The Issue The issues in this proceeding involve Petitioners' challenge, pursuant to Section 120.54(4), Florida Statutes, of the proposed adoption by the School Board of school attendance boundaries and attendant policy changes for implementation beginning with the 1981-82 school year. Initially, Petitioners challenged both the proposed zones for high and elementary schools. However, during the pendency of this proceeding, Respondent withdrew the proposed attendance zone changes for elementary schools, thereby rendering issues related thereto moot, and leaving only the high school boundaries for further consideration. In summary, Petitioners claim that the proposed rule amendments, including maps prepared in conjunction therewith, are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority by virtue of the School Board's failure to comply with procedural and substantive requirements of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Petitioners allege that deficiencies exist in procedures utilized by the School Board prior to publication of its notice of intent to adopt the proposed rules, in the advertisements and economic impact statement prepared in conjunction with the proposed rule amendments, and in the allegedly arbitrary and capricious nature of the Proposed changes from current attendance boundaries. Petitioners further claim that the School Board's announced intention to utilize student race as a factor in drawing attendance zones is unconstitutional and beyond the School Board's delegated legislative authority. The Respondent contends that each of the Petitioners is without standing to maintain this rule challenge pursuant to Section 120.54(4), Florida Statutes; that the preadvertisement procedures followed by the School Board are not jurisdictional insofar as this present proceeding is concerned; that any deficiencies in the legal notices or economic impact statement constitute harmless error; and that the proposed rules are a valid exercise of legislative authority delegated to it in Sections 230.23(4) and 230.232, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The School Board of Leon County, Florida, is an "agency" as defined in Section 120.52(1), Florida Statutes, and is charged by law with direction and control of grades Kindergarten through 12 for all public schools in Leon County, Florida. Respondent is required by statute to promulgate rules and regulations establishing attendance zones for grades Kindergarten through 12, and has proposed for adoption certain amendments to its existing rules which will have the effect of changing attendance boundaries for middle and high schools located in Leon County, Florida. On May 5, 1981, the School Board withdrew previously advertised plans to adopt modified attendance boundaries for the 1981-82 school year, but announced its intention to continue its rezoning efforts. The School Board held a workshop meeting to discuss rezoning on May 14, 1981. This meeting was noticed in the legal advertisement section of the Tallahassee Democrat on that same date. Action on rezoning was taken at the meeting, and the meeting was recessed until the evening of May 18, 1981. No formal notice of the recessing of the May 14 meeting or the reconvening of that meeting on May 18 was published in any newspaper. On May 18, the May 14 workshop was reconvened. At this meeting the public addressed questions to the School Board members and staff. The Board announced at this meeting that it would discuss the matter further at its regular meeting the following night, May 19, 1981, and that the general issue of rezoning was already on the agenda for the May 19 meeting. The School Board also directed the Superintendent to "take administrative steps as are necessary to schedule a special meeting of the Board pursuant to provisions of Section 230.16, Florida Statutes." This reconvened meeting held on the evening of May 18, 1981, was the subject of an article in the May 18, 1981, edition of the Tallahassee Democrat, which carried a news article reporting on rezoning under the headline, "The rezoners are feeling the pressure." This newspaper article included a special separated section entitled "Meeting is Monday," which directed the public's attention to the time and location of the workshop meeting that night. Toward the end of the regular School Board meeting on May 19, 1981, the School Board recessed and subsequently reconvened to discuss rezoning. The School Board held an extensive discussion on various topics related to rezoning, and responded to questions from the public. Two subsequent meetings were then scheduled. The first was a workshop meeting on rezoning to be held on May 25, 1981, and the second was a meeting scheduled for May 26, 1981, to direct the Superintendent to advertise the proposed modified school attendance boundaries. On May 20, 1981, in the Special Notice section of the Tallahassee Democrat, an ad appeared noticing a "special meeting" of the School Board at Belle Vue Middle School on May 26, 1981, beginning at 7:00 p.m., to discuss rezoning. On May 21, 1981, in the Legal Advertisement section of the Tallahassee Democrat, an ad appeared noticing a "special emergency meeting" at Bond Elementary School beginning at 5:00 p.m. on May 26, 1981, to deal with rezoning, which notice indicated that the meeting time and place was a rescheduling of the meeting previously set for Belle Vue Middle School. The May 25, 1981, workshop meeting was noticed in a legal advertisement in the Tallahassee Democrat on May 22, 1981. In a news article on rezoning published on Sunday, May 24, 1981, in the Tallahassee Democrat, which article was entitled "Rezoners can't find all the answers," the purpose, times and locations for both the May 25 workshop and the May 26 special emergency meeting were contained in a special section set off from the remainder of the article. The Petitioners challenging the modification of the high school attendance boundaries in this proceeding testified that they were each present at the May 26 meeting. At the School Board meeting on May 26, 1981, there were approximately forty to fifty members of the public in attendance. Members of the public addressed the School Board during the meeting. Several modifications were made to the maps and the language of the proposed rule amendments at this meeting. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Superintendent was directed to initiate in accordance with Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, the adoption of modified school attendance boundaries and associated language changes in as expeditious a fashion as possible. On June 3, 1981, four legal advertisements pertinent to this proceeding, each entitled "Notice of Intent to Adopt a Rule," appeared in the Legal Notices section of the Tallahassee Democrat. These notices were titled 6GX37-3.02(1) High School; 6GX37-3.02(1) Middle School; 6GX37-3.02(1) Elementary School; and 6GX37-3.02 Assignment of Pupils. Under the economic impact portion of the four advertisements is the phrase, ". . . [p]arents of students who elect to be grandfathered are responsible for transportation and the costs associated with that responsibility." The maps containing the proposed high school attendance boundaries are Respondent's Exhibits 8(d) High School City Map, and 8(e) High School County Map. The two high school maps were referenced in the legal advertisement denominated 6GX37-3.02(1) High Schools. By its actions, the School Board proposes to amend Rule 6GX37-3.02(1) to read as follows: The Establishment of Schools. All public schools operated by the School Board of Leon County, Florida, shall be for its residents and for such other students as may be authorized by the Board and shall be fully desegregated. The School Board shall from time to time promulgate atten- dance zones so that each school will serve those students residing in each such zone. The Board shall also establish student capacities for, and grades served by, each school in the county, which may be modified by the Board as required. Maps showing the attendance zones applicable to each school, including grades served by each school, shall be maintained in the Office of Student Services and shall be available for public inspection. The School Board also proposes to amend Rule 6GX37-3.02(2) to add the following provision: Grandfathering. The following standards shall be for grandfathering certain students, provided that their residence remains unchanged, in order to preserve educational continuity. Once a student has indicated his or her choice, in writing, changes may be made through application to the Board Reassignment Subcommittee. The Board shall, upon request, allow students who were enrolled in a high school during the 1980-81 school year to remain at that same high school if the new zones for the 1981-82 school year put them in the attendance zone of a different high school so long as the parents shall be responsible for all necessary transportation. (Emphasis added). The School Board is not presently under any federal or state mandate to rezone the school system in Leon County. The School Board is, therefore, performing a purely discretionary function in undertaking its current rezoning effort. Respondent's express purpose in rezoning Leon County high schools for the 1981-82 school year is . . . to make more effective use of school facilities and to seek greater racial balance among the four high schools." In the preparation of school attendance boundaries the School Board, for statistical purposes, divided Leon County into a large number of small geographical areas called "study areas" or "study zones." The number of students residing in each study area was determined by both race and grade level, and this information was then placed in a computer to establish an accurate baseline of current attendance data for making various enrollment projections. In connection with the proposed zoning changes, the School Board administrative staff attempted to bring current and make as accurate as possible the data used in the rezoing process. Current enrollment figures at the high school level were updated through April 8, 1981. In making the various projections based upon available data, the School Board, through its consultant, used "cohort survival rates," a student projection technique developed by the Florida Department of Education for use throughout the state by school districts considering modification of school attendance boundaries. It is recognized that, although this projection technique is commonly accepted, it is subject to the normal errors inherent in any such predictive technique. On February 3, 1981, the School Board adopted five of eight criteria recommended by the Superintendent to be considered in drawing new attendance boundaries. These criteria, although never formally adopted as "rules," were used by community volunteers, staff, consultants, and ultimately the School Board itself in the development of the maps delineating the proposed new attendance boundaries. These criteria are as follows: * * * That the concept of neighborhood schools be adhered to in the revision of the attendance areas, but that non-contiguous attendance areas be allowed where necessary to achieve the desired racial composition. That natural boundaries be used to define attendance areas insofar as it is possible, avoiding duplicate transportation service on individual roadways. That the minority enrollment in any school be not more than 10 percent above or 10 percent below the percent of minority enrollment in that school level in the county as a whole, excluding Chaires, Concord, Fort Braden and Woodville Elementary Schools. That rising 5th, 8th and 12th grade students, on request, be permitted to continue in attendance if their resi- dence is placed in another school attendance area, with any needed transportation being provided by the parent and not the School Board (an exception to this rule should be made for students whose school of atten- dance was changed by the School Board in August, 1980, and transportation be provided at district expense in the event that the attendance areas affecting them are changed this year and the parents desire to have their children continue to attend the school they are attending in 1980-81). That the transportation needed to accomplish the desired racial compo- sition of each school be provided in as efficient and cost effective manner as possible, consistent with Florida Laws and Regulations, and School Board policy on hazardous areas. (Emphasis added). There are four high schools in Leon County: Leon, Godby, Rickards and Lincoln. Enrollment figures for the four high schools, as of April 8, 1981, are as follows: Leon, 1,690; Godby, 1,430; Lincoln, 1,664; and Rickards, 928. White students attending each of the four high schools comprise the following percentages of the total student body: Leon, 78 percent; Godby, 64 percent; Lincoln, 73 percent; and Rickards, 49 percent. The recommended capacities for the high schools in Leon County, based upon the School Plant Survey of Leon District Schools conducted by the Florida Department of Education, are: Leon, 1,644; Godby, 1,556; Lincoln, 1,704; and Rickards, 1,465. In designing the proposed attendance boundaries for the 1981-82 school year, the School Board's consultant used a recommended enrollment figure supplied to him by the School Board staff. This recommended enrollment figure was not the same as the physical plant capacity figure. These recommended enrollment figures were, however, closely related to plant capacities, any differences between the two figures being reflective of various other program considerations. The most reliable prediction of future enrollments at the various high schools, which takes into account the estimated effect of grandfathering under the proposed amendments, reveals that for the first three years in which the proposed school boundaries are to be in effect, anticipated enrollments will be within the physical plant capacities of the various high schools. In addition, under the proposed zone changes, the racial composition of the student populations at each of the four high schools is projected to be within the 10 percent criteria established by the School Board by March of 1984. Rickards is the only high school in Leon County which does not presently meet the plus-or- minus 10 percent racial composition criteria. However, as indicated above, according to the School Board's projections, Rickards should meet that criteria during the 1983-84 school year. The greater number of students assigned to Rickards under the proposed zoning changes will make use of available and currently unused space, and, because of increased student enrollment, the diversity of course offerings should also increase. This is so because the amount of funds allocated to a given school is directly related to the number of students enrolled. Thus, for an under-enrolled school such as Rickards, fewer funds are generated under the statewide funding formula for that facility, which, in turn, may result in fewer programs being offered to students. There are, in fact, some courses not presently offered at Rickards that are available in other county high schools, due, at least in part, to under-enrollment at Rickards. The record in this proceeding does not establish with absolute certainty the total number of students either eligible for or expected to exercise the grandfathering option for the 1981-82 school year. However, a poll conducted by the School Board indicates that from 90 percent to 100 percent of students eligible for grandfathering will exercise that option, and estimates of potential school enrollments are partially based on that assumption. In fact, all student petitioners in this proceeding eligible for grandfathering testified that they would take advantage of that option. The reasons for this choice generally dealt with current school activities and friendships, and was consistent with the policy expressed by the School Board "to preserve educational continuity." The economic impact of the grandfathering provision on parents required to furnish transportation as a result of electing that option was not addressed quantitatively in the School Board's Economic Impact Statement. With regard to this cost factor, the Economic Impact Statement provided that: Current Board policy provides that bus transportation will be provided by the district if the residence of the parent is more than two miles from the assigned school. None of the proposed rule amendments modify this basic policy; however, the policy changes in 3.02 allow for the "grandfather- ing" of students in certain grade levels subject to the requirement that the parents provide all necessary transportation. To the extent that a parent voluntarily chooses to assume that responsibility, that parent may incur associated costs such as gas and oil. There is no indication in this record that the School Board considered the potential cost and feasibility of providing transportation at School Board expense to those students choosing the grandfather option who live two or more miles from the "grandfathered" school. Testimony at the final hearing estimated transportation costs of $367.20 based upon an average driving distance between a student's home and school of 5.1 miles (based on the length of the average bus route), full attendance for the full 180 student school days, and a 20 cents- per-mile cost, which is the current state reimbursement rate for travel by automobile. Naturally, actual transportation costs would vary substantially, depending upon the type of vehicle driven, the number of students transported, the student's actual attendance pattern, carpooling, travel routes, and other associated factors. The parents' responsibility to assume these transportation costs in the event of electing tee grandfathering option is pointed out both in the rule advertisements and the Economic Impact Statement. The School Board has other existing policies which allow a student to attend a school different from that to which he is assigned based upon the location of his residence. These include the School Board's majority/minority transfer policy and instances in which a student requests to attend a special program at another school which is not available at his assigned school. In all such cases, the School Board requires that the student or his parents provide transportation at their own expense. The Economic Impact Statement prepared by the School Board in conjunction with the rule adoption process was based upon materials developed by the School Board staff on impact costs associated with rezoning in their areas of administrative responsibility. The Economic Impact Statement itself was based ". . . upon the premise that only those incremental, out-of-pocket costs attributable to the policy revision and rezoning process are included." Previously committed, or "sunk," costs such as salaries and related employee benefits were explicitly excluded from the analysis, although such costs were significant since the rezoning process absorbed a great deal of staff time. Similarly, "opportunity" costs, in the form of benefits foregone by directing district resources to rezoning rather than other goals were specifically excluded from consideration in the Economic Impact Statement. These base assumptions were described in the Economic Impact Statement itself. Petitioners, Joseph and Piercie Ehrlich, reside in Leon County, Florida, with their two daughters, Stephanie and Betty, who presently attend Lincoln High School. Under the proposed rezoning plan, the Ehrlichs' daughters would be required to attend Rickards High School, unless they choose the grandfather option in order to remain at Lincoln High School. Lincoln High School is located 1.58 miles from the Ehrlich home, and it is approximately 5 miles to Rickards High School from their residence. In the event that the proposed amendments to the school attendance zones are adopted, both of the Ehrlichs' daughters testified that they will exercise the grandfather option in order to continue to attend Lincoln High School. Petitioners, Robert and Joni McDermott, reside in Leon County, Florida, with their daughter, Dana, who is presently a student at Lincoln High School. The McDermotts' daughter will be required to attend Rickards High School, unless, as she testified, she exercises the grandfather option, should the proposed school attendance zones be adopted. The McDermott residence is located 2 miles from Lincoln High School, and approximately 3.5 to 4 miles from Rickards High School. Curt and Linda McKenzie reside in Leon County, Florida, with their daughter, Kris, who is a student at Lincoln High School. If the proposed rezoning amendments are adopted, Kris will be required to attend Rickards High School, unless she chooses to remain at Lincoln under the grand fathering provision. The McKenzie residence is located 1.6 miles from Lincoln High School, and approximately 4 miles from Rickards. A. P. and Judy Floyd reside in Leon County, Florida, with their child, Tracy, who would be entering the 9th grade at Lincoln High School, absent the proposed amendments to the school attendance zones. However, under the proposed plan, Tracy will be required to attend Rickards High School for the 1981-82 school year. Lincoln High School is located 1.6 miles from the Floyd residence, and Rickards High School is located 4.4 miles from their home. Counsel for both Petitioners and Respondent have submitted proposed findings of fact for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those findings of fact have not been adopted in this Order, they have been rejected as being either irrelevant to the issues in this cause, or as not having been supported by the evidence.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a seventh grade student at Howard D. McMillan Junior High School. He received failing grades in all his first semester courses and regularly fails to accomplish his homework assignments. He has an absentee rate (unexcused) approaching 50 percent and is frequently late to those classes he does attend. Petitioner has attempted various counseling and disciplinary techniques without success. Although there have been some communication problems between school officials and Respondent's parents, they were aware of his poor grades and frequent absences.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order assigning Ybrahim Gonzalez, Jr., to its opportunity school. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of June, 1984, at Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER 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 19th day of June, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Valentine, Esquire 3000 Executive Plaza 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Mr. Ybrahim Gonzalez, Sr. 6624 Southwest 148 Place Miami, Florida 33138 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Assistant Board Attorney 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact Allan Bonilla, currently Principal of Riviera Junior High School, was one of at least two assistant principals who attempted to work with Venus Tara Rodriguez during her 7th grade experience there in the 1984-1985 regular school year. He has been employed four years at that facility. Immediately prior to the winter vacation (commonly known as the extended Christmas holidays), on December 20, 1984, Venus left the campus without prior permission, this activity resulted in a two-day indoor suspension. In February, 1985, she received a three-day indoor suspension as the result of tardiness which culminated in an outdoor suspension the same month because her behavior at the three-day indoor suspension was so disruptive that it was deemed ineffective for her and the other students. In March, 1985, her rude and disruptive classroom behavior resulted in two indoor suspensions. In April 1985, as a result of her refusal to work during the last indoor suspension, she was assigned an outdoor suspension. Mr. Bonilla did not work with Venus as regularly as another assistant principal who was not available for hearing, but he expressed personal knowledge of the foregoing events and had interacted with Venus on several occasions for being out of class and boisterous. His assessment was that Venus could do the work required of her but that her behavior was so disruptive in the classroom that at the conclusion of the regular 1984-1985 school year she was failing two out of six subjects and was doing approximately "D" work in the rest. He agreed with the decision to assign her to an alternative school program, which decision was made because of Venus' need of individual attention and smaller class due to her habit of "acting out" in large groups. Venus' parents were contacted concerning each suspension. Mr. Bonilla testified that Venus has successfully finished 7th grade during the 1985 summer school session at GRE Lee opportunity School and he has received notice she will be reassigned and enrolled at Riviera Junior High School for the 1985-1986 school year commencing in September 1985.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the School Board enter a final order returning Venus Tara Rodriguez to Riviera Junior High School. DONE AND ORDERED this 29th day of August, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Phyllis O. Douglas, Esquire 1410 N. E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Dade County Public Schools Board Administration Building 1410 N. E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Mark A. Valentine, Esquire 3050 Biscayne Blvd. Suite 800 Miami, Florida 33137-4198 Ms. Wilhelmina A. Rodriguez 4110 S. W. 104th Place Miami, Florida 33165 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1510 N. E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issue in this case is whether, and how, Respondent should be disciplined for failing to take appropriate action regarding a middle school student who brought a knife to school.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator Certificate 1063574 and is licensed in the fields of English, English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), Reading, and Exceptional Student Education. She began teaching at Bonita Springs Middle School in Lee County in September 2011, after the start of the 2011-2012 school year. During instruction in her fourth period class on February 13, 2012, Respondent heard a student ask another student, who was an Exceptional Student Education (ESE) student with emotional issues, "was that a knife?" The ESE student responded, "Drama!" When Respondent looked up, she saw the ESE student place something in her lap, out of Respondent's view. Respondent did not see what it was but saw a flash of silver or metal. The class started to "act up," and Respondent decided to diffuse the incident and quiet the class by telling the ESE student to "put it away." The ESE student then put the object in her backpack. When the class ended, Respondent approached the ESE student and asked if she had a knife. The student denied it. Respondent told the student, if she had a knife, that would be unacceptable, but Respondent did not pursue the matter any further at the time and allowed the student to leave for her next class. During Respondent's eighth period class, the last period of the day, Respondent asked her student-aide, who also was a student in her fourth period class, about the incident during fourth period. The student-aide told Respondent that it was a knife, like a small steak knife, and that the ESE student had been licking it. After speaking with her student-aide, Respondent sent the school's ESE director, who also was the ESE student's caseworker, an electronic message simply asking to discuss the student with her when she had a moment. No details about the incident were included in the message out of Respondent's concern that it would be a public record. Respondent did not receive a response by the end of the school day. The ESE director received the message after hours. The next morning, Respondent saw the ESE director at a teacher's meeting and explained the previous day's incident. The ESE director was concerned about the delay in doing anything else about it and immediately went to the school principal, who was in the cafeteria, as were several other students, including Respondent's ESE student. The principal immediately went to the student and asked if she had a knife. The student admitted she did and thought it was no big deal since Respondent did nothing about it the day before. The student later stated that she was depressed and was considering cutting herself with the knife. Respondent now understands that she did not take the appropriate action on February 13, 2012. However, she contends that there are mitigating factors to consider, and any discipline should be constructive (such as, additional training), not punitive. Respondent attempts to defend herself to an extent by saying she did not actually see the knife during fourth period. However, it is clear that Respondent heard students asking about a knife, and saw something silver or metallic that could have been a knife, and was aware of the student's emotional issues. In light of those circumstances, Respondent should not have been satisfied with the student's denial that she had a knife; she should have involved the school's administrators and resource officer at that point. When she learned during eighth period that the student in fact had a knife, she should not have been satisfied with an unacknowledged electronic message to the ESE director. Respondent also attempts to deflect some blame onto the school for not making sure she knew what to do about incidents like the one that confronted her on February 13, 2012. It may well be true, as she testified, that Respondent did not get a copy of the Parent Guide and Code of Conduct for Students, normally distributed to teachers at the beginning of the school year, which identifies a kitchen knife as a weapon and prohibits it. Petitioner attempted to impeach Respondent's denial of receipt of the document by citing a handful of student discipline referrals by Respondent that use incident types taken from that document. One incident type, albeit not used by Respondent in any of her referrals, was possession of weapons; however, the form does not define weapons. Respondent testified convincingly that she used the forms without reference to the source document. Nonetheless, she knew it would be unacceptable for a student to have a knife at school. When Respondent started teaching at the school, she was offered an opportunity to take the APPLES program for new teachers, which provides information and training on codes of conduct, including provisions to protect the safety of students and faculty. Respondent opted out, stating that she took the APPLES program during her previous employment in Collier County. While perhaps not handed to Respondent when she started teaching at Bonita Springs Middle School, the Parent Guide and Code of Conduct for Students was easily accessible from Respondent's school computer via a program called SharePoint that was a link on the home page. Respondent denies ever accessing the material from her computer. However, Respondent prepared a professional development plan shortly after she started teaching at the school in October 2011. It included a plan to train on how to download documents from SharePoint, but Respondent had not yet followed through on that plan by the time of the incident. Information also was available to Respondent in the form of an Agenda book that she was given. The Agenda book contained the school's rules, including one prohibiting weapons as nuisances and providing that they would be confiscated. It is not clear whether any of the information provided or available to Respondent would have told her what to do in circumstances where she suspected, but was not certain, that a student had a knife, and the student denied it. Based on the facts of this case, additional training is appropriate and actually is desired by Respondent. On the other hand, Respondent would rather not be reprimanded, submit to supervised probation, and pay a $500 fine and pay costs, as Petitioner proposes. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, Petitioner's proposal would be harsh, not constructive, and possibly demoralizing. The evidence is clear that Respondent will follow the rules she is given and take appropriate action in a situation if she knows what is expected of her. A repeat of the failure to act appropriately in a situation similar to the incident on February 13, 2012, is not likely.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission find Respondent guilty of violating rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), issue a letter of reprimand, and place her on a short term of probation conditioned on the completion of appropriate additional training. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of April, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 8th day of April, 2013.
Findings Of Fact The School Board of Leon County, Florida, is an "agency" as defined in Section 128.52(1), Florida Statutes, and is charged by law with direction and control of grades Kindergarten through 12 for all public schools in Leon County, Florida. Respondent is required by statute to promulgate rules and regulations establishing attendance zones for grades Kindergarten through 12, and has proposed for adoption certain amendments to its existing rules which will have the effect of changing attendance boundaries for middle schools located in Leon County, Florida. On May 5, 1981, the School Board withdrew previously advertised plans to adopt modified attendance boundaries for the 1981-82 school year, but announced its intention to continue its rezoning efforts. The School Board held a workshop meeting to discuss rezoning on May 14, 1981. This meeting was noticed in the legal advertisement section of the Tallahassee Democrat on that same date. No action on rezoning was taken at the meeting, and the meeting was recessed until the evening of May 18, 1981. No formal notice of the recessing of the May 14 meeting or the reconvening of that meeting on May 18 was published in any newspaper. On May 18, the May 14 workshop was reconvened. At this meeting the public addressed questions to the School Board members and staff. The Board announced at this meeting that it would discuss the matter further at its regular meeting the following night, May 19, 1981, and that the general issue of rezoning was already on the agenda for the May 19 meeting. The School Board also directed the Superintendent to "take administrative steps as are necessary to schedule a special meeting of the Board pursuant to provisions of Section 230.16, Florida Statutes." This reconvened meeting held on the evening of May 18, 1981, was the subject of an article in the May 18, 1981 edition of the Tallahassee Democrat, which carried a news article reporting on rezoning under the headline, "The rezoners are feeling the pressure. This newspaper article included a special separated section entitled "Meeting is Monday," which directed the public's attention to the time and location of the workshop meeting that night. Toward the end of the regular School Board meeting on May 19, 1981, the School Board recessed and subsequently reconvened to discuss rezoning. The School Board held an extensive discussion on various topics related to rezoning, and responded to questions from the public. Two subsequent meetings were then scheduled. The first was a workshop meeting on rezoning to be held on May 25, 1981, and the second was a meeting scheduled for May 26, 1981, to direct the Superintendent to advertise the proposed modified school attendance boundaries. On May 20, 1981, in the Special Notice section of the Tallahassee Democrat, an ad appeared noticing a "special meeting" of the School Board at Belle Vue Middle School on May 26, 1981, beginning at 7:00 p.m., to discuss rezoning. On May 21, 1981, in the Legal Advertisement section of the Tallahassee Democrat, an ad appeared noticing a "special emergency meeting" at Bond Elementary School beginning at 5:00 P.M.. on May 26, 1981, to deal with rezoning, which notice indicated that the meeting time and place was a rescheduling of the meeting previously set for Belle Vue Middle School. The May 25, 1981, workshop meeting was noticed in a legal advertisement in the Tallahassee Democrat on May 22, 1981. In a news article on rezoning published on Sunday, May 24, 1981, in the Tallahassee Democrat, which article was entitled "Rezoners can't find all the answers," the purpose, times and locations for both the May 25 workshop and the Day 26 special emergency meeting were contained in a special section set off from the remainder of the article. At the School Board meeting on Day 26, 1981, there were approximately forty to fifty members of the public in attendance. Members of the public addressed the School Board during the meeting. Several modifications were made to the maps and the language of the proposed rule amendments at this meeting. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Superintendent was directed to initiate in accordance with Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, the adoption of modified school attendance boundaries and associated language changes in as expeditious a fashion as possible. On June 3, 1981, four legal advertisements pertinent to this proceeding, each entitled "Notice of Intent to Adopt a Rule," appeared in the Legal Notices section of the Tallahassee Democrat. These notices were titled 6GX37-3.02(1) High School; 6GX37-3.02(1) Elementary School; and 6Gx37-3.02 Assignment of Pupils. Under the economic impact portion of the four advertisements is the phrase, ". . . [p]arents of students who elect to be grandfathered are responsible for transportation and the costs associated with that responsibility." The maps containing the proposed middle school attendance boundaries are Respondent's Exhibits 8(a) Middle School City Map, 8(b) Middle School County Map and 8(c) Middle School Killearn Map. The three middle school maps were referenced in the legal advertisement denominated 6GX37-3.02(1) Middle Schools. By its actions, the School Board proposes to amend Rule 6GX37-3.02(1) to read as follows: The Establishment of Schools. All public schools operated by the School Board of Leon County, Florida, shall be for its residents and for such other students as may be authorized by the Board and shall be fully desegregated. The School Board shall from time to time promulgate attendance zones so that each school will serve those students residing in each such zone. The Board shall also establish student capacities for, and grades served by, each school in the county, which may be modified by the Board as required. Maps showing the attendance zones applicable to each school, including grades served by each school, shall be maintained in the Office of Student Services and shall be available for public inspection. The School Board also proposes to amend Rule 6GX37-3.02(2) to add the following provision: (e) Grandfathering. The following standards shall be for grandfathering certain students, provided that their residence remains unchanged, in order to preserve educational continuity. Once a student has indicated his or her choice, in writing, changes may be made through application to the Board Reassignment Subcommittee. * * * (ii) Middle school students who will be in the eighth grade and elementary students who will be in the fifth grade during the 1981-82 school year shall, upon request, be allowed to remain at the school attended during the 1980-81 school year even though the 1981-82 school attendance zones place them in a new school so long as the parents shall be responsible for all necessary transportation. The School Board is not presently under any federal or state mandate to rezone the school system in Leon County. The School Board is, therefore, performing a purely discretionary function in undertaking its current rezoning effort. Respondent's expressed purpose in rezoning Leon County middle schools for the 1981-82 school year is ". . . to make more effective use of school facilities and to seek greater racial balance among the six middle schools." In the preparation of school attendance boundaries the School Board, for statistical purposes, divided Leon County into a large number of small geographical areas called "study areas or "study zones." The number of students residing in each study area was determined by both race and grade level, and this information was then placed in a computer to establish an accurate baseline of current attendance data for making various enrollment projections. In connection with the proposed zoning changes, the School Board administrative staff attempted to bring current and make as accurate as possible the data used in the rezoning process. Current enrollment figures at the middle school level were updated through March 27, 1981. In making the various projections based upon available data, the School Board, through its consultant, used "cohort survival rates," a student projection technique developed by the Florida Department of Education for use throughout the state by school districts considering modification of school attendance boundaries. It is recognized that, although this projection technique is commonly accepted, it is subject to the normal errors inherent in any such predictive technique. On February 3, 1981, the School Board adopted five of eight criteria recommended by the Superintendent to be considered in drawing new attendance boundaries. These criteria, although never formally adopted as "rules," were used by community volunteers, staff, consultants, and ultimately the School Board itself in the development of the maps delineating the proposed new attendance boundaries. These criteria are as follows: * * * That the concept of neighborhood schools be adhered to in the revision of the attendance areas, but that non-contiguous attendance areas be allowed where necessary to achieve the desired racial composition. That natural boundaries be used to define attendance areas insofar as it is possible, avoiding duplicate transportation service on individual roadways. That the minority enrollment in any school be not more than 10 percent above or 10 percent below the percent of minority enrollment in that school level in the county as a whole, excluding Chaires, Concord, Fort Braden and Woodville Elementary Schools. That rising 5th, 8th and 12th grade students, on request, be permitted to continue in attendance if their residence is placed in another school attendance area, with any needed transportation being provided by the parent and not the School Board (an exception to this rule should be made for students whose school of attendance was changed by the School Board in August, 1980, and transportation be provided at district expense in the event that the attendance areas affecting them are changed this year and the parents desire to have their children continue to attend the school they are attending in 1980-81) That the transportation needed to accomplish the desired racial composition of each school be provided in as efficient and cost effective manner as possible, consistent with Florida Laws and Regulations, and School Board policy on hazardous areas. (Emphasis added). There are six middle schools in Leon County: Belle Vue, Cobb, Fairview, Griffin, Nims and Raa. Enrollment figures for the four middle schools, as of March 27, 1981, are as follows: Belle Vue, 668; Cobb, 941; Fairview, 690; Griffin, 769; Nims, 694; and Raa, 1,069. White students attending each of the six middle schools comprise the following percentages of the total student body: Belle Vue, 67.5 percent; Cobb, 76.8 percent; Fairview, 57.27 percent; Griffin, 68.5 percent; Nims, 50.4 percent; and Raa, 80.9 percent. There are so many middle school students currently residing in the Raa attendance area that enrollment at that school has been capped, and 110 students who would have attended Raa are currently attending Cobb. The recommended capacities for the middle schools in Leon County, based upon the School Plant Survey of Leon District Schools conducted by the Florida Department of Education, are: Belle Vue, 946; Cobb, 938; Fairview, 1110; Griffin, 783; Nims, 888; and Raa, 887. In designing the proposed attendance boundaries for the 1981-82 school year, the School Board's consultant used a recommended enrollment figure supplied to him by the School Board staff. This recommended enrollment figure was not the same as the physical plant capacity figure. These recommended enrollment figures were, however, closely related to plant capacities, any differences between the two figures being reflective of various other program considerations. Among the primary goals of the proposed middle school attendance zone changes were reduction of the number of students attending Raa, due to the large number of students already living in that zone; increasing the number of students attending Belle Vue and Fairview because of their low enrollment in relation to the physical plant capacity of those school facilities; and finally, to improve racial composition at all the middle schools, particularly Fairview, with a view toward compliance with the School Board's plus or minus 10 percent racial composition criteria. Predictions of future enrollments at the various middle schools show that for each year the proposed boundaries are to be in effect, anticipated enrollments will be within the physical plant capacities of the various middle schools, with the exception of Raa, whose total enrollment will, nonetheless be reduced by about 10 percent. In addition, under the proposed zone changes, the racial composition of the student populations at each of the six middle schools is projected to meet or barely exceed the 10 percent criteria established by the School Board by March of 1984. Fairview, Nims and Raa currently do not meet the plus-or-minus 10 percent racial composition criteria. However, according to the School Board's projections, all middle schools should meet or barely exceed the 10 percent criteria during the 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84 school years. The record in this proceeding does not establish with absolute certainty the total number of students either eligible for or expected to exercise the grandfathering option for the 1981-82 school year. However, a poll conducted by the School Board indicates that from 90 percent to 100 percent of students eligible for grandfathering will exercise that option, and estimates of potential school enrollments are partially based on that assumption. In fact, the student petitioner in this proceeding who is eligible for grand fathering testified that he would take advantage of that option because of current school activities and friendships. The School Board recognized the importance of making this choice available to middle school students and, in fact, based its decision to allow grandfathering on the desirability of preserving "educational continuity." The economic impact of the grandfathering provision on parents required to furnish transportation as a result of electing that option was not addressed quantitatively in the School Board's Economic Impact Statement. With regard to this cost factor, the Economic Impact Statement provided that: Current Board policy provides that bus transportation will be provided by the district if the residence of the parent is more than two miles from the assigned school. None of the proposed rule amendments modify this basic policy; however, the policy changes in 3.02 allow for the "grandfathering" of students in certain grade levels subject to the requirement that the parents provide all necessary transportation. To the extent that a parent voluntarily chooses to assume that responsibility, that parent may incur associated costs such as gas and oil. There is no indication in this record that the School Board considered the potential cost and feasibility of providing transportation at School Board expense to those students choosing the grandfather option who live two or more miles from the "grandfathered" school. Testimony at the final hearing estimated transportation costs of 367.20, based upon an average driving distance between a student's home and school of 5.1 miles (based on the length of the average bus route), full attendance for the full 180 student school days, and a 20 cents- per-mile cost, which is the current state reimbursement rate for travel by automobile. Naturally, actual transportation costs would vary substantially, depending upon the type of vehicle driven, the number of students transported, the student's actual attendance pattern, carpooling, travel routes, and other associated factors. The parents' responsibility to assume these transportation costs in the event of electing the grandfathering option is pointed out both in the rule advertisements and the Economic Impact Statement. The School Board has other existing policies which allow a student to attend a school different from that to which he is assigned based upon the location of his residence. These include the School Board's majority/minority transfer policy and instances in which a student requests to attend a special program at another school which is not available at his assigned school. In all such cases, the School Board requires that the student or his parents provide transportation at their own expense. The Economic Impact Statement prepared by the School Board in conjunction with the rule adoption process was based upon materials developed by the School Board staff on impact costs associated with rezoning in their areas of administrative responsibility. The Economic Impact Statement itself was based ". . . upon the premise that only those incremental, out-of-pocket costs attributable to the policy revision and rezoning process are included." Previously committed, or "sunk" costs such as salaries and related employee benefits were explicitly excluded from the analysis, although such costs were significant since the rezoning process absorbed a great deal of staff time. Similarly, "opportunity" costs, in the form of benefits foregone by directing district resources to rezoning rather than other goals were specifically excluded from consideration in the Economic Impact Statement. These base assumptions were described in the Economic Impact Statement itself. Fred H. White, Sr., and his wife, Linda, reside in Leon County with their son, Fred H White, Jr.. Fred, Jr. currently attends Cobb Middle School but under the proposed school attendance boundaries would attend Fairview Middle School. The White residence is located approximately 9.2 miles from Fairview and 5.1 miles from Cobb. The Whites' son is currently eligible for district provided bus transportation to Cobb and would be eligible for such transportation to Fairview. Fred, Jr. is eligible to be grandfathered and both he and his parents testified that they would take advantage of that option. E. Lamar Bailey resides in Leon County, and is the father of Lamar Blair Bailey and Sally Brocke Bailey, both of whom presently live in an area zoned for attendance at Cobb School. Both of the Bailey children would be required to attend Fairview if the proposed rule amendments are adopted. Should the proposed attendance zones be adopted, the Bailey children will be required to travel approximately 14 miles round trip to Fairview, an increase of approximately 3.4 miles over the distance to Cobb. Petitioners Sunshine Land Development, Inc., Elba, Inc. and Falls Chase Special Taxing District were dismissed as parties to this proceeding at the final hearing for failure to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate standing to maintain an action pursuant to Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. Counsel for both Petitioners and Respondent have submitted proposed findings of fact for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those findings of fact have not been adopted in this Order, they have been rejected as being either irrelevant to the issues in this cause, or as not having been supported by the evidence.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent, Erich Hamacher, violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2010), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) or (5)(a), and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator’s Certificate number 749876, covering the areas of Emotionally Handicapped and Specific Learning Disabilities, which is valid through June 30, 2012. He has been teaching in Florida since approximately 1995. At all times relevant to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as an Intellectual Disabilities Teacher at Richardson Middle School in the Columbia County School District. At that time, Respondent was teaching in a classroom that was identified as a classroom for students who were profoundly mentally handicapped. There were approximately eight students in his classroom, with four student-care attendants. None of the students in the classroom were verbal, and at least one did not walk. The allegations in the Administrative Complaint stem from an incident taking place on February 3, 2011, with respect to one of Respondent’s students, A.M. At the time of the incident, A.M. was 19 years old. For reasons that were not explained in the record, A.M. lost his vision, speech, and hearing at the age of six. He is non-verbal, but generally regarded as a happy child. However, he does suffer from mood swings that can make him difficult to control because of his inability to communicate. When he has these mood swings, according to his mother “he doesn’t want to be messed with” and “would push you away.” A.M. is very strong, has a high tolerance for pain, walks with a limp, and is stronger on his left side than his right. A.M. has attended Richardson Middle School for approximately five years. For the 2010-2011 school year, he was in Mr. Hamacher’s classroom. Typically, A.M.’s mother would walk him to the school bus, and he would use a tapping cane. She would assist the bus driver, Serena Flowers, in putting him on the bus, and he would sit directly behind Ms. Flowers on the way to school. Once they arrived, Nakila Scippio, his personal care attendant, and Ms. Flowers would help A.M. get off the bus and Ms. Scippio would walk with him to his classroom. Ms. Scippio was assigned exclusively to A.M., as he required one-on-one supervision. This was her first employment as a student-care assistant, and she did not finish out the school year in that position. Student-care assistants needed to obtain permission from the assigned instructor to call parents or other school officials, such as the school nurse. In this case, Ms. Scippio would have been required to seek permission to make any such calls from Mr. Hamacher. The evening of February 2, 2013, A.M. was agitated and restless, and according to his mother, “did not want anybody to mess with him.” On February 3, 2011, A.M. walked to the bus as usual, and walked to his classroom with Ms. Scippio. However, from the beginning of the school day it was apparent that A.M. was not having a good day. He was climbing all over the classroom, throwing tantrums, scooting and sliding across the floor, and trying to take his clothes off. He refused to eat breakfast. Because of his vision loss, someone had to walk with him around the classroom, and his behavior was not acceptable. Although A.M. did not usually cry at school, he was crying that morning. At some point in the morning, Respondent placed his hands on A.M.’s shoulders to place him on a mat on the floor of the classroom. Although his actions were firm, the more persuasive evidence is that he did not act in a way that would injure the child. A.M.’s immediate response was to jump up, and then went to the therapy table/mat where he lay down. He remained on the mat for the rest of the day, sometimes moaning and crying. While it is unclear what caused A.M.’s behavior that day, it is clear that the behavior was unusual for him at school. No one seemed to know why he was crying: while Ms. Scippio testified that she thought he was in physical pain, Mr. Hamacher thought the pain was emotional, and Mr. Crawford, his mobility therapist, thought he appeared to have a stomachache. However, no one testified that A.M. was holding his leg or knee during the day. While it was apparent that A.M.’s behavior was not normal for him, Respondent did not call the principal and did not call the nurse. He explained at hearing that the principal was not on campus that day, and that the nurse left early. Lakasia Portee-Jones, the school nurse, confirmed that she left the campus for the day at 12:45, but did not receive a call before she left. At approximately 10:00 a.m., Respondent called P.M., A.M.’s mother, to discuss an upcoming I.E.P. meeting, but mentioned no injury to her. Respondent did report to P.M. that A.M. had been crying during the morning. She reported that he had had a bad night the night before, and said if it continued, she would come and get him. Respondent assured her he would be fine. However, A.M. continued to cry or moan for the rest of the school day. Although it is unclear what was causing A.M.’s behavior at that point, some effort should have been made to determine why this non-verbal child was in such distress, regardless of whether the pain was physical or emotional. While calling the principal was not an option, and the school nurse was only available for part of the day, Respondent had no plausible explanation for not contacting the nurse earlier in the day, or for not contacting an assistant principal or other member of the administrative staff for assistance. A.M. usually wore pull-ups and needed assistance with toileting. On the day in question, he wet himself not once but twice, soaking though his clothes. This was also unusual. The student-care attendant normally deals with changing a student, but Mr. Hamacher was helping her because A.M. was being combative. The second time he was changed was immediately before the time to board the bus to go home. At that time, Mr. Hamacher noticed A.M.’s knee “go out” and then it appeared to him that it slipped back in. He was not overly concerned at the time because A.M.’s mother had reported (and she confirmed in her testimony at hearing) that his knee has slipped out on occasion in the past, and that she did not know how it happened. Mr. Hamacher determined that the best thing for A.M. was for him to go home. He did not call A.M.’s mother again. He helped Ms. Scippio place A.M. in a wheelchair, because he would not stand on his leg, so that he could be transported to the school bus to go home. Ms. Scippio escorted him to the bus in the wheelchair. Serena Flowers has transported A.M. for several years. When she saw Ms. Scippio wheeling him to the bus, she asked what was wrong. Ms. Scippio told her that she did not know, but something was wrong with his leg. Ms. Flowers could see that something was out of place, so she picked up A.M. and carried him up the stairs of the bus and placed him in his seat. Ms. Flowers then called A.M.’s mother and told her something was wrong with his leg, and asked P.M. to meet her at the school board building. When P.M. met Ms. Flowers, P.M. could tell immediately that A.M.’s knee was out of place. The two adults transferred A.M. from the bus to P.M.’s car, and she took him to the emergency room at Lake City Medical Center. In the emergency room, medical staff popped A.M.’s knee back into place and he was given a knee brace to wear in order to stabilize it. No prescription was given, and A.M. was walking around on his leg by the evening. He stayed home for a few days, and then returned to school. A.M. wore the brace for a couple of weeks and then would not wear it any longer. The children in Mr. Hamacher’s class had Daily Activity Reports (DAR) that went home each day to notify the parents of the type of activities conducted, behaviors noted, and any needed supplies to send from home. It is unclear what time of day the notes were usually completed. Ms. Scippio would prepare the DAR for Mr. Hamacher’s review, and then he would sign them. For February 3, 2013, Ms. Scippio prepared a note that A.M. had urinated twice in his clothes, and that extra clothes needed to be sent in. She circled the preprinted items as follows: problem behavior; kicking staff; and pulling on staff. She also wrote under comments, “[A.M.] cried this a.m. and climbed on top of furniture seemed to be in pain.” Mr. Hamacher told her to re-write the note, stating only the facts. The note as re-written included the same information as the first, except the written comments about A.M. climbing on the furniture and seeming to be in pain were omitted, and the behavior “had tantrums” was also circled. The note signed by Mr. Hamacher still indicated that A.M. cried in the a.m. Mr. Hamacher explained that he believed the crying stemmed from emotional, as opposed to physical, pain and that a factual statement was more appropriate.1/ The note that went home was not falsified. As Ms. Scippio stated at hearing, she was told to include “just the facts” as opposed to opinion. While the note was not falsified, Respondent should have called A.M.’s mother once he knew that there was any type of injury to A.M. The following day, P.M. called the school and spoke to the principal. She was upset that no one had called her about A.M.’s injury. As she stated at hearing, “I’m not here for his job. All I’m wanting to know is why nobody called me. Nobody called and let me know that he had hurt his leg. They took him to the bathroom. Somebody should have noticed that his leg was out of socket. That’s all I was mad about. Nobody notified me. I’m not after anybody’s job. I just want an answer why nobody called me.” School officials met with Mr. Hamacher and with P.M. to determine what happened. Mr. Hamacher was notified that Principal Whitfield was recommending that he be suspended for a period of three days without pay. The four bases listed for the discipline were that he did not fill out an accident report; did not send the child to the nurse; did not communicate to A.M.’s parent that an injury may have occurred; and did not report injuries to an administrator. On or about February 10, 2011, the Columbia County School Board suspended Respondent without pay for three days as a result of his conduct on February 3, 2011, regarding student A.M. After his suspension, Respondent returned to the same classroom and A.M. remained in his classroom for the remainder of the school year. Mr. Hamacher’s evaluation for the 2010-2011 school year was completed March 23, 2011, some five to six weeks after the three-day suspension. He received a satisfactory evaluation, with very effective marks for planning and preparation, technology, and collaboration. The comments section of the evaluation stated: “Mr. Hamacher is well organized compassionate and able to work collaboratively with his team of care attendants while accepting responsibility for everything in this challenging area of student education.” His prior evaluations were also satisfactory or very effective, and contain positive comments regarding his performance. The evidence presented at hearing indicates that Respondent is a good teacher and is dedicated to the well-being of his students. He strives to ensure that his students reach their full potential and to be able to contribute to society despite their limitations. With the exception of the suspension imposed for this incident, there is no evidence that Respondent has ever been disciplined by the School District. Likewise, there is no evidence that Respondent’s certification has been disciplined by the Education Practices Commission. When he received his original certification, it was issued subject to a two-year probationary period as a result of prior conduct disclosed on his application. However, that conduct was considered in the initial licensure process and bears no relationship to the conduct at issue in this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of Counts 1 and 2 of the Administrative Complaint and not guilty of Count 3. It is further recommended that Respondent be placed on probation for a period of two years, a condition of which shall include an additional 20 hours of continuing education, in areas to be determined by the Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of July, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of July, 2013.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Robert P. Sulcer, as principal of Riverland Elementary School, is guilty of "incompetency, and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty" as charged in a 28-count "Amended Petition for Dismissal from Broward County School System," filed September 6, 1984, and should be dismissed from employment with the Petitioner, Broward County School Board.
Findings Of Fact RESPONDENT: BACKGROUND AND PAST PERFORMANCE In 1955, Respondent received a Master's Degree in Education, Supervision, and Administration from Southern Illinois University. He moved to Broward County in 1957 and was first employed by the School Board as a teacher at McNab Elementary School. He has been employed as a principal for 25 years. In 1960, he became the principal of McNab Elementary and continued as a principal in various elementary schools until 1971 or 1972, when he became a principal at Pompano Beach Middle School for seven years. He was assigned the principalship at Lake Forest Elementary School for 5 years, then became principal of Riverland Elementary School in 1982. When he was suspended without pay on August 2, 1984, based on the charges which are the subject of this proceeding, he had a continuing contract (as principal) with the School Board. His supervisors evaluated (in writing) his performance as a principal during each of the 25 years he was a principal, including the 1982-83 and 1983- 84 school years. All evaluations were positive and described his performance as satisfactory. There were no negative comments. II COUNTS 1 AND 2: CONSISTENT DISCIPLINE PLAN Count 1 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish and/or maintain and/or formally present consistent rules and/or regulations regarding student discipline and/or student behavior for the staff and student body at Riverland Elementary School for the 1982-83 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 2 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish and/or maintain and/or formally present consistent rules and/or regulations regarding student discipline and/or student behavior for the staff and student body at Riverland Elementary School for the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Counts 1 and 2 center on the "development of a consistent disciplinary plan" at Riverland Elementary School, including rules and regulations for the 1982-83 and 1983-84 school years. To sustain these charges the School Board must demonstrate that there was no consistent disciplinary plan including rules and regulations in effect at Riverland Elementary School for the years 1982-1983 and 1983-84 and that such omission constituted incompetency, misconduct in office or willful neglect of duty. The evidence not only fails to substantiate these two charges but affirmatively establishes that a consistent formal disciplinary plan and procedure was in effect at Riverland Elementary School during the 1982-83 and 1983-84 school years. A. 1982-83 During the 1982-83 school year, the Student Conduct and Discipline Code ("Discipline Code") for Broward County was in effect and fully utilized. Riverland Elementary School received its accreditation at the conclusion of that year and there was no reference to an inconsistent or non-existent disciplinary plan. There were no reports of a non-existent or inappropriate disciplinary system at Riverland Elementary School during 1982-83 made to School Board administrators at any time prior to the lodging of initial charges in March 1984. (R-2; TR-IV, p.467; TR-V, p.712; TR-XI, pp.42,108) The Discipline Code delineated the teachers' responsibilities for student discipline as well as the consequences for student misconduct. During school year 1982-83, Respondent utilized the disciplinary referral system and handled student discipline problems in a manner consistent with the Discipline Code. (Conversely, there is no evidence demonstrating that Respondent failed to follow the Student Discipline Code in any instance, whatsoever during the year 1982-83.) He made sure (that parents, teachers, and students were aware of the Discipline Code. When he became principal of Riverland he discussed discipline with the students during an orientation assembly. He met with the grade level chairpersons on a daily basis and discussed discipline with them. They, in turn, were instructed to direct the teachers under their jurisdiction to review the contents of the Discipline Code with their students and ensure that students took the Code pamphlets home to be signed by their parents. In connection with the SACS review process, a student assembly was held to discuss discipline. Because of the type of children in the school and the age of the majority of the students, however, school-wide assemblies to discuss discipline proved to be less effective than small group discussions. Respondent's preferred use of small group settings and his utilization of the Discipline Code was deemed acceptable by his immediate supervisor. Other teachers followed a similar practice without objection. (TR-III, p.372; TR-IX, p.40, TR-X, p.83, TR-XIII, p.77, TR-XV, pp.38 169,2,192-193; TR-XVI, pp.8-9,16,48-49) B. 1983-84 During school year 1983-84, the Discipline Code remained in effect. Respondent continued to utilize it as the foundation for the disciplinary process in place at Riverland Elementary School. Indeed, use of the Discipline Code, as adopted by the School Board of Broward County, was mandated. Although several teachers testified that there should be a school-wide code which overlaps or supercedes the official county-wide Discipline Code, there is no showing that a school-wide code, other than the Discipline Code, was required or even customarily used in the school system (TR-I, pp.89,90, TR-II, p.201; TR- IV, p.467, TR-V, p.712; TR-IX, p.38; TR-XI, p.108; TR-XV, p.16) Several teachers critical of Respondent's performance testified that he should have adopted a code listing infractions which would automatically lead to specific consequences. To comply with this request, Respondent would have had to enact a code inconsistent with the Discipline Code mandated by the School Board. Page 6 of the Code sets forth the criteria to be used by a principal or his designee in meting out discipline. The Code attempts to match specific conse- quences with specific behavior. The numbers in brackets which follow each rule refer to consequences which may be used if misbehavior occurs. With the exception of Attendance, consequences are listed on page 24. Under certain circumstances, specification is mandatory and is so identified by an asterisk (*). When discipline problems occur in the pres- ence of a teachers it is the responsibility of the teacher to handle the situation until all strategies available to the teacher according to the School Board Policy have been exhausted. School personnel are encouraged to employ realistic and appropriate methods of disci- pline not necessarily outlined in this Code. For example, cleaning desk tops is an appro- priate consequence for writing on them. When determining the consequences, the fol- lowing circumstances should be taken into consideration: age and/or grade level of student; frequency of misconduct; seriousness of particular misconduct; attitude of student; student records; any other relevant factors including but not limited to, handicapped students who are governed by provi- sions outlined in School Board Policy 5006.1. (e.s.) Under this disciplinary scheme, a principal administers discipline not only to punish students but to encourage behavior modification. To accomplish the latter a principal is given alternatives and combinations of alternatives for use based on the unique circumstances of each situation. Factors to be taken into account include the number of prior referrals, the seriousness of the situation, the child's previous disciplinary record, the age of the child, the intellectual level of the child, the emotional level of the child, and any learning disabilities that might be associated with the child. Respondent followed the Discipline Code and administered discipline based upon the referrals he received from teachers. There was no showing that he failed to follow the student Discipline Code. If the charge is that the Discipline Code, itself, lacks "consistent rules and regulations," or fails to conform to "consistent rules and regulations" such charge is more appropriately directed at the School Boards which adopted the Coded than Respondent who merely implemented it. (TR-XV, pp.38-39, 54; TR-XVI, p.31) At the outset of the 1983-84 school year, Respondent again directed his grade level chairpersons to disseminate the Code to teachers and instruct them to teach the Code to their students. The teachers were instructed to use the Discipline Code in conjunction with I.T.V. programs during the first week or two of school. The teachers carried out these instructions. Students were taught the Code, and their understanding of the Code was reinforced throughout the year. (R,4, TR-II, pp.184, 189,201; TR-V, pp.638,640; TR-X, p.126; TR-XVI, pp.48-49,5-6) In addition to the grade level chairpersons' meetings, Respondent disseminated various bulletins dealing with discipline, specifically Bulletin 83-9, which set forth the steps the teachers were to utilize in the disciplinary process. He issued Bulletin 83-9 because some teachers were not following the Discipline Code and meting out the appropriate discipline in the classrooms (per the Code) before sending students to his office. This bulletin was intended to reinforce the Code's recognition that teachers are primarily responsible for discipline in the classroom. The Code recognizes that classroom management is an integral part, if not the most important component, in the disciplinary process: When discipline problems occur in the pres- ence of a teacher, it is the responsibility of the teacher to handle the situation until all strategies available to the teacher according to the School Board Policy have been exhausted. (R-4; TR-III, P.394; TR-V, p.708)(R-2, p.6, TR-XV, p.31) COUNTS 3 AND 4: INCONSISTENT METING OUT OF DISCIPLINE Count 3 You are hereby charged with failing to admin- ister discipline consistently and/or effec- tively for students referred to you by staff members during the 1982-83 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 4 You are hereby charged with failing to admin- ister discipline consistently and/or effec- tively for students referred to you by staff members during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. These charges allege inconsistency in the meting out of discipline by Respondent as opposed to the failure to establish or maintain consistent disciplinary rules alleged in Counts 1 and 2. Although inconsistent discipline was alleged, none has been shown. The only evidence offered to support these charges was innuendo and vague, elusive accusations or perceptions by several teachers, most of which were based on hearsay consisting of generalizations uttered by others. The record is devoid of specific, concrete examples of "inconsistent" disciplinary action by Respondent. The complete lack of specific evidence is not due to want of records. Detailed records of every disciplinary action taken by Respondent during 1983-84 were available for analysis. (743 discipline referral slips covering school year 1983-84 were retained by Respondent and available for review.) There is no evidence, however, that anyone critical of Respondent's meting out of discipline ever took the time to, or went to the trouble of, reviewing them. Indeed, no one on behalf of the School Board even asked to see them.) It was Respondent who offered all referral slips (identifying details of each infraction and Respondent's action) into evidence. Some teachers testified that there were too many steps in the referral process although how this complaint relates to inconsistency was not shown. Others testified that they had to go through every single disciplinary step in order to refer a child to Respondent for discipline. The opposite was proven to be true. If a situation was serious enough, the disciplinary steps prescribed by Respondent (which were essentially the same steps as those prescribed by the Discipline Code) could be short, circuited and an immediate referral made. When serious disciplinary problems occurred, teachers brought students directly to Respondent's office and he handled the situation. (TR-II, p.219; TR-III, p.425; TR-IV, p.475; TR-X, p.15; TR-XI, P.24) Respondent made an effort to insure that the disciplinary process at Riverland was rational, and known to and followed by all. In addition to Bulletin 83-9 (delineating the steps in the process), Respondent disseminated numerous other bulletins and materials dealing with assertive discipline as part of the Faculty Handbook. He met with the faculty and discussed the disciplinary process. He insisted they use the detailed referral process which he established. The referral slips themselves show that he used all of the allowable disciplinary consequences--individually or in combination--including, but not limited to, student conferences, verbal reprimands written punishments, parental contacts, internal suspensions, corporal punishments, and external suspensions based upon the unique circumstances of each case. (TR-III, P.427; TR-XVI, pp.15,31; R-1; R-2) A. 1982-83 Count 3 alleges that Respondent failed to administer discipline in a consistent manner for the school year 1982-83. There was no meaningful evidence of any inconsistent discipline administered in 1982-83. There was no testimony or documentation of one specific incident which Respondent could cross-examine or refute. 2/ Indeed the record supports an inference that discipline was meted out consistently during 1982-83. There was a detailed Discipline Code in effect, known to all, and he insisted that it be followed. The SACS Report, prepared by the teachers at Riverland, and the grant of accreditation do not reflect that discipline was being inconsistently administered. Ms. Swilley, the Department of Education's competence reviewer, doesn't find inconsistent discipline; she refers to materials appended to her report, and then states the referrals reflect the teacher "concerns." The appended material only contains referrals from 1983-84 gathered together by Ms. Elmore, one of Respondent's harshest critics. The official Broward County School Board Progress Reports for Riverland Elementary School during 1982-83 and 1983-84, reflect teachers', students', and parents', attitudes, all of which are extremely high. (Teachers- -86 percent, parent--92 percent, and students--88 percent) There is no evidence that this alleged deficiency was ever complained of or mentioned in any memoranda, read-react-and-return memo, grade level chairperson minutes, faculty minutes, correspondence to Respondent's supervisor or Board administrators, notes or minutes of the P.T.A., parents advisory group, Respondent's performance evaluation, or any other document. (R-4; Appendix 14; P-4; P-3; R-19) B 1983-84 Similarly, no factual basis has been shown for the charge that Respondent inconsistently administered discipline during the 1983-84 school year. This charge, too, is unsubstantiated. No systematic analysis of the 1983-84 disciplinary records of particular students was done to demonstrate that students were disciplined differently when the facts indicate they should have been disciplined the same. Although some witnesses generally testified that Respondent disciplined students inconsistently during 1983-84, their conclusions were not substantiated. Although one teacher, Ms. Ordway, claimed inconsistency in the meting out of discipline, she could not give one specific example. Similar negative conclusions by Ms. Ross, another teacher, were based on "what the [other] teachers would say." The testimony of Ms. Kasmarik, another teacher, supports the opposite conclusion: Q. (By Mr. Panza) Ms. Kasmarik, let me ask you do you know what--can you give me specific instances that Mr. Sulcer treated two children with disparate consequences for the same act? Can you give me an example? A. That I personally saw it or that I heard about it? Q. No. You are the witness. What you saw, personally were involved in. A. With the referrals that he wrote up, Mr. Sulcer--The only referrals I wrote up were for fighting. That's the only referrals I wrote up, and when I got the response from that, Mr. Sulcer had used corporal punishment on both children. Q. So they were consistent as it goes to your personal observations? A. As my personal observations, it was consistent, yes. (e.s.) (TR-VI, p.826, TR-X, p.147) Likewise, Ms. Bullock, another teacher critical of Respondent's performance, testified: A. I would say that the punishment was consistent. Now, the problem is I didn't feel it was severe enough because it didn't prevent them from repeating the same incidents. (TR-XI, p.23) Mr. Dandy, Respondent's supervisor throughout, and the person who initially pressed him to correct alleged deficiencies, was unable to recall any specific instance of inconsistent discipline being meted out; rather, his criticism of Respondent only reflected the "teachers' perceptions." The unsubstantiated "perceptions" of other teachers based on nothing more than generalized complaint or hearsay are patently insufficient to sustain the charge. (TR-XIII, pp.82- 83,92,97) Respondent followed a set procedure in disciplining students. Before referral the child would describe, in writing, the misbehavior so that the child would understand the significance and inappropriateness of the conduct. On referral to the principal the child would bring with him or her the written description of the incident. Respondent would discuss the situation with the child review any prior disciplinary problems, and then determine the appropriate consequence based on the Discipline Code. He often gave verbal reprimands arranged for parent conferences, or wrote letters to parents. (TR- XVI, pp.10,11,20,31) Witnesses who complained of Respondent's disciplinary actions at hearing never stated what they expected him to do other than to formulate an additional code specifying an automatic consequence for every conceivable infraction. Such a rigidly defined code is neither required nor customary in Broward County. Moreover, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to construct a code with such mathematical precision. The effective disciplining of students is an art, not a science, involving many human variables. It requires flexibility and the exercise of professional judgment. A rigid code which precludes a principal from taking into account the unique circumstances of each case would be inconsistent with the Discipline Code adopted by the Board. COUNTS 5 AND 6: DETERRENCE OF CHRONIC BEHAVIOR OFFENDERS Count 5 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish adequate deterrent as a result of your action of causing or allowing students to become chronic or serious behavior offenders as a result of your inadequately disciplining said, students referred to you by teachers during the 1982-83 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 6 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish adequate deterrent as a result of your action causing or allowing students to become chronic or serious behavior offenders as a result of your inadequately disciplining said students referred to you by teachers during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Here, the Board charges that Respondent failed to establish adequate deterrents and, as a result, he allowed or caused students to become chronic or serious behavior offenders during school year 1982-83. A. 1982-83 The Board has not shown what a "chronic behavior offender" 3/ is or how many students, out of the total student population of approximately 600, fit this category. Neither was it shown that there were a significant number of chronic offenders that "were caused" by Respondent's disciplinary actions. There was student misbehavior at Riverland Elementary School while Respondent was principal, as there was prior to his arrival and after his departure. It has not been shown that the misbehavior was caused by Respondent's efforts to enforce the Student Discipline Code. Many of the children at Riverland came from poor families. These children had little respect for authority and had attitude problems stemming from background and upbringing. Many came from single-parent homes. Many of the children who had behavior problems at school came from homes where discipline was lax or nonexistent. The student population was transient--students were constantly checking in or out of the school. Some students had repeated at least two grade levels so there were several children 13 or 14 years old. Some children had learning disabilities and could be disciplined only in accordance with their prescribed plans. (TR-II, pp.193,222; TR-X, pp.39, 40, 131; TR-XI, p.27; TR-XV, pp.39, 44, 46) Given the diversity and nature of this student body, it has not been shown how the repetitive misbehavior of five to ten of the students can be fairly or logically imputed to Respondent's action or inaction. These students, which the Board (at least for the purpose of this proceeding) classifies as "chronic offenders," were not identified, neither was each incident of misbehavior together with Respondent's disciplinary action, analyzed, compared and critiqued by qualified witnesses. Finally, though some students were referred numerous times, it has not been shown that there was an inordinate number of such students, given the nature and diversity of the student population. Neither does it appear that such repetitive referrals became a problem of serious concern to teachers. The SACS Report, prepared by the teachers at Riverland, does not indicate that a "chronic offender" problem existed at the school. (R-13) B. 1983-84 The nature of students at Riverland Elementary School during 1983-84 was similar to that of the previous year and the Board's failure of proof is, likewise, the same. Respondent applied the district-wide Discipline Code in disciplining the students. The teachers were responsible for the teaching of the Code to students, and for the management of students in their classrooms. All acknowledged that the proper disciplining of students is a joint or cooperative effort by teachers, administrators, and principals. The evidence fails to show that there was an inordinate number of repetitive referrals, neither does it disclose the identity of these children (including their particular acts of misbehavior and the discipline administered) or how Respondent's action was deficient. To the extent some children were repeatedly referred for misbehavior, it has not been shown that Respondent's disciplinary action was the cause. It may well be that the teachers of these children failed to properly control and prevent their misbehavior, or the misbehavior may be due more to the unique personality and family context of each child. (R-2) Indeed, the parents of some of these children tried, without success, to modify their behavior. There were occasions when Respondent would have two or three parental conferences concerning a child's misbehavior, yet--a few weeks later--the child would revert to inappropriate conduct. Several teachers who testified were critical of the effectiveness of Respondent's disciplinary action, but failed to indicate action that would have been more effective. Some teachers favored more use of external suspensions, but under School Board policy external suspensions are to be used only as the last resort. Respondent did suspend some students and the referral slips for 1983-84 showed he used corporal punishment extensively. (R-66) As with school year 1982-83, the record does not establish the identity and number of the "chronic or serious behavior offenders". A reasonable estimate would be that there were between five and ten children (out of 600 students) who had repetitive disciplinary referrals. There is no basis to conclude that this is an inappropriate or unusually high number. In a student population of this nature and diversity, it is perhaps unavoidable that there will be some students who will be repetitively referred for disciplinary action. This condition existed before Respondent arrived at Riverland--and has persisted since he left. COUNTS 7 AND 8 VERBAL AGREEMENTS-1982-83 AND 1983-84 Count 7 You are hereby charged with repeatedly ac- cepting or entering into verbal agreements with students who are repeat offenders that they will not repeat said negative behav- ior/offense in lieu of providing appropriate discipline which has resulted in a negative impact on student behavior and/or student discipline at Riverland Elementary School during the 1982-83 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 8 You are hereby charged with repeatedly ac- cepting or entering into verbal agreements with students who are repeat offenders that they will not repeat said negative behav- ior/offense in lieu of providing appropriate discipline which has resulted in a negative impact on student behavior and/or student discipline at Riverland Elementary School during the 1983-84 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. A. 1982-83 In order to substantiate this charge, it was incumbent on the Board to identify those "repeat offender" students with whom Respondent entered into verbal agreements not to engage in the same conduct to specify the circumstances surrounding the infraction and to show that such verbal agreements were inappropriate. The appropriateness of a disciplinary action (otherwise authorized) cannot be determined without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The Board has failed to substantiate its charges with concrete and specific evidence. Indeed the record is devoid of evidence establishing that Respondent even entered into verbal agreements with students during 1982-83, under any circumstances. (The Board apparently assumed that he entered into verbal agreements with children who were repeat offenders, that such agreements were "in lieu of providing any appropriate discipline," and that such action had a negative impact on student behavior and student discipline at Riverland Elementary School.) It was not shown that Respondent inappropriately used the Student Discipline Code in any instance when he "counseled" with students concerning inappropriate conduct. 4/ To determine appropriate discipline for an individual student, all of the factors contained on page 6 of the Discipline Code would have to be considered in light of the specific infraction. Because of the flexibility and discretion given school principals, any analysis less definitive would be incomplete. (R-2) B. 1983-84 In 1983-84, Respondent--who continued to use the Student Discipline Code--entered into verbal agreements with students, whereby the students agreed not to engage in further inappropriate conduct. It has not been shown that he entered such verbal agreements in lieu of any other more appropriate discipline, or that, in any particular case, the verbal agreement was inappropriate. "Repeat offenders" were not identified nor Respondent's action in any particular incident shown to be improper. As already mentioned, the Board has not demonstrated that Respondent failed to follow the Student Discipline Code in the meting out of discipline. Under this Code, the use of verbal agreements, as part of the overall discipline process, is appropriate. Thus the critical factor is not the entering into of verbal agreements (because verbal agreements are permitted), but rather whether he did so in lieu of other more appropriate discipline. But disciplinary action--otherwise permissible--cannot be found inappropriate without knowing the specific facts of an incident. Such facts have not been shown. COUNTS 9 AND 10 RAMPANT DISRESPECT AND VERBAL ABUSE Count 9 You are hereby charged with unacceptable performance in administering the school discipline program during the 1982-83 school year and said performance has led to rampant disrespect by students toward teachers through verbal abuse and defiance of teacher instructions, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 10 You are hereby charged with unacceptable performance in administering the school discipline program during the 1983-84 school year and said performance has led to rampant disrespect by students toward teachers through verbal abuse and defiance of teacher instructions, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. A. 1982-83 Here the Board charges Respondent with "unacceptable performance" in administering the school discipline program during school year 1982-83. Respondent's discipline program was based on the Student Discipline Code and it was not shown that he ever violated that Code. The Board further charges that Respondent's disciplinary performance led to "rampant disrespect" by students towards teachers through verbal abuse and defiance of teachers' instructions. The evidence is insufficient to sustain a finding of rampant disrespect for teachers by students. 5/ Neither was it shown that any specific incident of disrespect was attributable to Respondent's implementation of the Student Discipline Code. Once again, this charge rests on supposition and generalization and lacks a factual foundation. Assuming, arguendo, that a student verbally defies a teacher's instructions, the question becomes whether the defiance is attributable to a principal's conduct. There are several plausible reasons as for defiance of a teacher's instructions, many of them unrelated to a principal's actions or inactions. Teachers may fail in managing their classrooms and earning the respect of their students, parents may have neglected to teach their children to respect and obey teachers. Here, the Board has not established a causal relationship between Respondent's conduct and any defiance of teachers by students. Speculation or generalization cannot substitute for specific and concrete evidence. (TR-X, pp. 100,101) B. 1983-84 For similar reasons, the charge relating to school year 1983-84 is unsubstantiated. Rampant disrespect for teachers has not been shown. (TR-X, pp.9,10,16,17) It has not been shown that Respondent violated the Discipline Coded the foundation of his disciplinary process, during 1982-83 or 1983-84. Neither has rampant disrespect for teachers been shown. The SACS Report completed by the teachers at the conclusion of the 1983 school year, makes no mention of it. Neither do any memoranda, documents, or other school records support this claim. If student disrespect and defiance had been so widespread, it is likely that it would have been brought to the attention of School Board officials long before Mr. Dandy came to Riverland to listen to teachers' grievances on February 17, 1984. (R-13) COUNTS 11 AND 12 CONTRIBUTING TO SERIOUS DISCIPLINE AND/OR BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS WHEREIN STUDENTS EXHIBITED DEFIANCE Count 11 You are hereby charged with contributing to the serious discipline and/or student behav- ior problems which occurred at Riverland Elementary School during the 1982-83 school year, wherein students exhibited defiance and disrespect toward authority figures and toward fellow students which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 12 You are hereby charged with contributing to the serious discipline and/or student behav- ior problems which occurred at Riverland Elementary School during the 1982-83 school year, wherein students exhibited defiance and disrespect toward authority figures and toward, fellow students which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Counts 11 and 12, virtually identical to Counts 9 and 10, are, likewise, unsubstantiated by the evidence. The record is inadequate to support a conclusion that Respondent contributed to serious discipline or student behavior exhibiting defiance and disrespect toward teachers and fellow students. It is likely that student disrespect for or defiance of teachers occurs, at least occasionally, in every elementary school. Relevant questions are what was the frequency and magnitude of the defiance and disrespect; who were the offenders, and what factors or combination of factors caused or contributed to it? The evidence offered by the Board is non-specific and incapable of supplying answers to these questions. Count 13 THE LOCKING OF THE BATHROOMS BECAUSE OF VANDALISM Count 13 You are hereby charged with failing to di- rect, administer and maintain a program to foster proper student behavior in the halls to such an extent that during the 1983-84 school year one set of bathrooms had to be locked because of fights among students and vandalism of bathrooms during the school day, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon- duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Here, alleged student misbehavior (establishing Respondent's incompetence and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty) was so bad that one set of bathrooms had to be locked because of fights among students and vandalism. This charge is unsubstantiated by concrete factually meaningful evidence; it is based, in the main, on hearsay and the unsupported conclusions of several teachers. It was not shown that vandalism in the bathrooms at Riverland Elementary increased or was at an unacceptably high level during 1983-84, or that any property damage was attributable to Respondent's performance of his duties. An occasional act of vandalism or damage to school property cannot, by itself and without more, support a conclusion that a principal is guilty of incompetency, misconduct in officer or willful neglect of duty. Neither was it shown that there were students fights in the bathrooms, or that fights occurred with such frequency that Respondent was forced to close the bathrooms. Rather, students would gather in the bathrooms prior to school starting and get into mischief. Mary Jo Sluder a teacher who was also Safety Patrol Director and supervised the school hallways, complained to Respondent that she was having problems watching both sets of bathrooms before school started. Respondent asked if it would help if one set of bathrooms remained locked until the second bell at 8:15 a.m., signaling the start of school. Ms. Sluder replied that it would be helpful and the plan was implemented. So one set of bathrooms remained locked for approximately 15 minutes, between 8:00 a.m. and 8:15 a.m., while children were at school. At 8:15 a.m., it was opened. (TR- XVI, pp.41,42; TR-IV, p.452) This was an acceptable strategy used by other principals under similar circumstances, and violated no rule or policy of the School Board. Between the first (8:00 a.m.) and second (8:15 a.m.) bells, bathrooms were always accessible to students. Respondent's action was a rational measured response to a problem perceived by the Safety Patrol Director and it obtained positive results without imposing a hardship on anyone. The danger of relying on hearsay and generalized conclusions of others is illustrated by the testimony offered to support this charge. Mr. Dandy, Respondent's immediate Area Supervisor and an individual who identified Respondent's action as deficient, admitted that he had no specific facts to support this charge; he had only talked to teachers and had reviewed no vandalism records at the school. Of the teachers who testified, one did not know if vandalism had increased during Respondent's tenure over that which had occurred under his predecessor; one did not know how long the bathrooms were closed. Although one teacher testified that it was common knowledge that the bathroom was locked because of vandalism--and this was the extent of her knowledge--vandalism was not discussed at the faculty meetings. Teachers would sometimes stop in the girls' and boys' bathrooms, to tell them to quit playing around. One teacher who complained of vandalism never witnessed conditions inside the bathrooms, never wrote disciplinary referrals for students who congregated in them, and never sent them to Respondent's office. (TR-V, pp. 578,774, TR-II, pp.242, 243, 245, 324; TR-IV, pp. 433, 451; TR-VI, pp. 871,872; TR-X, p.150) COUNTS 14 AND 15: TOO MUCH TIME OFF-CAMPUS AND NOT ENOUGH ON-CAMPUS VISIBILITY Count 14 You are hereby charged with spending too much or inordinate amounts of time in your office and/or off campus and not making yourself visible enough among students which has contributed to poor student disci- pline/behavior problems at Riverland Elemen- tary School during the 1982-83 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon- duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 15 You are hereby charged with spending too much or inordinate amounts of time in your office and/or off campus and not making yourself visible enough among students which has contributed to poor student disci- pline/behavior problems at Riverland Elemen, tary School during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon, duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. These charges accuse Respondent of spending too much time off-campus or in his officer and not making himself "visible enough" among students, thus contributing to poor student disciplinary behavior. Once again, as with the other charges, there is no evidence that Respondent, during 1982-83, spent too much time or an inordinate amount of time in his office or off-campus. This was not identified as a problem by the SACS Report or documented by any exhibit in evidence. A principal is evaluated based on his or her performance. Respondent's evaluations for the years 1982-83 and 1983-84 were totally acceptable. Neither indicates Respondent spent inordinate amounts of time in his office or off-campus, or that he did not make himself "visible enough." Respondent, charged with the responsibility of administering an entire school, attended numerous off-campus functions such as county directed meetings, parent conferences, visitations, professional meetings, and community service projects relating to Riverland Elementary School. His attendance was legitimate and, in most instances, required. (TR-I, p.74; TR-VIII, pp.40,42; TR-XIII, pp.14,16,20; TR-XV, p.46, R-45) It was not shown (nor was it alleged) that Respondent was unlawfully or inappropriately engaging in personal activities off campus. The charges focus on the frequency of his absences, not his whereabouts. The school district official who prepared this charge had no independent knowledge of Respondent's absences, and did no analysis to determine the extent of his absences from campus. Rather, he simply relied on and reiterated vague conclusions offered by several teachers dissatisfied with Respondent's performance. (TR-II, p.246; TR-IV, p.888; TR-VIII, pp.23, 24, 143) Mr. Stephenson, the school district official who helped prepare the charge, never asked Respondent about his alleged excessive absenteeism from campus because (according to Stephenson) that would be a normal routine matter discussed between a principal and his Area Superintendent (Mr. Dandy). But Mr. Dandy never asked Respondent about alleged excessive absenteeism either. (TR- XIII, p.140) The evidence is insufficient to support a conclusion that Respondent was absent from campus for an inordinate amount of time. The only evidence in support of the accusation is sporadic hearsay, or conclusions by others lacking a factual basis. Rather, the evidence establishes that Respondent's presence on campus was sufficient and that, if he left campus, he handled any disciplinary problems (that arose in his absence) upon his return. His secretary always knew where he was. A teacher could find out where he was by simply asking his secretary. (TR-I, p.75; TR-X, p.32) As to Respondent's alleged poor visibility among students, there is no specific factual information pertaining to 1982-83, so this charge is unsubstantiated. As for 1983-84, the evidence was also insufficient to support a conclusion that Respondent was not "visible enough." No standard of visibility was established against which Respondent's conduct could be measured. There is no evidence in the record that anyone (teachers, parents, or administrators) complained to Respondent about his visibility or asked that he become more visible on campus. (TR-VIII, p.91) Testimony by several teachers on this subject was inconsistent and contradictory. Some offered critical opinions, but their conclusions lacked factual support, they simply had a feeling that he should have been more visible. In contrast, some teachers felt that Respondent was "sufficiently visible;" Ms. Kasmarik testified that he was always around the campus and always walking down the halls: CROSS-EXAMINATION Q. (By Mr. Panza) Ms. Kasmarik, isn't it a fact that it's your opinion that you're better off with discipline when Mr. Sulcer was there than you are right now with the new principal? Isn't that a fact? Isn't that what you just said within the last couple of weeks? A. We have the same kinds of problems that we had when Mr. Sulcer was there. Q. Same kinds of problems with the new principal, is that right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Are those same kinds of problems based upon the type of children, in your opinion, that are in that school? A. Yes. Q. Now, you mentioned--Just kind of working backwards a little bit--that visibility was a problem or--not was a problem, is not a problem. You said Mr. Sulcer was walking the hall? A. Yes. Q. Mr. Sulcer went into classrooms, is that correct? A. Yes. He was in and out of the classroom all the time. Q. So teachers could see him around the school. He wasn't--he was there physically in the school? A. Yes. (TR-X, pp.121-122) Ms. Bullock, another teacher critical of Respondent's performance, admitted that he had been visible and had visited her classroom 15 to 20 times: DIRECT-EXAMINATION Q. (By Mr. Montante) Did you ever tell him it was necessary to come down [to observe her class? A. No. Q. Did you ever tell him it was necessary to become visible? A. No. Q. Did he ever offer to become visible to you? A. No. I felt he was visible. Q. Several times a year? A. Yes. Q. How long is the school year, ma'am? A. From August until June. Q. August until June? A. Yes. Q. That's a period of 11 months. A. Ten months. The school year is ten months. Q. He came down to the classroom several times: A. Several times. Q. Three times in 11 months. A. I didn't say three times. Several. How many is several? A. Ten, 15, 20. (e.s.) (TR-XI, pp.61,62) Although Ms. Ross, another teachers claimed that his visibility was almost non- existent, her location in the library (where she worked) was such that she would not have known when he was out of his office or in it. Ms. Bullock, another teacher, never asked him to come to her room because it wasn't necessary. (TR- VI, pp. 823,828; TR-XI, p.61) The vague and indefinite charge of not "enough visibility" must be based on more then the subjective, unsubstantiated judgment of a critical teacher. To be meaningful, the charge must be put in a factual context. In a letter to Dr. Stephenson, the district administrator involved in preferring the charges, Respondent's counsel asked for specific information on the charge so that Respondent could comply with Mr. Dandy's March 21, 1984 directive requiring improvement in this area: 4. Monitor hallways frequently through- out the school day (in an attempt to assist in undesirable behavior on the part of students (Effective immediately) Mr. Sulcer will, as he always has, monitor the hallways. As I am certain you are well aware, it is impossible to be in the hallway all day if one is expected to be a Principal of a school. Once again, I would request specific instances of when Mr. Sulcer was negligent in his monitoring of the hallways which allowed undesirable behavior to take place. I would also like to have the specif- ic set of circumstances that the administra- tion of the School Board can demonstrate that there was undesirable behavior on the part of students because of Mr. Sulcer's conduct. I would like to know the exact amount of time required by Mr. Dandy so Bob Sulcer can comply. If Mr. Dandy is going to evaluate Bob Sulcer in this area, he (Dandy) must know exactly how much time he expects Sulcer to spend. (R-50) This letter went unanswered. COUNTS 16 AND 17 SUPPLIES Count 16 You are hereby charged with failing to supply teachers with basic materials and supplies such as paper, crayons, scissors, etc., thus depriving student [sic] from essential mate- rials necessary for optimum instructions during the 1982-83 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 17 You are hereby charged with failing to supply teachers with basic materials and supplies such as paper, crayons, scissors, etc., thus depriving student [sic] from essential mate- rials necessary for optimum instructions during the 1983-84 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. There were no records of any kind, type or description, offered in evidence to support the allegations that school supplies were inadequate during 1982-83. One team chairperson during 1982-83 and 1983-84 never heard a complaint about lack of supplies. Dr. Stephenson, the school district administrator who helped prepare this charge, became aware of the alleged budget problem through information he received in writing from Ms. Elmore, a teacher critical of Respondent's performance. Based on Ms. Elmore's submittal, he concluded that there was a lack of materials and supplies at Riverland, a situation which should not have existed because adequate funds were available. He never independently investigated to determine if Ms. Elmore's statements were correct. (TR-XI, p.19; TR-VIII, pp.11,151) Ms. Elmore, a Faculty Chairperson at Riverland, had been told by the school bookkeeper that there was a freeze on supplies in 1983-84. She never personally asked Respondent for supplies, and he never told her that funds were unavailable. She felt that it was unnecessary to bother Respondent "with things that minor." (TR-V, pp.771,776) Ms. Ross, a grade level chairperson responsible for coordinating the ordering of supplies for teachers under her control, had no difficulty ordering supplies or books except that, when the funds were frozen, she "couldn't spend the money in my budget for awhile." (TR-VI, p.819) (She never asked Respondent if the budget was frozen.) She had all materials needed to currently teach her students. (Funds were temporarily unavailable only while the F.T.E. count was underway, a situation which was not unusual in the school district). When told the budget was frozen during F.T.E. count, she simply delayed ordering until the count was completed, she "had enough (supplies) to carry (her) over past the F.T.E. count." (TR-VI, p.865) After the count, she was allowed to order whatever she needed. (TR-VI, pp.819, 862, 864, 865) Ms. Ordway, a fifth grade teacher, who had switched to kindergarten, testified that she was unable to get necessary books and supplies for her kindergarten class. However, Ms. Callender, her Faculty Grade Level Chairperson, testified that Ms. Ordway as well as the rest of her grade group, had supplies the entire year. Ms. Callender also testified that Ms. Ordway was given permission to go to the A.B.C. Store to purchase whatever supplies she needed. Ms. Callender's testimony, more precise and less emotional than Ms. Ordway's, is accepted as persuasive. (TR-X, pp.28,48) Respondent did not turn down any supply order for materials that were needed for classes during 1982-83 and 1983- 84. The charge that teachers lacked supplies in 1983-84 is unsubstantiated by the evidence. (TR-XVI, pp.57,58,61) Finally, Ms. Elmore, one of the teachers most critical of Respondent's performances testified that she did not have enough supplies for 1982-83 and 1983-84. Her testimony was conclusory and is rejected as lacking in credibility. Finally, the SACS Report does not mention any problem with supplies at Riverland Elementary School for 1982-83. It is likely that if there was a supply problem of the magnitude alleged, it would have been mentioned in the SACS Report. The evidence does not establish that any children at Riverland were denied instructional materials due to lack of supplies. These charges are unsubstantiated. (TR-V, p.580; R-13) COUNTS 18 AND 19: SECOND IN COMMAND Count 18 You are hereby charged with failing to desig- nate a teacher as second in command and/or failing to inform the faculty which teacher would be in charge during your absence during the 1982-83 school year, thereby leaving the school unsupervised during your absences from campus, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office/and or willful neglect or duty. Count 19 You are hereby charged with failing to desig- nate a teacher as second in command and/or failing to inform the faculty which teacher would be in charge during your absence until approximately January 1984 of the 1983-84 school year, thereby leaving the school unsupervised during your absences from cam- pus, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Respondent appointed a second in command or designee at Riverland Elementary School for years 1982-83 and 1983-84. For 1982-83, Respondent appointed Polly Jones as his second in command or designee. There was no requirement to identify the second in command by posting a notice. However, Mr. Dandy, the Area Superintendent, required principals within his area to advise him of the name of the second in command at the commencement of the school year. Respondent notified him in accordance with this requirement. (TR-I, p.32; TR- VII, p.92; TR-XVI, p.7) During 1982-83, Ms. Jones handled discipline referrals during Respondent's absence and signed as designee. Teachers who were unaware of who the second in command needed only to ask. Respondent's secretary, the office personnel, and administrative staff were informed that Ms. Jones was the appointed second in command. (TR-XVI, pp.7,104) The contention that problems resulted from some teachers not knowing who was second in command during 1982-83, is unsupported by the evidence. No teacher asked Respondent who was second in command--either in person (at grade level chairperson meetings, faculty meetings, in the halls, at SACS Committee Meetings) or by memorandum. Ms. Elmore who was Faculty Chairperson during 1982- 83, never placed the question of who was second in command on the faculty agendas though she had the authority to do so. Although she testified that she did not know who was second in command in 1982-83, she did not ask Respondent or her grade/level chairperson who, ironically, was Ms. Jones, the second in command. In any case, most teachers at Riverland knew Polly Jones handled disciplinary problems in Respondent's absences and expected her to do so. (TR- V, pp.598, 763) For school year 1983-84, Respondent designated Elaine Callender as his second in command. Again, he informed Mr. Dandy of his action at the beginning of the school year. Although most teachers knew that she was the second in command, they did not hear it officially from Respondent. They knew that Ms. Callender could, and did, administer corporal punishment in Respondent's absence. Finally, teachers in 1983-84 knew, or should have known, that Ms. Callender was the second in command because she signed referral slips above the signature line marked "Designee": copies of the completed slip are normally returned to the referring teacher. (TR-I, pp.34,35; TR-X, p.5, TR-XVI, p. 175) These charges must fail since Respondent did, in fact, appoint a designee, and the teachers knew or could have known by simply asking him. Although it was suggested (through hearsay testimony) that students were disciplined by secretaries, there is no substantial evidence to support that implication. When the issue of who was second in command surfaced up at the faculty meeting on November 15, 1983 (as part of 12 identified concerns) would it not have seemed reasonable at the time for someone to ask Respondent who was second in command? The Faculty Council, after it was organized and operational in the early part of January, did ask Respondent, stating that some teachers claimed they did not know who was second in command and wanted this information posted. Respondent posted his second in command that very day. (Mr. Dandy's testimony that the second in command was not posted until mid-February is rejected as clearly erroneous.) (TR-XII, p.87; TR-XIII, p.123) COUNTS 20 AND 21: MORALE Count 20 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish and maintain positive lines of communi- cation with the faculty and students during the 1982-83 school year at Riverland Elemen- tary regarding student discipline which has contributed to the decline of faculty morale toward the principal relative to student discipline, which constitutes incompetency, and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 21 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish and maintain positive lines of communi- cation with the faculty and students during the 1983-84 school year at Riverland Elemen- tary regarding student discipline which has contributed to the decline of faculty morale toward the principal relative to student discipline, which constitutes incompetency. These two Counts center on the issue of faculty morale as it related to student discipline caused allegedly by Respondent's failure to maintain positive lines of communication with faculty and students during schools years 1982-83 and 1983, 84. Morales a somewhat amorphous term, is defined in the American Heritage Dictionary as "the state of the spirits of an individual or group as shown in willingness to perform assigned tasks, confidence, cheerfulness, and discipline." Although affected by many variables, morale is not a subject incapable of measurement. Instead of utilizing an objective or standard method to determine the level of morale at Riverland the School Board presented the testimony of selected teachers, for the most part, the same teachers who were on the ad hoc disciplinary committee and among Respondent's most avid critics. Their testimony lacks credibility and fails to support a conclusion that morale was lowered due to Respondent's handling of discipline problems. They were the teachers who complained most about morale. They gave secret testimony to Dr. Stephenson, the ranking administrator, who developed the charges against Respondent and they were, generally, unwilling to cooperate with Respondent and other teachers (led by the Faculty Council), who were attempting (between November, 1983 and March 1984) to develop ways to improve discipline at Riverland. 6/ No systematic evaluation of faculty morale, using any acceptable and reliable method, was ever undertaken. A poll was conducted at Riverland Elementary in connection with the Official Progress Report of the School Board. The poll indicated that 86 percent of the teachers thought that Riverland was a good school. Ninety-two percent of the parents with children at Riverland responded, "this is a good school." (TR-IV 34 p.461) These results detract from the weight to be given the adverse opinions of the several teachers (testifying at hearing) most critical of Respondent's performance. (TR-IV, p.461; R-19) COUNT 22 FAILING TO DISCIPLINE A STUDENT Count 22 You are hereby charged with failing to disci- pline a student who said to a teacher's aided "Fuck You," during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon- duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. On one occasion during the 1983-84 school year, a child cursed at a teacher's aide, Ms. Williams, who promptly referred the student to Respondent's office. Respondent asked the student for an explanation and the child admitted that he had said the disrespectful words and was ready to be spanked. Respondent asked Ms. Williams (the aide that was cursed at) to enter the office and witness the corporal punishment. After she entered, the child refused to submit to the spanking and constantly moved around, putting his hands across his buttocks and fidgeting making it difficult for Respondent to administer corporal punishment without injuring him. Under these circumstances, Respondent decided not to administer the corporal punishment for fear of injuring the child's hands. Instead, he telephoned the child's parents and told them the child refused the spanking. The parents told him they would punish the child, by using a belt. (TR-XVI, pp.53-54; TR-X, pp.67-68,85) This particular child did not have any further behavior problems at Riverland Elementary. Respondent did not ignore, dismiss, or fail to discipline this child. His handling of this incident of disrespect toward an aide was appropriate and consistent with the Discipline Code. (Although the Board faults him for not reporting the incident to the Department of Internal Affairs, Board Policy 4018, reasonably construed, does not require the reporting of every instance of student disrespect toward a teacher.) Since Respondent properly disciplined the child, the charge must fail. COUNT 23 RAT-INFESTED ROOM Count 23 You are hereby charged with failing to take appropriate action to remove kindergarten students at the request of the teacher from a rat infested room after being informed by the teacher that rats were prevalent in the area, subjecting kindergarten students to rat poison which had been placed by custodial personnel in the students' classroom, and refusing from approximately February 28, 1984, to March 7, 1984, to relocate said kindergarten students from said classroom to an empty portable on the school site which action had been formerly requested by the complaining kindergarten teachers which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. On March 1, 1984, Ms. Ordway, a kindergarten teacher at Riverland Elementary, complained to Respondent about a mouse she had seen in her classroom. He told her that he would get the custodian on it right away, which he did on that same day. The custodian set out traps that night, Respondent also went to Ms. Ordway's classroom that night to make sure that the traps were placed so that there would be no danger to the children. He continued to periodically check the room after school throughout the week, he looked for evidence of mice, but found none. Meanwhile, Ms. Ordway did not ask to have her class moved and her class remained at its regular location. (TR-XVI, pp.71- 73,87,155,254) On Thursday, March 8, 1984, approximately one week after Ms. Ordway had complained of a mouse, Mr. Dandy telephoned Respondent and told him of a complaint he had received (presumably from Ms. Ordway) concerning the mice situation. Respondent immediately called the Area Maintenance Office and requested assistance, then contacted Omni Pest Control and asked them to come out that day. (Respondent had not called the exterminator prior to this because neither he nor the custodian had found evidence of mice, and the custodian was actively addressing the complaint.) (TR-XVI, pp.72,154,157) Omni Pest Control came out on Monday, March 12, 1984, around noontime. Respondent immediately relocated Ms. Ordway's class since he assumed that the exterminator might use chemicals hazardous to children. The exterminator treated the classroom and returned two days later to do a follow- up. At 7:30 a.m. on March 19, 1984, the exterminator returned to check the classroom. Respondent, unavailable to talk to him at that time, called him later to check on the classroom's condition. The exterminator, having found no evidence of mice, told him that the mouse sighting "must have been a fluke." (TR-XVI, pp.72-73,86,88,155,157,159) The evidence does not support a conclusion that Ms. Ordway's classroom was infested with mice or rats. She is the only person who sighted one, and her testimony about what she saw, and the frequency of her sighting's, was inconsistent. No other mice were sighted and no evidence of mice was found by those who investigated and responded to her complaint: Respondent, a Health Department inspector, the school custodian, and the professional exterminator. Respondent reacted to Ms. Ordway's complaint in a reasonable and timely manner. The school custodian was the person who would normally investigate and handle such a complaint. When Respondent received a second complaint, he immediately contacted a professional exterminator despite the fact that he and others had found no evidence of mice in the classroom. This charge is based on the exaggerated complaint of Ms. Ordway, a teacher who, seemingly, Respondent could not mollify. COUNTS 24 AND 25 FAILING TO COOPERATE Count 24 You are hereby charged with failing to util- ize the suggestions of parents and teachers and/or work cooperatively with said groups to improve the declining [sic] student disci- pline/behavior problems at Riverland Elemen- tary during the 1982-83 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 25 You are hereby charged with failing to util- ize the suggestions of parents and teachers and/or work cooperatively with said groups to improve the increasing student disci- pline/behavior problems at Riverland Elemen- tary during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. The School Board failed to substantiate its charge that during 1982-83 or 1983-84, Respondent failed to utilize the suggestions of parents and work with them to improve student discipline at Riverland Elementary. Indeed, there is no evidence that any parents made specific suggestions to Respondent concerning ways to improve student discipline. Even if, arguendo, suggestions were submitted, there was no showing that Respondent was obliged to follow theme irrespective of their merit. Although the School Board also charges Respondent with failing to utilize the suggestions of, and work with, teachers, the opposite was shown. Respondent relied on the teachers of Riverland. He routinely asked them to address problems, and suggest specific changes, usually he implemented their suggestions. One of his management techniques to maximize participation was to set up committees of teachers to address problems and make recommendations. His conviction was that since teachers were a vital part of the school, they should have a say in how it was run--and what changes should be made. He respected their views and welcomed their comments. For example, in late 1983 and early 1984, he encouraged the Faculty Council to devise ways to improve student discipline. When the Council presented him with a School Wide Disciplinary Plan (suggesting numerous changes to improve student discipline) he promised to implement it. (In contrast, some teachers refused to cooperate with either the Faculty Council or Respondent, and were determined to leave student discipline problems to Respondent--alone--to solve.) Another example was his formation of a Cafeteria Committee (of teachers) to address student misbehavior in the cafeteria--a focal point of student "horseplay" in most elementary schools. The Committee met and formulated a plan, which Respondent approved and implemented. Both charges must be dismissed for failure of proof. (TR-III, p.387; TR-V, p.708; TR-VI, p.819; TR-XI, pp. 143,149,150,162; TR-XV, pp.59,110; TR-XVI, p.76) COUNT 26 THE CAFETERIA Count 26 You are hereby charged with failing to prop- erly maintain student control and discipline in the cafeteria and/or inadequately super- vising and/or providing inadequate supervi- sion of students which has resulted in chaos throughout the 1982-83 school year and has continued through the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon- duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. The School Board has not established a standard against which the adequacy of the supervision and control of students in school cafeterias can be judged. Elementary school students abound with energy and will sometimes run in cafeterias. Such running occurred prior to Respondent's arrival at Riverland, and continues, even now. As one witness summed it up, "Every child runs." . . . [and] "Kids are kids." (TR-X, p.78) These cafeterias are noisy, relatively unstructured places where children, within limits, are free to be themselves. No evidence was presented showing that, on a comparative basis, student behavior in the Riverland cafeteria was any worse than that prevalent in the other elementary schools. Indeed, Dr. Gail Daly (an experienced elementary school principal and chosen by the School Board to investigate Respondent's performance at Riverland) visited the school's cafeteria and found student behavior acceptable. (TR-XV, p.59) Although some teachers were critical of Respondent's visibility in the student cafeteria, they rarely ate their own lunches there (to help maintain order)-- even though they could leave school a half-hour early for doing so. Since most teachers did not eat their lunches with the students, supervision of student behavior in the cafeteria was left, for the most part, to teachers' aides. This was an acceptable practice in the various elementary schools. Any student misbehavior which may have existed in the cafeteria was not serious enough to warrant being brought to Respondent's attention, either by the group of teachers who identified "12 concerns" at Riverland or to Mr. Dandy, the Area Supervisor who responded to them. The teachers "12 concerns" do not mention misbehavior in the cafeteria, neither do Mr. Dandy's letters of February 24, and March 1, 1984 (which identify deficiencies in Respondent's performance and require corrective action). This charge must fail for lack of proof. (P-5, P-6, R-2) COUNT 27 FAILURE TO PERFORM DUTIES AS ALLEGED IN COUNTS 1-26 Count 27 You are hereby charged with failing to ade- quately perform your duties as principal with respect to student discipline/behavior as enumerated in the above counts during the 1982-83 and 1983-84 school years to such an extent that your effectiveness as a principal in this area has been impaired serious enough to warrant your dismissal as principal for "good and sufficient reasons, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. The efficacy of this charge depends on a positive finding that Respondent failed to adequately perform his duties as principal with respect to student discipline during 1982-83 and 1983-84, as alleged in the foregoing counts, Nos. 1 through 26. Since these counts were not sustained by the evidence, the charge fails. COUNT 28 SWILLEY REPORT Count 28 You are hereby charged with failing to demon- strate competent performance as an adminis- trator in one or more of the following areas: the administrative and supervisory require- ments and/or communication skills and/or management techniques and/or exercise learn- ing and goal achievement and/or human and interpersonal relationships for the school year (or any part thereof) 1983-84, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Dr. Stephenson, then Associate Superintendent of Personnel, requested a review of Respondent on April 3, 1984, for the purpose of determining his competence. The Department of Education selected Henrietta Swilley (from Bay County) to conduct the competency review. She visited Riverland Elementary from May 1, 1984, to May 3, 1984, (2 1/2 days) one-half day short of the three-day observation required by 6B-5.02(12) Florida Administrative Code. On or about July, 1984, she sent to the School Board her undated and unsigned report. This report was placed in evidence by the School Board as an attachment to a deposition taken of Respondent. Neither Ms. Swilley nor any School Board official testified about the contents of this report, or vouched for its accuracy. Consequently, Respondent's ability to challenge the accuracy of its opinions and conclusions, or examine those who developed or relied on it, was limited. The report, however, is hearsay which, though admissible, can be used only to explain or corroborate other evidence, it cannot, in itself, support a finding of fact. See, 120.58(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Apart from this limitation on its use, the report is replete with factual errors, misstatements, and inconsistencies. It appends materials which do not correspond to references in the report. These errors detract from the weight which might otherwise be given to the report, and place in doubt the credibility of its assertions and conclusions. Several examples should suffice. On pages 4 and 5 of the report, Ms. Swilley reviews teacher observations and evaluations. Of the eight teachers listed, the evaluations of only four were included in the appendix. She indicates that Respondent held conferences with all eight teachers on the same day, May 17, 1983. The four evaluations appended, however, show that the conferences were held on March 3, 16, and April 12 and 15, 1983. On page 5, she faults Respondent of using similar or "patterned" comments on seven of the eight teachers evaluated. But she does not show how this violated any rule or standard of practice. (Mr. Dandy, Area Supervisor, using a similar form, includes no comments, whatsoever, on his evaluations of principals, a practice which, in his views was perfectly acceptable. (TR-XII, p.43).) On page 6, she states: From studying the 1983 evaluations of Ms. Elayna Cross and Ms. Catherine Phoenix it was unclear to this reviewer as to how much time Mr. Sulcer spent observing these teachers. Yet, the time Respondent spent in observing Ms. Phoenix (9:15 to 10:15 on March 3, 1983) is shown on the top of her evaluation contained in the appendix. On page 6, Ms. Swilley further states: If the sampling of evaluations studied is an indication of administrative progress in the area of assessment, all other continuing contract employees on staff would have to be evaluated within 25 days from my visit in order to stay within the confines of the negotiated contract [which prohibited princi- pals from conducting evaluations during the last week of school]. But the evaluations in her sampling were completed, and applied only to the prior school year--1982-83, not 1983-84. Thus her conclusion lacks support. (In fact, Respondent had approximately ten teachers left to evaluate after Ms. Swilley's visit in May, 1984 [TR-XVI, p.77].) Finally, on pages 6,7, Ms. Swilley questions whether Respondent acted as an instructional leader at Riverland. She opines as to what Respondent would have observed if he had visited the classrooms, and includes the results of her interviews with an unknown number of teachers. Among those teachers were Ms. Ross, Ms. Sluder and Ms. Elmore. (These were Respondent's most vociferous critics and members of the original ad hoc faculty committee which identified "12 concerns" at Riverland.) The assertions of Ms. Ross and Ms. Sluder--hearsay, once removed--concerning Respondent's alleged failure to visit or observe their classes are rejected in favor of Respondent's more persuasive testimony to the contrary. (TR-X, p.121; TR-XVI, pp.46-47) The School Board has not shown, by independent evidence, that Respondent failed to demonstrate competence in any of she areas described in this charge. Thus the Swilley Report, even if internally consistent, cannot support a finding of incompetence. This charge must also fail. FAILURE OF SCHOOL SYSTEM TO FOLLOW PROCEDURAL RULES In recommending the suspension and dismissal of Respondent, the Superintendent of Schools failed to follow procedures governing dismissal. Rule 6B-4.08, entitled, "Criteria for Dismissal Procedures," provides: 6B-4.08 Criteria for Dismissal Procedures. When an action or other matter appears to exist which may possibly result in the future dismissal of any employee, the immedi- ate supervisor of the individual should take appropriate action to advise the employee of the matter and the potential consequence if not corrected. Every possible helpful effort should be made by the immediate supervisor to aid the employee to correct the matter which could cause his or her dismissal if not corrected. Except in extremely serious circum- stances, the employee should be given suffi- cient time, following notification, for improvement. Any charges of undesirable traits or practices should be bona fide, verifiable, and clearly stated to the employee in writ- ing. Any employee thus charged should have a fair opportunity to explain or otherwise defend himself or herself, as provided in Section 231.36, Florida Statutes. These criteria mandate that an employee be advised of deficiencies which may result in his dismissals and that he be given sufficient time, following notice, to improve or correct the deficiencies. Here, Mr. Dandy, as Area Supervisor, routinely evaluated Respondent on January 31, 1984, and found him satisfactory when judged against all performance criteria. On February 17, 1984, approximately two weeks later, Mr. Dandy--at the invitation of Ms. Elmore or Ms. Sluder--came to Riverland Elementary and met with some teachers who had gathered to complain to him about lack of student discipline. After hearing the complaints of several teachers, Mr. Dandy--precipitously--told them he was now in control, that they should hence forth come directly to him. Some teachers were intimated by his manner and aggressiveness. Instead of asking individual teachers about any perceived problems, he asked, "Do you feel the rest of the teachers feel . . . is a problem?" or words to that effect. On February 21, 1984, three days later, Mr. Dandy met with the teachers again and, this time, invited Respondent to attend. Respondent, though genuinely surprised by this turn of events, came to the meeting and responded to each of the complaints or concerns raised by the teachers. On February 24, 1984, three days later, Mr. Dandy wrote Respondent outlining the teachers' complaints or concerns and asked for a written response by March 1, 1984. Respondent complied, submitting a timely response addressing, as specifically as possible, each of the concerns. Mr. Dandy responded with a second letter on March 21, 1984, directing Respondent to take eight corrective actions (Mr. Dandy never subsequently evaluated Respondent to determine if those directives were satisfactorily carried out, though he admits improvements were being made.) On March 22, 1984, one day after receiving Mr. Dandy's eight directives, the Superintendent filed the charges against Respondent which later (with one added count) became the basis for Respondent's dismissal. (P-5; P-6; P-19; TR-XII, p.47; TR-XIII, pp. 14, 47, 72, 128, 129) The complaint about Respondent's performance voiced by some teachers to Mr. Dandy were never thoroughly, and conscientiously, investigated or verified by Mr. Dandy prior to his undermining Respondent's authority and, to some extent, taking control of the school away from him. When Respondent was finally informed of the complaints he responded to each in a professional and meaningful way. He was then given "directives," quickly followed by charges, without being given a fair opportunity to take corrective action and effectively respond to the complaints. In their hasty action, school board officials disregarded or were oblivious to the requirements of Rule 6B-4.08. This is all the more perplexing in light of the fact that Mr. Dandy, the Area Supervisor and Respondent's immediate supervisor, never recommended--then or now--that Respondent be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That all charges against Respondent be dismissed, that he be reinstated with full back-pay and emoluments of employment; and that he be awarded reasonable attorney's fees which he actually expended in his defense or which he has legal duty to pay. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of November, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of November, 1985.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Petitioner has sufficient grounds to support dismissal of Respondent from employment.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was a duly- constituted School Board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida (“School District”), pursuant to Article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution, and section 1012.23, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed as an elementary school teacher by the School Board and currently holds a professional services contract. He began working for the School District on or about March 2007, in the middle of the 2006-2007 school year. His first assignment was at Holmes Elementary School where he worked on a “waiver,” since he did not have an elementary education certification. The principal asked him to get his certification in elementary education, which he did. According to Respondent, he was asked to start working early because the principal did not have enough teachers. During that year, he was evaluated as meeting standards in all areas of evaluation and was rehired for the 2007-2008 school year. Prior to becoming a teacher in Miami-Dade County, Respondent served in the United States military from 1978-1985, and had worked as a registered nurse. He holds an associate’s degree from Miami-Dade College, a bachelor’s degree from Florida International University (“FIU”), two master’s degrees from FIU, an academic certificate in gerontological studies from FIU, and an academic teaching certificate from FIU. For the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent worked at Little River Elementary School (“Little River”). The principal at Little River asked Respondent to work on another “waiver,” this time for teaching English as a Second Language students (“ESOL”). After completing the necessary coursework, Respondent received an ESOL certification. Respondent remained at Little River through the 2008-2009 school year until he was involuntarily transferred to Scott Lake Elementary School (“Scott Lake”) for the 2009-2010 school year. During the latter two years at Little River, he was evaluated as meeting standards in all areas. According to Respondent, he was transferred to Scott Lake because the administration of Little River objected to the number of student discipline referrals (“SCMs”) he was writing on students. Respondent reports having written somewhere between 600 and 700 SCMs on students over the years. Respondent freely admits he wrote many SCMs at every school he worked at and highlights that fact as an excuse for why he performed poorly. During Respondent’s first three years of employment at Holmes Elementary and Little River, he was evaluated across the board on his annual evaluations as “Meets Standards.” During this period of time, the only other rating an employee could receive was “Does Not Meet Standards.” During the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent’s principal for his first year at Scott Lake was Valerie Ward. During the 2009-2010 school year, the School District made changes to the teacher performance evaluation system. Use of the Instructional Performance Evaluation and Growth System (“IPEGS”) was implemented. The IPEGS Summative Performance Evaluations (“SPEs”) were now comprised of eight Performance Standards, where a teacher could be rated “Exemplary,” “Proficient,” “Developing/Needs Improvement,” or “Unsatisfactory.” In her first year with Respondent, Ms. Ward rated him “Proficient” in all eight standards. At the end of the 2009-2010 school year, Ms. Ward placed Respondent on a 90-day performance probation pursuant to section 1012.34. During this 90-day probation process, he was observed by administration on at least five different occasions, was put on several improvement plans, and had several meetings with administrators. The 90-day probation process is very time- consuming for both the subject employee and the employee’s administration. In other words, it is not the preferred task of a busy principal, unless he or she must, and then only when it is warranted by poor performance. Respondent believes Ms. Ward placed him on performance probation to retaliate against him because he complained about the temperature in his classroom. This is the first of many excuses and justifications Respondent has offered to explain criticisms of his performance by administrators. For the 2010-2011 school year at Scott Lake, Respondent was again evaluated as proficient in all areas. On or about April 2012, Principal Lakesha Wilson- Rochelle assumed Ms. Ward’s role at Scott Lake. Principal Rochelle signed off on Respondent’s summative evaluation during the 2011-2012 school year, but did not fill it out, since it had already been completed by someone else. The score placed Respondent in the “needs improvement” category. She signed it only because she was required to do so, and the summative evaluation rating she gave him for the next school year was even worse by several points. It was also during the 2011-2012 school year that IPEGS underwent another change. Now there were seven professional practice standards on which teachers were evaluated and one standard that was based on actual student data. Use of IPEGS IPEGS was approved by the Florida Department of Education (“FDOE”) for all years relevant to this case. The IPEGS processes from the 2013-2014 school year forward consisted of the following: Each teacher that had been teaching for more than two years received one formal observation. If during that observation the teacher’s performance was sufficient, nothing more need be done, outside of a summative evaluation at the end of the year. However, informal feedback is given to teachers throughout the year after classroom walkthroughs and through other means. If a teacher was observed to be deficient in one or more standards during the formal observation, the teacher and administration would engage in something called “support dialogue” in which support in various forms is provided to the teacher, so that the deficiencies can be remediated. If the teacher still exhibits performance deficiencies after the support dialogue, they are placed on the 90-day performance probation. While on performance probation, the teacher is observed another four times after the initial observation. After the second, third and fourth observations, if the teacher has not remediated, the administration develops an improvement plan, which must be followed. The improvement plan gives the teacher assignments and assistance to aid him or her in remediating any deficiencies. Also, each teacher, regardless of whether placed on performance probation, receives an SPE, as well as a Summative Performance Evaluation Rating (“SPE Rating”) of either “Highly Effective,” “Effective,” “Developing/Needs Improvement,” or “Unsatisfactory.” In addition to the seven professional practice standards, a data component is also factored into the SPE Rating known as the VAM. The VAM As explained by Director of Research Services Dr. Aleksander Shneyderman (“Dr. S”), the VAM is a statistical model that attempts to measure a teacher’s impact on student learning growth through the use of a multi-level lineal regression. Dr. S has been working with the VAM, since its inception in 2010-2011. He has studied it and keeps abreast of Florida’s rules and regulations of how to calculate it. Dr. S and his office calculate what is called “Local VAM” for the School District. He also provides trainings to School District employees on the use of the VAM. Dr. S was tendered and accepted in this proceeding as an expert in VAM calculation. Local VAM is usually calculated in September/October by his office after the previous year’s testing data become available. Various assessments are used to create the Local VAM. It is calculated in compliance with state statutes, and the methodology is approved each year by FDOE. Also, the methods for calculating the Local VAM are bargained for and ratified by the United Teachers of Dade (“UTD”) teacher’s union. The Florida VAM is calculated by the State using a model that is approved by the Florida Commissioner of Education. The results of the Florida VAM are given to Dr. S’s office by the State. The Florida VAM is created using the Florida Standards Assessment (“FSA”). In the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 school years, Respondent’s Local VAM scores were calculated by Dr. S’s office and based upon his students’ results on the Stanford 8 Achievement Test, 10th edition. UTD approved the methodology in VAM calculation for both of these years. For the 2015-2016 school year, Respondent’s VAM score was the Florida VAM in English language arts for fifth grade. The goal of the VAM is to measure a teacher’s effectiveness on student learning growth. In order to do this as accurately as possible, students are compared to similar students for an “apples to apples” comparison. Only students with the same demographic characteristics, as well as the same prior year’s test scores are compared to one another. The demographic factors considered are English Language Learner (“ELL”) status, gifted status, disability status, relative age (which considers whether a child was retained in a previous grade), and attendance (which was added in 2014-2015). Student demographics and the prior year’s test scores must be exactly the same. Based on these demographics and past scores, an expected score is created for each student. If the student exceeds that score, the credit for that success is given to the teacher. The School Board and Dr. S concede that the VAM does not account for every possible student performance variable, because, simply put, this would be impossible, since there are a limitless number of factors that could be considered. Moreover, certain factors are forbidden to be used by the Legislature, including socioeconomic status, race, gender, and ethnicity. (See § 1012.34, Fla. Stat.). Respondent argues that because not every imaginable factor that might affect a student’s grade is captured, that the VAM is not useful. Respondent claims that factors beyond the teacher might be causing poor performance, for example: lack of parental engagement. While levels of parental engagement could impact student performance, the School Board states that it is following state statutes to the letter and doing the best it can within the applicable statutory framework. Moreover, just as factors outside of consideration might hurt student performance, other factors might enhance performance, and the teachers receive those possible benefits as well--for example, if parental engagement is good. Those benefits would flow to the teacher, despite not having earned them through his or her personal efforts. Moreover, the VAM score ranges that are used to classify teachers are bargained for with UTD. The ranges have confidence intervals developed through the application of margin of error calculations that mitigate uncertainty to protect and “safeguard” teachers from unfair classifications. In many instances these safeguards give the teachers the benefit of the doubt to make sure they do not fall into the lowest category, which is “unsatisfactory.” Noticeably absent from these bargained for “safeguards” is any mention of how much instructional time a teacher must have with a class before those students’ data can be used to calculate a teacher’s VAM score. UTD has not bargained for any special rules designating when teachers can and cannot be held accountable for their class’ data based on the time they have instructed that class. As such, the only relevant inquiry is whether those students are with that teacher during the FTE period in February. Also, the law (see § 1012.34, Fla. Stat.) makes no mention of any minimum length of instructional time necessary to hold a teacher accountable for his or her students. The 2013-2014 School Year at Scott Lake Refusal to teach basic Spanish In May 2013, near the end of the 2012-2013 school year, Principal Rochelle advised Respondent that he would be teaching a kindergarten class for the 2013-2014 school year and that he would be required to teach them one hour of introductory Spanish. In an email to Principal Rochelle, Respondent asserted that he believed he was being assigned to teach Spanish to the kindergarteners in retaliation for his extensive reporting of student SCMs. In that same email, he advised her that he did not want to teach Spanish. Prior to being advised of this assignment, the School District conducted a language proficiency assessment for Respondent with both a written and verbal component, which he passed. Principal Rochelle had personally seen Respondent speak fluent Spanish to her school secretary and the art teacher. Because Respondent spoke fluent Spanish, or, at least, “conversational” Spanish (as admitted by Respondent’s counsel in his opening), she gave him the assignment. Moreover, as a principal, she had the right to assign Respondent as she saw fit. School Board Policy 3130 - Assignments reinforces this assertion stating, in relevant part, “Instructional staff members may be reassigned to any position for which they are qualified in order to meet needs of the District and pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement.” In order to teach the one-hour basic Spanish component of the class, Respondent did not need to be certified to teach Spanish. He only needed an elementary education certification, which he had. He even attended a training class on the implementation of the Spanish program. Respondent admits he can speak Spanish, write basic Spanish, has taken Spanish classes and passed the School District’s proficiency exam. Curiously, he objected to them giving the proficiency exam to him based on the grounds he was “singled out” for having a Hispanic last name, having been overheard speaking the language, and because he is not from a Spanish-speaking country. These are not reasonable objections when the School District explained the objective reasons listed above regarding Respondent’s qualifications to provide the basic- level Spanish instruction. Respondent persisted in his belief that he is “not qualified” to teach kindergarten Spanish despite all the evidence to the contrary. Respondent simply refused to do something that he was entirely capable of doing and that was within his ambit of responsibilities. He described one of the lessons he was allegedly incapable of teaching as follows, “You put a CD in the player. The kids sing songs in Spanish. The kids cut out pictures of objects and match them to a picture with the word in Spanish.” The kindergartners in his class did not speak Spanish; they spoke English. The Spanish component of the class was very basic and involved things like vowels, colors, puppets, basic books, and vocabulary words. Contrary to Respondent’s assertions, no complex grammar or sentence structure was involved. Such things are not even part of ordinary English kindergarten instruction, as admitted by Respondent. Moreover, he was provided with materials from which to draw the instruction. Principal Rochelle does not speak Spanish herself, yet believes she could teach the Spanish component, as it is a “piece of cake.” Respondent filed a grievance regarding the Spanish assignment. In order to appease and accommodate Respondent, Principal Rochelle eventually sent a Spanish teacher to his room to teach the Spanish component. However, Respondent then complained that the grades she was entering still had his name attached to them in the computerized grading system. Finally, the principal decided to move him to a first-grade class in early November 2013. Undoubtedly, the requests of Respondent led to this assignment change. Formal IPEGS observation On March 11, 2014, Principal Rochelle performed her formal observation of Respondent pursuant to IPEGS. On that day, no performance deficiencies were noted. However, throughout the year, Principal Rochelle had conducted many informal observations and walkthroughs of his classroom and had already provided him feedback regarding his performance and her expectations. Examples of that feedback can be found in an August 27, 2013, email from Principal Rochelle to Respondent. Moreover, according to Principal Rochelle, teachers tend to be on their best behavior during these observations–-which makes sense, because they know the boss/evaluator is watching. The formal observation is also only a snapshot in time of the teacher’s performance on a particular lesson; it is not a reflection of the entire year’s performance. Respondent has argued that Principal Rochelle has retaliated against him. If that were the case, this observation would have been a perfect opportunity to retaliate against him. However, she found no deficiencies in his performance on this day. Scott Lake SPE—Professional Practice Throughout the rest of the school year, Principal Rochelle made other credible observations regarding Respondent’s performance. Despite her counseling that he meet with parents, he refused to do so. He refused to participate in activities, including field trips, school celebrations, and award ceremonies. Other teachers actually had to hand out awards for him at the ceremony. He refused to implement group instruction techniques and did not take advantage of the presence of reading and math coaches. He refused to implement progressive discipline and “red, green, yellow” behavior management techniques. He refused to implement various discipline strategies laid out in the Student Code of Conduct and school-wide discipline plan prior to writing SCMs on students. Principal Rochelle recalls that he wrote approximately 25 SCMs on one student within the first nine weeks of school and made no attempt to address the behavior issues with the student’s parents. At one point Principal Rochelle accommodated his request to have a student removed from his class. Since this was only Principal Rochelle’s first full year as principal of Scott Lake, and she was still new to the school, she tended to give the teachers the benefit of the doubt when completing their SPEs. She also had a few teachers who had to be terminated for lack of professionalism that were more of a priority for her than Respondent. As such, she rated Respondent as “effective” in six standards on his SPE and as “developing/needs improvement” for the Communication standard. In her view, “effective” is akin to a “C” grade, whereas “highly effective” is “A plus/high B” status, “developing/needs improvement” is a “D,” and “unsatisfactory” is an “F.” When asked what Respondent would have rated himself in these seven standards, he testified he would have given himself five “highly effectives” and two “effectives.” He believes Principal Rochelle rated him lower than she should have as a result of retaliation against him for him not wanting to teach Spanish. This is Respondent’s second claim of retaliation against Principal Rochelle, and third claim of retaliation overall. Principal Rochelle’s denial of such retaliation is credited based upon her testimony at hearing and the exhibits offered in support. Despite the fact that Respondent’s 2013-2014 SPE seemed adequate to a casual observer (with the only obvious blemish being the “developing/needs improvement” in the Communication standard), when compared to his peers, a different story emerges. His professional practice points total put him in the bottom .8 percentile for all teachers district-wide and in the bottom 2.6 percentile for all first-grade teachers district-wide. Without belaboring the data, Respondent’s professional practice scores are at the bottom of the barrel, regardless of how you spin them. Scott Lake VAM and overall SPE Rating Respondent’s Local VAM score for learner progress points was 12.5 points–-the lowest possible score. He was one of 11 first-grade teachers district-wide who scored the bare minimum, putting him in the lowest (0) percentile. His overall SPE Rating for the 2013-2014 school year was “Needs Improvement.” Only 29 percent of his first-grade students met or exceeded their performance expectations. Respondent’s VAM was based on the performance of his first-grade students. Respondent believes that, since he was moved to the class in early November 2013, and the SAT exam was given in April, he should not be held accountable for their performance. In order for him to have a fair shake, he claims he would have had to be there instructing the students on week one. Respondent says the amount of time he was given was not fair because, “if I’m the lowest teacher in Miami-Dade County, and here for termination, no, sir, I don’t think it was fair.” If the rule Respondent proposes were implemented as policy, any teacher could simply avoid responsibility for their student’s performance by requesting a transfer sometime after the first week of the year. It is also not uncommon for teachers to have students added or subtracted from their classes throughout the year for a multitude of reasons. This is a fact of life that teachers have to be able to cope with in the ordinary course of business for the School District. Moreover, and somewhat ironically, if another teacher had been teaching Respondent’s students for a portion of the year, based on his SPE Ratings and student achievement data, Respondent probably would have had better scores. The students would likely have been getting a more effective teacher than he. Respondent also claims Principal Rochelle gave him a lower functioning group of students, who were behind in their learning. He explained that he knew they were low-functioning because he gave them “STAR tests” to gauge their ability levels. When pressed on cross-examination, Respondent admitted that he only tested his own students and never anyone else’s. Therefore, it would be impossible for him to know whether his students were any lower-functioning or further behind than any other teachers’ students. Respondent’s doubtful claim is further undercut by Principal Rochelle’s credible testimony that she selected the members of his first-grade class at random from overcrowded classrooms. Respondent’s claims that he was robbed of instructional time by field trips and fundraising activities, matters that are required of all teachers, are unconvincing excuses for his students’ poor performance. The 2014-2015 School Year at Norwood Shortly after the start of the 2014-2015 school year, Respondent requested a hardship transfer to Norwood Elementary School (“Norwood”) because the school day at Scott Lake was going to be increased by one hour. Despite the fact that he would have been compensated approximately $4,500.00 for this time, he chose to transfer schools. Principal Kevin Williams (or Dr. Williams) had a teacher on leave so he assigned Respondent to fill that gap. Respondent started teaching a kindergarten class, but was moved to a second-grade class during the first week of school. Prior to conducting a formal IPEGS observation of Respondent, Dr. Williams had performed several walkthroughs of his classroom. Based on these walkthroughs, Dr. Williams advised Respondent that he was not properly implementing the school discipline plan. Respondent also refused to implement “grouping” of the students during instruction time. Dr. Williams also had a reading coach model lessons for Respondent and assigned him a teaching assistant. Respondent was the only teacher who received this level of assistance. Dr. Williams even went so far as to have two meetings with UTD prior to his formal evaluation of Respondent in order to help him. By October 2014, Dr. Williams had already explained his expectations to Respondent. Formal IPEGS observation On October 1, 2014, Principal Williams performed the formal IPEGS evaluation of Respondent. Principal Williams noted no deficiencies on that day. Generally speaking, Principal Williams does not view these observations as punitive. Over the years, Dr. Williams has conducted approximately 240 observations of teachers, and, generally, the employees are “on point” when being watched. Moreover, like Principal Rochelle, Dr. Williams views these observations as a snapshot of teacher performance while the SPE captures the year- long performance. In the report of the observation, Dr. Williams suggested that Respondent promote interactions with students, encourage more student participation, connect to prior student knowledge and interests, and present concepts at different levels of complexity, among other items. Norwood SPE—Professional Practice After the formal observation, Dr. Williams continued to conduct walkthroughs of Respondent’s class. He observed the same issues with refusing to use “grouping” and refusing to properly implement the discipline plan. Respondent never took advantage of the modeling techniques that were provided for him. He also was not implementing differentiated instruction. Dr. Williams himself held a professional development class on campus for the school discipline plan, which, instead of attending, Respondent attended a social studies class off campus. Instead of following the prescribed discipline plan, Respondent was trying to control the behavior of his students with treats. Similar to his time at Scott Lake, he refused to participate in field trips, staff gatherings, award assemblies, and student activity days. Respondent had lesson plans, but did not always follow them. He would spend an inordinate amount of time on vocabulary. He gave some tests, but would refuse to grade other tests. The pattern of his teaching was inconsistent, at best. On his SPE, Principal Williams rated Respondent as “effective” in five standards, “highly effective” in one, and as “developing/needs improvement” for the Learning Environment standard. Dr. Williams’ rating for Learning Environment was lower because Respondent failed to implement appropriate discipline strategies despite being told to do so. In eight years of being a principal, this was the first time he had ever given a teacher a “needs improvement” rating. He mostly gives his teachers combinations of “highly effective” and “effective,” if they do what they are supposed to do. Nevertheless, Dr. Williams testified he still went easy on Respondent because he was new to the school. In terms of his SPE professional practice points, Respondent scored in the bottom two percentile for second-grade teachers district-wide and was the worst rated second-grade teacher at Norwood. Instead of following the discipline plan, Respondent was using the emergency call button, writing SCMs, and writing to the superintendent to have ten students removed from his class. Another teacher at the school, Mr. W, had the exact same set of students as Respondent, only he taught them in the afternoon and not in the morning. He had none of the same behavior management issues Respondent had with this same group of children. Respondent claimed that Mr. W was able to manage the children better because, like the students, he was African-American. When asked how Respondent would have rated himself in these seven SPE standards, he would have given himself six “highly effectives” and one “effective.” He believes Principal Williams rated him lower than he should have as a result of retaliation against him for writing SCMs and because he complained about the size of his initial kindergarten class. This marked Respondent’s fourth claim of retaliation overall. Principal Williams credibly denied such retaliation at the hearing. Norwood VAM and overall SPE Rating Respondent’s Local VAM score for learner progress points was 8.75 points-–the lowest possible score, again. He was one of 50 first-grade teachers district-wide who scored the bare minimum putting him in the lowest (0) percentile. His overall SPE Rating for the 2014-2015 school year was “Needs Improvement.” Only six percent of his second-grade students met or exceeded their performance expectations. Respondent believes that his VAM points from Norwood should not be considered because of his students’ behavioral issues. He also stated he did not have enough textbooks to send home with students. Much like at Scott Lake, he believes he was intentionally given bad students. This is peculiar for two reasons. First, Dr. Williams first tried to assign Respondent another class, but Respondent complained that one was too big. To accept this argument, the viewer would have to believe Dr. Williams knew Respondent would reject the larger class, and the principal had another one in the wings filled with “bad” students to make Respondent look ineffective. Second, Mr. W had none of the same problems Respondent did with this same group of students in the afternoon. To accept this contention, Principal Williams’ plan only “worked” on Respondent, since he was singled out for retaliation. This line of argument is nonsensical, at best. The 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 School Years at Aventura Waterways K-8 In looking for the right fit, Respondent was sent to Aventura Waterways K-8 (“AWK8”) for the 2015-2016 school year. He remained there for the 2016-2017 school year until he was dismissed from his employment in March 2017. As at his previous school assignments, the administrators at AWK8 tried to work with Respondent and the UTD to let him know their expectations prior to the formal observations. During these two school years Respondent was observed formally by Principal Luis Bello and Assistant Principal Ileana Robles on no less than nine occasions. In both years, during his initial observations, his performance was found to be deficient; and he was immediately placed on support dialogue and, eventually, 90-day performance probation. During these two probationary periods, he was provided assistance through improvement plans and completed all his improvement plan assignments. The goal was to help him remediate his deficiencies. The only change he ever implemented was switching from block to weekly lesson plans. Both his instructional delivery and the learning environment never improved. During these observations, Principal Bello and Assistant Principal Robles both observed the same repeated deficiencies, which they described in meticulous detail at the hearing. Summarizing their testimony, the issues concerning Respondent were: Pacing. Respondent spends too much time on issues and did not complete entire lesson plans. Questioning students. Respondent only uses basic, easy to answer questions; does not ask enough questions; or is dismissive of questions. Failing to properly explain concepts to students or to activate prior knowledge. Respondent fails to prompt students in order to generate interest in the subject matter and holds no conversations about the material in class. Not using challenging enough material. Respondent’s material was so basic that parents were concerned their children were getting grades they did not deserve and not learning grade- appropriate material. Principal Bello described Respondent’s instruction as “robotic” and lacking any semblance of “passion.” AWK8—Professional Practice On his SPE, Principal Bello rated Respondent as “effective” in two standards, and “unsatisfactory” in five standards. Principal Bello’s ratings were in line with the repeated deficiencies discussed above. He awarded Respondent “unsatisfactory” ratings because Respondent never remediated his deficiencies. Principal Bello credibly stands by his SPE Ratings as honest and admits to spending a great deal of time on them. In terms of his SPE professional practice points for 2015-2016, Respondent scored in the bottom (0) percentile for fifth-grade teachers at AWK8, all teachers at AWK8, fifth-grade teachers district-wide, and all teachers district-wide. When asked what Respondent would have rated himself in these seven standards, he would have given himself seven “highly effectives.” He believes Principal Bello rated him lower than he should have been rated, but could not say why. AWK8 VAM and overall SPE Rating Respondent’s State VAM score for learner progress points was 8.5 points-–the lowest possible score, for the third year in a row. He was the only one of 98 fifth-grade teachers district-wide who scored the bare minimum, putting him in the lowest (0) percentile. His overall SPE Rating for the 2014-2015 school year was “Needs Improvement.” Only 32 percent of his fifth-grade students met or exceeded their performance expectations. Respondent believes that his VAM points from AWK8 are not legitimate for a variety of reasons, none of which relate to his own shortcomings. Respondent’s excuses and the reasons not to credit those excuses are as follows: Respondent argues that his VAM cannot be counted against him because his afternoon class of fifth graders were ELL, and they spoke a variety of languages, including French, Russian, Hebrew, Portuguese, Spanish, and Turkish. His theory was that they performed poorly because of their poor grasp of the English language. For VAM scoring purposes, this excuse should not be credited because the VAM already takes into account their ELL status by comparing them only to other ELL students with identical demographics and prior test scores; and they are not expected to perform as well as non-ELL students. However, by Respondent’s own admission his afternoon ELL class was the best class he had had in ten years of teaching. He said they had emotional balance, presence of mind, and good parental engagement. He even explained how his ESOL certification assisted him in understanding how to teach them. According to him, by the end of the year, the students were at the level where they would be having conversations. Respondent also had another ESOL-certified teacher assist him for a portion of the year, which was a standard practice. Finally, ELL students, who are brand new to the country, are not calculated into the VAM because there are no prior year scores for which they can be compared “apples to apples.” Respondent himself testified that the lowest level ELL students did not get graded. This makes sense because Respondent testified that his afternoon ELL class was 31 students-–yet only 15 ELL students were factored into the data used to calculate his VAM score for 2015-2016. In sum, the grades of the lowest English language functioning students were not even held against him. Respondent next argues that the numbers of students in both his morning and afternoon classes at AWK8 exceeded class size restrictions. Respondent “believes” his morning class had 24 or so students, but only 18 after the special education students were removed. When the student data is examined, it appears that Respondent only had 15 non-ELL students factored into his VAM score. As for the afternoon ELL class, otherwise considered by him the best class he has ever had, Respondent claims there were 31 in that class. Even assuming Respondent’s numbers are accurate (and they do not seem to be, given the VAM data), these class sizes do not run afoul of class size restrictions and are commonplace at AWK8. The School District operates on averages for class size compliance and everyone teaching fifth grade at AWK8 had similar class sizes. None of those other teachers had the same problems Respondent did. Moreover, Respondent reported the alleged class size violations to the FDOE, and they did nothing about it. Respondent further argues that his morning group of students was once again a “bad” group that did not give him a “fair shot.” According to Respondent, he had a student who would sit in a garbage can and another that would tell him “F_ _k you” every day. He had behavior concerns with four to five students in the morning class. Eventually, the student who sat in the garbage can was removed from the class. Respondent then testified that these behavior issues were exacerbated by his absence from the classroom when he was performing his improvement plan activities. He now appears to be placing his behavior concerns on the administration for doing their job by trying to assist him and by remediating his deficiencies. Behavior management is integral to being a teacher. A teacher must not be allowed to escape his or her own responsibility for performance shortcomings by blaming it on the students. At every school where Respondent has taught, he has admittedly written a large number of SCMs, had behavior issues with his students, and believes he was purposely given “bad” students. The only common thread among these schools is Respondent. Nevertheless, he refuses to acknowledge that he might possibly be even a part of the problem and believes he has done nothing wrong. Respondent also blames his poor VAM on the fact that fundraising activities, book fairs, student activity days, and dances all detracted from instructional time at AWK8. This is the same excuse he used for his poor VAM at Norwood and holds no weight, since these are activities that all teachers at all schools must cope with as part of the instructional process. Respondent’s Termination by the School Board Respondent’s case was the first of its kind brought pursuant to section 1012.33(3)(b) (“3-year provision”), since this was the first time the School District had the requisite number of years’ data available. Of the thousands of teachers working for Miami-Dade County Public Schools, Respondent was part of a singular group of seven to nine teachers who fell into the three-year provision of the statute having the necessary combination of “needs improvement” or “unsatisfactory” final overall SPE Ratings. Of that handful of teachers, Respondent was the single worst. Respondent’s performance actually declined each year despite the assistance provided for and made available to him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order terminating Respondent’s employment as a teacher. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of March, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 15th day of March, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. Suite 110 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North Clearwater, Florida 33761 (eServed) Christopher J. La Piano, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board Suite 430 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 (eServed) Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board Suite 912 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132-1308 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Pam Stewart, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue The issue presented for determination is whether the proposed high school attendance zone plan, Z2, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: This rule challenge to a proposed rule is a result of proposed changes to school attendance zones in Seminole County, Florida, which would result in students attending different schools than they presently attend. Hagerty High School (Hagerty) is a newly constructed Seminole County school. The opening of this new high school in August 2005 was the catalyst for the county-wide rezoning. Incidental to rezoning to accomplish populating the new high school, adjustments in student populations were made in an attempt to create appropriately balanced racial and ethnic student populations and to alleviate school over-crowding. Since 1970, schools in Seminole County have been subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal government regarding desegregation of the public schools. This continuing jurisdiction is the subject of "Consent Decrees" between the United States of America and Respondent in Case No. 70-152, ORL CIV (M.D. Fla. August 19, 1975). In particular, adjustments in school attendance zones have been the subject of the scrutiny of the Federal government. Several members of the current School Board were on the School Board when a rezoning plan was rejected by the Federal government. Since early in the 1990's, the School Board and school administration have aggressively pursued the goal of a "unitary" school system, i.e., a system that has accomplished a myriad of goals which equate to a system wherein any student, regardless of race and ethnicity, has an equal opportunity for a quality education. Once the status of a "unitary school district" is accomplished, direct Federal supervision will cease. In 2002, preparing for the day when "unitary" status would be achieved, the School Board developed an extensive post-unitary status policy. The Parties Petitioner, Jennifer Finch, is the mother of Christopher Brady; she and Christopher reside in Seminole County, in the residential community known as Sable Point. Christopher is currently in the sixth grade. The Finch residence is in Cell 27A; a "cell" is a geographic area created by the Core Committee when it divided the county into numerically identified “cells” for purposes of considering rezoning alternatives. The Finch residence is currently zoned for Lake Brantley High School. As a result of the proposed rezoning, children (with the exception of "grandfathered in" children) residing in Cell 27A will be zoned to attend Lyman High School. Lake Brantley High School is "over-crowded." The facility is designed to accommodate 3,000 students; it has a current student population of approximately 3,650. Because of Lake Brantley High School's over-crowding, its principal regularly audits the student population, using unique and creative methods, in an effort to assure that each of the students attending Lake Brantley High School is zoned to attend Lake Brantley High School. Petitioner, SC. Read, Inc., is a Florida corporation. Members of SC. Read, Inc., live in Cell 27A, and several of its members have children who are currently enrolled in the public schools of Seminole County. Intervenor, Tuscawilla Home Owners’ Association, Inc., is a Florida corporation. Part of Cell 10, and all of Cell 11, are within the area of subdivisions represented by Intervenor. Intervenor has 2,109 member households; 734 member households are in Cells 10 and 11. The homes in Cells 10 and 11 are single-family residences with many children who attend Seminole County public schools. The proposed rezoning contemplates students living in Cells 10 and 11, who are not specifically "grandfathered in," attending Oviedo High School instead of Winter Springs High School where they are currently zoned. One of the specific functions of Intervenor is to engage in efforts to secure educational opportunities and a stable educational environment for its members. It has historically worked with the schools to provide increased educational and extracurricular activities for its constituent members. The School Board is the governmental entity responsible for the operation, supervision, and control of public schools in Seminole County, Florida, including establishing attendance zones, determining the educational capacity of schools and assigning students to schools. The Rezoning Process Rezoning is a thankless responsibility; whenever the lives of children are disrupted, parents are unhappy. Moving a student from one school to another, places unanticipated demands on both parents and students. In January 2000, the School Board adopted a policy entitled “Revision of School Attendance Zones” (hereinafter referred to as “Policy J”). Section III of Policy J, entitled Process for Revision, at Step One provides, in relevant part: The Board establishes a Core Committee including, but not limited to district representatives . . . , affected school administrators, a representative from the affected School Advisory Councils, and a PTA representative from the affected schools to solicit public input, develop and evaluate alternative plans, and keep the local community informed of the progress . . . . The role of the Core Committee in the rezoning process is advisory. Its responsibilities, as enumerated in Policy J, are to serve as a conduit for public communication, receive demographic data, create "cells" to be considered in attendance zone shifts, consider public input, and create rezoning plans to be considered by the School Board. Policy J provides definitions of certain "words of art" used in the rezoning process, for example, "Over- enrolled/under-enrolled": an over-enrolled school has an enrollment that exceeds its permanent design capacity, and an under-enrolled school has an enrollment less than its design capacity -- both are identified on an annual basis, and "Design capacity": the permanent capacity of a school as calculated by the Department of Education. Portables are not included in the design capacity of a school. The calculation variables include class size, classroom program types, and scheduling. Based on appropriate definitions and criteria, Lake Brantley High School is "over-enrolled" and Lyman High School is "under-enrolled." In addition, Policy J specifies specific parameters that "current and proposed attendance zone plans will be measured against." The parameter having the highest priority according to this policy is: "[T]he plan is consistent with the district Consent Decrees as long as the decrees remain in effect." In April 2004, in anticipation of the August 2005 opening of Hagerty, the rezoning process was initiated. Because rezoning was county-wide and affected numerous schools, the Core Committee consisted of 54 people. The following schedule was established: Organizational Meeting June 15 Core Committee will identify "cells" Core Committee (CC) August 19 CC will use cell data to develop plan options Core Committee Sept. 2 CC will choose plans for public input Public Input Sept. 20 Lyman High 7:00 PM Public Input Sept. 23 Winter Springs High 7:00 PM Core Committee Sept. 30 CC uses public input to develop final drafts School Board Public Input Oct. 26 Educational Support Center 6:00 PM Final Adoption Nov. 9 This schedule outlined in paragraph 17, supra, was essentially followed. However, one meeting was cancelled and one shortened because of hurricanes. The Core Committee meetings, while they took place in public facilities, did not lend themselves to ongoing public input due to the nature of the work that was to be accomplished by the committee members. As would be expected, the committee members relied heavily on school administrators, Deputy Superintendent of Operations Dianne L. Kramer, in particular, who was the facilitator and contact between the committee and school administration, for information necessary for their consideration of student demographics, school populations, and other pertinent data for high schools and middle schools. Geographic enrollment numbers (all potential students living in a geographic area) were used, which is appropriate for rezoning planning. In addition to the information provided directly and electronically to the Core Committee members, which was more than adequate and conforming to Policy J requirements, the School Board made this information available to the interested public directly and electronically. Nothing in this record indicates that any Core Committee member was denied any needed information. Policy J charges the Core Committee with the responsibility "to solicit public input, develop and evaluate alternative plans, and keep the local community informed of the progress." This was accomplished. Because the Core Committee is composed of members of the Parent-Teacher Associations and School Advisory Councils from each affected school, parents were involved and made aware of the Core Committee activities. The Core Committee and the School Board meetings were advertised as required. There was a great deal of public awareness of the rezoning process. For example, it was estimated that 1,600 people attended the two scheduled "public input" sessions, and the School Board meeting and workshop where the plans were presented took more than seven hours. At the conclusion of the Core Committee's consideration of many alternatives, some of which were submitted by the public, three rezoning plans were advanced by the committee. These plans were identified as W, Z, and Z1. Plan Z1 was a plan modified by Deputy Superintendent Kramer at the direction of the committee. These plans were then published on the School Board web-site and made available to the School Board members. Policy J and the Core Committee's stated involvement and participation in the "process for revision," was substantially complied with and any deviation from Policy J or the Core Committee's purpose was insignificant and did not negatively affect the rezoning process. On October 19, 2005, the School Board members took an informational bus trip during which they traveled proposed bus routes for the rezoning plan alternatives. The School Board members are generally familiar with routes to and from the various schools in Seminole County. Seminole County, like most of Central Florida, has experienced dynamic growth in the past decades. This growth has burdened the infrastructure of all communities. As a result, not only are new schools needed, but roads must be constructed and improved. Traffic congestion, whether occasioned by too many vehicles, new construction or for whatever reason, is a daily challenge to central Floridians. Regardless of the particular school a student attends, buses transporting students will be a part of the traffic with which all motorists, including the bus drivers, must contend. Student transportation is a consideration in rezoning, but is not significant or controlling. The School Board has a safety advisory committee whose membership includes police officials and traffic safety personnel from the various governmental entities in Seminole County. As safety or traffic issues arise, this committee provides recommendations regarding those issues. As the need arises, bus routes can be adjusted to accommodate optimum travel time and safety. Subsequent to the publication of the Core Committee Plans W, Z, and Z1, several of the School Board members approached Superintendent Bill Vogel and indicated that they did not feel that any of the Core Committee plans would be acceptable to the Federal government. The School Board members are regularly informed of student demographics, school populations, over/under-crowding, and myriad other statistics which help them make informed judgments in their roles as School Board members. On each school day, every Seminole County school electronically provides the School Board administration with data, including attendance information, to assist in school governance. During the rezoning process, each School Board member was provided timely updates on the Core Committee's activities and had numerous contacts with the general public regarding concerns associated with rezoning. Perhaps, the School Board members who had previously seen a rezoning plan rejected by the Federal government were overly concerned; perhaps, in order to achieve "unitary" status, they wanted to see racial and ethnic ratios adjusted to meet county averages; or perhaps, they were concerned about under/over-crowding. For whatever reason, the School Board members directed Superintendent Vogel to create additional rezoning plans which would address over-crowding at Lake Brantley High School and student enrollment at Lyman High School that included disproportionately high percentages of students qualifying for free or reduced-price lunches. As a result, Superintendent Vogel directed Deputy Superintendent Kramer to prepare modified plans addressing the deficiencies in Plans W, Z, and Z1: that enrollment at Lake Brantley High School had not been reduced in the plans presented by the Core Committee to the extent that it needed to be and that the percentage of students receiving free and reduced-price lunches at Lyman High School was too high in each of the plans presented by the Core Committee. In addition, Superintendent Vogel believed a greater number of the district's high schools could be closer in enrollment percentages to the county-wide averages for black students, Hispanic students, and students receiving free and reduced-price lunches. This planning direction is one of the fundamental considerations of Policy J. Using essentially the same data and cells identified by the Core Committee, Deputy Superintendent Kramer developed Plans Z2 and Z3 in response to the Superintendent's directive. Plan Z2 incorporates the essential components of the plans advanced by the Core Committee with modification of the attendance zones for specific cells. The primary modification in Plan Z2 is moving Cell 27A from the Lake Brantley High School attendance zone to the Lyman High School attendance zone. Cells 10 and 11, which are included in the Intervenor's area of interest, were recommended for transfer from Winter Springs High School in Plan Z as well as Plans Z1 and Z2. Plans Z1 and Z2 were forwarded to the School Board and the Core Committee members electronically upon development. On October 26, 2004, after being appropriately advertised, all five rezoning plan alternatives were presented at an eight-hour public meeting of the School Board held at the School Board's administration building, at which time the public addressed the School Board on the subject rezoning plans. At the close of the public input, Superintendent Vogel recommended Plan Z2 to the School Board. During the presentation in which Plan Z2 was recommended, Superintendent Vogel presented an assessment of each of the five rezoning plan alternatives and how each impacted each Seminole County high school, including the new high school, Hagerty. This assessment included the current student enrollment, with black students, Hispanic students, and students receiving free or reduced-price lunches noted by percentage, current numeric enrollment, and target numeric enrollment. The assessment specifically addressed the effect of each rezoning plan alternative on these critical areas and demonstrated how each plan alternative measured against each critical area. Superintendent Vogel's recommendation reflects consideration of the criteria and process outlined in Policy J, as well as considerations fundamental to the basic objectives articulated by the School Board's commitment to becoming a "unified" school district. Members of the School Board were not bound by Superintendent Vogel's assessment; each had a worksheet by which each individual School Board member could render his or her own assessment. In addition, several of the School Board members had over 14 years of Board experience being first elected in 1990. These experienced members had participated in previous rezonings and had a wealth of experience and knowledge of critical information needed to make informed decisions with or without Superintendent Vogel's assessment of the various plans. The totality of the evidence presented revealed that each of the School Board members was well-informed on all significant data needed to make an informed decision. At the close of the October 26, 2004, meeting, the School Board unanimously voted to accept Superintendent Vogel's recommendation of Plan Z2 with certain modifications.
The Issue The issue presented herein concerns the Respondent's through the person of his parents appeal of the School Board's assignment (of Respondent) to Youth Opportunity School South - an alternative school placement.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact. By letter dated November 8, 1983, Petitioner, the School Board of Dade County, Florida, advised the Respondent, Carlos Alberto Giralt, an eighth grade student attending Glades Junior High School, that he was being administratively assigned to the opportunity school program based on his "disruption of the educational process in the regular school program and failure to adjust to the regular school program." Carlos Alberto Giralt, date of birth December 6, 1969, was assigned to Glades Junior High School as an eighth grader during the 1983-84 school year. During October of 1983, Carlos' brother was involved in a physical altercation with another student and Carlos came to his brother's aid by using a stick to physically strike the other student involved in the altercation. Initially, Carlos was given a ten-day suspension and thereafter the suspension was changed to the administrative assignment to the alternative school placement which is the subject of this appeal. 1/ Carlos' father, Salvador Giralt, was summoned to Glades Junior High School and advised of the incident involving Carlos and the other student in the physical altercation. Mr. Giralt was advised of the policy procedures in effect at Glades and was assured that Respondent would be given the least severe penalty, which was the ten-day suspension originally referred to herein. The Giralts are very concerned parents and have voiced the concern by complaining of Respondent's assignment to the Petitioner's area office. In keeping with this concern, the Giralts have requested that their son, Carlos, be reassigned to his original community school, Glades Junior High School. Respondent does not have a history of repeated defiant conduct as relates to School Board authority. According to Petitioner's Assistant Principal at Glades Junior High, Gerald R. Skinner, Respondent was last disciplined approximately two years ago. No showing was made herein that Carlos was either disruptive of the educational process or has failed to adjust to the regular school program.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby recommended that the School Board of Dade County enter a Final Order transferring the Respondent to Glades Junior High School or other appropriate regular school program. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of May, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May, 1984.
