The Issue The issue in this case is whether the termination of Respondent's employment by Petitioner is justified and consistent with the requirements of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between Petitioner and the Sarasota Classified/Teachers Association (of which Respondent is a member).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the Sarasota County School Board, the entity responsible for operating, monitoring, staffing, and maintaining the public schools of Sarasota County. The School is a public high school established in 2001. It is located at 6400 West Price Boulevard, North Port, Florida. The school had a student body in excess of 2,600 students at the beginning of the current (2008-2009) school year, but that has declined to 2,500 as of the date of the final hearing in this matter. Respondent, Ronald Davenport, was employed at the School as a campus security monitor (also known as a security aide) from 1988 until December 5, 2008. Respondent is an African-American male. Respondent is a "classified" employee under the Classified Bargaining Unit Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Sarasota Classified/Teachers Association and the District (the "Collective Bargaining Agreement"). On December 5, 2008, Respondent was reassigned or transferred from the School to McIntosh. The reasons for the transfer will be more fully discussed below. During Respondent's tenure as a security monitor at the School, he received a number of written disciplinary letters or memoranda. Under the District disciplinary policies, written reprimands are issued only after verbal reprimands have been issued and proven ineffective. Respondent's discipline to-date has included the following: On November 22, 2004, Respondent was given a Record of Verbal Reprimand concerning his failure to responsibly monitor students while on duty. A written reprimand was given to Respondent on January 4, 2005, concerning improper contact with students and work performance. In April 2005, Respondent was suspended without pay for a period of three days. The basis of the suspension was Respondent's insubordination to superiors. In January 2006, Respondent was again suspended without pay, this time for a period of ten working days. This suspension was based on Respondent's failure to perform his work responsibly, use of school computers for personal reasons, and insubordination. A letter of instruction (which is not technically a disciplinary action) was given to Respondent on April 12, 2007, concerning his actions while driving on campus. Respondent received other verbal reprimands and letters (memoranda) of instruction in addition to those set forth above. It is noted that two suspensions for a single employee is very unusual; grounds for a second suspension would normally warrant termination of employment. However, Principal Kenney stated that at the time of the second suspension, he wanted to give Respondent another opportunity, even though dismissal was probably warranted. (Likewise, the aforementioned transfer from the School to McIntosh was another effort by Kenney to sanction Respondent without resorting to termination of employment.) In the Fall of 2008, a student at the School spat water on Respondent. The student received a three-day suspension and a deferred expulsion1 for his actions. A few weeks later, a different student spat water on a Caucasian security monitor. That student received a five-day suspension and a deferred expulsion for the remainder of the year. The student in the second incident, however, had a disciplinary history while the student who spat on Respondent did not. That is the reason for the slight disparity in punishment. Respondent was unhappy about the second student being treated more harshly and surmised that the reason for the difference in punishment was that he (Respondent) was African- American while the other security monitor was Caucasian. That being the case, Respondent contacted Mr. Trevor Harvey, president of the local NAACP chapter, to complain. Harvey contacted Principal Kenney, and the two agreed to meet at Kenney's office on December 5, 2008, to discuss possible racial issues at the School. On December 4, 2008, Respondent was observed handing out a note or flyer to students. The flyer, which was copied from a handwritten original, included the following bullet points: An instruction asking the reader to make a copy and tell a friend about the contents of the flyer. A request to have parents and students call various news agencies (whose telephone numbers were listed at the bottom of the flyer) and request that reporters be sent to the School the following day (December 5) to attend an NAACP meeting at the School. A statement of the writer's belief that the District and the School promote intolerance, bias, and double standards concerning people of color. A statement specifically addressing Respondent's confrontation with a student earlier in the year. Another statement urging the reader to submit their own concerns to administration that day or early on the following day. Respondent denies writing the flyer or having anything to do with its distribution to students. However, he does admit distributing copies of the flyer to other employees at the school, including Jacqueline Pollard, a teacher, and Wesley Johnson, the senior head custodian at the School. Both Pollard and Johnson are African-Americans. Other employees, including Mr. Johnson, saw Respondent handing out a sheet of paper to students on December 4, 2008, which they presumed to be copies of the flyer. The flyer had been discovered by administrative staff at the School on December 4, 2008, after an altercation between some girls on campus. While the girls were being questioned in the administrative offices, one of them provided staff with a copy of the flyer. The student did not know from whom she had received the flyer, but said it was being distributed around campus. At least one teacher told the administrative office that a student in her class received the flyer from Respondent. Respondent was seen distributing an unidentified sheet of white paper to students on the afternoon of December 4, 2008, and the morning of December 5, 2008. Respondent maintains that all he gave students was a handwritten Christmas greeting which said, "Happy Holidays and [peace sign] on Earth. God bless Obama & God bless the U.S.A. Mr. Ron, Security." On the morning of December 5, 2008, Respondent was observed by Assistant Principal Wilks talking to a group of students. Wilks heard Respondent tell the students to go to the Performing Arts Center ("PAC") for the purpose of attending the NAACP meeting. Many of the students then headed toward the PAC. Wilks then redirected the students toward their assigned classrooms. Respondent denies he told students to go to the PAC for a meeting; he says he directed them all to return to class. Based on Wilks' interaction with students shortly thereafter in the area of the PAC, her testimony on this point is more credible. After hearing Respondent talking to the students, Wilks went to the PAC, which is located at the front of the campus. Several groups of students showed up at the PAC and said they wanted to attend the NAACP meeting. They were told that there was no meeting at the PAC that day in which students were authorized to attend. One of the students advised Wilks that her "uncle" had told her to go to the PAC for the meeting. Respondent concedes that the student was referring to him (although she is not actually his niece). Respondent denies telling her to go to the PAC for a meeting. There was in fact a meeting at the School on December 5, 2008, between the principal, Dr. Kenney, and the NAACP representative, Mr. Harvey. However, that meeting was held in the principal's office, not at the PAC. The meeting went well and Mr. Harvey left the campus seemingly in agreement with how the School was handling interactions between racial groups.2 It was determined by the School administration that Respondent's apparent involvement in the effort to disrupt the NAACP meeting made his continued employment at the School impractical. However, rather than seeking to terminate Respondent, it was decided that he could be transferred to McIntosh to serve as a security monitor at that school.3 On the evening of December 5, 2008, after school hours, Respondent was called at home and told that he was being reassigned. On December 6, 2008, Respondent came to the School to empty out his employee locker and retrieve his personal items. He asked that this process be supervised and/or taped, so there were persons observing him as he did so. Respondent then reported to McIntosh for duty. Employees are not allowed to use school copying machines for personal use (without prior approval from administration). Each employee is assigned a code to use when making copies so that the School can monitor the use of copy machines. On the Monday following Respondent's reassignment to McIntosh, a media specialist printed out a "user chart" for one of the school copy machines located in the mailroom. The user chart showed that Respondent had made 465 copies on that machine since the beginning of the 2008-2009 school year. Principal Kenney could not think of any justification for Respondent making that many copies. Respondent does not remember what he copied, but notes that another security monitor made many more copies than Respondent did. Respondent did not deny making the copies, but was unaware of the requirement to get permission first. Just three weeks before the NAACP meeting incident, while Respondent was still working at the School, his supervisor was looking for him on campus. Respondent did not respond to calls over the walkie-talkie (radio) system used for communication purposes. Respondent had not signed out in accordance with the well-known policy to do so, but was observed off-campus at a gas station. The failure to sign out is an actionable violation of Respondent's employment. On December 18, 2008,4 Larry Leon (chief of school police and director of safety and security) and Sam Wilson went to McIntosh to provide Respondent a sealed envelope. The envelope contained a notice concerning an upcoming meeting. After Respondent failed to answer numerous radio calls from Wilson, Wilson asked McIntosh's assistant principal, Hazuda, to make an attempt to call Respondent. Hazuda called Respondent, who showed up at Hazuda's office in a matter of minutes. Upon seeing Wilson in the office, Respondent was visibly upset. He said something to Hazuda about being "set up" and that he was being harassed. Respondent refused to accept the envelope, said he was sick, and left Hazuda's office to go to the school clinic where he signed out for the day. When Wilson tried to talk to him, Respondent simply raised his hands above his head and walked away. Hazuda's efforts to make Respondent remain at the school and go back to work were not successful. Hazuda's testimony on this point is extremely credible. As Respondent was leaving the clinic, Leon called out to him. Respondent ignored Leon and continued to leave the building. Leon followed and called out loudly to Respondent, asking him to stop. Respondent swore at Leon, saying "F**k you" and continued to walk toward his car. At no time did Respondent turn around and engage in face-to-face conversation with Leon.5 On January 5, 2009, Police Chief Leon and Wilson returned to McIntosh with another written notice to be delivered to Respondent. Letters had been sent to Respondent about the upcoming meeting, but no response had been received. (Respondent had signed one copy of a notice, but left it on the counter in the administration offices rather than returning it as asked.) So, Wilson and Leon again tried to hand-deliver a copy of the notice to Respondent. Numerous attempts to contact Respondent via radio on January 5, 2009, were unsuccessful. Finally, someone who had heard the radio calls advised Respondent that he was being summoned to the front office. Respondent surmises that his radio might not have been functioning properly at that time, so he didn't hear the calls. When Respondent got to the office, he decided to check out for the day because he was feeling ill. He left without accepting delivery of the written notice. Subsequently, on January 15, 2009, a Weingarten hearing was conducted on the issues relating to the December 5, 2008, NAACP meeting at the School and the two incidents at McIntosh. Respondent attended the hearing and presented responses to the allegations of misbehavior. Based upon the information gathered at the Weingarten hearing, the District decided that termination of Respondent's employment was warranted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Sarasota County School Board terminating the employment of Respondent effective February 18, 2009. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of June, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 26th day of June, 2009.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent, Glover E. Jones, was licensed as a teacher in the State of Florida holding certificate number 556798, covering the area of mathematics, and was employed by the Madison County School Board as an adjunct instructor at Madison County High School, Madison, Florida. The uncontroverted facts in this case show that Pamela Ann Hale, the alleged recipient of the remarks in question here, was born on August 28, 1969. As of the date of the hearing, she was living with her mother in Live Oak, Florida, attending the 10th grade at Suwannee High School there. At the time of the alleged incident here, she was living with her father in Madison and attended Madison County High School. Her mother and father are divorced. While attending Madison County High School, Hale had the Respondent as her math teacher during the third period of the school day during the month of September 1984, at the beginning of the 1984-1985 school year. She did not have him for any other subjects nor did she know him prior to the beginning of the school year. This class was made up of students who required extra assistance and consisted of approximately 15 to 16 students in remedial math. On the day in question, Hale was selling candy during the class period to raise money for a school organization. She sold candy not only to her fellow students but also to the Respondent. At this point the stories told by Ms. Hale and by the Respondent begin to diverge. Ms. Hale contends that when she approached Jones on the date in question to buy candy he advised her to come back after class and she could sell him some. She contends, also, that she came back after the other students left even though she had another class (health) to attend, sat down at a student desk, and Respondent sat down facing her approximately three or four feet away. It is at this point that, she says, he asked her simple questions about herself and her family. When she answered, he then allegedly asked her if she had ever "fucked" a black man before. He allegedly told her she looked sexy that day. She says he asked her if she noticed that he "had a hard on" and touched himself in the genital area, asking her if she thought she could handle that. At no time, however, did Respondent ever touch the witness. She says he asked her if she had ever "fucked" anyone while someone else was in the room. She replied that she had not. He allegedly asked her if she had a boyfriend and when she said she did, he is alleged to have responded, "I'll bet you fuck him because he's not black." This conversation went on until about 10 or 15 minutes before the fourth period was over. As was stated previously, the witness had health the fourth period and cut the class because, as she tells it, Respondent asked her to stay. While she was in the room with Jones alone, a Mr. Alexander, also a math teacher, entered, along with two other students. While in the room, Alexander asked Respondent if the witness was having any trouble with her work to which Respondent replied that she was, but indicated he would take care of it. Alexander verifies this with the exception that according to his testimony, when he came into the room, Respondent was seated at his desk writing a note and Hale was standing in front of him. This is not a significant difference. After Alexander left, Respondent asked the witness several questions about her siblings including her sister who formerly went to Madison High, but who quit when she had difficulty with some black students the previous year. He asked her if she was going to go to the ball game the following Thursday and, when she replied that she was, she says he suggested that perhaps they could get together that night. Ms. Hale contends she was amazed that Respondent talked to her in this fashion but she also contends she did not leave because she was afraid of him, though he made no threats, either verbal or physical, toward her and made no effort to prevent her from leaving. She also made no comment to Alexander when he and the other students came into the room even though these suggestive statements had already been made. She finally terminated the conversation toward the end of the fourth period by stating she had to go to her next class. Before she left, she asked Respondent for a note, which he gave her and asked her not to repeat the conversation they had had. During fifth period, Hale had lunch scheduled and during lunch with Loretta Sealy, she related in general terms, to Sealy, what had happened. After lunch, she went to the remainder of her classes and went home but even that night, she failed to tell her father of the incident because she was afraid he might do something as a result of his hot temper. Sealy indicates that when she first saw Hale after the incident, when Hale came into the ladies' room, she appeared nervous, upset, and near tears. She said that Respondent had said things which upset her--in essence propositioning her. At first, Hale did not want to report the incident because she felt nobody would believe her. However, Sealy finally convinced her to do so and the two girls went to see the assistant principal, Ms. Miller, two days after the incident took place. Hale told Ms. Miller what had happened and signed the first of several written statements which was prepared for her signature by Miller based on the report given. Later on, she agreed to take a polygraph examination regarding her story. No evidence was presented as to whether the exam was given or not. Ms. Hale attended class with the Respondent during the several days between the time of the alleged incident and the report to Ms. Miller, but once the story came into the open, she was removed from his class. She talked with Miller rather than the principal because she had known Ms. Miller from her prior school. The fact that she did not talk with the principal had nothing to do with the fact that he is black. Respondent's version of the story differs from that of Hale in that he contends that at the end of the class period on the day in question, Hale asked him if she could stay after class. He contends that her remaining had nothing to do with buying candy because he bought candy from her when she came to class. He also claims that she did her homework during this fourth period when she and he were the only people in the room. While she was working, he was behind his desk and she was sitting at a student desk off to his left. Respondent contends that it was Hale who made the first non-business statement by asking him if she could go smoke. He told her that she could not since smoking was not allowed on campus. She responded that another teacher, Mr. Hendrix, had allowed her to smoke in the school building and then went on to indicate that she had "messed" with guys in their twenties when she was twelve. This statement, which came immediately after the comments about Mr. Hendrix and smoking, shocked him. The only reason he did not ask her to leave was because she appeared to have a problem and he thought he might be able to help her. During the course of the conversation she indicated that some blacks had attacked her sister the previous year on campus which had caused her sister to leave school and that, in general, all black students at Madison High were wild. Though Ms. Hale, in her testimony, indicated that when asked by Respondent if she had ever fucked a black man, she responded by asking him if he'd ever fucked a white woman, Respondent denies that Hale ever asked him this question nor did she mention drugs to him in any fashion. He denies making any of the comments attributed to him by Hale or any of the suggestive movements she claimed he made, though in the letter he submitted to the principal the morning after being confronted by the accusations against him, denials were not so strong or so widespread. In fact, in that written statement, he commented, "I'm not saying that the statement made is totally wrong, but there are two things that trouble me most about it." He then goes on to list these two troublesome areas as the statement makes it appear as though he is the culprit and that some things in it are either false or turned around. He then goes on to list the several things Hale is supposed to have said to him that were not included in her statement, such as her sexual activity and her obvious antipathy toward black men. When Hale finally went to see Miller, she appeared to be quite upset though she was not crying. She was somewhat reluctant to talk to Ms. Miller until finally Miller released Sealy to go back to class and after Sealy left, Hale told Miller her entire story. Once Hale had completed her version of the story, Miller asked her to wait and went to talk with the principal who returned to the office with her to talk with Hale. After discussing with the resource officer how to take a statement, Miller returned to the office and took a detailed statement from Hale a second time in the form suggested to her and had it signed by Hale and notarized. Later that morning, Ms. Miller, the principal, Mr. Yanessy, the resource officer, and Mr. Buchanan called Respondent into the principal's office and showed him a copy of Hale's signed statement. Respondent read it, handed it back, and said that the statement was not "exactly" true--that Hale had twisted a lot of things around. He contended that in reality it was Hale who asked a lot of the questions, not him, and that he would do anything to clear his name. Respondent contended he had no interest in either Hale or any other young girl. At this point the investigating group advised him that they would talk with him later and take a statement from him. About two hours later they did meet again and at this time, Respondent repeated his comments made earlier in the day to the extent that while a conversation took place, it did not happen as Hale said it did. At this point, though the school officials wanted to take Respondent's statement, Respondent did not want to speak on the record then. The following morning he gave the principal the letter which was referred to above. Based on an evaluation of the testimony of Ms. Hale, Ms. Sealy, the Respondent, and Ms. Miller, all of which bears on the credibility of the Respondent vis-a-vis his accuser, it becomes clear, and it is so found, that a conversation did take place in the classroom during the fourth period on September 10, 1984, between Respondent and Ms. Hale when the two of them were the only persons in the room. It most likely will never be determined exactly as to who said what to whom. There is no doubt, however, that the Respondent permitted a student who he knew had a class to attend, to remain in his classroom with him at the expense of her absence from that succeeding class. Though Respondent advised Mr. Alexander that he was helping Hale with her school work, there is no other evidence that he did so. Ms. Hale contends he did not and he admits he did not stating only that she did her homework while in the room with him. Whatever the conversation was, it is clear that it was sexually oriented and Respondent used extremely poor judgment in allowing the situation to develop as far as it did. The evidence establishes that Ms. Hale's background is not without cloud. At the age of sixteen she is admittedly sexually experienced and has experimented with various controlled substances such as marijuana and cocaine. Ms. Miller indicated that her academic background was marginal--that while she can do her work and can be an average student, she has, nonetheless, failed. The nature of her testimony on the stand was not so clear as to give a certain picture as to what happened. It is most likely that Ms. Hale herself does not recall the incident with certainty. What is clear is that aside from her discussion with Ms. Sealy over lunch, she failed to make any complaint to anyone with authority to do something about it until several days after the incident took place and then only upon the urging of her friend. In substance then, it is obvious that the truth no doubt lies somewhere between the two stories. When Respondent found out that Ms. Hale had no legitimate reason to be in his classroom, he allowed her to remain and engaged in a conversation with her that should not have taken place. While the exact words are in question, the subject matter is not. It was sexually oriented and the parties were a twenty-five-year-old male teacher and a fifteen- year-old female student. His judgment in allowing that to happen is abysmal and his professionalism in that instance was nonexistent especially in light of the fact that he was warned twice at the beginning of his employment with the school system by his principal, to be very careful of his conduct in dealing with female students. Mr. Ray, the principal, indicates that if the allegations against the Respondent are true, it would seriously reduce his effectiveness as a classroom teacher because of the need for a teacher to observe the strictest propriety in his relationships with students. Such conduct as alleged here would undoubtedly be harmful to the learning process and would create an embarrassment to the student. If the allegations are true he would not want Respondent back working for him. In his opinion, for a situation such as this, if established, there are no less drastic remedies than termination. He believes that there is no place in Madison County for a teacher guilty of these allegations and in addition to termination, revocation of the teaching certificate would be appropriate. On the other hand, if it were to be established that the allegation was not true, then Respondent's effectiveness would not be diminished and the credibility of the student would be damaged. However, in his experience it is very unusual for female students to make sexual advances toward teachers. While it could occur, in his opinion it is not likely and over the 19 years he has been in education, it has never happened to him. Mr. Buchanan, who has been in place as Superintendent of Schools in Madison County for over 8 years, is familiar with the allegations in this case and Respondent's denial. His analysis of the case resulted in his recommendation that the School Board suspend the Respondent from his teaching position and in addition, he reported Respondent to the Education Practices Commission. He took this step because he felt an obligation to report substandard conduct of an educator. Assuming that the allegations are true, in his view, the effectiveness of the Respondent is reduced because in a case like this the teacher loses credibility with his students. He feels that if true, Respondent's conduct would be harmful to the learning process and embarrassing to the student and would have an adverse impact on the relationship between the parents and the school system. Viewing the evidence in its totality and weighing the credibility of all witnesses, as alluded to before, it becomes clear that a one on one conversation took place between the Respondent and Ms. Hale. It is most likely that Respondent did not prompt the conversation and did not request that Ms. Hale remain after class. To the contrary, it would appear that she requested to remain after class. No doubt improper comments were made by both Ms. Hale and the Respondent and it makes no difference whether Ms. Hale or the Respondent initiated the colloquy. It is quite clear that subject matter improper for a conversation between a student and a teacher of opposite sexes, involving sexually suggestive comments took place and that both Respondent and Ms. Hale used language of this nature.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, and if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds, and at all relevant times, held a valid Florida Educator’s Certificate. Respondent is and, at all relevant times, was a fifth- grade teacher at Avon Park Elementary School in Highlands County. Respondent has been an elementary school teacher for 19 years. She taught fourth and fifth grade at Zolfo Springs Elementary School in Hardee County from 1986 through the end of the 2000-01 school year. She started teaching at Avon Park Elementary School at the beginning of the 2001-02 school year. Respondent is currently on a year-to-year contract. Her contract was renewed for the 2003-04 and 2004-05 school years notwithstanding the allegations in this case, which occurred during the 2002-03 school year. Respondent has not had any disciplinary problems over the course of her career, and other than the allegations in this case, she has never been accused of any unethical or unprofessional conduct. Respondent has always received good annual performance evaluations. Respondent’s most recent performance evaluations - - for the 2002-03 and 2003-04 school years –- state that she “meets or exceeds expectations” in all categories, including the category that assesses whether Respondent “act[s] in a professional and ethical manner and adhere[s] to the Code and Principles of Professional Conduct.” Consistent with the information in Respondent’s annual performance evaluations, the principal at Avon Park Elementary School, who is Respondent’s current supervisor, testified that Respondent “does a good job” as a teacher and that she values Respondent quite highly as a teacher; the former principal at Zolfo Springs Elementary School, who was Respondent’s supervisor for approximately five of the years that Respondent taught at that school, testified that Respondent’s reputation for complying with the code of ethics is “excellent” and that Respondent always “monitored and cherished” her professionalism; one of Respondent’s co-workers at Avon Park Elementary School testified that Respondent is “a very effective and professional teacher”; and the students who testified at the hearing characterized Respondent as a good teacher. Respondent has administered the FCAT to her students since the test’s inception in the 1990s, and as a result, she is very familiar with what teachers can and cannot do when administering the test. Respondent and other teachers at Avon Park Elementary School received training on the administration of the 2003 FCAT, and as part of the training, Respondent received a copy of the Test Administration Manual for the 2003 FCAT. The Test Administration Manual is published by the state Department of Education (Department) and is distributed to teachers by the testing coordinators at each school. The school-level testing coordinators report to a testing coordinator at the school district level, who is ultimately responsible for the administration of the FCAT to the district’s students. The Test Administration Manual summarizes the “dos and don’ts” of test administration for the FCAT. It also includes a copy of the statute and rule governing test security, which for the 2003 FCAT were Section 228.301, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.042. On the issue of test security, the Test Administration Manual explains that: it is not appropriate to talk with [students] about any test item or to help them answer any test item. For example, if students finish the test before the allotted time for the session has elapsed, or have not attempted to complete a question, it would be appropriate to encourage them to go back and check their work. It is not acceptable to provide the students with any information that would allow them to infer the correct answer, such as suggesting that they might want to check their work on a specific question. (Emphasis in original). The FCAT is required by state law to be administered annually to public school students in the third through tenth grades to measure the students’ proficiency in reading, writing, science, and math. The FCAT measures the students’ performance against state standards. The Norm Referenced Test (NRT), which is administered in conjunction with the FCAT, measures the students’ performance in math and reading against national standards. The FCAT is an important test, both to students and the schools. The student’s promotion to the next grade and/or class placement is affected to some degree by his or her performance on the FCAT. The school’s grade, which has an impact on the funding that the school district receives from the state, is also affected to some degree by the students’ performance on the FCAT. The math and reading portions of the 2003 FCAT were administered to fifth graders on Monday through Wednesday, March 3-5, 2003. The science portion of the FCAT and the NRT were administered the following week, on Monday through Wednesday, March 10-12, 2003. Throughout the 2002-03 school year, Respondent “taught the FCAT” and gave her class practice FCAT questions. She used the questions as teaching tools and to help prepare her students for the actual FCAT. Respondent would sometimes explain the wording of the practice questions to her students and, as needed, she would provide the students other assistance, both individually and as a class, while they were working on the practice questions. On Friday, February 28, 2003, Respondent administered two practice tests to her students in which she tried to simulate the environment in which the students would be taking the actual FCAT the following week. For example, the tests were timed and Respondent walked around the room as she proctored the tests. Respondent helped the students during the practice tests as she had done with the practice questions administered throughout the year. At one point, she stopped the test and reviewed a math problem on the board with the class because she observed a number of students having problems with a particular question. Respondent administered the math and reading portions of the actual FCAT to 18 students in her homeroom class on March 3-5, 2003. None of those students were exceptional education students who were entitled to special accommodations. Respondent did a 15 to 20 minute “mini-review” each morning that the students were taking the actual FCAT during which she went over terminology and concepts that the students might see on the test that day. Respondent started the administration of the actual FCAT by reading the directions verbatim from the “scripts” in the Test Administration Manual. Once the students began taking the test, she monitored them from her desk and she also walked around the room on a periodic basis. Respondent also went to students’ desks when they raised their hands. The Test Administration Manual contemplates that students might raise their hands and ask questions during the test; indeed, the “scripts” that the teacher is required to read verbatim state more than once, “Please raise your hand if you have any questions.” Respondent denied giving the students any assistance in answering the test questions on the actual FCAT. According to Respondent, when a student asked her about a particular test question, she told the student that “I can’t help you,” “go back and re-read the directions,” “do the best you can,” or other words to that effect. The Department’s testing coordinator, Victoria Ash, testified that responses such as those are acceptable. Respondent also made a general statement to the class during the test reminding the students to go back and check their work if they finished the test before the allotted time expired. Ms. Ash testified that a general reminder such as that is “absolutely acceptable.” Respondent’s testimony was corroborated by student J.M., who credibly testified that he recalled more than once hearing Respondent tell other students that she could not help them during the actual FCAT. Several students testified that Respondent helped them during the actual FCAT by explaining words that they did not understand, explaining how to solve math problems, and/or by suggesting that they check their work on particular problems. That testimony was not persuasive because it lacked specificity and precision, and other than A.P., B.B. (boy), and K.J., the students testified that they were not certain that the help they remembered receiving was on the actual FCAT rather than on the practice tests that they were given by Respondent. With respect to B.B. (boy), the undersigned did not find his testimony persuasive because he also testified that Respondent helped the entire class with a math problem during the actual test, which contradicted the statements given by the other students and which suggests that he was recalling events from the practice test during which Respondent gave such help to the entire class. With respect to A.P. and K.J., the undersigned did not find them to be particularly credible witnesses based upon their demeanors while testifying. There were other inconsistencies in the students’ accounts of Respondent’s administration of the FCAT that make their testimony generally unpersuasive. For example, B.B. (girl) testified that Respondent played classical music during the actual test, which was not corroborated by any other student in the class and was contradicted by Respondent’s credible testimony that she played music during the practice tests to relax the students but that she and the other fifth-grade teachers at Avon Park Elementary School made a conscious decision not to play music during the actual FCAT. As a result of the students’ apparent confusion regarding events occurring during practice tests rather than the actual FCAT, the inconsistencies in the students’ accounts of the events during the administration of the test, the general lack of specificity and precision in the students’ accounts of the events, and Respondent’s credible denial of any wrongdoing, the evidence does not clearly and convincingly establish the truth of the allegations against Respondent. In making the foregoing finding, due consideration was given to the investigation undertaken by the district-level testing coordinator, Rebecca Fleck, at the time of the allegations against Respondent, and the materials generated through that investigation. The reason for the investigation was a phone call that Ms. Fleck received on Wednesday, March 5, 2003, from a Department employee who told Ms. Fleck that the Department had received an anonymous complaint about Respondent’s administration of the FCAT. Ms. Fleck went to Avon Park Elementary School on Friday, March 7, 2003, to investigate the complaint. On that date, she met with the school’s assistant principal and interviewed several of the students in Respondent’s class. She also spoke briefly with Respondent to “get her side of the story,” which consistent with her testimony at the hearing, was an unequivocal denial of any wrongdoing. Ms. Fleck decided, based upon the student interviews, that Respondent should not administer the science portion of the FCAT or the NRT the following week. As a result, Respondent was assigned to work at the school district office on March 10-12, 2003, while her students were taking the tests on those dates. Ms. Fleck also decided to interview and get statements from all of the students in Respondent’s class, which she did on the following Monday and Tuesday, March 10 and 11, 2003. On those days, the students were called to the principal’s office in groups of two or three and they were asked to fill out a questionnaire developed by Ms. Fleck. Pam Burnaham, the principal of Avon Park Elementary School, and Ms. Fleck supervised the students while they filled out the questionnaires. The students were not told that Ms. Fleck was investigating alleged wrongdoing by Respondent; they were told that the purpose of the questionnaire was to find out about their “FCAT experience.” Ms. Fleck testified that she was confident that the students understood that the questionnaire related only to the actual FCAT and not any of the practice tests administered by Respondent; however, Ms. Burnaham testified that she did not place any emphasis on the distinction, and as noted above, the students’ testimony at the hearing indicates that they may have been confused on this issue. Ms. Fleck concluded based upon the students’ responses on the questionnaires that Respondent “coached” the students during the administration of the actual FCAT. As a result, she invalidated the tests of all 18 students in Respondent’s class. Ms. Fleck’s decision to invalidate the students’ tests was not unreasonable based upon what she was told by the students, which she believed to be true; however, the invalidation of the tests is not sufficient in and of itself to impose discipline on Respondent because, as discussed above, the truth of the students’ allegations was not clearly and convincingly proven at the hearing. Several of the students gave written statements to a Department investigator in late May 2003 regarding the help that they recalled being given by Respondent on the FCAT. No weight is given to those statements because no credible evidence was presented regarding the circumstances under which the statements were made, the statements were made several months after the events described in the statements, and as was the case with the questionnaires the students filled out for Ms. Fleck, the undersigned is not persuaded that the students understood at the time they were giving the statements that they were describing events that occurred during the actual FCAT rather than the practice tests that they were given by Respondent. There is no persuasive evidence that any of the students in Respondent’s class whose tests were invalidated suffered any adverse educational consequences. Even though the school administrators did not have the benefit of the students’ FCAT scores for purposes of placement and/or developing a remediation plan, they had other information on which they could make those decisions, including the students’ scores on the NRT, which was administered the week after the FCAT and was not invalidated. Other than being reassigned to the school district office during the administration of the NRT, Respondent did not suffer any adverse employment consequences from the school district as a result of the students’ allegations and/or the invalidation of the students’ tests. To the contrary, Respondent continued to get good performance reviews and her contract has been renewed twice since the administration of the 2003 FCAT. Respondent did not administer the 2004 FCAT because this case was still pending. She was given other duties at Avon Park Elementary School while her students were taking the 2004 FCAT.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 6th day of April, 2005.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent, Cornell Lamont Steward (Respondent or Mr. Steward), violated sections 1012.795(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2012), or sections 1012.795(1)(g) or (j), Florida Statutes (2011),1/ and implementing administrative rules, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint,2/ and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction?
Findings Of Fact The Commissioner is the state officer responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct against individuals holding educator certificates. At all times relevant to the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint, Mr. Steward held Florida Educator Certificate 1156507, covering the areas of biology and earth- space science, and was employed as a science teacher at Miami Carol City Senior High School in the Miami-Dade County School District. Mr. Steward’s certificate expired on June 30, 2013. On September 7, 2011, Mr. Steward was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs with resulting damage to property or another person in Broward County, Florida. As Mr. Steward admitted, on April 3, 2013, he was found guilty by a jury on this charge. On December 6, 2011, there was an altercation between a 15-year-old male student, A.C., and Mr. Steward in his classroom at Miami Carol City Senior High School. The Commissioner offered no competent evidence regarding this event other than pre-hearing admissions of Mr. Steward and his testimony at hearing. Mr. Steward testified that he was teaching in his fifth- period class, which was a ninth-grade science class consisting of about 21 students, when there was a knock on the classroom door. A.C., who was a student with behavior and attendance problems, had moved to a seat near the door and offered to see who was there. Mr. Steward at first agreed, but then changed his mind and asked A.C. to remain seated, while Mr. Steward answered the door himself. At the door were three unknown students. A.C. then got out of his seat, stating that the unknown students were his brothers, and moved to the door to greet them. Mr. Steward testified that the students at the door caused a great amount of disruption in the classroom, and he turned around to quiet his students. He testified that as he turned his back to the door, he felt A.C. “violently” press his groin against Mr. Steward’s buttocks, which startled and frightened Mr. Steward, so he had to “remove [A.C.] from [his] personal space.” Mr. Steward testified that A.C. then positioned himself between Mr. Steward and his desk, which had the telephone. According to Mr. Steward, A.C. then stepped forward in a “violent motion” and threatening manner with his fists balled up and “chin checked” Mr. Steward. Detective Marin testified that “chin checking” was slang to describe a tap or touch on the chin primarily as a challenge, used to instigate a confrontation, but was not itself a punch. Mr. Steward testified that he “removed [A.C.] from [his] presence.” Mr. Steward said that then, A.C. moved toward him again with a threatening motion, and Mr. Steward responded: With my left hand I grabbed his right shoulder. With my left hand I grabbed his right shoulder and with my right hand I grabbed his left shoulder. With using his momentum I placed him on the ground, I did not throw him, I did not slam him, I placed him on the ground. He’s a very small person. As soon as I did that, I, I checked for my students who were in attendance to locate security. One or two of them left the class and then there began to be a stampede out of the classroom. From that moment on–-oh, oh, while I was holding him on the ground, A.C. began to violently struggle and make motions towards me. Then also the three other students began to grab and pull at me and grab, pull and push at me. Then for my own safety I didn’t know if these children were armed. I didn’t know anything, I let A.C. go and he and the three other students fled the classroom. Later that day, Principal Dunn was told that Mr. Steward had been in an altercation with a student. He asked the school resource officer, Tracy Moore, to investigate. The following morning, December 7, 2011, Principal Dunn called Mr. Steward to his office to discuss the incident. But for the meeting in Mr. Dunn’s office, Mr. Steward would have reported to his classroom. At the meeting, Mr. Steward’s behavior was a bit erratic. He was laughing, loudly and inappropriately, at the events of the previous day. Principal Dunn noticed that Mr. Steward’s eyes were glassy. Principal Dunn suspected that Mr. Steward was under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Mr. Steward stated that his eyes were glassy and swollen because he was up the night before thinking about the incident with A.C. Principal Dunn called the region director and the Office of Professional Standards for advice on how to proceed. He kept Mr. Steward in his “custody,” so that Principal Dunn or the school would not be responsible if anything occurred. Principal Dunn completed a Reasonable Suspicion Form, noting that Mr. Steward had slow or inappropriate reactions, glassy and swollen eyes, and inappropriate laughter. He determined that there was probable cause to send Mr. Steward for a drug and alcohol screen. Mr. Steward was tested by LabCorp on December 7, 2011. The results were positive for marijuana. Mr. Steward’s exhibit offered to show that the lab sample which was tested was actually obtained on another day is not persuasive, and his argument that the test results should not be admitted is completely rejected. On January 5, 2012, a Conference for the Record was held with Mr. Steward, Mr. Dunn, Ms. Sherri Daniels of United Teachers of Dade, and Ms. Joyce Castro, district director. The events of December 7, 2011, and the test results were reviewed with Mr. Steward. He was given an opportunity to respond, but declined that opportunity. He was advised that a second positive drug test, refusal to submit to future drug tests, or failure to abide with rehabilitation directions could result in additional action, including dismissal. Mr. Dunn testified that the incidents had an effect upon Mr. Steward’s effectiveness as a teacher.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Respondent, Cornell Lamont Steward, in violation of section 1012.795(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2012), and section 1012.795(1)(g), Florida Statutes (2011). It is further recommended that the Commission impose upon Cornell Lamont Steward a fine of $3,000.00 and revoke his educator certificate for a period of three years, at the expiration of which time he may receive a new certificate by meeting all certification requirements of the state board current at the time of his application, subject to terms and conditions determined by the Education Practices Commission to be reasonably necessary to ensure that there will be no threat to students and that he will be capable of resuming the responsibilities of an educator. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of November, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 10th day of November, 2015.
