The Issue The issue in this case is whether the two Respondents, or either of them, should be assigned to the Petitioner's school program.
Findings Of Fact During the 1989/90 school year, Michel Alvarez and his brother, Maikel Alvarez, were both students at American Senior High School in Dade County, Florida. Michel was in the ninth grade and Maikel was in the tenth grade. During the 1989/90 school year, Michel and Maikel Alvarez were students in the industrial arts class of a teacher named Morton Bernstein. On May 1, 1990, during the change of classes after second period, Michel Alvarez approached another student in his second period industrial arts class, Benny Rodriguez, and asked why the latter had been pointing at him. A verbal dispute ensued as to whether there had been any pointing and, if so, what anyone was going to do about it. Thereupon, Michel tackled Benny around the waist with enough force to knock Benny to the floor. Both boys fell to the floor, Benny beneath on his back, Michel above, facing Benny and holding onto him. They struggled on the ground. As they struggled, a large crowd of other students quickly gathered. During the course of the struggle, Benny Rodriguez was kicked or stomped several times. As a result of the blows he received during the struggle, Benny Rodriguez suffered a broken nose and several bruised ribs. 1/ Maikel Alvarez was nearby when he was informed that his brother was in trouble. Maikel pushed his way through the crowd and worked his way towards the middle. Maikel pulled his brother off of Benny Rodriguez and Maikel and Michel Alvarez moved away from the crowd of students. Maikel and Michel Alvarez both went to their respective third period classes. During third period, both of them were called to the Principal's office. At about the same time that Maikel Alvarez went to help his brother, a teacher named Morton Bernstein became aware of the crowd and the struggle and went to break it up. When Bernstein got to the scene of the fracas, the struggle was over and Benny Rodriguez was on the floor, obviously injured. Bernstein assisted Benny and called the school security office. A school security officer accompanied Benny to the main office. Donald Hoecherl, an assistant principal, was present when the security officer brought Benny to the office. Hoecherl put Benny in a room and asked if he was okay. Benny was still bleeding but was coherent. Hoecherl questioned Benny to find out what happened. He then summoned Michel and Maikel to the office where he questioned them. He also called the parents of the students involved, the police, and the school's special investigative unit. Hoecherl had the students write down what happened after they had given him a verbal account. Benny was released to his parent. He was taken to his doctor who then sent him to the hospital. He remained hospitalized for two days and had an operation for the fracture to his nose. Mrs. Alvarez arrived and Hoecherl explained, through an interpreter, what had happened based on the account he had gotten from Bernstein and the students. During the discussion with Mrs. Alvarez and her sons, Maikel appeared to have a poor attitude and he did not appear to be taking what had happened seriously. Mrs. Alvarez told Maikel to straighten up in his chair. She then slapped him. Maikel pushed his mother against the wall. Hoecherl and the police officer who had been called to the school had to restrain Maikel from further physical confrontation toward his mother. Maikel was placed in handcuffs. Hoecherl told Mrs. Alvarez that he was suspending both Michel and Maikel for ten days and recommending an expulsion with a waiver to opportunity school. He made certain that School Board rules and procedures for according the Alvarezes their due process rights were followed. Hoecherl prepared and mailed home the Notice of Suspension forms for Maikel and Michel which narrated the reasons for the disciplinary actions and the right to a school level hearing. Michel's Notice of Suspension form indicated that the suspension was for battery and kicking another student. Maikel's Notice of Suspension form indicated that the action was being taken for battery on a student and parent. Both forms indicated that these rule infractions were Group III violations. The School District's Code of Student Conduct provides that Group III violations warrant expulsion from school. Bernstein had both Michel and Maikel as students in his industrial arts classes. Michel required more attention than the rest of the students. Bernstein described Michel's behavior as disruptive of the regular program and also indicated that Michel's behavior created safety concerns because of the use of power tools in his class. Michel was not passing Bernstein's course because of excessive absences and poor effort. Maikel did little or no work in Bernstein's class. He sat around and talked to friends and did not complete projects. His absences were excessive and he was not passing. Carol McKenny taught Michel math. Michel was disruptive, absent excessively, and was making no effort. He required more attention than her other students, which made it difficult to teach. She talked to Michel and to Mrs. Alvarez about her concerns in an attempt to help him, yet this produced no noticeable improvements in his behavior, attendance, or effort. James McKiernan taught Maikel biology. Maikel was failing this subject because he was making no effort and was frequently absent. McKiernan spoke with Maikel and Mrs Alvarez, but Maikel did not improve. Henry Adams was Michel's and Maikel's guidance counselor. He talked to both students during the year in an attempt to help them. He discussed their chronic absences which were in excess of the state mandatory attendance requirements. He discussed the relationship of attendance to grades. He discussed their behavior in class. He talked to Mrs. Alvarez about their absences and poor progress in school. Adams, who is knowledgeable of the programs offered by the district's opportunity schools, is of the opinion that both students would benefit from such placement because of the smaller class sizes, more structured environment, and increased counseling services. Hoecherl conducted a review of both students' school records files prior to making his final recommendation to the Assistant Superintendent for Alternative Education. His review included grade reports, ability test scores, discipline reports, and attendance information. Michel has average ability and was capable of making B's and C's; however, he failed six of eight courses during the year. Even had he not been suspended on May 1, 1990, he would not have been academically successful because of his grades prior to the last marking period. Maikel has average to slightly below average ability, but was capable of average work in the courses he was taking; however, he failed seven of nine courses during the year. Even had he not been suspended on May 1, 1990, he would not have been academically successful because of his grades prior to the last marking period. Maikel had previously been suspended for five days for fighting. This was a Group III expellable offense. Maikel also had been assigned to several Saturday schools in an attempt to help him remediate the work he had missed when he cut classes on approximately 20 occasions. Saturday school is a District- approved method for helping a student improve his academic performance through a tutorial program. American High School had provided both Michel and Maikel with a variety of student services, including counseling by Adams, Saturday school for Maikel, teacher conferences, and parental contact by the administration. Despite the school's efforts, both students were not successful in the regular program at American High School. An opportunity school assignment would assist Michel and Maikel because it would provide greater structure, smaller class sizes and increased student services. This educational alternative program would afford both students an opportunity to become more successful in school. Maikel is currently enrolled in the opportunity school. He is doing well in his classes and has improved his attendance.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Dade County School Board enter a Final Order in these consolidated cases concluding that Michel Alvarez and Maikel Alvarez are properly assigned to Douglas MacArthur Senior School-North, an opportunity school located in Dade County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED at Tallahassee, Leon County Florida, this 11th day of December, 1990. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of December, 1990.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent is guilty of the alleged misconduct and, if so, whether such misconduct constitutes just cause for Respondent's termination, pursuant to section 1012.33(6)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Introduction Respondent has been teaching for 30 years. At all material times, she has held a professional service contract, pursuant to section 1012.33, Florida Statutes. For the past 13 years, Respondent has taught at Northport K-8 School. She taught at this school until she was suspended without pay, pending termination, for the incidents of March 20, 2013, which are the subject of this case. During second period on March 20, 2013, Respondent was teaching a seventh-grade class. One of the students, R. W., misbehaved. Respondent cautioned him to sit down and be quiet. Instead of doing so, R. W. asked her, "How do you know that I'm the only one talking?" Respondent again instructed him to be quiet, to which the student replied, "I wish I could cuss a teacher out right now." Respondent did not reply. Several nearby students heard this exchange and nothing more of significance. After the bell rang, R. W. proceeded to his next class, which was taught by Sandra Tyndale-Harvey, whose classroom is in the same hallway as Respondent's classroom. During the three-or four-minute interval between second and third periods, Respondent visited another teacher, Kalyn Nova, whose classroom is between the classrooms of Respondent and Ms. Tyndale-Harvey. "Inappropriate Language" and Three Alleged Failures to Act Respondent told Ms. Nova about the incident involving R. W. during the previous period. Although she was speaking in a whisper, she was upset and was overheard by D. S., an eighth-grade student in Ms. Nova's third-period class. According to D. S., he overheard Respondent tell Ms. Nova that R. W. had said to her: "If you don't shut the 'F' up, I'm going to beat the shit out of you," or words very close to that effect, including the abbreviated swear word, the unabbreviated swear word, and the threat of violence. Ms. Nova and Respondent recalled the statement differently from D. S., but similar to each other. Ms. Nova testified that Respondent stated that R. W. had said, "If you don't stop talking to me, I'm going to beat the shit out of you." Respondent testified that R. W. had said, "If you say my name one more time, I'm going to slap the shit out of you," implying that this was what Respondent told Ms. Nova that R. W. had said. The differences in language among all three statements are immaterial. All three versions capture a threat to physically beat Respondent and a hair-trigger precondition to the beating: failing to stop speaking or saying R. W.'s name one more time. All three versions also use the word, "shit." Respondent's use of this vulgarity was not inappropriate for three reasons. First, Respondent was merely recounting what she understood that R. W. had said to her. Based on this record, Respondent was wrong; R. W. never said anything like this to her. But Respondent is not charged with fabricating this statement. Although R. W. did not say it, Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent intentionally misquoted the statement, such that her use of "shit" in Ms. Nova's classroom might have been inappropriate. It is at least as likely that Respondent misunderstood R. W. to have threatened Respondent using the word, "shit." Second, Respondent was visibly upset when she recounted what she had thought R. W. had said to her. And third, despite the fact that she was upset, Respondent took a reasonable precaution--i.e., whispering--to avoid being overheard by other students, even though she was unsuccessful in this effort. Perhaps because she was upset, Respondent's speech was loud enough for a nearby student to overhear it. After recounting R. W.'s statement to Ms. Nova, Respondent walked over to D. S. and M. B., who were seated next to D. S. D. S. knew Respondent because he had taken a class from her the previous school year. Respondent asked D. S. if he would talk to R. W. because he and R. W. were friends and see what was going on with him. The incident during second period was not the sole reason that Respondent might have wondered what was going on with R. W., whose behavior and academic performance had been deteriorating recently. By this time, the bell had rung, and Respondent was walking toward the classroom door to return to her classroom. D. S. and M. B. asked Ms. Nova if they could go to the restroom. Ms. Nova said that they could, so D. S. and M. B. exited the classroom directly behind Respondent, who held open the classroom door for them. Hallway camcorders recorded much of what followed. The camcorders of main interest are identified in the video as Cameras 5 and 6. Located in close proximity to each other, these cameras display opposite ends of the same hallway. Thus, a person walking toward one camera will eventually walk off the bottom of the frame, only to appear at the bottom of the frame of the other camera. A small portion of the hallway, directly beneath both cameras, is not covered by either camera, so a person would not instantly appear in the frame of the other camera as soon as she left the frame of the first camera. The video is timestamped to thousandths of a second, and, at least at the level of seconds, the times for the two cameras are closely synchronized. If the cameras are out of sync at all, it is by no more than a couple of seconds. The video from Camera 6 reveals that Respondent held open the door for D. S., who passed through the door immediately ahead of Respondent. Respondent released the door, but, before it had swung closed, M. B. passed through the door a few steps behind D. S. Both boys walked in the direction of Ms. Tyndale-Harvey's classroom. Rather than proceed in the opposite direction, toward her occupied classroom, Respondent stopped in the middle of the hallway and then followed the two boys for about six seconds, as they approached and stopped at the door of Ms. Tyndale-Harvey's classroom. Both boys looked directly at Respondent, who, for two to three seconds, might have talked to the boys, but it is impossible to know for sure because her back was to the camera. Respondent suggests that she counseled the boys not to run in the hallway, but clearly they were not running. Also, considering that third period had already begun, it is unlikely that, even if two eighth-grade boys were running down the hall, Respondent would so diligently supervise them, even to the extent of following them down the hall for six seconds in the opposite direction of her classroom, and completely ignore the needs of the classroom of her students awaiting her arrival. It appears, then, that Respondent said something to the boys, and it had nothing to do with not running in the hallway. Just before the boys entered Ms. Tyndale-Harvey's classroom, Respondent turned around and started to walk up the hall toward her classroom. Seven seconds after entering Ms. Tyndale-Harvey's classroom, D. S. and M. B. reentered the hallway with R. W. By this time, Respondent was out of range of Camera 6, but she was within range of Camera 5. The video from Camera 5 reveals that Respondent did not immediately enter her classroom. Instead, for about ten seconds, Respondent stared down the hall in the direction of Ms. Tyndale- Harvey's classroom. Based on the timestamps on the two videos, Respondent saw D. S. and M. B. leave the classroom with R. W., and she saw the boys walk R. W. across the hall, where one of the eighth-grade boys opened the door of another classroom, which was occupied at the time. At this point, Respondent entered her classroom, so she did not see what followed in the hallway. The circumstances under which R. W. left Ms. Tyndale- Harvey's classroom are difficult to establish. D. S. testified that he asked to talk to R. W., but he did not say whom he asked. R. W. testified that two boys--D. S. and A. S.--entered Ms. Tyndale-Harvey's classroom and asked the teacher if they could take R. W. because Respondent needed to talk to him. An especially reliable student witness, S. W., testified that she heard the boys tell R. W. that Respondent needed him, and he thus left the classroom with them. Ms. Tyndale-Harvey testified that, by the time that she took attendance toward the beginning of third period, R. W. was not in her classroom. When she asked if anyone knew where he was, several of the students said that he was talking to Respondent. The hallway was clear when the boys and R. W. left Ms. Tyndale-Harvey's classroom, so third period had started, but it is possible that the teacher had not yet taken attendance by the time that R. W. had left. Given the statements of the other students and presence of D. S. and M. B. in the classroom for a total of only seven seconds, it is more likely than not that they persuaded R. W. to join them in the hall without informing or asking Ms. Tyndale-Harvey. The video from Camera 6 reveals that no one left the second classroom to join D. S., M. B., and R. W. in the hall. The three boys went down the hall, still within range of Camera 6, but no longer being observed by Respondent. D. S. or M. B. ducked into a third classroom, from which, in short order, four students joined them in the hall. Up to this point, R. W. was being escorted, but did not appear restrained. While standing in the hall at the door of the third classroom, R. W. stood by himself, only two or three steps from his classroom, but making no attempt to reenter his classroom. However, almost immediately after the four boys joined D. W. and M. B. in the hallway, several of the boys physically confronted R. W., who tried to escape up the hall. One of the boys grabbed him after only a couple of steps and R. W. stumbled. Now surrounded by five or six boys, R. W. kneeled on the floor as the boys grabbed at and pushed him. One of the boys removed his cloth belt and swatted at R. W.'s lower torso seven times, as three of the other boys held R. W. against the wall. The evidentiary record does not establish that R. W. suffered any physical injuries as a result of this incident, whose intensity is impossible to describe. The boys are relatively far from Camera 6, and any views of R. W. are intermittent due to the movement of him and the other boys during the incident. Clearly, though, whatever level of intensity that the incident attained, tapered off considerably after about 30 seconds. About one minute after the start of the incident, the media specialist, who has worked at the school in her present position and as a teacher for 28 years, entered the hallway and walked right by the boys. She gave them a look, but noted nothing out of order--besides, one hopes, the presence of six students loitering in the hall in the middle of third period. The media specialist continued walking up the hall. The students followed her five or six steps behind. At this point, two students were holding R. W., possibly by his backpack, which had remained in place during the hallway incident. As these three boys approach Camera 6--and thus were clearly depicted right in front of the lens--the boys' grasp of R. W. is light, and R. W. is smiling. The other four boys are trailing the first three and are talking in pairs, paying no attention to R. W. Based on the foregoing, Petitioner proved that Respondent was aware that D. S. and M. B. left Ms. Nova's classroom and headed toward R. W.'s classroom, departed Ms. Tyndale-Harvey's classroom with R. W., and walked across the hall with R. W. and opened the door of another, occupied classroom. Petitioner also proved, of course, that Respondent never intervened with the boys during these actions. Petitioner proved that Respondent had just asked one of the boys to talk to R. W. before he left the classroom to visit Ms. Tyndale-Harvey's classroom. Even in a preponderance case, it is impossible to infer that Respondent knew or reasonably should have known that D. S.'s walking to and into Ms. Tyndale-Harvey's classroom meant that he was going to act on her request. But this is a reasonable inference as soon as D. S. emerged from the classroom with R. W., especially given the proximity in time between Respondent's request and D. S.'s action in retrieving R. W. from class. Seeing D. S. and M. B. walking R. W. across the hall and open the door of another occupied classroom establishes the inference that Respondent knew or reasonably should have known that the boys were not merely going to talk to R. W. about what might be wrong. D. S. and M. B., as well as all of the other eighth-grade boys, were much larger than R. W., so D. S. and M. B. did not need allies in order to talk to R. W. safely. More likely, the presence of allies was at least for intimidation, or worse. The Petition alleges a duty to act based on Respondent's having just heard one or both of the students ask if they could confront R. W. The evidentiary record does not establish such a request. However, Petitioner's opening statement predicates the duty to act on Respondent's instruction to one of the boys to talk to R. W. (Tr. 15) As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the point here is that Respondent has established a specific basis for notice and a heightened duty to act on Respondent's part, and basis alleged in the Petition--D. S.'s asking Respondent if he may confront R. W.--is close in time and content to the proved basis-- asking D. S. to talk to R. W. Interlude The media specialist who had passed the boys in the hall was headed to Respondent's classroom to schedule an author visit. The media specialist entered the classroom and, four or five seconds later, so did the six students and R. W. The media specialist remained in Respondent's classroom for a little over one minute. About 20 seconds after she left the room, so did the six students and R. W. The boys urged R. W. to apologize to Respondent. He did so once, but laughingly. Urged by the boys to apologize again, R. W. did so, the second time more sincerely. Respondent thanked R. W. for the apology, but said that she was still going to have to write a referral. Respondent said nothing else to R. W. The boys escorted R. W. down the hall, past his classroom, and into an adjoining hall, where they walked him into a restroom. From the video, it appears that one of the boys locked the door behind them. The boys remained in the restroom for less than one minute. R. W. then walked out of the restroom. About 15 minutes after the boys had left Respondent's classroom, the Dean's clerk went by the classroom and informed Respondent that R. W. had told her that he had been "jumped in the boys' bathroom" by six boys. The clerk added that R. W. had told her that the boys had attacked him on Respondent's instruction. The clerk told Respondent that she was taking R. W. to the front office so he could tell administrators what had happened. Three Alleged Instances of Student Witness Tampering Within three minutes after the clerk and Respondent parted, the six eighth-grade students involved in the hallway incident (plus another student who does not appear to have been involved) entered Respondent's classroom. They met with Respondent in a separate planning room that was in the back of the classroom. Respondent testified that she asked what had happened, and the boys told her about the incident in the hall--with one boy saying that he had removed his belt, but he had hit the floor with it. Respondent testified that they would have to tell the Dean what they had done. About five minutes after entering Respondent's classroom, the six students left it. On this record, it is impossible to find that that Respondent said anything more to the boys. It is thus impossible to find that Respondent tried to influence or interfere with these students in terms of what they would tell school investigators. The second alleged instance of interfering with student witnesses involves Respondent's third-period class, which witnessed the eighth-grade students' production of R. W. before Respondent. One student from this class, D. D., testified that, after Respondent had finished meeting with the boys in the planning room, she asked the class what would R. W. have looked like if he had been beaten up, and the class responded with suggestions. Although this student testified that R. W. did not look as if he had been beaten up, he did not testify that Respondent ever followed up with the obvious question of whether W. looked as if he had been beaten up to the students. Another student from this class, M. C., testified, but was not asked what Respondent had said to the class after talking to the boys in the planning room. The only other student from this class called as a witness, V. S., was also not asked about any comments that Respondent made to the class after talking to the boys in the planning room. It appears that, at hearing, Petitioner decided not to press the second alleged instance of interference with student witnesses. Any implication by Respondent that R. W. did not look beaten up while he was in her classroom was no more an attempt to influence the students than a statement asking them to remember when R. W. was in the classroom: both statements were true. Petitioner thus failed to prove any attempt by Respondent to influence student witnesses on these first two alleged occasions. However, at lunch on the day of the incident, Respondent visited some of her second-period students in the cafeteria. Five students concerning this incident were called as witnesses: W., C. T., K. H., L. J., and J. R. All of them were in R. W.'s second- and third-period classes. S. W. was an especially impressive witness. She also appeared to be quite fond of Respondent. S. W. testified that Respondent approached her and some friends while they were eating and asked if R. W. had said that he had been hurt, and S. W. replied that he had not. Respondent also asked if S. W. or her friends had heard R. W. say during second period, "If she opens her mouth one more time, I'm going to beat the shit out of her." Neither S. W. nor her friends could recall that; S. W. recalled that R. W. had said only, "Sometimes I wish I could curse out a teacher." C. T. was at lunch when Respondent approached him and asked if he and his friends remembered when R. W. had said, "If this bitch won't shut up, I'm going to knock her on the floor." Neither C. T. nor his friends recalled this statement. C. T. testified that R. W. said in second period, "I wish I could cuss out a teacher right now." K. H. testified that Respondent approached him at lunch and asked if he had heard R. W. say that "he wished he could knock that bitch the fuck out." K. H. replied that he not heard any such statement. K. H. testified that R. W. said that he had wished he could cuss out teachers, or words to that effect. L. J. testified that he did not recall anything, except that Respondent approached him during lunch and asked if R. W. had said "anything about he was going to beat the shit out of me." J. R. testified only that Respondent approached him at lunch and asked if he recalled that R. W. had used a curse word at her in class. Petitioner has proved that Respondent asked leading questions to each of these five students. Although the leading questions framed what Respondent apparently had understood R. W. to have said, not a single witness recalled any such statement from R. W. Under the circumstances, including the fact that Respondent had no role in conducting an investigation of her acts and omissions, the leading questions constituted improper influencing of student witnesses. Despite what Respondent understood R. W. to have said, the leading questions suggested to these student witnesses that R. W.'s statement was physically threatening, when it was not, and used one or more swear words, when it did not.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the above-cited violations of the Principles of Professional Conduct and School Board policy and terminating her employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of February, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 12th day of February, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark S. Wilensky, Esquire Dubiner and Wilensky, LLC Suite 103 1300 Corporate Center Way Wellington, Florida 33414-8594 Leslie Jennings Beuttell, Esquire Richeson and Coke, P.A. Post Office Box 4048 Fort Pierce, Florida 34948 Dena Foman, Esquire McLaughlin and Stern, LLP Suite 1530 525 Okeechobee Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Pam Stewart, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Matthew Carson, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael Lannon, Superintendent St. Lucie County School Board 4204 Okeechobee Road Ft. Pierce, Florida 34947-5414
The Issue Whether the respondent should be reassigned to the Opportunity School.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Aron Brumm, Assistant Principal at Cutler Ridge, handles about 95% of the disciplinary cases at Cutler Ridge. He was personally involved in investigating the incidents involving Charlotte and in the efforts to correct Charlotte's behavior. The following is an outline of Charlotte's disciplinary record at Cutler Ridge: DATE REASON FOR REFERRAL 9/17/84 Charlotte was disruptive in class, rude, and constantly tardy. 9/25/84 Charlotte was found in possession of pens stolen from the school store. She admitted that she had taken them. 10/4/84 Charlotte was rude, insulting, and disrespectful in class. Class disrupted. 10/31/84 Charlotte threatened another student. 11/1/84 Charlotte talked back to her teacher in class and was rude. She was putting on make-up during the class. 12/6/84 Charlotte constantly tardy to class and disruptive when she gets to class. 12/6/84 Charlotte was disruptive on the school bus. 12/19/84 Charlotte was disruptive in reading class. 1/18/85 Charlotte was found in possession of "Request for Student" blank forms that are used by school to get a student out of class. Charlotte forged the later signature of Mrs. King to get out of class and was found out near the band room; the forms were found in her purse. 1/22/85 Charlotte completely disrupted indoor suspension, which she was attending due to the prior incident. She was defiant and disrespectful. 1/23/85 Charlotte disrupted indoor suspension once again, despite warning given to her the day before. 1/25/85 A pre-opportunity school conference was held, at which time it is discovered that Charlotte had forged Mrs. Steele's name on Charlotte's progress reports. Every effort was made by school personnel to help Charlotte correct her disruptive behavior. From the time of the first incident, contact was made with Charlotte's guardian. By October 4, 1984, Charlotte had been referred to the school counselor. She was placed in an academic study group which met once a week for four weeks. She had special counseling sessions with some of her teachers. She received reprimands, indoor suspensions, and outdoor suspensions. All efforts were ineffective. Although Charlotte had some good days and would show improvement for a short period of time after certain counseling sessions, she ultimately would revert to her former behavior. Charlotte was not removed from the classes where she was having the most difficulty. However, none of the evidence indicates that a change in teachers would have brought about a change in Charlotte's behavior. Charlotte's disruptive behavior was not confined to one class or one teacher. Three different teachers had to refer Charlotte to the assistant principal for disciplinary action because of her intolerable behavior in the classroom. Further, Charlotte's disruptive behavior was not limited to the classroom. She was disruptive on the school bus, she threatened a fellow student, she stole pens from the school store, she forged her guardian's name on her progress reports, and she used a forged pass to get out of class. She was disruptive in indoor suspension. This is clearly not a case of a personality conflict between a student and teacher which can be resolved by transferring the student out of the teacher's class.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered approving the assignment of respondent to the opportunity school program at Youth Opportunity School South. DONE and ENTERED this 21th day of August, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS, 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 21st day of August, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Board Administrative Building Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Mark A. Valentine, Jr., Esq. Assistant School Board Attorney McCrary & Valentine, P.A. 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida Mitchell A. Horwich, Esq. Education Advocacy Project Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc. Northside Shopping Center 149 West Plaza, Suite 210 7900 N.W. 27th Avenue Miami, Florida 33147-4796 Phyllis O. Douglas, Esq. Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County enter a Final Order assigning Darrien Byrd to the McArthur Senior High School North. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day April, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 11th day of April, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Mary Cusack Parent of Darrien Byrd 2929 N. W. 49th Street Miami, Florida 33142 Frank R. Harder, Esquire Assistant School Board Attorney Twin Oaks Building, Suite 100 2780 Galloway Road Miami, Florida 33165 Ms. Maeva Hipps School Board Clerk School Board of Dade County 1450 N. E. Second Avenue Suite 301 Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1410 N. E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issue presented herein concerns an appeal of the Respondent, School Board of Dade County, Florida's assignment of Respondent, Carlos Alberto Estevez, to the Youth Opportunity School-South, an alternative school placement.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact: Carlos Alberto Estevez, Lereia Carlos or Respondent, date of birth December 18, 1968, was assigned to the W. R. Thomas Jr. High School (Thomas) as a seventh grader during the 1982-83 school year. By letter dated February 1, 1983, Respondent's parents, Mr. and Mrs. Angel Estevez, were advised that their son, Carlos, was being administratively assigned to Youth Opportunity School- South based on his disruption of the educational process in the regular school program at Thomas. Throughout the 82-83 school year, Carlos was the subject of numerous indoor suspensions based on defiant and disruptive behavior which has resulted in a disruption of his classes at Thomas. As example, during November, 1982, Respondent was given a five (5) day in-school suspension due to his outbursts of abusive and profane language to an instructor at Thomas. Petitioner was also the subject of other suspensions due to physical and verbal threats and harassment of other students. Carlos was truant on numerous occasions during the 1982-83 school year. Carlos' parents were kept advised of his suspensions, both in school and out of school (testimony of Donald Helip, Assistant Principal, W. R. Thomas Jr. High School). Respondent's father contends that the school board is discriminating against Carlos for making the recommendation to as sign him to the Opportunity School Program. No evidence was offered in support of that contention.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner enter a Final Order assigning the Respondent, Carlos Alberto Estevez, to an alternative school placement. RECOMMENDED this 4th day of October, 1983, 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 4th day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Jesse J. McCrary, Jr. and Mark Valentine, Esquires 300 Executive Plaza, Suite 800 3050 Biscayne Blvd. Miami, Florida 33137 Jorge L. Tabares, Esquire Intercontinental Bank Building Suite 210 3899 N.W. 7th Street Miami, Florida 33126
Findings Of Fact During the 1988-1989 school year, Respondent was a student in the eighth grade at Southwood Middle School a/k/a Southwood Junior High School. Respondent was a student in the Industrial Arts class of Richard C. Altman during the 1987-1988 school year. While in that class Respondent repeatedly engaged in conduct which defied the authority of Mr. Altman, interfered with other students learning, and compromised the safety of the other students in the class. On several occasions he turned on dangerous machinery without authorization, without wearing goggles as required, and in defiance of Mr. Altman's instructions. Frequently he engaged in conduct that would call attention to himself and distract other students from their work. Some of Respondent's conduct included throwing objects in class, thereby posing a danger to other students. On many occasions Mr. Altman discussed Respondent's behavior with him; however, Respondent would continue demonstrating a "nasty" temper, defiance, and lack of respect. In addition, Respondent was often late to class and simply refused to participate in productive class work. Consequently, he was unable to derive any benefit from the learning experience available to him in Mr. Altman's class. Because of his frequent disruptions, he also precluded other students from learning. Mrs. Isabelle Norton had Respondent as a student in her history class during the 1988/1989 school year. In that class he did not turn in any of his homework assignments, never brought material to class, and was never prepared when he came to class which was infrequent. He did very little class work and usually engaged in talking and distracting the class from the normal class work. When his talking became a problem, Mrs. Norton moved Respondent to the back of the class where he then would place his head on a table and sleep. In one instance when Mrs. Norton confronted Respondent about his disruptive behavior, he indicated that he was going to "punch her." As a result of Respondent's defiance, poor performance, and disruptive conduct, he received an "F3F," which constitutes a failing academic and conduct grade and the lowest rating for effort. Ultimately, Respondent was removed from Mrs. Norton's class with the result that the educational process in her class improved. It is the practice at Southwood Junior High School for teachers and school administrators to submit reports relative to troublesome student behavior. Such reports are prepared on forms called Student Case Management Referral Forms and are generally reserved for serious behavior problems. Mr. Altman and Mrs. Norton each issued Student Case Management Referral Forms on Respondent regarding his disruptive behavior in the classroom, tardiness, excessive talking, safety violations and teacher defiance. Respondent also received Student Case Management Referral Forms from other teachers relating similar disruptive conduct. In one of these incidents Respondent and another student were throwing rocks at a school bus. As a result of this activity, a female student passenger was struck on the head, causing a laceration and requiring her to receive surgical stitches. Respondent faced expulsion from school for that conduct. In an attempt to focus Respondent's attention on his need to improve his behavior, Kenneth S. Cooper, the assistant principal, together with other teachers and counselors, tried numerous techniques to help Respondent. One technique tried with Respondent was to get him to enroll in a crime prevention program at the Optimist School. Notwithstanding all these efforts, including many student and parent conferences, warnings and suspensions, a positive change in Respondent's behavior was not achieved. At Southwood Junior High School, like other schools within the regular school program, the average number of students in a classroom is about thirty- five. Such schools are not geared to address peculiar student needs nor provide individual students with continuous special attention. On the other hand, opportunity schools have a ratio of teachers to students of about 9 to 1. At opportunity schools, students are the subject of individualized educational plans, and there are more counselors on staff, including a psychologist. The opinion of the teachers and administrators who dealt with and had conferences regarding Respondent is that the more structured environment of an opportunity school would be better for him and that permitting Respondent to remain in a regular school program would be of no benefit to him inasmuch as he is not making any progress. Due to Respondent's poor grades and unacceptable conduct, a child study team conference between teachers and an administrator was held to discuss Respondent's lack of progress. At that conference it was decided to administratively assign Respondent to an opportunity school.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered assigning Respondent Erik Wilson to the Youth Opportunity School-South until such time as his performance reveals that he can be returned to the regular school program. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of July, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, FL 33132 Dr. Joseph A. Fernandez Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, FL 33132 Frank A. Howard, Jr., Esquire Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, FL 33132 Jamie C. Bovell, Esquire 370 Minorca Avenue Coral Gables, FL 33134 Mrs. Willie Mae Wilson 17520 Homestead Avenue Perrine, FL 33157
The Issue The issue for disposition is whether Ms. Baker knowingly and intentionally provided false and misleading information to her supervisors relating to her physical ability to return to work, and whether she thereby committed the violations of Chapter 231, F.S. and Rule 6B-1.006, F.A.C., alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact The following stipulated material facts are adopted from the parties' prehearing statement filed on March 18, 1988: The Respondent, Janie Baker, was employed as a continuing contract teacher with the Orange County School Board. The Respondent was first employed as a teacher by the Orange County School Board in August, 1965. The Respondent was suspended from her employment as a teacher on continuing contract with the Orange County school in November, 1984, and subsequently dismissed. Respondent was employed at the Gateway School at the time of her suspension Gateway is a school designed and utilized specifically to meet the educational needs of emotionally and socially handicapped (EH), specific learning disability (SLD) and severely emotionally disabled (SED) students. Its students range from four years of age through the sixth grade. EH students are educated at Gateway because they are unable to successfully attend class in regular schools with non- handicapped students. EH students have social and behavioral problems and occasionally may strike one another or their teachers. EH students are more prone to "act out" their emotions physically than normal children. The Respondent taught a class of approximately 10 emotionally handicapped students during the school year 1984-1985. During the school year 1983-84, the Respondent instructed specific learning disability children. On September 22, 1983, while employed at Gateway, the Respondent injured her back while catching a falling television set. Due to this injury, Respondent was on workmen's compensation leave from November 15, 1983 through the end of the 1983-84 school year. Dr. Munson, the Respondent's doctor, stated in a letter of August 21, 1984 that Respondent could return to school during the 1984-85 school year, but advised school officials of the need for Respondent to have a limited amount of physical activity in her work. Dr. Munson noted in his records that Respondent complained of her inability to return to work with mentally handicapped students because of the physical efforts involved. On August 24, 1984, during the pre- planning period for the 1984-85 school year, Dr. Louise Wicks, principal of Gateway School, and Velma Venrick, Senior Administrator for Employee Relations, met with the Respondent for the purpose of reviewing her physical condition and accommodations that the school would make to reduce the likelihood of Respondent suffering re-injury. Subsequent to the pre-planning meeting, Dr. Wicks drafted a memo on August 27, 1984 setting forth certain procedures and limitations to be utilized by Respondent while teaching her class. The limitations included Respondent not moving furniture or heavy classroom equipment, not handling students who were out of control and not doing excess lifting of heavy items. The Respondent was promised a full-time aide and instructed to arrange with the office for assistance in the event the aide was unavailable. When the 1984-85 school year commenced, a permanent substitute teacher was assigned to Respondent's classroom for the entire day until the permanent teacher assistant was hired and placed in the classroom. On October 3, 1984, Respondent sustained an injury in the classroom when pushed by a student. The Respondent's teaching aide was working at the blackboard with his back to the students at the time of the incident. He turned around and saw Respondent lying on the floor with the student on top of her, hitting her in the stomach and all over her body. The teaching assistant immediately went over and pulled the student away from Respondent. The fire department was called and Respondent was taken to the hospital for treatment. The hospital examined Ms. Baker and told her to go back to her orthopedic doctor. She returned to Dr. Munson's office and was examined by him. She complained of soreness but the x-rays taken at Winter Park Memorial Hospital revealed no fractures or dislocations. Dr. Munson felt there was a contusion and that Ms. Baker should not return to work. He suggested rest, with ice and massage and told her to return to him as needed. She was given a note that said she "... may return to work if she feels like it." (Petitioner's Exhibit #8). Ms. Baker did not return to work until November 2, 1984. Between October 3, 1988, and that date, she visited Dr. Munson's office several times. On October 19, 1988, Dr. Munson felt that she could return to work and communicated that fact to Ms. Baker. Dr. Munson saw no orthopedic contraindications to her returning to work in the light duty fashion that was described to him by the School Board. He had been assured in letters from the School Board that she would not be exposed to physical activity. Dr. Munson was aware of a continuing conflict between Ms. Baker and her employers even before the October 3rd classroom incident. Throughout his treatment of Ms. Baker, she complained of what she felt was a threat from violent students in the classroom and she expressed fear of reinjury. On the other hand, the letters and conversations with School Board staff reassured him that she had help and was restricted from lifting or rigorous activity. On Saturday, October 20, 1984, Ms. Baker received a letter from Dr. James Scaggs, Superintendent for Administrative Services and Employee Relations, acknowledging that she had not returned to work and requiring her to immediately obtain a statement from Dr. Munson indicating a specific date on which she could return to work, or stating that she was disabled and unable to return. On Monday, October 22, 1984, Ms. Baker visited Dr. Munson's office to get the work statement. Again, Dr. Munson informed her that she could return to work under the conditions described by the School Board. At that point Dr. Munson felt there was a conflict between the demands of her job, as Ms. Baker described them, and how the School Board personnel presented them. He felt that he needed to take a position as an orthopedist and that position was that she could return to work. Ms. Baker left Dr. Munson's office on October 22nd still upset because she thought she was exposed to injury. Dr. Munson dictated his opinion in an office note dated October 22nd. He discussed the opinion with Dr. Scaggs and sent him a copy of the note the following day. On October 23, 1984, Dr. Wicks, Gateway School Principal, called Ms. Baker and told her to come to work or bring a doctor's statement. Dr. Wicks also informed Ms. Baker that her leave of absence had not yet been approved. Ms. Baker responded that she was still ill and would bring Dr. Munson's statement. Ms. Baker then returned to Dr. Munson's office. Because she did not have an appointment and he was busy with patients, she was not able to get a note. After her unsuccessful attempt to see Dr. Munson and persuade him to change his opinion, Ms. Baker took the prior October 3rd note to the Gateway School office on October 23rd. This was the same note that said she could return to work if she felt like it. As she was leaving the office Dr. Wicks saw her and asked when she would be coming back. She replied that she did not have the slightest idea, that people were telling her doctor she could work and she would need to get that straightened out. By this time, Ms. Baker obviously knew the October 3rd note no longer reflected Dr. Munson's opinion. She made no effort to conceal the date on the note and was aware that Dr. Munson a had been speaking and corresponding with School Board officials. Her retort to Dr. Wicks reflected that awareness. Her admittedly deliberate action in leaving the outdated note was a provocative and confrontational expression of her disagreement with her employers; it was not an attempt to conceal the truth. In a telephone conversation with Dr. Scaggs on November 1st Ms. Baker readily admitted knowing that the note did not reflect Dr. Munson's current opinion, but she explained that she left the note because she disagreed that she could return to work. However sincere her belief, however correct her insistence that her duties were not the "light duties" described to Dr. Munson, Ms. Baker's lack of professionalism and disingenuousness is inexcusable. Her conduct seriously reduced her effectiveness as an employee of the School Board. Mrs. Baker returned to work as directed by Dr. Scaggs, on November 2, 1984. On November 5, 1984 she was suspended from her position and was later charged with several violations, based in part on the School Board's assertion that she intentionally and deliberately submitted false information on her physical ability to return to work. After a Section 120.57(1) F.S. hearing, Hearing Officer W. Matthew Stevenson found that Ms. Baker intentionally submitted a misleading medical document to Dr. Wicks and concluded that this constituted failure to exercise appropriate professional judgement and integrity and a failure to maintain honesty in professional dealings. He recommended continued suspension until commencement of the 1987-88 school year. The School Board in its Final Order filed on June 26, 1986, adopted most of the recommended findings and conclusions, but increased the penalty to termination. Ms. Baker currently holds State of Florida Teacher's Certificate #169492, covering the areas of elementary education, mental retardation, emotionally disturbed, specific learning disability, administrative supervision and junior college. She has taught in the State of Florida continually since 1965, except for brief leaves of absence to further her own education. She has been reprimanded in writing by her principal, Louise Wicks, three times for inappropriate and unprofessional behavior, on February 8, 1983, September 17, 1983, and October 15, 1984. Dr. Scaggs and Dr. Wicks were aware of a conflict between Ms. Baker and her principal. Prior to working together at Gateway School the two women had been sorority sisters and friends. Their families visited socially. At some point, the relationship deteriorated. Dr. Wicks attributes this to her appointment to an administrative position that Ms. Baker wanted. Despite the conflict, there is insufficient evidence to establish that Ms. Baker's discipline was motivated by Dr. Wick's desire to remove her from Gateway.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED: That Janie E. Baker, Respondent, be found guilty of violations described in Sections 231.28(1)(f) and (h), F.S. and not guilty of violations described in Section 231.28(1)(c), F.S. and Rule 6B-1.006(5)(a), F.A.C., and that her teaching certificate be suspended for one year. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 7th day of June, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of June, 1988.
The Issue Whether just cause exists for the Petitioner's proposed non-renewal of the professional services contract under which the Respondent is employed.
Findings Of Fact From school year 1987-88 to school year 1990-91, and at all times material to this case, Respondent Aaron Ellis was employed as a guidance counselor by the School Board of Hendry County pursuant to a professional service contract. The professional services contract under which the Respondent was employed specifically provides that the Respondent may not be dismissed except for just cause as provided in Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Richard K. Shearer has been the Principal at Westside Elementary School since July 1989. At the time Shearer was assigned to Westside, the Respondent was on staff as a guidance counselor, but did not have regular classroom duties and was to respond to referrals from teachers of troubled students. Between August 7 and December 12, 1989, the Respondent placed 44 long distance telephone calls from his school office telephone. The calls, totaling 64.81 in tolls, were not school related. Westside Elementary School's Teacher Handbook specifically provides that long distance calls made from and charged to the school should be school related, and that permission must be obtained prior to such calls being made. On January 23, 1990, Principal Shearer discussed the inappropriate telephone use with the Respondent and informed him that reimbursement was required. Prior to this conversation, the Respondent had made no attempt to reimburse the school for the cost of the calls. By letter of January 26, 1990, Principal Shearer confirmed the conversation and stated that reimbursement was required by February 9, 1990. The letter, a copy of which was placed in the Respondent's personnel file, further states that, "[i]n the future, all long distance calls must be directly related to Westside Elementary school students, and must be logged completely and accurately with specific information as to who was called, what student it was in reference to, and the reason for the call." On April 4, 1990, Principal Shearer completed a guidance assessment form which set forth the Respondent's professional evaluation and performance ratings. Mr. Shearer discussed the evaluation with the Respondent who refused to sign the evaluation, but instead filed a separate response. Prior to completing the form, Mr. Shearer had observed the Respondent on an informal basis at least three times and had performed one documented formal observation. He also observed the Respondent in casual meetings with numerous students. In the evaluation, Mr. Shearer noted that the Respondent required improvement in the areas of "utilization of time", "interpersonal relationships", and "routine office procedures". The Respondent's overall performance rating was unsatisfactory. The comments section provided that: Mr. Ellis has some excellent qualities in the way he communicates with students. He also has some glaring weaknesses in making the most effective use of school time, in relating to fellow staff members including those in authority over him, in following generally understood office procedures. Improvement is necessary in these areas during the 1990-91 school years. Attached to the guidance assessment form were "notices of desired improvement" identifying the improvements expected of the Respondent. The notices provided additional information related to the Respondent's performance deficiencies and indicated that if improvements were unsatisfactory, the Respondent's employment contract could be non-renewed. Mr. Shearer was concern that the Respondent did not follow through on referrals by teachers of troubled students. He also believed the Respondent to be difficult to talk to and was somewhat distant from other staff. As to desired improvements in interpersonal relationships, the notice of desired improvement provided: Mr. Ellis does not work as effectively with other staff members as might be possible or desirable. He seems to have trouble or resent answering to those in authority over him.... Mr. Ellis needs to stay in closer contact with teachers and administrators as together they decide on strategies to help students needing counseling or referrals for possible E.S.E. staffing....Staff or small group meetings will be set up upon request to discuss staff relations and counseling procedures. Expectations of the Counselor will be fully discussed at the beginning of the new school year....Better staff relations will hopefully develop by the end of the 1990-91 school year. Mr. Shearer believed that the Respondent failed to spend adequate time assisting referred students. As to desired improvements in utilization of time, the notice of desired improvement provided: Mr. Ellis does not use his time as efficiently or as effectively as he might during the school day....Mr. Ellis needs to show more initiative in scheduling his time appropriately during the school day....Schedules may be provided or developed and/or a classroom assigned to help him achieve more contact with students in need of counseling. A log of counseling sessions may be put to use....Improvements are expected during the 1990-91 school year. Mr. Shearer was sometimes unable to locate the Respondent on-campus, sometimes due to the Respondent's alleged illness (notice of which was not timely provided), other times because the Respondent would leave the Westside Elementary campus or would walk to another school located on the same property with Westside. As to desired improvements in routine office procedures, the notice of desired improvement provided: Mr. Ellis does not follow normally accepted office procedures. He does not always call in when he is to be out for the day, does not discuss extended absences with his supervisor, misses too much time from work, and has had a problem with unauthorized long distance phone calls....Mr. Ellis will conform to normal office procedures that are expected of all staff members.... A full explanation of what is expected of Mr. Ellis will be given by the Principal during the week of pre-planning....These problems should be corrected immediately, but for certain by the end of the 1990-91 school year. By memorandum of April 19, 1990, the Respondent replied to Principal Shearer's April 4th assessment. The Respondent stated that he believed he worked effectively with other staff members and did not have trouble in working or answering to those in authority. He noted that there were no complaints from teachers related to him and that he had never refused to perform assigned tasks. He wrote that he believed his time to have been utilized efficiently, that he had not been made aware of any related problems prior to the evaluation, and that he was amenable to suggestions related to more effective use of time. The Respondent insisted that he followed routine office procedures, although he acknowledged one instance of absence without notifying superiors. He noted that the matter of the inappropriate telephone calls had been handled through the letter of January 26, 1990 (a copy of which had been placed in the Respondent's personnel file) and through the reimbursement for such calls. He concluded, "I believe that your formal assessment of my performance should have, for reasons cited above, rated me as "satisfactory" in all areas. I will, however, do all you find necessary in order to demonstrate my better-than-satisfactory performance as a counselor at Westside Elementary School." By letter dated April 20, 1990, Hendry County School Superintendent William C. Burke informed the Respondent that due to the Principal Shearer's assessment and evaluation, he was being charged with unsatisfactory performance for the 1989-90 school year. The letter stated, "As provided in F.S. 231.36, you may request to meet with me or my designee for an informal review of the determination of unsatisfactory performance and/or request an opportunity to be considered for a transfer to another appropriate position, with a different supervising administrator, for the 1990-91 school year." The letter also stated that during the 1990-91 school year, the Respondent would "be provided assistance and inservice training opportunities to help correct the noted deficiencies" and that he would "be evaluated periodically to keep you apprised of progress." Although Principal Shearer was available to offer assistance or additional information related to the performance deficiencies, the Respondent demonstrated no interest in taking advantage of the available assistance, apparently because he did not agree with the evaluation. There is no evidence that the Respondent requested transfer to another position with a different supervising administrator. Thereafter, Mr. Shearer determined it necessary to provide a structured setting for the Respondent to perform his responsibilities. By letter dated June 21, 1990, Principal Shearer provided and outline of the guidance program he expected the Respondent to implement during the 1990-91 school year. The Respondent was assigned a permanent classroom for the school year which was designated as the "time-out or in-school suspension room" which was a part of the school's discipline program. "Disruptive" and "disinterested" students were to be referred to the Respondent's classroom. Such students would "benefit from more direct contact with the Guidance Counselor than we have been able to give in the past years." The Respondent was assigned three tasks related to the permanent classroom setting. He was to develop and maintain a record-keeping system for each child that included basic information, the reason for the referral to time- out, and "any notes on types of counseling or any progress made...." He was to "supervise and hopefully motivate students to keep up with their classwork while in time-out." Finally, he was to "use whatever opportunities that arise, individually or collectively, to counsel with students about the feelings or attitudes that led to their disruptive behavior or lack or (sic) classroom performance and ways to deal more appropriately with these feelings." The June 21 letter provided that the Respondent would "have a good deal of autonomy within your classroom, but it should be understood...that this is not a 'reward' or play time, or something to be looked forward to. The students will have no 'special area' privileges while in your room....The idea is total isolation from other students until dismissal time." The letter indicated that this job description was unusual for a school counselor, but that the program would permit the Respondent to have "much more direct contact with students who are having trouble succeeding in school." Concluding, the principal wrote that the plans were "subject to fine-tuning" as the year progressed, and that he welcomed the Respondent's input in the program. A memorandum from the principal went to all Westside Elementary teachers on or about August 22, 1990 which provided information on the Respondent's "time-out" classroom. The information in the memorandum was essentially similar to that in the June 21 letter to the Respondent. Between August 6 and August 17, 1990, the Respondent placed 7 long distance telephone calls from his school office telephone. The calls, totaling $17.25 in tolls, were not school related. By letter to the Respondent dated October 11, 1990, Principal Shearer wrote that, "...once again, in spite of my clear instructions to the contrary, you have charged personal telephone calls on our school telephone." The letter stated that "NO MORE personal calls are to be charged, by you, to our school phone! This is not a service available to you, or any other staff member." The Principal required immediate reimbursement and placed a copy of the letter in the Respondent's personnel file. The letter noted that continued noncompliance would result in more serious discipline being imposed. During the 1990-91 school year, Mr. Shearer often relieved the Respondent from the Time-Out room during lunch and planning periods, and had frequent contact with the Respondent. The Respondent was often observed sitting at the desk, his feet up on the desktop, reading a newspaper or book. Occasionally, the Respondent would be eating in the classroom. Additionally, there were complaints from the adjoining school that the Respondent took Time- Out students on walking tours around the other school campus, allowing them to purchase and eat snacks. Mr. Shearer believed the situation to be inappropriate, given that the Time-Out room was directed towards correcting inappropriate behavior, and spoke to the Respondent on several occasions about the situation, but the Respondent apparently did not believe the matter to be a problem. Mr. Shearer also encouraged the Respondent to discuss counseling concerns with highly-regarded staff from other schools and to attend relevant conferences, but the evidence fails to establish that the Respondent took advantage of such opportunities. On January 8, 1991, Principal Shearer completed a guidance assessment form which set forth the Respondent's professional evaluation and performance ratings. The evaluation was reviewed by Shearer and the Respondent on January 18, 1991. The Respondent signed the evaluation. The Respondent's evaluation in the area of "interpersonal relationships" had improved to satisfactory. Mr. Shearer noted that the Respondent still required improvement in the areas of "utilization of time", and "routine office procedures". The Respondent's overall performance rating was not noted. The comments section provided that: Some improvement noted in interpersonal relationships. Paperwork is very weak. Personal phone calls were made again this year on school phone and on school time against my direct instructions. Does not make use of available time with problem students in Time-out or with other students when counseling could be beneficial. Continues to miss entirely too much time from school. Attached to the guidance assessment form were "notices of desired improvement" identifying the improvements expected of the Respondent. The notices provided additional information related to the Respondent's performance deficiencies and indicated that if improvements were required by March 15, 1991 or that the principal would recommend non-renewal of Respondent's employment contract. As to desired improvements in utilization of time, the notice of desired improvement provided: Continues to miss too much time from school. Does not make best use of extended time with problem kids in Time-Out. Does not actively seek out students or opportunities to counsel. Does not adequately follow-up on students referred for counseling....Make school attendance a higher priority. Take the initiative in scheduling students for counseling, those in Time-Out, as well as others who are in need....Keep an active log of students counseled in Time-Out and at other times. Keep a daily "diary" of activities done and students worked with....All necessary forms and papers will be made available. An F.P.M.S. package on "Using Time Efficiently" will be provided. As to desired improvements in routine office procedures, the notice of desired improvement provided: Paperwork is very weak, and record-keeping is almost non-existent. Long-distance personal phone calls have been made on school phones and on school time after direct instructions to the contrary....Record-keeping must be more accurate and more detailed to document work done with and for students. Compliance with directives is mandatory. All calls on school phones will be school related!....Progress will be monitored closely....Assistance will be provided as needed and/or as requested....Notebook with updated forms to be filled out on each student in Time-Out and those counseled otherwise will be provided. Mr. Shearer provided the Respondent with materials appropriate to maintain records on counseling activities. There is no evidence that such materials were utilized or that the Respondent made any effort to address the performance deficiencies noted by Mr. Shearer. On March 26, 1991, Principal Shearer completed a guidance assessment form which set forth the Respondent's professional evaluation and performance ratings. The Respondent refused to sign the evaluation. Mr. Shearer noted that the Respondent required improvement in the areas of "utilization of time", and "routine office procedures". The Respondent's overall performance rating was unsatisfactory. The comments section provided that: Mr. Ellis has made some improvements in his general attitude and has begun to have a little more student contact, but there is still much room for improvement. There are several major areas that are still unsatisfactory. At this time I am recommending that his contract not be renewed for the 1991-92 school year. Attached to the guidance assessment form were "notices of desired improvement" identifying the improvements expected of the Respondent. The notices provided additional information related to the Respondent's performance deficiencies and indicated that the principal was recommending non-renewal of Respondent's employment contract. As to desired improvements in utilization of time, the notice of desired improvement provided: Continues to miss too much time from school. Still spends too much of his school day without direct contact with students. Has not been consistent enough on his follow-up of many of the children referred to him for counseling.... Must make school attendance a higher priority. Must show more initiative in meeting with students having problems. Initial contacts must be followed up and documented on a regular basis....Should meet with teachers on a regular basis to see what students are experiencing difficulties that he might be able to help with....Every consideration will be given to working out student schedules to allow maximum contact time with the Guidance Counselor. As to desired improvements in routine office procedures, the notice of desired improvement provided: Paperwork remains very poorly and sloppily done. Record-keeping is still very sketchy. Record-keeping must be more accurate and more detailed to document work done with students....Assistance will be provided as needed or as requested....Will continue to supply record books, calendars, files, etc. as may be needed to help keep organized and documented. By letter to Respondent dated April 11, 1991, Hendry County School Superintendent Burke informed the Respondent that due to the Principal Shearer's assessment and evaluation, he was being notified that "your performance deficiencies have not been corrected. Further I am notifying you that you shall not be issued a new professional service contract for the next school year." The Time-Out program was continued through the remainder of the 1990- 91 school year, but was thereafter discontinued. Mr. Shearer assessed the program as having been unsuccessful, at least in part due to the lack of interest and negative attitude regarding the program by the Respondent, who believed the program to have been a punitive measure against him by Mr. Shearer. Guidance counselors in the Hendry County Schools are asked to "volunteer" 1/ to assist school officials in obtaining psychological and social histories of students who may be emotionally or environmentally handicapped. The practice is to seek out a counselor who is assigned to the same school as the student. The counselor interviews the child and family, and completes appropriate paperwork containing the relevant information. The forms are not complicated and do not require special expertise to complete. The counselor receives $20 for each complete history taken and $10 to update a previously taken history. The Respondent was asked and agreed to take the history of a specific Westside Elementary School student. Neither the student nor the family spoke English to the extent that the Respondent, speaking only English, would be able to conduct the interview. In such situations, interpreters may be used, but the interview is to be conducted by the counselor. The Respondent did not ask if he could use an interpreter and did not seek approval to give the interview assignment to another teacher. The Respondent asked Rosa M. Santana, a Spanish speaking second grade teacher at Westside Elementary, to perform the interview. He did not offer to compensate her prior to her performing the interview. On or about April 28, 1991, Ms. Santana interviewed the child and family. Ms. Santana took her mother, who speaks Spanish fluently, with her to the interview. The Respondent was not present when the interview was done. Ms. Santana completed the interview form and listed herself as the interviewer. Ms. Santana thereafter returned the interview form to the Respondent. He altered the interview form to identify himself as the interviewer and Ms. Santana as an interpreter. He then submitted the completed form and the bill for $20 to school officials as his charge for taking the student's social history. School officials became aware of the fact that the Respondent did not complete the interview, and paid the money to Ms. Santana rather than to the Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Hendry County School Board enter a Final Order terminating the professional services contract of Aaron Ellis at the end of the 1990-91 school year. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of November, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of November, 1991.
