Findings Of Fact As indicated, this case has been presented upon a facts stipulation between the representatives of the parties and the agreement for submission of certain evidential items in aid of the fact stipulation. The exact terms and details of the facts stipulated are as follows:
Recommendation It is recommended that the Respondent, Duval County School Board, allow the Petitioners claim for tenure effective the beginning of the academic year 1977- 78, with full benefits, including back pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Patricia A. Renovitch, Esquire General Counsel FEA/United 208 West Pensacola Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Thomas E. Crowder, Esquire Assistant City Attorney 1300 City Hall Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent held Florida Teaching Certificate No. 390436, Provisional Graduate, Rank III, valid through June 30, 1981, covering the areas of Sociology, English, History and Social Studies. On or about October 19, 1978, Respondent while acting within the scope of his employment as a teacher at Robert E. Lee Junior High School in Dade County, Florida, was observed to seize a student, Rodney Canull, by his hair and right arm, lift the student off the ground, and throw the student repeatedly onto a concrete ramp. As soon as the student was able to extricate himself from Respondent, he fled the scene of the altercation. However, later the same day, Respondent was again observed in a confrontation with this same student, in which Respondent had twisted the student's arm behind his back, and the student was doubled over in pain with his head below his knees. On or about April 24, 1978, Respondent was involved in a physical confrontation with another student, Carla Brinson, at Robert E. Lee Junior High School. The confrontation between Ms. Brinson and Respondent occurred in the course of Respondent's attempt to discipline the student. When Respondent requested that the student turn around so that he could administer corporal punishment, she refused. Upon the student's refusal, the Respondent threw her to the floor. The student got up from the floor, and struck Respondent with her fist, whereupon Respondent struck the student in the face with his fist. The student then ran out the front door of the classroom in which the confrontation had occurred, and was pursued by Respondent, who began to strike the student with his belt. Both Respondent and the student ended up on the ground in front of the portable classroom where Respondent again struck the student in the forehead with the heel of his open hand. When another teacher attempted to intervene in the confrontation, he was pushed aside and Respondent continued to strike the student with his belt. On or about May 11, 1977, Respondent was involved in a physical confrontation with a student at Madison Junior High School in Dade County, Florida, named Wesley G. Frater. In the course of Respondent inquiring as to whether the student belonged in a particular room, the student referred to Respondent as "man", whereupon Respondent began shoving the student into a row of standing metal lockers, approximately 25 in number, and then lifted the student upside down from the ground and dropped him onto a concrete floor. On or about May 20, 1977, Respondent was involved in a physical confrontation at Madison Junior High School with a student named Vincent Johnson. Some dispute of an undetermined nature occurred between the student and the Respondent, after which the student attempted to flee from Respondent. Respondent chased the student down in the school parking lot, and threw the student against a parked truck. Respondent then threw the student to the ground, picked him up and attempted to transport him to the principal's office. Once in the corridor of the school building, Respondent picked the student up and repeatedly threw him to the floor. Other teachers at the school, after hearing a disturbance in the hallway, intervened to separate Respondent and the student. As previously indicated in this Recommended Order, Respondent neither appeared in person nor offered any evidence for inclusion in the record in this proceeding through his counsel. As a result, the record in this proceeding contains no explanation or justification for Respondent's conduct. However, it is clear from the record that Respondent's conduct, as outlined above, worked to create an atmosphere of fear among his students, thereby seriously reducing his effectiveness as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this hearing, Respondent was a public school teacher licensed by the State of Florida to teach English language at the secondary school level, and her teaching certificate was current and in full effect. The Respondent, Queen Bruton, is employed by the Duval County School Board and holds tenure under the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act. On November 22, 1982, Respondent was sent a Notice of Proposed Dismissal by the School Board indicating the Board's intention to dismiss her as a teacher upon a charge of professional incompetency. The grounds for such conclusion include an indication that Respondent received unsatisfactory evaluations of her performance for the 1980-81 and 1981-82 school years. The Duval County Teacher Tenure Act (TTA), Chapter 21197, Laws of Florida (1941), as amended, permits the discharge of a teacher for, inter alia, professional incompetency as a teacher if certain conditions are met and procedures followed. All teachers in the Duval County public schools are evaluated whenever necessary, but at least once a year. Under the rating system in effect during the 1980-81 and 1981-82 school years, an unsatisfactory rating is awarded when an evaluation contains eight or more deduction points. Ratings are: (1) satisfactory, (2) needs improvement, and (3) unsatisfactory. On the rating form in use during the time in issue here, an unsatisfactory rating results in two deduction points in Items 1 through 27, and one deduction point in Items 28 through 36. An evaluation of "needs improvement" does not result in any deduction points. The School Board of Duval County has not, in any formal way, defined professional incompetence. The evaluation process is but one tool in the management of teacher employment. An unsatisfactory evaluation is not, therefore, conclusive of professional incompetence, but is one factor in that judgmental decision. The procedure used by the School Board in evaluating teacher performance was not adopted in conformity with the Administrative Procedure Act. At the time of adoption, the School Board was operating under teacher working conditions that had been implemented after extensive bargaining between the School Board and the teachers' union. These working conditions contained extensive provisions involving "teacher evaluation." When a contract was finally agreed upon between the School Board and the teachers' union, it contained provisions concerning teacher evaluation identical to those which were in effect under the working conditions previous to the implementation of the contract. These provisions, therefore, do not constitute rules "as defined in Section 120.52, Florida Statutes," but instead constitute guidelines for the evaluation of teacher performance arrived at not by decision of the School Board under conditions which require public hearing but jointly by agreement of the parties to the negotiations of the teacher contract between the School Board and the union, a collective bargaining agreement. Warren K. Kennedy was in Respondent's sophomore English class at Forrest Senior High School in Jacksonville during the 1980-81 school year. At one point during the school year, Kennedy saw a series of approximately 22 sexually explicit words or phrases written on the blackboard in Respondent's room. Kennedy copied these words and notified the principal, who went to Respondent's classroom and saw them himself. These words were placed on the board by someone other than Respondent, with her permission, and consisted of a part of an exercise in outlining. As such, Respondent claims the words themselves mean nothing, but words of that nature, including "orgasms, sexual intercourse, French tickler, blow job, condoms, dildo, masturbation, orgy," and the like serve no legitimate purpose in, and are not a legitimate part of, a sophomore English class. Respondent's classroom that year was chaotic. Students did little work, but instead talked openly and freely. Respondent sat quietly at her desk doing paperwork unless the noise got so great as to disturb other classes. Students felt free to walk out of class with impunity. Cursing was prevalent in class, and discipline was nonexistent. Defacing of school property occurred on at least one occasion with Respondent taking no corrective action. As a result, several students and the parents of other students requested their transfer from Respondent's class to another. Respondent was also unreliable in submitting grades and reports in a timely fashion. Observations of Respondent in the classroom environment by several different individuals revealed she did not insist her students come to class equipped with the proper supplies for effective writing or textbook activity. She rarely utilized visual aids pertinent to the matter being discussed. Classroom discussion with students did not generally involve a broad sampling of the class, but was focused on only a few class members. Her questions to the students were often vague and confusing to the students. Respondent's principal during that school year, Ronel J. Poppel, at whose request the above observations were made, himself observed Respondent in the classroom on several occasions. As a result of the input from those requested observations and of his own observations, he prepared an evaluation form on Respondent on March 15, 1981, which bore an overall rating of unsatisfactory and reflected that her performance was declining. This report, which reflected 7 of 36 items as unsatisfactory (12 total deduction points), had 20 other items rated as "needs improvement" and contained such written-in suggestions as "needs classroom management techniques, needs better standards of behavior, needs to have long-range planning from the beginning of the year, needs to show more enthusiasm for teaching--needs more variety in methods of teaching," and "should use better judgment in selection of topics." As a result of this evaluation, the observations of her principal and others, and the several counseling periods during which Respondent's deficiencies were pointed out to her along with suggestions for improvement, Respondent was put on notice of her failing performance and afforded the opportunity to take advantage of teacher education counseling (TEC) and, while she did enroll in at least one improvement course, failed to take full advantage of the available opportunities. Poppel's evaluation of Respondent as an incompetent teacher is based on: His personal observation; Evaluation by other professionals; Parent complaint follow-up; Her demonstrated lack of effective planning; Her lack of enforcement of school policies; Her lack of or inability to motivate students; Observed and reported chaotic classroom deportment; Her failure to keep proper records; and Her failure to leave lesson plans for substitutes. Notwithstanding the above, Respondent was well versed in the subject matter she was to teach and had the subjective background to be an excellent teacher. Her shortcomings, as described above, however, far outweighed the positive aspects of her credentials. Respondent was transferred for the 1981-82 school year to Fletcher High School in Jacksonville where she was placed under the supervision of Dr. Ragans, Principal, to teach English. Dr. Ragans spoke to Mr. Poppel, her former principal, about Respondent's weak areas so that he could develop plans to help her in those areas. In an effort to prepare Respondent for the coming year and to ensure she was fully aware of school policies and standards, Dr. Ragans held an extensive conference with Respondent to discuss her previous year's unsatisfactory rating and to make plans to remedy or remediate those areas. On August 25, 1981, he wrote a letter to Respondent in which he reiterated the items discussed previously. Review of this letter reveals there could be little doubt of what Dr. Ragans expected. Nonetheless, when he personally observed her in her classroom less than a month later, he found many of the same weaknesses previously identified, such as a noisy classroom environment, talking by students without being called on, Respondent appearing preoccupied with desk work, and inadequate lesson plans. In the observation report, he made numerous suggestions for improvement and offered Respondent the opportunity to a conference which she did not request. Prior to that observation, however, on September 8, 1981, Dr. Ragans and Respondent met with Dr. Jeff Weathers, TEC consultant for the School Board, in a full discussion of her professional shortcomings, at which meeting a suggestion was made that Respondent enroll in certain university-level courses in classroom management and motivation. Respondent was somewhat reluctant to take these courses because she felt they might interfere with her planning and her preparation for classes. Nonetheless, she did attend one class. Dr. Ragans had advised her he would arrange for substitute teachers for her so that she could take available classes. She was also invited to meet with master teachers in the school to seek assistance and to observe them, and she did in fact do so. In addition, a program was set up for her lesson plans to be reviewed by experts at the School Board. Respondent denies she ever submitted these plans, but according to Judith B. Silas, a resource teacher at School Board headquarters who reviewed Respondent's plans in December, 1981, her plans were confusing and lacking a consistent format: the dates on the plans reflect they were from an earlier series of years; objective numbers did not refer to the 1981 Curriculum Guide and did not cross-reference; and some included material had no relationship to plans or lessons. Ms. Silas's comments, forwarded to the school in February, 1982, were discussed with Respondent. A follow-up letter dated September 25, 1981, outlining the substance of the joint meeting with Dr. Weathers, was forwarded to Respondent. Shortly thereafter, on October 29, 1981, Dr. Ragans prepared a preliminary evaluation on Respondent rated overall as unsatisfactory in which 13 items were rated that way and 12 more rated as "needs to improve." On November 25, 1981, Respondent was provided with a lesson presentation checklist drawn by Dr. Weathers for her to use along with a notice of several night courses available to Respondent and a notice of a proposed observation of another teacher by Dr. Weathers and Respondent on December 14, 1981. After this observation, Dr. Weathers and Respondent discussed the positive aspects of that teacher's operation that Respondent could and should emulate. A new classroom observation of Respondent was set for January, 1982. In the interim, in January, 1982, Dr. Ragans received at least one parent request for a student to be transferred from Respondent's class because the classroom environment was noisy, unruly, and not conducive to learning. As a result of this letter and other parent contacts of a similar nature, Dr. Ragans had several informal discussions with Respondent during this period. On February 23, 1982, Respondent requested a conference with Dr. Ragans on her upcoming evaluation which was, she understood, to be unsatisfactory from a letter to her on February 5, 1982, from Dr. Ragans. This rating, conducted on February 2, 1982, but not signed by Dr. Ragans until March 3, 1982, was unsatisfactory, containing 14 items so marked and 13 marked "needs to improve." At the conference, held the same day as requested, Dr. Ragans advised Respondent he still felt she had marked deficiencies previously indicated regarding classroom control, authority, respect, lesson plans coordination, classroom planning, her failure to provide purposeful learning experiences, no student motivation, and her apparent inability to be understood by her students. Also cited to her were the continuing parent complaints and those of other teachers that their classrooms, used by her (she was a traveling teacher with no room of her own), had been damaged by her students. Much of this had previously been outlined in Dr. Ragans' February 2, 1982, letter indicating his intent to rate Respondent as unsatisfactory. Both Dr. Weathers and another school district supervisor, Dr. Henderson, observed Respondent in the classroom situation in late January or early February, 1982. Both individuals identified the same deficiencies as previously noted by so many others, and both made recommendations for improvement which were passed on, intact, to Respondent. In early March, 1982, Dr. Ragans advised Respondent in writing of his intent to evaluate her on March 15, 1982, to see if she had made any improvement. He did this because of Respondent's feeling that the previous evaluation had not given her enough time to work out improvements. This latest evaluation was also overall unsatisfactory. Two days later, on March 17, 1982, Respondent indicated in writing that she did not accept this evaluation. On April 30, 1982, Dr. Ragans again visited Respondent's classroom so that, if she had markedly improved, he could try to extend her contract or change her evaluation before the end of the school year. However, he could observe no appreciable change. Shortly after this visit, on May 3, he discussed with Respondent complaints he had received from several parents about warnings she had sent out on some students which inconsistently showed both satisfactory performance and danger of failing on the same form. She explained this as all students, including straight "A" students, who had not taken the MLST (test) were in danger of failing. Dr. Ragans felt this excuse was feeble and unjustified and demonstrated poor judgment on her part. All this was confirmed in a letter on May 17. A complaint from a parent of one of Respondent's students, received on June 11, 1982, initiated an audit of the grades given by Respondent during the school year. Results of this audit revealed at least 68 errors involving 46 students, including three students who received passing grades when they, in fact, had failed and should have been in summer school. A total of 13 student grades had to be changed, requiring a letter of notification and apology from the principal. Respondent did not deny the inconsistencies shown in the audit, but defended them on the basis of, in many cases, their being the result of her exercising her discretion and prerogative to award a grade different from that supported by recorded achievement if, in her opinion, other factors so dictated. In any case, the number of inconsistencies requiring a grade change was substantially higher than is normal. During the 1981-82 school year, Respondent had not been assigned a classroom of her own, but instead met and taught her classes in the rooms assigned to other teachers. This situation, while not unique to Respondent and one which several other teachers had as well, is nonetheless a definite handicap to any teacher. In an effort to alleviate the impact of this situation, all Respondent's rooms were scheduled as geographically close together as possible, and she was assigned only one subject to teach. Therefore, though she may have had several class periods which progressed at different speeds, the planning and preparation was similar and much less an arduous task than if she had different subjects to prepare for. In any case, there is little relationship between this and discipline and control in the classroom. Dr. Mary Henderson, Director of Language Arts/Reading for the Duval County School Board, observed Respondent in the classroom during both the 1980- 81 and 1981-82 school years at two different schools. Recognizing that Respondent has definite strengths in her knowledge of the subject matter to be taught and her recognition of and communication to the students of the relationship of their lessons to the test requirements, Dr. Henderson still felt Respondent was not a competent teacher. On both occasions, she found Respondent's lesson plans to be inadequate, her techniques in classroom management were deficient, she failed to make effective use of the students' time, and she failed to effectively motivate her students to participate in the classroom activities. Throughout all this period, according to both supervisors and others who observed her, Respondent always maintained a pleasant, calm, positive, and cooperative approach to all with whom she came into contact. At no time did she show hostility or resentment. Also, there was never a question as to her knowledge of the subject matter. Respondent possesses a bachelor's degree in English and a master's degree in administration and supervision. She has sufficient credit hours to qualify for a major in Spanish. She has also taken several in-service courses in such subjects as linguistics, methods of curriculum and instruction, British literature, and school administration. She is certified to teach English, Spanish, and typing. She has been a teacher in several Florida school systems for 29 years, of which the last 21 years were in various Jacksonville area schools. She is tenured. She was selected for summer school employment in 1980, while at Forrest High School, even though tenure does not ensure selection to teach summer school. During the 1980-81 school year, Respondent was caring for the aunt who raised her and who was suffering from terminal cancer. This required frequent travel back and forth to another part of the state, and in addition to being a physical burden, constituted a severe strain on her mental state. During that year, she started out teaching only twelfth grade classes, but as a result of a reduction in class sizes during the school year, she was given some additional tenth grade classes for which she had not prepared. Respondent feels her classroom discipline was not so unusual as to be remarkable. She feels she maintained classroom discipline as well as required and contested the allegations that she rarely referred students to the administration for additional discipline. She made all reasonable effort to improve her performance by enrolling in some of the courses recommended by Drs. Weathers and Ragans, but had to wait until the second semester because she did not get the information on the first semester courses until after they had started. The classes she took urged the use of listening and negotiating skills rather than the authoritative method in dealing with students. She tried to implement what she learned in her classrooms and feels she succeeded regardless of what the testimony shows. In addition, she took a course dealing with self- concept and self-confidence and applied for admission to Jacksonville University's master of arts program in an effort to upgrade her skills. Respondent admits that at the beginning of the 1981-82 school year, she was not using formal lesson plans. She had been asked by the administration for plans on a weekly basis and had jotted down ideas on paper. To formulate these ideas, she used prior years lesson plans, but did not turn any of these in. This does not track with Ms. Silas's testimony that the Respondent's plans she reviewed appeared to be from prior years. I find that prior years' plans were used by Respondent extensively and how these plans were transmitted to Ms. Silas for review is immaterial. Respondent, based on the above, while possessing the necessary technical qualifications to perform as a teacher, while possessing the appropriate knowledge of her subject matter, and while possessing the desire to impart that knowledge to her students, is nonetheless incompetent to conduct a class, maintain proper discipline, and generate adequate student motivation to accomplish these desired ends.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be removed from classroom teaching duties and be assigned some other function within the school system until such time, unless sooner released for other good cause, as she can retire with maximum benefits. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary E. Eckstine, Esquire Chief Administrative Hearings Section City of Jacksonville 1300 City Hall Jacksonville, Florida 32202 William F. Kachergus, Esquire Maness & Kachergus 502 Florida Theatre Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Herb A. Sang Superintendent Duval County Public Schools 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is Recommended that a Final Order be entered terminating respondent's employment with the Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of December, 1988.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, Sharon Lambeth, should be reprimanded and reassigned from her position as Countryside High School principal to a position as a supervisor with the school system's Title I office, at the same rate of pay.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Sharon Lambeth, has been involved in the field of education for over 20 years. She moved to Volusia County in 1985 to begin her career in Florida. She began as assistant director of personnel but went through target selection and became an elementary school assistant principal, an elementary school principal, and then the principal of Volusia County's largest high school. She married and moved to Pinellas County in 1993 and was hired as an assistant principal at Gibbs High School for the 1993-94 school year. She was promoted to principal of Countryside High School for the 1994-95 school year. During her tenure in Pinellas County, Lambeth was a very effective principal and generally very well-liked (although, like almost all principals, she had her detractors as well as her supporters.) Lambeth's performance evaluations during her tenure in Pinellas County through May 8, 1998, have been excellent. Lambeth's employment as principal of Countryside High School has been under successive annual contracts with the Pinellas County Schools. The contract for the 1997/98 school year provided, in pertinent part: . . . The Board may, upon recommendation of the Superintendent, transfer and assign the Employee to a similar position in any other location of the district, provided that the duties shall be similar to the duties originally assigned, and the salary shall be heretofore set forth. * * * 5. The Board may suspend or remove the Employee for just cause. The Employee shall not be entitled to receive any salary from and after the date of such suspension or removal unless such suspension is revoked and in no event shall the Employee be entitled to any compensation subsequent to the cancellation of this contract. * * * 11. Failure of either party to fulfill the obligations under this contract, and to carry out the lawful provisions, hereof, or as otherwise provided by law, shall constitute sufficient grounds for the termination of this contract by the other party, provided, however, no termination shall be effective without reasonable notice. On April 28, 1998, Lambeth again was appointed to a position for the 1998/99 school year, "subject to assignment and transfer." Lambeth accepted the appointment on May 8, 1998. There exist Pinellas Administrators Association Personnel Practices and Grievance Procedures. These documents were developed jointly by the Superintendent of Schools and the Executive Board of the Pinellas Administrators Association; they were approved by the School Board on July 14, 1976. The Personnel Practices provide in pertinent part: COMPLAINTS A. Complaints, oral or written, involving administrators or supervisors shall be investigated through line offices. A copy of such a complaint shall be immediately forwarded to the employee concerned so that he may respond. The employee shall be entitled to know the name of the person or group making the complaint. * * * TERMINATION Termination for Cause. Administrative and supervisory personnel may be terminated for cause on the same grounds as delineated in F.S. 231.36(6) at the discretion of the School Board. Termination shall include discharge, suspension without pay, demotion in salary or status, or any other action involving fault on the part of such administrator or supervisor. * * * C. Any administrator or supervisor terminated for cause subjected to a personnel action as defined above shall have the right to register his complaint through the Pinellas administrators' grievance procedures. However, the significance of these documents is not clear; nor is it clear that they are still are applicable at this time. They apparently are not duly promulgated School Board policy, and the School Board does not refer to them in the conduct of its employment relationships. They also are not part of Lambeth's employment contract. Even if generally applicable, it also was not clear whether they would apply to administrators who are not members of the Pinellas Administrators Association, and there was no evidence that Lambeth is a member. In August 1997, someone approached Countryside assistant principal, Kathleen Novak, to explain the circumstances of a 1997 graduate. The student was a few points short of the minimum grade required in certain core high school courses by either his college's admission requirements, the National Collegiate Athletic Association's (NCAA's) athletic scholarship requirements, or both. Novak went to her principal, Lambeth, to discuss the matter. Another assistant principal, Paula Flott, also participated in the discussion. The outcome of the discussion was that Lambeth asked Novak and Flott to try to contact "their" teachers (i.e., the teachers "assigned" to them for purposes of supervision and division of duties) to find out if there were any grades that could be raised enough through re-testing to meet the minimum requirements the student needed to meet. Before contacting the teachers, Novak first had occasion to confer with yet another assistant principal, Henry Moore. Moore helped Novak review the student's report cards and identified two grades he thought could be raised enough to give the student the minimum grade required. One was a "mid-point" grade in a history class the student took during his junior year (1995-96). Under School Board Policy 6Gx52-8.24(2)(g): "At the mid-point of each grade level, i.e., 3.5, 2.5, 1.5, .5, it will be the option of the teacher, subject to review by the principal, as to whether the higher or lower grade will be given." Moore also identified a psychology grade from the student's senior year (1996-97) which was borderline. It is not clear from the evidence whether Moore thought it was necessary to contact the history teacher, David Ferguson, about the mid-point grade. Moore understood Countyside's unwritten policy to be that, if a student improved his or her grade during the grading period, a mid-point grade would be increased to the next higher whole number or letter grade unless the teacher went to the principal to justify deviating from the policy. There was some evidence to suggest that Moore thought Lambeth, as principal, could raise the mid-point grade without re-testing; but the evidence was not clear that Moore communicated this to Novak or Lambeth at the time. In any event, Moore testified to his assumption that Novak would next contact the teachers concerning re-evaluation of the two grades. The next day, Novak reported to Lambeth the results of her conversation with Moore. Lambeth decided that the student should re-take the final examinations in both classes. She testified that she instructed Novak to contact the teachers about the re-evaluations and re-testing. Novak denied receiving explicit instructions to contact the teachers at this point. It is found that Novak would not have disregarded a direct instruction to contact the teachers. It is more probable that Lambeth simply instructed Novak to proceed to take care of it and assumed that Novak would contact the teachers. Novak also saw Flott that day. Flott told Novak that Flott had not contacted any of "her" teachers yet. Novak told Flott not to worry about it, that Novak had "taken care of it." Flott assumed Novak meant Novak had contacted the teachers. Actually, Novak meant that, since the two grades Novak and Moore already had been identified were enough, there was no need for Flott to contact any of "her" teachers. At this time during the summer, the teachers were on vacation, and Novak researched files of past exams maintained by the school administration to document grades and reproduced the final exams for the grades she and Moore had identified. Novak then made arrangements for the student to retake the exams and notified Lambeth that the student had improved his grades enough to meet the student's college requirements. When Novak reported to Lambeth, the deadline for the student's college requirements was imminent. Lambeth assumed but did not ask whether Novak had contacted the teachers whose grades were involved. Lambeth did not ask to see any documentation of the teachers' assent to a grade change or any documentation of the retesting. Lambeth just told Novak to change the grades in the official records and notify the college and/or the NCAA. Novak responded that she did not know how to do this. Lambeth told her to get assistance from clerical personnel who knew how to change grades; Lambeth herself took care of notifying the college and/or the NCAA. To notify the college and/or the NCAA, Lambeth modified a form used by Countryside's athletic department to document that a student-athlete's grade had been properly re-evaluated so as to regain eligibility to participate in interscholastic athletics. The form utilized had a place for the signature of the teacher whose grade was being re-evaluated. In modifying the form for purposes of notifying the college and/or the NCAA, Lambeth deleted the provision for the teacher's signature. Lambeth signed the form as principal on August 15, 1997, and sent the notification to the college and/or the NCAA. Lambeth denied that she deleted the teacher signature provision in the form because she knew the teachers were unaware of the grade re-evaluations. Although the teachers were at school on August 15, 1997, preparing for the start of the 1997-98 school year, Lambeth said she dispensed with the teacher signature provision in order to expedite the notification. A few days after the start of the 1997-98 school year, the girl friend of the student whose grades were changed told Ferguson that the student had retaken Ferguson's final exam. Ferguson was busy and told the girl that they would discuss it later, which they did about a month later. For another month or more, Ferguson did nothing about it. Towards the end of October or early November 1997, Ferguson approached Lambeth to let her know what had happened and that students were talking about it. To his surprise, Lambeth told him she knew all about it, having been directly involved herself in the grade re-evaluation. Lambeth did not act as if she saw anything wrong with what was done; she even seemed proud of her participation. Ferguson, who did not think it was right for one of his assigned grades to be re-evaluated without his knowledge, was taken off-guard by Lambeth's response and decided not to say anything else about it at the time. In about December 1997, Ferguson found the time to spend several hours looking into the circumstances of the grade re-evaluations. He discovered that the grades were changed in the student's official transcript, but that the changes were not otherwise documented. The lack of documentation also seemed wrong to Ferguson. During the spring semester of the 1997-98 school year, Ferguson approached Jim Watters, the psychology teacher whose assigned grade was changed. By this time, Watters was at a different school, and Ferguson thought it would be logical for Watters to be the one to complain about the grade changes since Ferguson not only still was at Countryside but also had to deal with Lambeth in his capacity as Pinellas Classroom Teachers Association (PCTA) union representative. Watters told Ferguson that he did not want to complain because he was near retirement and did not want controversy at that point in his career. Subsequently, Ferguson sought the advice of the PCTA as to whether he would be opening himself to discipline if he did not report the incident to the school district administration. It was concluded that the incident should be reported. On April 23, 1998, Rik McNeill of the PCTA contacted Dr. Martha O'Howell, an administrator in the school district's Office of Professional Standards, to report the grade change incident; the next day, Jade Moore of the PCTA sent O'Howell a letter reporting the incident. On or about April 30, 1998, O'Howell's office began an investigation of the reported incident. On May 11, 1998, O'Howell interviewed Lambeth, Novak, and others at Countryside and took written statements from them. When O'Howell told Lambeth that teachers had complained, Lambeth wondered aloud why, since they had participated. Novak's statement, on the other hand, was that the teachers were not notified or involved because they were not at school at the time. On May 14, 1998, O'Howell re-interviewed Lambeth and Novak. In her re-interview of Lambeth, the principal maintained her understanding that Novak had discussed re-testing with the teachers whose grades were involved. During her re-interview of Novak, O'Howell asked Novak for the second time to produce the re-tests she administered, but Novak reiterated that she could not find the re-tests or any documentation that re-testing had in fact taken place. She got the impression that O'Howell questioned the truth of her assertion that re-tests actually had been administered and became defensive. Novak got the impression that it was very important for her to be able to produce the re- tests. On May 21, 1998, Novak submitted a supplement to her earlier written statement. In the supplement, Novak expressed confusion about Ferguson's complaint in light of her recollection that Ferguson had told her "emphatically last year that it wasn't his responsibility to give early exams or make up exams if they might extend beyond contract hours" and said: "That's administration's problem, not mine." Afraid of what might happen to her if she could not produce the re-tests (that it could end her career and jeopardize her retirement benefits), Novak panicked. She tried to again re- produce the examination questions, and she forged answers. She presented the forgeries to O'Howell on June 2, 1998. O'Howell quickly saw through Novak's inept forgeries for what they were, and Novak was in even more trouble than she thought she was in before the forgeries. On or about June 9, 1998, Lambeth asked for a meeting with the investigator and Area Supervisor Bill Williamson. Their assessment of the situation was that it was "serious"; they suggested that Lambeth consider what parents would think. But Lambeth also knew about Novak's forgeries and assumed that Novak had become the focus of the investigation, not her. Indeed, at a meeting on June 18, 1998, O'Howell informed Novak that her job was in jeopardy; O'Howell said she was prepared to recommend that the Superintendent terminate her employment. At that point, Novak retained an attorney, who asked to meet with the School Superintendent, J. Howard Hinesley, and the School Board's attorney, Wesley Bridges. The meeting took place on June 24, 1998. At the meeting on June 24, 1998, Novak and her attorney tried to explain to Hinesley and Bridges why Novak forged the re- tests. They also told Hinesley and Bridges that Novak thought Lambeth was trying to blame Novak for the incident but that Lambeth never told Novak to contact the teachers whose grades were involved. Hinesley took this and other information given by Novak at the meeting into consideration in evaluating the situation. Based on the discussion at this meeting, Hinesley decided to reprimand and demote Novak to an instructional position with no reduction in pay, instead of terminating her employment. On or about June 29, 1998, Area Supervisor Williamson told Lambeth that it was time to have a meeting to resolve the matter. Williamson again emphasized that it was "serious," this time communicating to Lambeth that she was also in jeopardy. The meeting was set for July 2, 1998. At this point, Lambeth hired an attorney. The meeting was attended by Lambeth, Hinesley, their attorneys, Williamson, and O'Howell. Lambeth was informed that she was being removed as principal at Countryside for her role in the grade change incident and would be transferred to another position. She was told that a letter to that effect had been mailed to her. She was required to hand over her office keys and was told to make arrangement to clean-out her office at 5 p.m. She was told that she would not be allowed to return to campus without campus police being present. Campus police escorted her to her car. On or about July 8, 1998, Lambeth received Hinesley's letter dated July 2, 1998. Besides reciting facts found through the investigation, the letter accused Lambeth of failing "to ensure that the teachers of the two courses involved had knowledge of or approved the final examination re-takes and the subsequent grade changes" and "to ensure that the re-takes were properly administered and graded and that the results were documented." The letter reprimanded Lambeth for "violation of School Board Policy 6Gx52-8.23, as well as the Code of Ethics and Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida." (School Board Policy 6Gx52-8.23 sets the district's High School Credit and Student Performance Standards; section (6) of the rule provides that a student's mastery of performance standards "shall be determined by the teacher with the principal's approval.") The letter also stated that Lambeth's conduct "reflects a lack of sound professional judgment and seriously diminishes your effectiveness as a school leader." As a result, the letter stated, Lambeth was being removed her from her position as Countryside High School principal, was being placed on administrative leave, and would be reassigned to another position. By letter dated July 8, 1998, Hinesley notified Lambeth that she was being reassigned as a supervisor with the school system's Title I office. Lambeth's contract was not changed, and her pay was not reduced. Her new position is classified as Level 4 in the School Board's personnel system, while high school principal is a Level 8 position. There are some similarities between the two positions, but there also are differences. Both positions require a master's degree, certification in administration and supervision, and five years of related professional experience; a program supervisor for Title I also requires an additional minimum of three years of teaching experience. Both positions involve working with teachers; but while a principal supervises 95 teachers (plus non-teacher personnel and 1500 to 2000 students) at a school site, a Title I program supervisor works with but does not supervise principals, assistant principals, and teachers at 18 different elementary schools. Both jobs involve budget planning, but the nature of the budgets are different; a Title I program supervisor reviews budgets for federal funds. There is no provision for re-evaluating a student's grades after graduation. There is a policy to allow a student who has passed all 24 courses required to graduate, but did not earn the minimum grade point average (GPA) required to receive a diploma, to "walk" at graduation , receive a "certificate of completion," and return to school in the summer and/or an additional year of high school to re-take classes to hopefully raise his or her GPA enough to receive a high school diploma. But there is no evidence that the student involved in this case did not receive a diploma when he graduated at the end of the 1996-97 school year. He was no longer a student and should not have been able to change his grades at that point. In circumstances when it would be permissible to re- evaluate a student's grades, it should only be done in consultation with the teacher who assigned the grade. Subject to the requirement that grading policies are followed, student grading is the province of the teacher's exercise of professional judgment, subject only to the principal's approval. The integrity of the grading system depends the teacher's exercise of professional judgment. Likewise, the "education contract" among the administration, teachers, students, and parents presumes and requires integrity in the grading process. School Board Policy 6Gx52-8.28(4)(g) is clear that, in the case of "mid-point" grades, it is the "option of the teacher, subject to review by the principal, as to whether the higher or lower grade will be given." Clearly, this policy gives the principal the ability to review the teacher's grade and argue forcefully that a different grade should be assigned. Some teachers would succumb to the principal's choice, either because of the force of the principal's arguments or because of fear of the possible consequences of disagreeing with their principal. The policy may even enable a principal to overrule the teacher. But it is a violation of policy for a principal to change a grade without following the mid-point grade policy. Because of the importance of integrity in the grading system, it is incumbent on the principal to take reasonable steps to ensure that teachers are involved in any grade re-evaluation. Clearly, a principal must delegate responsibilities to assistant principals when necessary and appropriate, and a principal should be entitled to rely on an assistant principal to follow the principal's instructions (whether expressed ad hoc or in policy). For that reason, Lambeth normally would have been entitled to expect an assistant principal to involve the teacher in any grade re-evaluation. But re-evaluation of a student who had graduated was not normal, and Lambeth should have made it clear to Novak that Novak was not to proceed with re-testing and grade re- evaluation without the teachers' participation. It is not clear from the evidence that Lambeth made reasonable efforts make this clear to Novak. By the same token, because the situation was not normal, Lambeth should have made some effort to ensure that Novak properly documented the re-take of the examinations and the grade change instead of relying entirely on Novak. There is no question but that Lambeth's effectiveness as a school leader diminished as a result of this grade change incident. As Lambeth pointed out at final hearing, most principals have their supporters and detractors, and predictably there were some teachers and parents who testified that the grade change incident did not reduce Lambeth's effectiveness as far as they were concerned. But most of these witnesses did not know all of the facts and circumstances of the case and spoke from their limited perspectives. Meanwhile, there were many witnesses who testified that Lambeth's effectiveness was seriously diminished in their view, and they were not all detractors of Lambeth; they included Hinesley, other Pinellas County school administrators, retired Pinellas County School Superintendent Scott Rose, administrators from other school districts, teachers at other schools, and parents. Some of these also did not know all of the facts and circumstances of the case and spoke from their limited perspectives; but some knew all or most of the facts and circumstances and spoke from broader perspectives. Some witnesses expressed the idea that the reduction in effectiveness would not be insurmountable or permanent if Lambeth would admit her error, ask for forgiveness, and promise not to do it again. Unfortunately, Lambeth did not admit error until her testimony at the end of her case-in-chief. While she complained that she was not given the opportunity to do so before the meeting on July 2, 1998, she missed innumerable opportunities since; indeed, much of her case seemed aimed at proving that she had done nothing wrong. The authenticity of her eleventh-hour repentance is suspect. At the same time, while Lambeth's effectiveness certainly was diminished by the incident (and her refusal to admit her error, ask for forgiveness, and promise not to do it again), it is not clear just how seriously her effectiveness has been diminished. There were mitigating factors. First, Lambeth has an excellent record as an effective administrator. Second, while her efforts were misguided, her motive was to help a student gain educational benefits. The student was African- American and, while the Petitioner criticized Lambeth for testifying in deposition that the student's minority status was a factor in her efforts to help, the School Board in fact has a policy of emphasizing the delivery of educational benefits to minority students. Also, after what she has been through, it seems unlikely that Lambeth would be foolish enough to repeat this or any similar grade change blunder in the future. A reprimand and reassignment to Title I program supervisor certainly is a setback for Lambeth's career as a school principal. But, contrary to Lambeth's concern and contention in this case, it is found that such an action does not necessarily mean the end of Lambeth's career as a school principal in this or any other school district. Certainly, if Lambeth's offense is as minor as she contends it was, she may well be able to convince a school superintendent other than Hinesley to assign her as a school principal. It certainly seemed that retired School Superintendent Rose would have been open to the idea; there is no reason to be certain that others may not also consider Lambeth for a principal position. If Hinesley's position as Pinellas School Superintendent is as tenuous as Lambeth's evidence attempted to suggest (i.e., that he may be just one School Board vote from being the former Pinellas School Superintendent), the chances are that it may not be long before Lambeth could apply to a subsequent Pinellas School Superintendent for such a position. It even seems possible (although perhaps not likely) that Hinesley himself might reconsider and reassign Lambeth as a principal at some point in the future. Lambeth also contended that other School Board employees have been treated more leniently for worse offenses. But the evidence did not prove selective enforcement against Lambeth. The other situations either were too dissimilar to compare, or Lambeth's treatment was not clearly excessively harsh by comparison. Lambeth first points to the treatment of Novak. While it is true that Novak forged the re-tests, she was Lambeth's subordinate and subject to Lambeth's direction, and her treatment (reassignment to a completely nonsupervisory position) was somewhat harsher than Lambeth's. Lambeth also points to Ferguson, who Lambeth contends went unpunished after alleged violation of School Board Policy 6Gx52-6.22 by posting a copy of a portion of the School Board's investigative report on Lambeth and Novak on the bulletin board in the teacher's lounge. But Policy 6Gx52-6.22 provides: Employees shall not use the classroom, nor any other part of school facilities, as a platform for making disparaging remarks against students, parents, teachers and/or administrators. Conduct contrary to this policy may constitute grounds for disciplinary action. In addition, it is not clear that posting information about an investigation that was of genuine concern to the teachers is the same thing as using the bulletin board "as a platform for making disparaging remarks." Nonetheless, Lambeth's replacement as Countryside's principal considered the posting to be bad for morale and asked Ferguson to remove it. Initially, Ferguson refused to remove it; eventually, he removed it at the request of and as a favor to Jade Moore of the PCTA. (The evidence was that Hinesley was not aware of the posting.) Lambeth's other evidence on this point consisted of letters of reprimand to a principal and an assistant principal for not following proper procedures and immediately notifying the proper authorities of allegations of sexual abuse. It is not clear that these offenses are so similar to Lambeth's as to have required the School Board in fairness to also remove and reassign them.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order dismissing the Amended Petition for a Name Clearing, Due Process and Florida Statute 120.57 Hearing and approving the reassignment of the Respondent, Sharon Lambeth, to Title I program supervisor under the same contract and at the same pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 2nd day of April, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Oscar Blasingame, Esquire Orange Park Center 696 First Avenue, North, Suite 400 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Louis Kwall, Esquire Kwall, Showers & Coleman, P.A. 133 North Ft. Harrison Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33755 Dr. J. Howard Hinesley, Superintendent Pinellas County School Board 301 4th Street, Southwest Largo, Florida 33770-2942
Findings Of Fact The facts clearly show that the Charging Party was certified by PERC as bargaining agent for instructional personnel of the Hillsborough County School Board System on April 18, 1975, and that the public employer was the Hillsborough County School Board. Since 1969 there had bean negotiations between the HCTA and the HCSB. These negotiations had resulted in mutual agreements which had been approved as the policy of the Board for the year 1969 until 1973. Among the items negotiated during these years were a series of pay schedules. These schedules were based on training as reflected by pay differentials dependent on the individual teacher's degree, and experience, as reflected in pay differentials based on the individual teacher's years of service. After the agreement reached for 1970-71, later agreements stated that the salary schedules were based on training and experience. Compare Negotiations Agreement, 1970-71, p. 61, Salaries (Exhibit 1) with Instructional Personnel Policies, 1971, Item B-17 (Exhibit 2) and Agreement, 1973-74 and 1974-75, p. 12, Item B-8.3 (Exhibit 4). Under the terms of the 1973-75 Agreement, it was to remain in effect until June 30, 1975 and thereafter from year to year unless at least 120 days prior to June 30, 1975, either party serves written notice upon the other of its desire to terminate or makes changes to the Agreement. HCTA gave notice to the Board by a letter from Sam Rosales, President, to Dr. Raymond O. Shelton, Superintendent of Schools, Hillsborough County, (Exhibit 6) of its desire to make changes in the Agreement. On or about May 27, 1975, the Board and HCTA commenced negotiations on a new collective bargaining agreement which negotiation continued until August 19, 1975. During the month of June, 1975 it became necessary for the Board to take action to issue contracts of employment to all instructional personnel to be employed in the upcoming school year. See F.S. 230.23(5)(c)(d) and (e). The provisions mandate among other things that each contract shall state in writing definite salary amounts and definite tires of service. Section 236.02(3) provides that all instructional personnel shall be provided written contracts at least one (1) month before school begins providing for a definite salary as provided by law. The Board therefore had a legal obligation to reissue contracts in late July or August, and had to reach some decision regarding the salary amounts to be stated in the contracts. The Board's minutes for June 24 and July 1, 1975 were introduced and reflect that the Board was concerned about its fiscal position in the upcoming school year and whether it could reemploy all of the teachers who it had employed in the 1974-75 school year. It was clearly the Board's position that its foremost consideration was to prevent the necessity of any layoffs. Further, the minutes reflect that the best fiscal data available indicated that the Board would not have sufficient revenue available to pay increased salaries and pay the longevity increases. The debate on the Board clearly indicates that it would have been necessary to cut the pay of all teachers 2 percent if the step increases were implemented to stay within its budget. The comments of the Board members and Mr. Sam Rosales, who was present at both meetings, reveal that they felt the salary negotiations would be complete and the new salary schedule worked out and the contracts amended prior to the time most of the teachers would receive their step increases. The Board voted to issue reemployment contracts to all instructional staff at the same salary as the 1974-75 year and not to implement the longevity pay increases as an interim measure pending negotiations of the new salary schedule. The General Counsel and Charging Patty allege that the Board's action unilaterally set salaries for the 1975-76 year which were a subject of collective bargaining which was then in progress and therefore violated Section 447.501 (a) and (c), F.S. Their allegation is based upon the argement that the longevity pay increases were a condition of employment which remained in effect during the period of negotiation. In support of its position the General Counsel and Charging Party cite Triborough, Poughkeepsie, and Massapequa. 1/ These cases indicate that a term or condition of employment stated in a previous contract will remain in effect during the course of negotiations even if the preceding contract terminates. Further that the act of changing such a condition without consultation with the union is per se a unilateral act. The Hearing Officer would agree generally with the application of the principle stated in these cases and their applicability to the present facts. Certainly, the longevity pay increases which had been negotiated had bean paid in the past. Although the Board's affirmative action in approving reemployment contracts had been required in earlier years, this approval as generally given and the statutes would indicate the Board could only withhold approval for good cause. However, the Hearing Officer finds that the Board had a legal obligation to issue the contracts one month before the opening of school, and that the contracts had to state an exact salary amount and term of service. There was, however, no impediment from the Board consulting with the HCTA prior to its action at the negotiating session and attempting to reach some agreement. Had no agreement been reached, then the Board would have bean justified in taking unilateral action. The Board could have issued the contracts reflecting the longevity pay increases and if later it had lacked the funds, reduced the payment asserting inability to pay as another alternative solution. The General Counsel has cited the earlier decision of Pasco CTA vs. School Board of Pasco County, in which PEPC stated with regard to the defense of F.S. Subsections 230.25(5)(c-e) and 236.02(3) and (4): "We are not persuaded by Respondent's argument especially in light of the fact that it admittedly made no attempt whatsoever to notify the Charging Patty of its planned action or, indeed, inform the Charging Party that salary matters would be on the School Board's agenda. Thus, even assuming a legitimate necessity for its action, although the facts herein persuade us otherwise, the Respondent's ex parte action is sufficient to violate its duty to bargain." (emphasis supplied) The facts here reflect that Rosales was present on June 24, 1975 at the Board's meeting when the matter was first raised and spoke persuasively to convince the Board to postpone action until July 1, 1975. Rosales was again present on July 1, 1975 and again addressed the Board. Certainly HCTA was aware of the pending action by the School Board, unlike the Pasco County Case, although the Board acted without consulting HCTA at the negotiating table. The Pasco County case, while deciding against the Board on the facts, does apparently reflect PERC's recognition of the Wappinger doctrine as indicated by the emphasized portion of the quote above. In the Matter of Central School District No. 1 (Wappinger), 5 PERB 3124 (Dec. 15, 1972), the PERB recognized that there are some terms and conditions of employment which must be finalized by the beginning of the school year which must be allowed while negotiations continue. However, the Wappinger doctrine clearly does not apply in this instance because sufficient time was available to consult with HCTA on the matter. In summary the Hearing Officer finds as a matter of fact that: HCTA was a certified bargaining agent and the Board was a public employer. HCTA and the Board were negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement in June and July, 1975. The School Board had to let the contracts in July and state therein the specific amounts available pending resolution of its fiscal picture and negotiation of the contract. The school Board did notify the HCTA through Sam Rosales, who was aware of the pending proposal at least one week prior to its adoption. The terms of the 1973-75 agreement remained in effect during negotiations, and subsequent to June 30, 1975. The Board failed to raise the issue at the bargaining table in any attempt to reach a compromise and to present evidence of its fiscal inability to meet the 1973-75 contract terms. The action of the Board did not maintain the status quo, but resulted in a salary reduction under terms of the 1973-75 agreement. As to the, law, the Hearing Officer finds that: The Board, by falling to raise the matter at negotiations and by failing to present any evidence at negotiations of its inability to meet the 1973-75 contract terms, acted unilaterally to set salary terms during negotiations. Although the Hearing Officer is of the opinion that the Board acted without malice, the Board's action in unilaterally setting teachers' salaries is per se a violation of Section 447.501(1)(a) and (c), F.S. The damages are the difference between what the employees did receive between July 1, 1975 and the effective date of the new contract and what they would have received if the longevity pay increases had been paid. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of April, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact The Public Employer filed a petition for determination of managerial and confidential employees with PERC on February 21, 1975. The job positions for which managerial or confidential status is requested, and the persons who occupy the positions are set out in the petition. The petition was presented to the Public Employee Relations Commission on May 8, 1975. The hearing in this case was scheduled by notice dated August 1, 1975. The Public Employer recognized the MCEA as the exclusive bargaining agent of instructional personnel employed by the Public Employer prior to the instant petition being filed. A contract between the Public Employer and MCEA was signed on August 26, 1975, and was received in evidence at the hearing as Public Employer's Exhibit 5. The Public Employer's evidence respecting the responsibilities, duties, and day-to-day activities of the persons who occupy the positions for which managerial or confidential status is being sought was received primarily in the form of job descriptions, and a chart showing the functions of each position which justify managerial or confidential status as perceived by the Public Employer. The job descriptions were received in evidence as Public Employer's Exhibit 2. The chart was received in evidence as Public Employer's Exhibit 3. The job descriptions accurately describe the duties, responsibilities, and day- to-day activities of each position. If the persons who occupy the positions are not performing their duties in accordance with the descriptions, then they are performing their duties improperly. It is likely that if the jobs were being performed contrary to the descriptions, this fact would be known to the Superintendent. The positions for which managerial or confidential status is being sought are described in Public Employer's Exhibit 2 beginning at the following indicated page: the Assistant Superintendent for Service at page 27, the Assistant Superintendent for Instruction at page 5, the Assistant Superintendent for Business Affairs at page 32, the Director of Personnel at page 24, the Director of Instructional Support and People Personnel Services at page 20, the Director of Adult Education at page 17, the Director of Exceptional Child and Special Services at page 13, the Director of Federal Programs at page 22, the Director of Career Education at page 16, the Director of Secondary Education at page 7, the Director of Elementary Education at page 9, the Director of Vocational Education at page 15, the Director of Community Manpower Programs at page 18, the Director of Planning and Research at page 14, the Maintenance Supervisor at page 28, the Transportation Supervisor at page 29, the Supervisor of Custodial Services at page 30, the Food Service Supervisor at page 34, the High School Principal at page 8a, the Middle School Principals at page 8f, the Elementary School Principals at page 11, the Assistant High School Principals at page 8c, the Assistant Middle School Principals at page 8h, the High School Department Heads at page 8d, the Curriculum Coordinators at page 8i and 12a, the Helping Teacher at page 12c. The references in the chart which was received as Public Employer's Exhibit 3 are to paragraphs in the job descriptions set out in Public Employer's Exhibit 2. The Public Employer is seeking to implement what was described at the hearing as a "team management system" in order to accomplish management a baser level. Under this system Principals, Assistant Principals, and department Heads would take on increased management functions. Principals are expected to initiate action respecting policy changes which they consider appropriate. The School Board, the Public Employer's legislative body, is ultimately responsible for adopting policy. The School Board typically adopts policies based upon the recommendations of the elected Superintendent, the Public Employer's chief executive officer. The Principal's recommendations respecting policy, especially policy which would be applicable primarily in the Principal's school are given great weight. One recent policy making decision in which a principal played a part involved parking at Martin County High school. The school Principal advised the superintendent of a need for a change in rules and regulations respecting parking. The principal went before the Board to describe the problem, and the Board directed the Principal and the Assistant Superintendent for Service to write a new policy for the Board's consideration. This policy was formulated primarily by the school Principal and was presented to the superintendent. The superintendent presented the policy to the School Board and recommended its adoption. The School Board adopted the policy without amendment. There are ten Principals employed by the Public Employer. There are one High School Principal, three Middle School Principals, and six Elementary School Principals. The High School Principal, one Middle School Principal and one Elementary School Principal were appointed by the Public Employer to the team which negotiated a contract with the MCEA. Under the agreement that has been signed by the Public Employer and by the MCEA, the Principal is charged with administering the agreement within his or her school. The Principal takes on a primary responsibility in the grievance procedure established in the agreement. The Principal is primarily responsible for making determinations respecting hiring and firing of personnel employed at his or her school. The Principal does not have the absolute authority to hire or fire personnel. The Principal makes recommendations to the superintendent, who in turn makes recommendations to the School Board. The School Board has the ultimate authority. In Martin County the Principals' recommendations respecting hiring and firing are followed, possibly without exception. The Principal is responsible for evaluating the personnel employed at his or her school. The evaluation is done on a form that has been adopted by the School Board. The evaluation goes into the employee's personnel file, and becomes a part of the employee's permanent employment record. The Public Employer's system for formulating and administering its budget is somewhat decentralized. Money is budgeted to a school based on the number of students. The school budget, which does not include expenditures for salaries or capital improvements, is prepared by the Principal. The Principal's budget is for all school supplies including textbooks. The central administration reviews the Principal's budget and would have authority to change items that were out of line. The budget ultimately adopted by the School Board actually reflects ten separate school budgets. The Principal has no control over the amount of money that will be budgeted to his or her school, but the Principal does have considerable latitude in setting the budget priorities for his or her school. Once the budget is adopted, the Principal has the authority to make expenditures based upon the budget. The Principal signs all purchase requisitions emanating from his or her school. The duties of Assistant Principals vary among the schools in Martin County, depending in part upon the responsibilities which are delegated by the Principal to the Assistant Principal. Virtually any of the Principal's responsibilities can be delegated by the Principal to the Assistant Principal, although ultimate responsibility would remain with the Principal. Generally Assistant Principals are charged with establishing schedules, and assigning teachers. The witness Clara Bevis Fulton is presently Principal at Martin County High School. She was previously Assistant Principal. As Assistant Principal she would hold initial interviews with job applicants. If the applicant appeared satisfactory she would call in the Department Head in the area in which the applicant works and would check the applicant's references. She would evaluate the teachers based on information given to her by Department Heads, and based upon her own classroom visits. She made recommendations to the Principal respecting hiring and firing. The Principal's budget responsibilities were handled by Mrs. Fulton while she was Assistant Principal at Martin County High School. There are six Department Heads employed by the Public Employer. All of the Department heads work at Martin County High School. The Department Heads typically spend approximately 4/5 of their time as classroom teachers, and the remaining time fulfilling administrative duties. The Director of Guidance, who is classified as a Department Head, spends more than half of his time on administrative duties. Department Heads are paid on a management pay scale rather than on a teacher's pay scale. The opinions of the Department Heads respecting new employees and old employees are solicited by the Principal or Assistant Principals. The Department Heads give considerable input into teacher evaluations. Department Heads serve as the first step in the grievance procedure adopted in the collective bargaining contract that has been signed by the Public Employer and by the MCEA. The School Superintendent refers to Department Heads as the front line of management. The Principal or Assistant Principals seek information from the Department Heads respecting the budgetary needs of their department. This information would primarily amount to an explanation of the coming year's needs in relation to the past year. This budget information relates to supplies and textbooks, not to salaries. The primary function of Curriculum Coordinators is to plan and administer a school's curriculum. The Curriculum Coordinator plays a role in evaluating teachers by forwarding information to the Principal or Assistant Principals. Information is sought from the curriculum Coordinators respecting budgetary needs, especially from the perspective of the priority of conflicting needs. The Curriculum Coordinator has no classroom duties. ENTERED this 16 day of January, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida COPIES FURNISHED: All parties of record
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioners are entitled to the Best and Brightest Scholarship as established and defined by section 1012.731(3)(c), Florida Statutes (2017).
Findings Of Fact In 2015, the Legislature enacted, by way of a line item in the annual appropriations bill, the Best and Brightest Program to award cash scholarships to Florida teachers who have been evaluated as “highly effective” by their school districts and who scored at or above the 80th percentile (top 20%) on the SAT or ACT when they took the test. Ch. 2015-232, § 2, line item 99A, Laws of Fla.1/ In 2016, the Legislature enacted a stand-alone statute for the Best and Brightest Program, codifying the appropriations bill language and providing that the program is to be administered by the Department of Education (the “Department”). Ch. 2016-62, § 25, Laws of Fla., codified at § 1012.731, Fla. Stat. (2016). Rather than enacting a statutory scholarship amount, subsection (5) of the 2016 version of section 1012.731 provided that the scholarships would be awarded to every eligible classroom teacher “in the amount provided in the General Appropriations Act.”2/ The 2016 statute also explained that the Best and Brightest Program was intended to provide “categorical funding for scholarships to be awarded to classroom teachers, as defined in s. 1012.01(2)(a), who have demonstrated a high level of academic achievement.” § 1012.731(2), Fla. Stat. (2016). Section 1012.01(2) defines “instructional personnel,” including “classroom teachers,” as follows: INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL.— “Instructional personnel” means any K-12 staff member whose function includes the provision of direct instructional services to students. Instructional personnel also includes K-12 personnel whose functions provide direct support in the learning process of students. Included in the classification of instructional personnel are the following K-12 personnel: Classroom teachers.--Classroom teachers are staff members assigned the professional activity of instructing students in courses in classroom situations, including basic instruction, exceptional student education, career education, and adult education, including substitute teachers. Student personnel services.--Student personnel services include staff members responsible for: advising students with regard to their abilities and aptitudes, educational and occupational opportunities, and personal and social adjustments; providing placement services; performing educational evaluations; and similar functions. Included in this classification are certified school counselors, social workers, career specialists, and school psychologists. Librarians/media specialists.-- Librarians/media specialists are staff members responsible for providing school library media services. These employees are responsible for evaluating, selecting, organizing, and managing media and technology resources, equipment, and related systems; facilitating access to information resources beyond the school; working with teachers to make resources available in the instructional programs; assisting teachers and students in media productions; and instructing students in the location and use of information resources. Other instructional staff.--Other instructional staff are staff members who are part of the instructional staff but are not classified in one of the categories specified in paragraphs (a)-(c). Included in this classification are primary specialists, learning resource specialists, instructional trainers, adjunct educators certified pursuant to s. 1012.57, and similar positions. Education paraprofessionals.--Education paraprofessionals are individuals who are under the direct supervision of an instructional staff member, aiding the instructional process. Included in this classification are classroom paraprofessionals in regular instruction, exceptional education paraprofessionals, career education paraprofessionals, adult education paraprofessionals, library paraprofessionals, physical education and playground paraprofessionals, and other school-level paraprofessionals. In 2017, the Legislature amended section 1012.731(3) to establish that the scholarship award would be $6,000 for those classroom teachers rated “highly effective” who also had the requisite SAT or ACT scores: (3)(a) To be eligible for a scholarship in the amount of $6,000, a classroom teacher must: 1. Have achieved a composite score at or above the 80th percentile on either the SAT or the ACT based on the National Percentile Ranks in effect when the classroom teacher took the assessment and have been evaluated as highly effective pursuant to s. 1012.34 in the school year immediately preceding the year in which the scholarship will be awarded, unless the classroom teacher is newly hired by the district school board and has not been evaluated pursuant to s.1012.34. * * * In order to demonstrate eligibility for an award, an eligible classroom teacher must submit to the school district, no later than November 1, an official record of his or her qualifying assessment score and, beginning with the 2020-2021 school year, an official transcript demonstrating that he or she graduated cum laude or higher with a baccalaureate degree, if applicable. Once a classroom teacher is deemed eligible by the school district, the teacher shall remain eligible as long as he or she remains employed by the school district as a classroom teacher at the time of the award and receives an annual performance evaluation rating of highly effective pursuant to s. 1012.34 or is evaluated as highly effective based on a commissioner- approved student learning growth formula pursuant to s. 1012.34(8) for the 2019-2020 school year or thereafter. Ch. 2017-116, § 46, Laws of Fla. The 2017 amendment to section 1012.731 also added a new subsection (3)(c), providing that lesser amounts could be awarded to teachers rated “highly effective” or “effective,” even if they could not demonstrate scores at or above the 80th percentile on the SAT or ACT: Notwithstanding the requirements of this subsection, for the 2017-2018, 2018- 2019, and 2019-2020 school years, any classroom teacher who: Was evaluated as highly effective pursuant to s. 1012.34 in the school year immediately preceding the year in which the scholarship will be awarded shall receive a scholarship of $1,200, including a classroom teacher who received an award pursuant to paragraph (a). Was evaluated as effective pursuant to s. 1012.34 in the school year immediately preceding the year in which the scholarship will be awarded a scholarship of up to $800. If the number of eligible classroom teachers under this subparagraph exceeds the total allocation, the department shall prorate the per-teacher scholarship amount. This paragraph expires July 1, 2020. Id. By December 1 of each year, each school district must submit to the Department the number of eligible classroom teachers who qualify for the scholarship, as well as identifying information regarding the schools to which the eligible classroom teachers are assigned. § 1012.731(4)(a)-(c), Fla. Stat. For the 2017-2018 school year, the December 1, 2017, submission deadline was extended to January 2, 2018, due to a hurricane. The School Board’s deadline for teachers to apply for the scholarship was accordingly extended from November 1, 2017, to December 1, 2017. By February 1 of each year, the Department is required to disburse scholarship funds to each school district for each eligible classroom teacher to receive a scholarship. § 1012.731(5), Fla. Stat. By April 1, each school district is required to award the scholarship to each eligible classroom teacher. § 1012.731(6), Fla. Stat. In 2018, the Legislature amended section 1012.731 to provide that a school district employee who is no longer a classroom teacher may receive the $6,000 award if the employee was a classroom teacher in the prior school year, was rated highly effective, and met the requirements of this section as a classroom teacher. § 1012.731(3)(b)2., Fla. Stat. (2018). The Legislature did not add a similar provision stating that former classroom teachers who are still school district employees remain eligible for the $1,200 and $800 awards. § 1012.731(3)(c)2., Fla. Stat. (2018). The Legislature funds the Best and Brightest Program. The School Board had no role in creating the Best and Brightest Program. The School Board is required to determine the eligibility of classroom teachers who qualify for the Best and Brightest Program pursuant to the requirements of the statute. Petitioners in this case claim entitlement only to the $1,200 award established by the 2017 version of the statute. Brenda Troutman, director of Instructional Personnel, is the School Board employee in charge of the Best and Brightest Program application and submission process. Ms. Troutman has worked for the School Board for 17 years. She has been a junior high classroom teacher and an assistant principal and vice principal at the high school level. Though no longer teaching in the classroom, Ms. Troutman retains her certifications in math grades 5-9, exceptional student education (“ESE”), educational leadership, and school principal. When working as a high school administrator, Ms. Troutman was the master scheduler for her school, meaning that she built the schedule for every teacher at the school. This task required that she become very familiar with the School Board’s course code directory. Ms. Troutman also had to understand the certification system in order to hire and assign teachers. If a teacher asked to teach a certain course, Ms. Troutman had to know both the course requirements and the teacher’s certifications to determine whether the teacher was eligible to teach the course. As part of her current position in the School Board’s human resources department, Ms. Troutman is required to know the School Board’s various job titles and descriptions. She is responsible for replacing obsolete job descriptions and posting current job descriptions on the School Board’s website. Ms. Troutman testified as to how she manages the application and submission process of the Best and Brightest Program. She starts by making herself familiar with any changes the Legislature may have made to the program. She then issues a notice to teachers about the program and the current eligibility requirements. For the 2017-2018 Best and Brightest Program, Ms. Troutman prepared a draft email that Superintendent Addison Davis reviewed and sent to all of the school district’s teachers and administrators on September 28, 2017. The email explained that to be eligible for the $6,000, $1,200 or $800 scholarship, an applicant must meet the definition of classroom teacher as set forth in section 1012.01(2)(a). Ms. Troutman developed the School Board’s application for the Best and Brightest Program, based upon her understanding of the statutory requirements. All completed applications for the Best and Brightest Program come into Ms. Troutman’s office. Ms. Troutman testified that she received approximately 2,000 applications for the 2017-2018 award. Ms. Troutman, with the aid of her assistant, reviews and verifies the information on the applications. If Ms. Troutman has any questions about an application, she seeks the opinion of her direct supervisor David Broskie, the director of Human Resources. In some cases, they also have discussions with Superintendent Davis and School Board Attorney David D’Agata. The School Board employs two major data programs. FOCUS is the program/database that holds all student information, including attendance, grades, disciplinary actions, test information, and demographics. TERMS is the program/database that houses all employee information. When verifying information on the Best and Brightest Program applications, Ms. Troutman uses both FOCUS and TERMS, and on occasion conducts additional investigation. The School Board’s application asks for the teacher’s assignment. Because the application was titled “2017-2018 Clay County Application: Florida Best & Brightest Teacher Scholarship,” Ms. Troutman believed that the teachers were required to provide their 2017-2018 teacher assignments. As will be discussed in more detail below, the year of the teacher assignment was a major point of disagreement between Petitioners and the School Board. The application provided a checkmark system for the teacher to indicate which scholarship was being sought. The $1,200 scholarship line provided as follows: I am applying for the $1,200.00 highly effective scholarship. I have attached a copy of my 2016-2017 highly effective final evaluation (with student performance measures). The application’s language led Petitioners to believe that the 2017-2018 scholarship awards would be based on their teacher assignments and evaluations for 2016-2017. Ms. Troutman explained that this belief was incorrect. Eligibility for the 2017-2018 scholarship was based on a teacher’s assignment for the 2017-2018 school year. The plain language of the statute requires that one must be a “classroom teacher” in order to be eligible for the scholarship; having been a classroom teacher in a previous year does not suffice. Ms. Troutman stated that she verified with Mr. Broskie, Mr. Davis, and Mr. D’Agata that the School Board should base the award on the teacher’s 2017-2018 assignment. Petitioners, on the other hand, argue that the statutory language requires only an evaluation of “highly effective” for the 2016-2017 school year. The statute is silent as to whether a teacher applying for the $1,200 scholarship must be teaching in a classroom situation during the 2017-2018 school year. Petitioners argue that the School Board is reading a requirement into the statute that is not evident from the plain language. Ms. Troutman further explained that the applications for the 2017-2018 scholarships were to be submitted prior to the conclusion of the 2017-2018 school year. Therefore, as required by section 1012.731(3)(a)1. and (3)(c), the application requested the evaluation for “the school year immediately preceding the year in which the scholarship will be awarded.” Ms. Troutman testified that it is sometimes obvious from the teaching assignment that the teacher qualifies as a “classroom teacher.” If an application states that the assignment is “chemistry teacher” or “algebra teacher” or “fifth grade classroom teacher,” it is clear that the applicant meets the definition. Aside from verifying the assignment in the TERMS database, Ms. Troutman takes no further action. However, some applications require additional research before Ms. Troutman can conclude that the applicant qualifies as a classroom teacher. For example, Petitioner Abbie Andrews identified her assignment on her application as “classroom teacher.” Ms. Troutman went to TERMS and saw that Ms. Andrews was designated as an “ESE Support Facilitator” for the 2017-2018 school year. Ms. Troutman testified that ESE Support Facilitators are sometimes assigned to teach classes and therefore could be classified as “classroom teachers” for purposes of the Best and Brightest Program. Ms. Troutman examined both the master schedule and the teacher’s personal account in FOCUS to determine whether Ms. Andrews was assigned to teach any courses. Ms. Andrews had no teaching assignments for 2017-2018 in FOCUS. Ms. Andrews and fellow Petitioners Cherry Deaton, Donna Foster, and Danielle Perricelli held the position of ESE Support Facilitator during the 2017-2018 school year. The School Board concluded that these Petitioners did not qualify for the $1,200 scholarship because their schedules did not assign them the professional activity of instructing students in courses in a classroom situation, as required by the statute. It was undisputed that these Petitioners had been rated “highly effective” for the 2016-2017 school year. It was also undisputed that Ms. Andrews, Ms. Deaton, and Ms. Foster met the statutory definition of a classroom teacher for the 2016-2017 school year. The School Board’s general job description for an ESE Support Facilitator provides as follows: The teacher is responsible directly to the Principal. He/she provides for the instruction, supervision, and evaluation of assigned students on an as needed basis. He/she supports both general education and ESE teachers. He/she serves in a staff relationship with other teachers and supports and promotes ESE inclusion activities. (Emphasis added). The School Board contrasts this job description with that of “Classroom Teacher,” which provides: “The teacher is responsible directly to the principal for the instruction, supervision, and evaluation of students.” The classroom teacher is fully responsible for the “instruction, supervision, and evaluation” of the students in her classroom, whereas the ESE Support Facilitator performs those activities only “as needed.” The School Board also points out that, unlike a classroom teacher, an ESE Support Facilitator is not required to be certified in-field for the position. The ESE Support Facilitator is not the teacher of record for any particular course. Their schedule is fluid. The ESE Support Facilitator comes and goes as needed (“pushes in,” to use the teaching vernacular) in the classroom, and is expected to be wherever the ESE student assigned to them needs their services. Sometimes they push into the classroom and sometimes they pull students out of the class to work on a specific concept or skill. An ESE Support Facilitator is assigned “contact students” for whom individualized educational plans (“IEPs”) are prepared. The classroom teacher of record is responsible for giving the student course credit or a grade and is responsible for recording attendance in FOCUS. One-third of the classroom teacher’s evaluation is tied to student performance. Only the classroom teacher has default access to FOCUS in order to enter attendance and grade information for the students in the class. An ESE Support Facilitator must seek and be granted access to student’s FOCUS information. An ESE Support Facilitator is expected to meet with each contact student at least once a month; in practice, these meetings tend to occur more frequently. The ESE Support Facilitator goes over accommodations the student needs and assignments the student did not understand. The facilitator reteaches the course material if need be and stays in touch with the student’s teachers and parents, making sure all stakeholders in the student’s success are on the same page. The evidence presented at the hearing indicated that all of the students served by the ESE Support Facilitators in this case attended classes in regular classrooms, not in separate ESE classes. In such “inclusion” classes, the ESE Support Facilitator’s role is to push in and assist contact students in the regular classroom, ensuring that their IEP requirements are met and that the students are progressing satisfactorily through the course material. Based on these definitional and operative distinctions, Ms. Troutman considered ESE Support Facilitators to be “other instructional staff” as defined by section 1012.01(2)(d), rather than “classroom teachers” as defined by section 1012.01(2)(a). Ms. Andrews was employed as an ESE Support Facilitator at Middleburg High School during the 2016-2017 school year. She taught two periods of English and spent the remaining four periods fulfilling her ESE duties. She was evaluated as “highly effective.” As noted above, there was no dispute that Ms. Andrews met the definition of a “classroom teacher” for the 2016-2017 school year. During the 2017-2018 school year, Ms. Andrews was a full-time ESE Support Facilitator at Middleburg High School, not assigned to teach any courses. In FOCUS, she was assigned as the “contact teacher” for approximately 60 students, meaning that she was primarily responsible for writing their IEPs and ensuring that they made adequate progress in their classes. She met with all of her contact students on an as needed basis, at least once per month but often as much as twice per week. However, Ms. Andrews was not listed in FOCUS as the teacher of record for any class. Even though she routinely pushed into classes to support her assigned ESE students, Ms. Andrews was not the primary teacher of record. She was there to assist her contact students with whatever they needed to learn the course, but the course was not assigned to her to teach. Ms. Andrews did not have a traditional classroom. She was not the teacher of record in any course for which students received academic credit, and she did not assign grades to students for the material she was teaching. Ms. Andrews prepared IEPs that were individualized to particular contact students. She did not prepare daily lesson plans in the manner of a classroom teacher. Ms. Andrews described her job as an ESE Support Facilitator as follows: My job is to teach, mentor, challenge students to make them -- make them ready for graduation, become productive members of society. I believe that’s the same thing a classroom teacher does. I am using the Florida standards to prepare lessons for remediation if a student needs it. I am constantly having conversations with not just students, but their parents, keeping them on track or making sure their students are on track because ultimately, a parent wants that student to graduate on time as well. I believe that the questions that are asked of me as a support facilitator are the same questions that parents would ask of a classroom teacher because they are very concerned. I am not just answering questions based on one classroom. I'm answering questions based on six classes. I'm responsible for that student being successful in six classes. The IEPs that I write, they're legally binding. I am involved in the academics, behavior, discipline. I deal with discipline problems. All of these things are the same things that a classroom teacher would deal with. I do not have a schedule in Focus; however, when a need arises, I'm there, I'm in a classroom, I'm helping, and I'm doing what's needed to be done for the kids to be successful. Ms. Deaton was employed as an ESE Support Facilitator at Middleburg High School during the 2016-2017 school year. She taught two periods of English and spent the remaining four periods fulfilling her ESE duties. She was evaluated as “highly effective.” As noted above, there was no dispute that Ms. Deaton met the definition of a “classroom teacher” for the 2016-2017 school year. In 2017-2018, Ms. Deaton was a full-time ESE Support Facilitator at Middleburg High School, with approximately 60 contact students assigned to her in FOCUS. She was not assigned to teach any courses. If she pushed into a class to support her assigned ESE students, she was not the primary teacher of record. She was not designated as a co-teacher,3/ but she would assist teaching classes on an as-needed basis if she was not busy testing students or preparing IEPs. For those classes, she was provided access to view grades in FOCUS, but she did not have access to give grades. She would meet students as needed in her office, in another teacher's classroom, or in the computer lab. She did not develop lesson plans on her own, but provided suggestions and advice on lesson plans to the primary teacher. As an ESE Support Facilitator, Ms. Deaton did not have a classroom or teach a classroom full of students. She had no schedule assigned to her in FOCUS, but had contact students assigned to her in FOCUS. Ms. Foster was employed as an English/language arts and ESE Inclusion Teacher during the 2016-2017 school year. She taught four classes as ESE inclusion teacher. The remaining two periods were devoted to her position as ESE department head. Ms. Foster had a schedule in FOCUS. She had her own classroom and students, prepared daily lesson plans, and assigned grades. Students in her classes received academic credit. Ms. Foster was evaluated as “highly effective.” As noted above, there was no dispute that Ms. Foster met the definition of a “classroom teacher” for the 2016-2017 school year. Ms. Foster was employed as an ESE Support Facilitator and ESE department head during the 2017-2018 school year. She retired at the end of the school year, effective June 7, 2018. As an ESE Support Facilitator, Ms. Foster did not have a set schedule. Ms. Foster’s assigned ESE students did not receive academic credit for the services she provided, but her assistance was integral in helping them pass their courses. Ms. Foster assisted with an American history class during the 2017-2018 school year, but was not assigned as the primary teacher in FOCUS. Ms. Foster testified that she did not believe she had ever been identified as a co-teacher in FOCUS, though she thought she should have been. Ms. Foster testified that she had IEPs for the American history class that listed both the class setting and the service delivery method as “co-teach.” She explained that because the class had both general education and ESE students, the teacher had to be certified in both the subject matter and ESE. Because the primary teacher was certified only in the subject matter, it was necessary for Ms. Foster to co-teach the class. Ms. Foster testified that she split lesson plan preparation with the primary teacher. Ms. Foster believed she was not listed in FOCUS as the co-teacher because the school administration never bothered to remove the name of Kristin Heard, the ESE teacher originally assigned to the class, who was moved to a science class early in the year. Ms. Foster pursued the matter with the assistant principals at Lakeside Junior High, but nothing came of it. Mallory McConnell, the principal at Lakeside Junior High School during the 2017-2018 school year, confirmed that Ms. Foster was not listed as a co-teacher on the master schedule. Ms. McConnell testified that in 2017-2018 there were no “true co-teacher” situations, by which she meant two teachers who equally shared responsibility for the instruction and grading of every student in the class. Ms. McConnell was aware of situations in which a student’s IEP mandates co-teaching in a class, but she testified that she was unaware of any student at Lakeside Junior High School in 2017-2018 whose IEP required a co-teacher. Ms. McConnell conducted infrequent walkthrough observations of the American history class. She testified that she saw Ms. Foster providing support services to the ESE students but never saw Ms. Foster teaching at the front of the class. Ms. McConnell stated that she would not have expected to see Ms. Foster teaching the class or creating lesson plans for the class as a whole because those tasks were not her job responsibility. Ms. McConnell was in no position to state whether Ms. Foster did, in fact, prepare lesson plans and teach the class. Ms. McConnell was able to state that for at least one month during the school year, Ms. Foster administered tests to her ESE students, meaning that she could not have been co- teaching the American history class. Ms. Foster did not tell Ms. Troutman that she had assisted teaching the American history class during the 2017- 2018 school year, nor did she include such information on her application for the Best and Brightest Program, because she believed the award was based upon her position in 2016-2017 and because she believed the school administration’s failure to include her as teacher of record in FOCUS was an “in-house” issue. Ms. Perricelli was employed as an ESE Support Facilitator, ESE department head, and MTSS intervention team facilitator at Orange Park Junior High School. “MTSS” is an acronym for Multi-Tiered System of Support, a framework for providing support to students who are struggling academically or have an identified need in a specific area such as speech, language, or behavior. MTSS interventions may be used for regular education or ESE students. Ms. Perricelli testified that she was not the teacher assigned by FOCUS for any class in 2016-2017. In addition to her regular ESE duties, Ms. Perricelli taught “grade recovery” to two students in language arts, science, and math. Grade recovery is a class offered to students who have failed a course and lack the credits to move on to the next grade level. Ms. Perricelli designed lesson plans and curriculum assessments for each subject, graded papers and tests, and reported the students’ grades to the school. Ms. Perricelli testified that she was not given the authority to enter the grade recovery students’ grades into FOCUS in 2016-2017. She requested a course code but was never provided one. Ms. Perricelli taught grade recovery for two periods, one for each student. For the other four periods of the school day, Ms. Perricelli would push into classrooms and work with ESE students, usually in small groups with students who needed remediation. She had around 40 contact students and developed IEPs for each of them. Most of her contact students were in the classrooms that she was going into, so she would see them throughout the week. She would meet with her other contact students about once a week. Ms. Perricelli would work with the assigned teacher to modify the course material to meet the needs of the ESE students. Ms. Perricelli was evaluated as “highly effective” for the 2016-2017 school year, based on standard classroom teacher criteria. She was observed working with her grade recovery students and in the classrooms in which she pushed in. Ms. Perricelli testified that her assignments were the same for the 2017-2018 school year. She taught one student in a grade recovery course. Due to her persistence, Ms. Perricelli was able to get a course code from Ms. Troutman for the grade recovery course in 2017-2018. The grade recovery course was named “Unique Skills.” In 2017-2018, Ms. Perricelli was assigned around 70 contact students for whom she prepared IEPs. As department head, Ms. Perricelli oversaw 22 ESE instructors. She was the only ESE Support Facilitator at the school. Janice Tucker was vice principal at Orange Park Junior High School in 2017-2018. She testified that early in the school year, the assigned teacher for seventh grade math left for another county. A long-term substitute, Lashonda Campbell, took over as teacher of record. Ms. Perricelli testified that she developed some of the curriculum in Ms. Campbell’s math classes, which included ESE and non-ESE students. She stated that she taught the class alone once a week when Ms. Campbell started, then tapered off into pulling out small groups of ESE students who needed remediation. She worked with four periods of seventh grade math classes that year. Ms. Perricelli testified that she gave grades to students in those courses and gave them to Ms. Campbell for entry into FOCUS. Ms. Tucker testified that Ms. Perricelli was not a co- teacher for the math class. Ms. Campbell was the teacher of record. Ms. Tucker testified that when she observed the math class, she saw Ms. Perricelli working with small groups in the back of the class or at a table in the hallway, and Ms. Campbell at the front teaching the class. Ms. Tucker never saw Ms. Perricelli at the front of the class teaching. Ms. Tucker conceded that she had no knowledge whether Ms. Perricelli was involved in creating lesson plans or assigning grades for the math class. Ms. Perricelli was evaluated by Ms. Tucker for the 2017-2018 school year. Ms. Tucker observed Ms. Perricelli in the seventh grade math class and in the Unique Skills class. Ms. Perricelli was again rated “highly effective.” Ms. Perricelli testified that she did not mention teaching the math class on her scholarship application. She stated that she did not tell Ms. Troutman about the math class because at the time, the school was still attempting to get a full-time teacher for the class. Ms. Troutman obviously knew about the “Unique Skills” class, having issued the course code to Ms. Perricelli. Ms. Troutman testified that she consulted with Mr. Broskie and Mr. D’Agata as to whether having one assigned class in FOCUS should qualify Ms. Perricelli for the scholarship. They concluded that teaching one class with one student was insufficient to qualify as a “classroom teacher” for purposes of the Best and Brightest Program. Ms. Troutman testified that this conclusion was consistent with the School Board’s historic practice of considering two or more classes as the “cutoff” for a classroom teacher. Ms. Troutman believed that if an ESE Support Facilitator taught two classes, then she would qualify as a “classroom teacher.” Petitioner Easter Brown taught a fourth grade classroom at Grove Park Elementary School during the 2016-2017 school year and was rated “highly effective.” It is not disputed that Ms. Brown met the definition of a “classroom teacher” for the 2016-2017 school year. In 2017-2018, Ms. Brown was a full-time SPRINT specialist. “SPRINT” stands for Supervisor of Pre-Interns and New Teachers. SPRINT specialist is a support position for teacher trainees and new teachers, operating under an agreement between the School Board and the University of North Florida (“UNF”), each of which pays half of the SPRINT specialist’s salary. Ms. Brown taught field classes at UNF and conducted workshops for clinical educator training and professional development. Ms. Brown kept Grove Park Elementary as her home base and shared a classroom there with two other teachers. She taught UNF students in classes at the university and worked with new teachers at the school. She estimated that she spent half her time at UNF and half at Grove Park Elementary. Ms. Brown had no K-12 courses or K-12 students assigned to her in 2017-2018. She had no courses assigned to her in FOCUS. She gave grades to only UNF students. Ms. Brown did not create traditional lesson plans but did assist new teachers in writing lesson plans. Ms. Brown testified that she did some teaching in a regular classroom for purposes of modeling teaching techniques for her student teachers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Clay County School Board enter a final order: Finding that Petitioners Abbie Andrews, Cherry Deaton, and Donna Foster were not eligible for a $1,200 scholarship under the 2017 Florida Best and Brightest Teacher Scholarship Program because they were not classroom teachers during the 2017-2018 school year; and Finding that Petitioners Easter Brown and Danielle Perricelli were eligible for a $1,200 scholarship under the 2017 Florida Best and Brightest Teacher Scholarship Program because they were classroom teachers during the 2017-2018 school year, and directing staff to take all practicable measures to secure the scholarship monies for Ms. Brown and Ms. Perricelli. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of March, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of March, 2019.
Findings Of Fact A review of Exhibit 1, the personnel record of Respondent, discloses that Respondent has been employed by the Pinellas County School Board since 1959; that he has taught science at various junior high schools and middle schools from 1958 to present; that deficiencies in maintaining discipline in his classes, judgment, maturity, and planning have been noted on his evaluation reports throughout that period; his evaluation reports have generally been below average; after extending his probationary period he was granted continuing contract status in 1971; and his evaluations have been unsatisfactory for the last three years. All of the witnesses called by Petitioner have been associated with Respondent in the school system and all considered his performance as a classroom teacher unsatisfactory. Specific incidents observed by the witnesses which led to their evaluation an characterization of Respondent include: Children in Respondents classroom intentionally hyperventilating and passing out while Respondent was in the room presumably continuing his instruction. Children in Respondent's classes more disorderly, rowdy, and noisy than in any other class. Noises from Respondent's classes of sufficient volume to disturb adjacent classes. Respondent continuing his reading of a lesson in a voice that could be heard only a few feet away while the students in other parts of the classroom talked, fought, played games and otherwise ignored Respondent. No rational grading system adopted or used by Respondent. This resulted in numerous complaints from both students and their parents respecting the grades assigned. In this respect more complaints were registered against Respondent's grades that any other teacher. Respondent often sent children to the principal for minor disciplinary problems while he ignored much more serous misconduct. Lack of coherence in Respondent's instruction in jumping from one subject to another with no plan and no continuity. Children in Respondents class recognized his inability to control the class and evinced lack of respect for Respondent. Despite numerous counselling sessions and help, Respondent never produced adequate lesson plans for his classes. Lack of plans led to less continuity in the lessons and a lower teaching level. A combination of lack of discipline, lack of proper planning and inconsistent reaction to the students in his class led to the inevitable conclusion that the students in Respondent's classes were not learning those things he was supposed to teach them. On one or more occasions Respondent disobeyed the orders of his principal to come to his office to discuss problems. respondent refused to be counselled without a union representative present. Following nearly three years of counselling, guidance and attempts to assist Respondent to improve his effectiveness at Fitzgerald Middle School, the school authorities apparently determined that Respondent should be terminated and requested an evaluation of Respondent by a Professional Practices Council Evaluator. Respondent was advised some two weeks before his arrival that an evaluator would come to observe Respondent conduct his classes and that the evaluator would submit a report following the observation. Pursuant thereto the evaluator spent February 27, 28, and March 1, 1979 observing Respondent conduct his classes. His report of this evaluation comprises Exhibit 11. In this report Respondent was evaluated as unsatisfactory in the following duties expected of a teacher: Grade record book from which students grades are taken was improperly kept and contained insufficient information to make a rational determination of the grade actually earned by each student. Respondent made no distinction among his diverse students and consequently gave them all the same assignments. Respondents lack of control over the classroom was so inadequate that an incredible amount of cheating was going on. Answers to questions were exchanged orally between students during tests and this was ignored by Respondent. As a result there was no incentive for learning and little, if any, learning took place in Respondents classes. Classroom management and discipline was practically non-existent. As stated in Exhibit 11: "Mr. Barlow cannot discipline his students well enough to get their cooperation to carry out what would otherwise be an almost acceptable (1.e. needing some definite improvement) program. Thereafter the evaluator submitted three pages of specific incidents occurring in Respondent's classes on February 27, and three more pages of incidents which generally support the conclusion that in such an atmosphere either teaching or learning is, for all intents and purposes, impossible. Planning of lessons by Respondent, both short and long-term, was so inadequate that these plans across school year 1978-79 were described to "violate, more than follow, those guidelines" [established for lesson plans]. Instead of having self-confidence and self-sufficiency in exercising authority Respondent "radiates insecurity in the classroom". Following these unsatisfactory reports the evaluator concludes that Respondent's students are being deprived of a vital part of their education. This conclusion is supported by the testimony of all other witnesses. Even those witnesses who testified on behalf of Respondent acknowledged that Respondent did not maintain order and discipline in his classes. Even those witnesses who testified on behalf of Respondent acknowledged that Respondent did not maintain order and discipline in his classes. Testifying in his own behalf Respondent did not deny that his classes were disorderly and unruly, or that the incident of the children in his class hyperventilating and passing out occurred. He contends that if he had more administrative help he could operate effectively in a classroom. His problems at Fitzgerald Middle School he blames largely on the Assistant Principal in charge of the seventh grade teachers, who, while frequently visiting Respondent's classes, undermined him. Other than Respondent's testimony no credible evidence was submitted that the Assistant Principal was doing anything other than trying to help Respondent improve his performance.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is now, and has been employed as a teacher in the Pinellas County school District since the 1980-81 school year. Since the 1983-84 school year, he has taught biology and earth science at Tarpon Springs High school under continuing contract. In November, 1984, Petitioner applied for Associate Master Teacher Endorsement in the state Master Teacher Program for the 1984-85 school year. His application was approved, and he participated in the Master Teacher Program for the 1984-85 school year, receiving the appropriate salary incentive award of $3000. In October, 1985 Petitioner applied for continued participation in the Master Teacher Program for the 1985-86 school year. His application was again approved, and he participated in the program for the 1985-86 school year, receiving the appropriate salary incentive award of $3000. The 1986-87 school year was the third and final year of the State Master Teacher Program. The application deadline for continued participation by teachers previously endorsed as Master Teachers was November 1, 1986. According to Virginia Sasser, Petitioner meets all substantive requirements and criteria for continued participation in the program for the 1986-87 school year. However, it is the position of the Respondents that Petitioner failed to timely file his application by November 1, 1986, and therefore he was not eligible to receive a Master Teacher salary incentive award for the 1986-87 school year. The first notice that Petitioner received that he had not been approved for participation in the program for the 1986-87 school year was in August, 1987 when other Master Teachers at Tarpon Springs High School received their salary incentive awards of $3000, and he did not. Petitioner contacted the Department of Education and spoke with Virginia Sasser who told him that the Department had no record of his 1986-87 application for continued participation. No specific advice was offered by Sasser about what he should do. Subsequently, Sasser learned that the Pinellas County School District also had no record of ever receiving Petitioner's application for 1986-87. The 1986-87 application procedure required individual teachers to complete Form MT-5, and submit it to their principal for his certification and signature. The Form requires the principal to certify that he has returned a completed copy of the application to the teacher after the principal affixed his signature. Thereafter, the Form was to be forwarded by the principal to the School District Office for transmittal to the Department of Education. In January, 1987, acknowledgments were sent to teachers whose applications had been received by the Department of Education. Based upon the testimony of Petitioner, Chalmers Coe, Petitioner's principal, John Katsaris, fellow Master Teacher, and Patricia Burdette, Coe's secretary, it is specifically found that Petitioner did properly complete and submit Form MT-5 to Coe in mid-October, 1986. However, the Form was thereafter lost either in Coe's office or in transit from Tarpon Springs High School to the School District Office in Clearwater via courier. Petitioner was not responsible for, and was not aware of this loss. Although he was on the School District's list of Master Teachers from whom an application for continued participation would be expected to be received, no one from the School District Office ever contacted Coe or the Petitioner to inquire why his Form MT-5 had not been received. Petitioner reasonably assumed that Coe had properly processed the application he gave him, and that the intradistrict mail courier would deliver it to the School District personnel officer. Patricia Burdette testified that on occasion items she placed in the courier mail, or which were placed in the mail for her, were lost and never received. The testimony of Chalmers Coe, principal of Tarpon Springs High school is found to be credible and persuasive in that he clearly confirmed the following statements contained in a letter he sent to Virginia Sasser in September, 1987, after Petitioner had been informed by Sasser that his application had not been received by the Department: This is to notify you that Peter Lelekis, a teacher on our staff, did submit a completed application for the Master Teacher Program for 1986-87. This application was submitted before the deadline of November 1, 1986. I, as well as my secretary, Patricia Burdette can verify that Mr. Lelekis did comply with the instructions from the Master Teacher Division of the Department of Education. I personally signed and forwarded forms to Superintendent. The testimony of John Katsaris supports the testimony of Petitioner and Coe in that Katsaris testified he saw Petitioner take his Form MT-5 to Coe's office in mid-October, 1986, and spoke with Petitioner about the application. According to Larry Hutcheson, who administered the Master Teacher Program for the Department of Education from approximately June, 1985 to July, 1986, the Department followed a "hold-harmless philosophy" in administering the program whereby if an applicant did his part to comply with all application procedures, as verified by his principal or superintendent, an applicant whose application was not timely filed would be held-harmless for this omission and the substantive merits of his application would be evaluated. This philosophy was applied "not infrequently" according to Hutcheson. Virginia Sasser, who has continuing responsibilities for the program, confirmed this "philosophy," and stated that if the principal or superintendent conceded their error, a teacher's application would be accepted and evaluated. She further acknowledged that if an application was lost in the mail, the teacher should similarly be held- harmless for the courier's error. In this case, an error was made either by the intra-district mail courier, or by Coe in not insuring that Petitioner and the District Personnel Office received a copy and the original Form MT-5, respectively, after he signed this form. In either event, the error that was made was not made by Petitioner, and he should therefore be held-harmless in accordance with the Department's applicable "philosophy" for administering this program. Coe and Petitioner both testified that he meets all substantive requirements and criteria for continued participation for the 1986-87 school year, a fact not disputed by Respondents. Petitioner has timely sought review of the Respondents' decision, as set forth by letter dated September 17, 1987, to deny his continued participation in the State Master Teacher Program for the 1986-87 school year solely for the following reason: According to our records, a 1986-7 application was never received by our office for you. In addition, the Pinellas school district office records further confirmed that your application was not processed through their office. I regret that we cannot accept Mr. Coe's statement as evidence of your filing an application for continued participation in the program.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondents enter a Final Order approving Petitioner for continued participation in the State Master Teacher Program for the 1986-87 school year, and providing him with the appropriate salary incentive award of $3000. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 1988. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 7, 8. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 11. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 7. Rejected and Accepted, in part, in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 8, 11. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 11. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 7, 10, 11. Adopted in Findings of Fact 9, 10. Rulings of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary, and as a conclusion of law. 5-6. Rejected as unnecessary. The only issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to the third year salary incentive award. Thus, the general application and renewal process is irrelevant. 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 8-9. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 10. Rejected in Findings of Fact 4, 11. 11-13. Rejected as unnecessary, irrelevant and as a conclusion of law. Generalized discussion of the Master Teacher Program does not pertain to the issue in this case. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 6, 7. Rejected in Findings of Fact 7, 8. The primary testimony was offered by Coe and Was confirmed and supported by Katsaris, Petitioner and Burdette. 16-18. Rejected in Findings of Fact 7, 8, 10 and otherwise Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 10, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5 but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected in Findings of Fact 7, 8, 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 6. Rejected as irrelevant. 26-27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Findings of Fact 8, 12. Rejected as irrelevant. This is a de novo hearing to determine if Petitioner did submit his application. 30-31. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 9, 10, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and not based on competent substantial evidence. 32. Rejected in Finding of Fact 12. Petitioner's request for hearing was timely. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald G. Meyer, Esquire MEYER, BROOKS & COOPER, P.A. Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Charles S. Ruberg, Esquire Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Hon. Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Sydney H. McKenzie General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399
