 2013-2014 peer/mentor evaluation score was 8.35 and her principal evaluation score was 11.90, which resulted in a combined total evaluation written score of 20.25. The HCSD mean (average) for teachers during the 2013-2014 school year was 36.86. For the 2013-2014 school year, Respondent’s written evaluation score gave her a percentile rank of 1.47 percent. In other words, 98.53 percent of the teachers evaluated by HCSD for the 2013-2014 school year had a higher written evaluation score than Respondent. Respondent’s 2013-2014 VAM score was 17.4192. The HCSD mean for teachers during the 2012-2013 school year was 24.04. For the 2013-2014 school year, Respondent’s VAM score gave her a percentile rank of 0.85 percent when compared to her peers. Stated succinctly, 99.15 percent of the teachers evaluated by HCSD for the 2013-2014 school year had a higher VAM score than Respondent. Respondent’s total evaluation score for the 2013-2014 school year was 37.66. The HCSD mean for all teachers evaluated during the 2013-2014 school year was 60.94. Respondent’s total evaluation score for the 2013-2014 school year resulted in her achieving a percentile rank of 0.24 percent, meaning that 99.76 percent of the teachers evaluated by HCSD during the 2013-2014 school year scored higher than Respondent. Stated differently, in Hillsborough County public schools for the 2013-2014 school year, there were only 28 teachers of 12,068 who had a worse evaluation score than Respondent. Respondent’s total evaluation score of 37.66 resulted in Respondent receiving an overall evaluation rating of “unsatisfactory” for the 2013-2014 school year. For the 2013- 2014 school year, Respondent would have needed an overall evaluation score of 42 in order to secure the next highest evaluation designation of “needs improvement.” Despite being on a teacher assistance plan, Respondent’s performance, relative to her peers, actually declined during the 2013-2014 school year when compared to the previous school year. By letter dated July 10, 2014, Respondent was advised that because she received unsatisfactory evaluations for the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school years, HCSD was notifying the Department of Education of her poor performance and that she was being reassigned pending confirmation of her VAM scores for the year. By order dated April 6, 2016, the School Board of Hillsborough County terminated Respondent’s employment. Domain 3 and VAM As noted previously, Domain 3 embodies “the core of teaching.” The peer/mentor and principal comments for Domain 3 components for the 2012-2013 school year provide as follows with respect to Respondent’s performance: (3A) The teacher’s attempt to explain the purpose/relevancy of the lesson’s instructional outcomes has only limited success, and/or directions and procedures must be clarified after initial student confusion. The teacher’s explanation of the content may contain minor errors; some portions are clear; other portions are difficult to follow. The teacher’s explanation consists of a monologue, with no invitation to the students for intellectual engagement. The teacher’s spoken language is correct; however, vocabulary is limited or not fully appropriate to the students’ ages or backgrounds. (3B) The teacher’s questions lead students through a single path of inquiry, with answers seemingly determined in advance. Alternatively the teacher attempts to frame some questions designed to promote student thinking and understanding, but only a few students are involved. The teacher attempts to engage all students in the discussion and to encourage them to respond to one another, with uneven results. (3C) The learning tasks or prompts are partially aligned with the instructional outcomes but require only minimal thinking by students, allowing most students to be passive or merely compliant. Learning activities are not sufficiently challenging and lack the rigor to promote intellectual engagement. The pacing of the lesson may not provide students the time needed to be intellectually engaged. (3D) Assessment is occasionally used in instruction, through some monitoring of progress of learning by teacher and/or students. Feedback to students is uneven, and students are aware of only some of the assessment criteria used to evaluate their work. (3E) The teacher attempts to modify the lesson when needed and to respond to student questions with moderate success; however, alternate instructional strategies are limited and minimally successful. The teacher accepts responsibility for student performance. In response to student progress data, the teacher re-teaches, as appropriate. Because Respondent received an overall unsatisfactory performance rating for the 2012-2013 school year, she was evaluated by her principal mid-way through the 2013-2014 school year, and again by both her principal and peer/mentor evaluator at the end of the 2013-2014 school year. Respondent, for each of the evaluations performed during the 2013-2014 school year, received identical marks for the Domain 3 components, with the same deficiencies noted.
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 Respondent has violated section 1012.795(1)(c). It is further recommended that, pursuant to section 1012.796(7)(g), Respondent be prohibited from applying for a new certificate for a period of at least five years. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of June, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN 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 28th day of June, 2017.
The Issue Whether there is just cause to terminate Respondent’s employment with the school district.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the entity responsible for the operation and administration of the Polk County School District. Such duties include all personnel decisions affecting employees of the school district. The Respondent was an employee of the school district and was assigned to teach third grade at Sleepy Hill Elementary School in Lakeland, Florida. Respondent’s employment was pursuant to a professional services contract. In accordance with the negotiated contract for professional educators working within the Polk County School District, Petitioner follows a progressive discipline program. All Board employees are afforded opportunities to improve performance deficiencies before termination of their employment. In this case, Petitioner asserts that the falsification of student grades into the Pinnacle grading system was Respondent’s final action supporting just cause for termination. On March 17, 2014, Respondent received a verbal warning with written confirmation due to ongoing absenteeism and the failure to timely complete paperwork regarding absences from school. On March 31, 2014, Respondent received a written reprimand due to Respondent’s continuing absences and other irregularities in taking leave. Respondent had been an employee of the school district long enough to understand the leave procedures required in order to take absences from school. On January 25, 2015, despite the two prior notifications regarding leave, Respondent was absent without following the proper leave procedures. On February 3, 2015, Respondent’s principal recommended to the superintendent of schools that Respondent be disciplined by suspension without pay. On March 16, 2015, Respondent was suspended without pay for three days. The superintendent cited the grounds for the suspension as Respondent’s continued failure to comply with leave procedures and restrictions. Thereafter, based upon Respondent’s poor classroom performance coupled with observed deficiencies, Respondent was put on a professional development plan that set forth criteria that required Respondent’s improvement. On April 15, 2015, Respondent, her representative, and her principal met to review the Respondent’s performance of her responsibilities. During the discussion, a report from the school district’s Pinnacle grading system was reviewed. The Respondent’s students all received the same grade. When questioned, Respondent assured her principal that she had accurately entered the students’ grades. In fact, Respondent did not accurately enter her students’ grades. In the course of less than a minute on the Pinnacle system, Respondent entered all “4s” for her students on one section of a reading test. The grades entered by Respondent did not match the grades reflected on her grading sheets. Additionally, four of the grades entered on a second section of the weekly test were entered incorrectly. Respondent did not truthfully answer questions regarding the entry of the grades and did not accept responsibility for falsifying the grades entered. Had Respondent simply confessed error in entering the grades and truthfully stated why she hurriedly entered the grades incorrectly, her character would not be called to question. Instead, Respondent wrongly maintained she had accurately entered the grades. Respondent’s honesty was called into question when she did not readily acknowledge her error. Thereafter Respondent’s principal recommended to the district’s superintendent that Respondent’s employment be terminated. By letter dated November 16, 2015, the superintendent advised Respondent that it would be recommended to the Board that her employment be terminated. The teachers’ bargaining agreement pertinent to this case provides for progressive discipline. Prior to termination (step 4), there are three prior levels of discipline: verbal warning; written warning; and suspension. In this case Petitioner complied with the progressive discipline required by the bargaining agreement.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Polk County enter a final order terminating Respondent’s employment with the school district. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH 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 3rd day of August, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. Suite 110 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North Clearwater, Florida 33761 (eServed) Donald H. Wilson, Jr., Esquire Boswell and Dunlap, LLP 245 South Central Avenue Bartow, Florida 33830 (eServed) Jacqueline Byrd, Superintendent Polk County School Board 1915 South Floral Avenue Post Office Box 391 Bartow, Florida 33831 Pam Stewart, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 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)
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Respondent should be properly discharged from employment with the Duval County School District in accordance with the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act, 21197 Laws of Florida (1991) (Act), including the issue of whether she has received two consecutive unsatisfactory yearly evaluations as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was a certified teacher employed by the Petitioner Duval County School Board at all times pertinent hereto. The governing authority herein is the Act. Ms. Jacqueline Y. Davis was the principal during the academic year 2002-2003 at Whitehouse Elementary School. She was the Respondent's supervising principal during that year. Principal Davis determined, after observations and other gathering of information, that Ms. Neeley's performance as a teacher was deficient. Among the deficiencies, she found were the following: Respondent failed to prepare report cards. Respondent improperly calculated students' grade point averages. Respondent failed to prepare Academic Improvement Plans for students. Respondent failed to timely complete pre-planning checklists, professional development plans, and class schedules. Respondent showed age-improper materials to her students. Respondent failed to clearly state the lesson's objective at the beginning of her lessons. Respondent exhibited unsatisfactory classroom management techniques, including failure to follow school-wide disciplinary policies, failure to keep students on-task, and failure to maintain order in her classroom. Respondent failed to communicate basic concepts clearly to the children. Respondent failed to review basic concepts with the children to ensure understanding of the material. Respondent failed to call parents back upon request. Respondent exhibited use of an intimidating, loud tone with students. Respondent failed to provide requested information to parents regarding student progress. Respondent failed to send graded papers home for parents' review. Respondent failed to collect homework after being assigned. Respondent failed to maintain a neat and orderly classroom. Respondent failed to properly record grades in a grade book, an official record that must be maintained by the teacher and the school. On at least two occasions, parents contacted Principal Davis and requested that their child be removed from Ms. Neeley's class due to Ms. Neeley's incompetence as a teacher. The Respondent exhibited consistent and chronic tardiness. The Respondent exhibited numerous absences during the school year. These deficiencies were communicated to Ms. Neeley, which lead to the eventual implementation of a "success plan," listing specific categories in which Ms. Neeley needed instruction and needed to make improvement. Principal Davis assigned a success team to Ms. Neeley when it became evident that her performance as a teacher was unsatisfactory. Principal Davis observed the Respondent's classroom performance on October 3, 2002, November 19, 2002, and January 21, 2003. On each of those occasions, she found Ms. Neeley's performance as a teacher to be unsatisfactory. Following each observation, Principal Davis communicated her findings orally and in writing to Ms. Neeley. On January 30, 2003, Principal Davis held a meeting to discuss the success plan with Ms. Neeley and to introduce her to the success team members who would assist in providing specific in-service instruction and assistance for Ms. Neeley. Ms. Neeley, however, failed to attend that meeting. The meeting was re-scheduled for February 3, 2003, and again Ms. Neeley failed to attend the meeting. The meeting was re-scheduled for February 5, 2003, and again Ms. Neeley did not attend. On February 10, 2003, Principal Davis observed Ms. Neeley's teaching and again found her performance as a teacher to be unsatisfactory. Again, Principal Davis communicated her findings orally and in writing to Ms. Neeley. On February 26, 2003, another success team meeting was scheduled, but Ms. Neeley did not attend. On March 20, 2003, Principal Davis again observed Ms. Neeley's classroom performance and again found it to be unsatisfactory and that she did not demonstrate adequate required improvement. Because of Ms. Neeley's continued inability to improve, despite assistance of her success team members and the specific in-service assistance and instruction they provided, she received an unsatisfactory annual evaluation for the 2002-2003 academic year. Thereafter, the Respondent was assigned to Ortega Elementary School for the 2003-2004 school year. Principal Cynthia Thompson was her supervisor at Ortega. Almost immediately, Principal Thompson became aware of Ms. Neeley's unsatisfactory performance as an instructor. Among other things, she noted that: Ms. Neeley was absent from school without arranging for a substitute teacher. Did not prepare lesson plans. Misspelled words on the board and charts in her classroom. Provided incorrect definitions for words on the board. Was not able to convey to her students their goals for the class period. Was not able to maintain a consistent grade book for her students. Failed to attend scheduled conferences with parents. Was unable to explain basic concepts to the children. Was unable to maintain classroom discipline and control. On October 30, 2003, Principal Thompson formally evaluated Ms. Neeley in her classroom, and found her performance to be unsatisfactory. Principal Thompson discussed the unsatisfactory areas with Ms. Neeley both orally and in writing. Principal Thompson then initiated a formal success plan and formed a success team, including a standards coach and a district coach to help Ms. Neeley in those areas she needed improvement in, and to provide specific in-service instruction for Ms. Neeley. The first meeting of the success team was scheduled for November 3, 2003, but Ms. Neeley failed to attend. The meeting was re-scheduled for November 5, 2003, and on that date, Principal Thompson covered every area of competency in which Ms. Neeley needed improvement. She asked Ms. Neeley to name a success team member of her own choosing; however, Ms. Neeley failed to name any person whom she wanted to be part of the success team. On December 17, 2003, another success team meeting was scheduled, but again Ms. Neeley failed to attend. Following the Christmas vacation, Ms. Neeley did not return to the school for approximately three weeks and did not explain her absence. On March 3, 2004, Principal Thompson conducted her final evaluation of Ms. Neeley and found that Ms. Neeley's performance in the classroom was still unsatisfactory and did not demonstrate the required improvement. Because of Ms. Neeley's continued inability to improve, despite the assistance of her success team members and the specific in- service assistance and instruction they provided, she received an unsatisfactory annual evaluation for the 2003-2004 academic year.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Duval County School Board terminating the Respondent's employment as a tenured teacher for the Duval County School District. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 4th day of March, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: John C. Fryer, Jr., Superintendent Duval County School Board 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207-8182 Honorable John Winn Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Andres Rojas, Esquire City of Jacksonville City Hall, St. James Building 117 West Duval Street, Suite 480 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 David A. Hertz, Esquire Duval Teachers United 1601 Atlantic Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207
The Issue Whether the challenged portions of Respondent's Manual of Administrative Personnel Procedures (MAPP), which is incorporated by reference in School Board Rule 6Gx13-4D-1.022 (specifically) that paragraph in subsection C-2 of the MAPP which references Section 231.29, Florida Statutes, and the following language in subsection C-8 of the MAPP, under Florida Principal Competency (FPC) No. 11: "The principal who has TACTICAL ADAPTABILITY: looks at problems as if there were no rules, then decides what to do to resolve the situation tactfully") are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority, within the meaning of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, for the reasons asserted by Petitioner. Whether Petitioner has standing, pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, to challenge these provisions.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, including the parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation,2 the following findings of fact are made: Respondent (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, pursuant to Article IX, Section IV, of the Florida Constitution, and Section 230.03, Florida Statutes. Petitioner is a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida, and the parent of a child enrolled in the Miami-Dade County Public School System (MDCPS) as a ninth-grade student at Miami Killian Senior High School (Killian).3 Petitioner is currently serving as the parent representative on the Educational Excellence Council at Killian. As Petitioner states in her "resume" (Petitioner's Exhibit 18), she is "an advocate for better education," and, "as such . . . ha[s] participated in committees, written numerous research-based reports, attended countless School Board meetings,4 and testified at many public hearings." Over the years, when she has had concerns regarding practices or policies at her children's schools, she has made these concerns known to School Board administrators and School Board members. Petitioner is challenging, as an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as defined in Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes, language found in parts of the School Site Administrator Performance Planning and Assessment System (PPAS), which is contained in section C of the Manual of Administrative Personnel Procedures (MAPP) and which, together with the remaining portions of the MAPP, is incorporated in, and made a part of, School Board Rule 6Gx13-4D-1.022. Subsection C-1 of the PPAS (which Petitioner is not challenging) sets forth the "[s]cope and [p]urpose" of the PPAS. It provides as follows: This section, effective with the 1998-1999 school year, sets forth the rules, regulations and procedures for the establishment, maintenance, and administration of the performance planning and assessment system applicable to school site managerial personnel. Subsection C-2 of the PPAS contains a "[s]tatement of [p]olicy." It provides as follows: The Miami-Dade County Public Schools Performance Planning and Assessment System was developed as an aid to improving the performance and developing the potential of every administrator. A performance plan mutually developed by the administrator and the supervisor consists of three major components: Developing plans directly linked to overall job functions as related to the job duties and responsibilities, school site target objectives, and/or major system objectives, as applicable. Improving job performance by reviewing past assessments and setting expectations for improvement or enhancement. Developing personal potential through emphasis on standards required for success and professional growth in the present job, as well as preparation for future career goals. In evaluating performance standards, the emphasis is placed on collecting data which indicate that the individual demonstrates or practices the performance standards established for the assigned position and the school site target objectives. The performance assessment procedures set forth herein shall be adhered to strictly. Administrators shall have their performance evaluated by their immediate supervisor (assessor) and their assessor's supervising administrator (reviewer) only. Formal assessments and evaluations placed in administrator's official personnel files shall be in compliance with the procedures and instruments of the Performance Planning and Assessment System. Administrators being appraised need to be aware of the rationale, intent and procedures of the performance assessment system in relation to their job assignment. Florida Department of Education Performance Assessment System guidelines: specify that a comprehensive performance assessment system is fair, equitable, and legally sound; establish procedures for the collection, retrieval and use of data to provide feedback to an individual, a team, and the system; provide data for recognizing high performance through a variety of means; consider the specific conditions of the site in establishing expectations; promote the growth and development of the individual and the continuous improvement of the organization; allocate time to plan, coach and counsel for higher performance; provide orientation on the system and skill development in observing, mentoring, coaching and counseling for those in and affected by the system. Administrators who manage the performance assessment system must have knowledge and skills that go far beyond an academic knowledge of the system. They must understand and be able to respond to evaluative data on the system. They must also be able to link the performance assessment system to the other components of the Comprehensive Human Resources Development System. Pursuant to Florida Statute 231.29, the system (district) must include a mechanism to give parents and teachers an opportunity to provide input into the administrators performance assessment, when appropriate. The district mechanisms include notification to parents of this provision printed on student report cards and notification to teachers of this provision through memorandum included in staff handbooks. [Underlining added.] Principals must ensure that all assistant principals are exposed to and/or have experience in the 19 Florida Principal Competencies and the five M-DCPS Technical Skills. There may be cases where an assistant principal may not be assigned to work with all of the competencies and all of the technical skills. However, all assistant principals must be exposed to these competencies and technical skills either through actual experience(s), or attendance at district sponsored workshops, or other professional growth activities. Petitioner is challenging the underlined language of subsection C-2 of the PPAS set forth above (Input Provision), which was added to School Board Rule 6Gx13-4D-1.022 (Rule) on or about November 7, 1997. Before amending the Rule to add the Input Provision, the School Board published a Notice of Intended Action (dated September 12, 1997), which read, in pertinent part, as follows: PURPOSE AND EFFECT: To amend Board Rule 6Gx13-4D-1.022, Manual of Administrative Personnel Procedures, by revising the document, Manual of Administrative Personnel Procedures (MAPP), which is incorporated by reference and is part of this rule, in order to be in compliance with new state legislation, Section 231.29 . . ., Florida Statute[s]. SUMMARY: The revised rule provides language describing the mechanism to be used in the District for giving parents and teachers input into administrative assessment as appropriate. . . . SPECIFIC AUTHORITY UNDER WHICH RULEMAKING IS AUTHORIZED: 230.22(2), F.S. LAW IMPLEMENTED, INTERPRETED, OR MADE SPECIFIC: 231.02; 231.0861; 231.087(1); 236.0811, F.S.; 6A-4.0083; 61-4.0084 FAC. In addition, the School Board placed an advertisement in the September 29, 1997, edition of the Miami Daily Business Review, which read, in pertinent part, as follows: NOTICE The School Board of Dade County, Florida, announces the following Board Rule action will be taken at its 1:00 p.m. meeting on: November 5, 1997 School Board Auditorium 1450 N. E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 To Amend: 6Gx13-4D-1.022, Manual of Administrative Personnel Procedures (MAPP), in order to be in compliance with new state legislation, Section 231.29 . . ., Florida Statutes[s]. Specific Authority: 230.22(2), F.S. Law Implemented, Interpreted, or Made Specific: 231.02; 231.0861; 231.087(1); 236.0811, F.S.; 6A-4.0083; 61-4.0084 FAC Although Section 231.29, Florida Statutes, was mentioned in the Input Provision, neither the "Specific Authority," nor the "Law Implemented, Interpreted or Made Specific" portions of the November 5, 1997, amended version of the Rule contained any reference to Section 231.29, Florida Statutes. It was not until the day after the October 21, 1998, School Board meeting (the last School Board meeting at which members of the School Board took action to amend the Rule) that Section 231.29, Florida Statutes, was added to the "Law Implemented, Interpreted or Made Specific" portion of the Rule. The addition was made, not by the members of the School Board, but by the School Board Clerk, Ileana Menendez, who believed that such action was authorized by School Board Rule 6Gx13-8C-1.061, which, at all times material to the instant case, has provided as follows: CORRECTION OF CERTAIN ERRORS IN RULES The Superintendent of Schools, as Secretary to the Board, shall have the authority to review the School Board Rules and when judged useful shall: Correct grammatical, typographical, and like errors not affecting the construction or meaning of the rules; Keep a record of corrections made pursuant to subsection 1; and Report to the Board any corrections made. Ms. Menendez reported the "correction" she had made to the Office of the School Board Attorney. The English version of the "notification to parents . . . printed on student report cards,"5 which is referred to in the Input Provision, reads as follows: FLORIDA LAW PROVIDES FOR PARENT INPUT ON TEACHER/ADMINISTRATOR PERFORMANCE, WHEN APPROPRIATE. FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT THE SCHOOL, PRINCIPAL, OR THE REGION OFFICE. By providing such notification, the School Board alerts the parent to the parent's opportunity to provide (at any time the parent deems appropriate) information and opinion regarding an administrator's performance for consideration by those (specially-trained individuals) charged with the responsibility of evaluating the administrator's performance. The significance of the "19 Florida Principal Competencies" referred to in the paragraph immediately following the Input Provision is described in subsection C-7 of the PPAS, which reads as follows: PERFORMANCE CRITERIA In order to qualify for a rating Distinguished Performance Standards on the annual evaluation form, assessees must be rated Distinguished Performance Standards on 18 out of the 19 Florida Principal Competencies and rated as Distinguished Performance Standards on five out of the five M-DCPS Technical Skills, and on Performance Related to Job Targets. In order to qualify for a rating Commendable Performance Standards, assessees must be rated as Commendable Performance Standards on 17 out of the 19 Florida Principal Competencies and rated as Commendable Performance Standards on four out of the five M-DCPS Technical Skills. Performance Related to Job Targets must be at least 90% accomplished (C-8 through C-11). In order to qualify for a rating Competent Performance Standards, assessees must be rated as Competent Performance Standards on 16 out of the 19 Florida Principal Competencies and rated as Competent Performance Standards on three out of the five M-DCPS Technical Skills. Performance Related to Job Targets must be at least 80% accomplished (C-8 through C-11). Assessees not exhibiting the minimum number of indicators listed for each standard of the 19 Florida Principal Competencies and/or the five M-DCPS Technical Skills, and/or who have not met their Performance Related to Job Targets will receive an overall rating of Below Expectations on Performance Standards and will require a Professional Improvement Plan (C-8 through C-11). The "19 Florida Principal Competencies" are listed and explained in subsection C-8 of the PPAS. "Florida Principal Competency" (FPC) No. 11 is "tactical adaptability," which is described in subsection C-8 of the PPAS as follows: TACTICAL ADAPTABILITY is the ability to adapt one's interaction and behavior to fit the situation. (3 out of 4) DIMENSIONS: ADAPTABILITY: Maintaining effectiveness in varying environments, tasks, responsibilities or with people; FLEXIBILITY: Modifying behavior to reach a goal; INDIVIDUAL LEADERSHIP: Utilizing appropriate interpersonal styles to guide individuals to task accomplishment. The principal who has TACTICAL ADAPTABILITY: adopts roles of listener, facilitator and confronter as needed finds ways to get around policies and procedures which interfere with the school's goals looks at problems as if there are no rules, then decides what to do to resolve the situation tactfully understands how own behavior affects others and makes appropriate adjustments. Except for the language in numbered paragraph 11.2, which Petitioner is no longer challenging (as a result of the School Board's agreement to initiate action to replace it with other language agreeable to Petitioner6), the foregoing, including the language in numbered paragraph 11.3 (Paragraph 11.3), the validity of which (along with the Input Provision) Petitioner disputes, is a verbatim recital of language contained in the Florida Principal Competencies section of the Human Resources Management and Development System Guidelines in Florida's School Districts developed, after study and scientific research, by the Florida Council on Educational Management.
