The Issue Whether Jessie M. Mitchell should be discharged from her employment as a teacher in the Duval County public school system for professional incompetency as set forth in Section 4(e) of the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act, Chapter 21197, 1941 Laws of Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "Tenure Act")?
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. Mitchell was licensed as a public school teacher by the State of Florida. Her license was current and in full force and effect. Ms. Mitchell was licensed to teach in early childhood education. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. Mitchell was employed as a tenured teacher by the Board. Ms. Mitchell received a Bachelor of Science degree from Edward Waters in 1962 and a Masters degree from Florida A & A University in 1965. During the 1985-1986 school year, Ms. Mitchell was assigned as a teacher at S. P. Livingston Elementary School (hereinafter referred to as "Livingston") in Jacksonville, Florida. Robert Strauss was the principal at Livingston during the 1985-1986 school year. Mr. Strauss had been the principal charged with evaluating Ms. Mitchell during the 1982-1983, 1983-1984 and 1984-1985 school years. Mr. Strauss had given Ms. Mitchell an overall satisfactory rating for these years. Ms. Mitchell received satisfactory ratings for the 1980 through 1985 school years. She did not receive an unsatisfactory rating until the 1985-1986 school year. During the 1985-1986 school year Mr. Strauss observed Ms. Mitchell teaching on four or five occasions. On February 14, 1986, Mr. Strauss extended the end of Ms. Mitchell's evaluation period for the 1985-1986 school year from March 15, 1986, the usual evaluation date, to May 2, 1986. In-service cadre were also requested to assist Ms. Mitchell improve her performance. John Williams was the primary in-service cadre member who provided assistance to Ms. Mitchell during the 1985-1986 school year. Mr. Williams observed Ms. Mitchell teaching on April 18, 1986 and May 22, 1986. After each observation, Mr. Williams met with Ms. Mitchell and discussed his observations. Written suggestions for improvement were also presented to Ms. Mitchell by Mr. Williams. Ms. Mitchell was also given the opportunity to observe other teachers. In addition to Mr. Williams, Cheryl Schang, Marilyn Russell and Carolyn Love provided assistance to Ms. Mitchell. Mr. Williams and Ms. Russell conducted a help session on planning and curriculum for Ms. Mitchell. Ms. Mitchell did not cooperate fully in the efforts of Mr. Williams and other in-service cadre members to assist her. She missed several meetings which had been scheduled with cadre members. Ms. Love observed Ms. Williams for approximately five hours. Based upon her observations, Ms. Love pointed out deficiencies and discussed ways of correcting those deficiencies with Ms. Mitchell. Mr. Williams provided Ms. Mitchell with language experience reading materials, teacher improvement packets and behavior management material in an effort to improve her performance as a teacher. Mr. Williams and Mr. Strauss developed a Professional Development Plan for Ms. Mitchell. The Professional Development Plan provided objectives and suggestions designed to assist Ms. Mitchell in improving her performance as a teacher. The Professional Development Plan was provided to Ms. Mitchell in April, 1986. It was not probable, nor was it anticipated, however, that Ms. Mitchell would complete the goals set out in the Professional Development Plan before the 1985-1986 school year ended. It was anticipated that the Professional Development Plan would be followed by Ms. Mitchell during the 1986- 1987 school year. The Professional Development Plan developed for Ms. Mitchell was adequate to assist Ms. Mitchell to improve her teaching performance. Ms. Mitchell did not carry out the objectives and suggestions contained in the Professional Development Plan during the 1985-1986 school year or the 1986-1987 school year. Ms. Mitchell was given a written evaluation for the 1985-1986 school year by Mr. Strauss on May 2, 1986. Ms. Mitchell was evaluated unsatisfactory. Ms. Mitchell was notified by certified mail on May 16, 1986, that her performance as a teacher during the 1985-1986 school year had not been satisfactory. Ms. Mitchell was informed that she had the right to transfer to a new teaching position for the 1986-1987 school year. Ms. Mitchell elected to transfer to a new teaching position for the 1986-1987 school year. She was assigned to teach kindergarten at Richard L. Brown Sixth Grade Center (hereinafter referred to as "R. L. Brown") for the 1986-1987 school year. William Permenter was the principal at R. L. Brown. In August, 1986, Mr. Permenter and Ms. Mitchell had a pre-planning conference. During this conference, the Professional Development Plan developed by Mr. Strauss and Mr. Williams for Ms. Mitchell was discussed with her and modified. Mr. Permenter made numerous suggestions to Ms. Mitchell to assist her in improving her teaching performance during the 1986-1987 school year. During the 1986-1987 school year Mr. Permenter observed Ms. Mitchell teaching on at least nine occasions. Conferences were held with Ms. Mitchell following these observations. Mr. Permenter also set out in writing suggestions intended to assist Ms. Mitchell in improving her teaching performance. Mr. Permenter's written suggestions to Ms. Mitchell contained clear and detailed concerns with Ms. Mitchell's performance. In October, 1986, Mr. Permenter gave Ms. Mitchell an interim evaluation of unsatisfactory. On January 30, 1987, Ms. Mitchell was informed by Mr. Permenter that she would receive an unsatisfactory evaluation for the 1986-1987 school year unless she demonstrated an acceptable level of teaching performance by March 15, 1987. In March, 1987, Ms. Mitchell was given an unsatisfactory evaluation for the 1986-1987 school year by Mr. Permenter. During the 1986-1987 school year the primary in-service cadre member who assisted Ms. Mitchell was James Constande. Mr. Constande observed Ms. Mitchell on at least six occasions, conducted conferences with Ms. Mitchell, made suggestions to her and provided her with written materials designed to assist her in improving her teaching performance. Five of Mr. Constande's six observations were scheduled with the permission of Ms. Mitchell. Jayne Owens, another in-service cadre member, also assisted Ms. Mitchell. No observations were conducted by in-service cadre from September 27, 1986, through November 25, 1986 and from November 26, 1986, through January 21, 1987, because of Ms. Mitchell's reluctance to agree to such observations. On March 23, 1987, Ms. Mitchell told Mr. Constande that she did not want to continue with classroom observations. Mr. Constande contacted Ms. Mitchell in April and May of 1987, at least twice each month. Ms. Mitchell refused to allow any classroom observations. In-service cadre members encouraged Ms. Mitchell to contact them if she needed any additional assistance. Ms. Mitchell did so only on a few occasions. Jayne Owens, an in-service cadre member during the 1986-1987 school year, conducted class while Ms. Mitchell observed. During the 1986-1987 school year Ms. Mitchell believed that Mr. Permenter and the in-service cadre members were not trying to help her. This attitude was reinforced by advice Ms. Mitchell received from counsel for the Duval County Teachers' Union. Ms. Mitchell's attitude about Mr. Permenter and the in-service cadre deteriorated after she received an unsatisfactory rating for the 1986-1987 school year. She refused any further assistance from the in-service cadre. The unsatisfactory ratings which Ms. Mitchell received for the 1985- 1986 and 1986-1987 school years were based upon her deficiencies in the general areas of classroom management and teaching effectiveness. Ms. Mitchell's classroom management deficiencies included the following: (a) failure to maintain order in the classroom and school corridors; (b) failure to maintain an attractive, organized classroom (Ms. Mitchell did improve her performance in this area, however); (c) failure to keep students on- task by engaging in conversation unrelated to the subject of her class; (d) failure to maintain effective behavior management techniques such as the use positive reinforcement to avoid negative behavior; (e) failure to stop students who interrupted by calling out; (f) failure to explain the standard of behavior she expected; (g) failure to control the noise level; (h) failure to monitor rules and to timely issue desists orders; (i) failure to identify and discipline students actually causing disruptions; (j) failure to stop children from chewing on pencils, which may be a health hazard; and (k) failure to insure that usable school materials were picked up off the floor to avoid their being sweep up and thrown away. Ms. Mitchell's teaching deficiencies included the following: (a) failure to explain the purpose of lessons at the beginning of a class and to give a review at the end of the class to reinforce what had been taught; (b) failure to provide an explanation when moving from one subject to the next; (c) failure to use correct grammar; (d) failure to give praise; (e) failure to organize the classroom effectively into learning areas; (f) failure to correctly mark report cards; (g) failure to manage time properly, resulting in a loss of momentum; (h) failure to have materials and teaching aides ready to start class; (i) failure to select subject matter of a film suitable for her students; (j) failure to keep lesson plans in accordance with district guidelines; (k) failure to assign or prepare sufficient tasks for students; (1) failure to organize instructions; (m) failure to stop unison responses; (n) failure to be familiar with subject of a film; (o) failure to avoid providing too much information to students; and (p) failure to accurately present subject matter. Ms. Mitchell's deficiencies were observed over two school years by at least six observers on several occasions. Ms. Mitchell was unable to produce current lesson plans in May, 1986. Ms. Mitchell did not adequately plan. Therefore, she was unable to provide an effective learning environment and she was unable to reduce discipline problems. Ms. Mitchell failed to have a series of groups of students and a series of activities for each group throughout a school day. Ms. Mitchell failed to properly maintain cumulative folders during the 1986-1987 school year. Ms. Mitchell was given clear and detailed statements of her deficiencies throughout the 1985-1986 and 1986-1987 school years. The Superintendent of Duval County Public Schools brought charges against Ms. Mitchell seeking to discharge her for professional incompetency by certified letter dated May 19, 1987. The charges were based upon Ms. Mitchell's teaching performance during the 1985-1986 and 1986-1987 school years, the two years for which Ms. Mitchell received unsatisfactory evaluations. Ms. Mitchell was afforded a hearing in conformance with Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Ms. Mitchell was afforded a speedy and public hearing, informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against her, confronted by accusing witnesses, given the opportunity to subpoena witnesses and papers and allowed to secure assistance of counsel.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Ms. Mitchell be dismissed as a tenured teacher within the Duval County public school system. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 11th day of October, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-4581 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Board's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 3. 3 46. 4 38 5 39 and 41. 6 40-41. 7 6 and 9. 8 17. 9 Hereby accepted. 10-11 20. 12 11. 13 18. 14-15 21. 16-17 Irrelevant. 18 11. 19 17. 20 13. 21 12. 22 14. 23 13. 24 42. Hereby accepted. See 40. 27 16. 28 43. 29 42. 30 34. 31 15. 32 See 39. 33 19. 34 22. 35 23. 36 24-25. 37 18, 38 Hereby accepted. 39 26. 40 28. 41-42 Irrelevant. 43 45. 44 27. 45 Hereby accepted. 46-47 30. 48-49 Hereby accepted. 50 31. 51 30. 52 32. 53 35. 54 Hereby accepted. 55 32 and 37. 56 33. 57 See 40. 58-61 Hereby accepted. 62 44. 63 36. Hereby accepted. Irrelevant. 66 32 and 37. 67 36. 68-69 Hereby accepted. 70 45. 71 Cumulative. 72 47. 73 48. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1-2. 2 3. 3 46. 4 5. 5 6. 6 10. 7-8 21. Hereby accepted. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 11-13 7. 14 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 15-16 Hereby accepted. 17 17. 18 24. 19 23. Irrelevant. See 25. 22 27. 23 29. 24-29 Not supported by the weight of the evidence or irrelevant. 30 8. 31-43 Not supported by the weight of the evidence or irrelevant. 44 Hereby accepted. 45 4. 46 8. 47 Hereby accepted. 48 36. 49-52 Not supported by the weight of the evidence or irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Dolores R. Gahan Assistant Counsel City of Jacksonville 1300 City Hall Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Kenneth Vickers, Esquire Suite 1 437 East Monroe Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Herb A. Sang, Superintendent School Board of Duval County 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207
The Issue Whether the School Board of Dade County has cause to terminate Respondent's employment on the grounds that Respondent was "willfully absent from duty without leave," within the meaning of Section 231.44, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges filed in the instant case? If not, what relief should Respondent be afforded?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the Hearing Officer makes the following Findings of Fact: Respondent was employed as a teacher by the Dade County School Board during the 1988-89 school year on an annual contract basis. His employment commenced on August 31,1988. At all times he was assigned to the ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) program at Carver Middle School. The principal of Carver Middle School, and Respondent's immediate supervisor, was Samuel Gay. Simine Heise was one of Gay's assistant principals. In Gay's absence, Heise served as acting principal. At around 12:00 p.m. on Monday, January 30, 1989, following a meeting with Gay, Respondent became physically ill at school. He left school for the day after notifying Gay and securing his authorization. Respondent was placed on sick leave for the remainder of the school day. At no time thereafter did Respondent report back to work. Various substitute teachers covered Respondent's classes during the period of his absence. Effective April 20, 1989, he was suspended by the School Board and it initiated action to terminate his employment on the ground that he had been willfully absent without authorization. During the period of his absence, Respondent was under the care of a psychiatrist, Dr. Adolfo M. Vilasuso. He was suffering from depression, insomnia, stress, anxiety and stress- induced gastrointestinal distress. He was treated by Dr. Vilasuso with psychotherapy and medication. Respondent's condition was primarily the result of personal problems involving his son and former wife. He was obsessed by these matters. He paid very little attention to anything else, including his teaching responsibilities. Although he was physically able to report to work, he was so distracted and preoccupied by his personal problems that he could not effectively discharge his teaching duties. The School Board requires that, in order to continue to obtain sick leave, a teacher absent because of illness must contact his immediate supervisor or the supervisor's designee by 2:00 p.m. of each day of absence and give notice that he will be out sick the following day. Teachers are advised of this "2:00 p.m. notification" requirement in the teacher handbook, a copy of which Respondent had received prior to his absence. Throughout the period of his absence, Respondent was capable of understanding and complying with this requirement. A teacher who complies with the "2:00 p.m. notification" requirement, but has exhausted all of his accrued sick leave credits, will automatically be placed on authorized leave without pay for illness for a maximum of 30 days, without the necessity of formal School Board approval. The leave will be extended beyond 30 days only if the teacher submits an appropriate application for an extension, accompanied by a "statement from [the teacher's] physician explaining why such [extended] leave is necessary." After leaving school on January 30, 1989, Respondent did not contact any member of the Carver Middle School administration or its staff concerning his absence until Saturday, February 11, 1989, when he telephoned Principal Gay's secretary, Maria Bonce, at her home and left a message with her daughter that he would not be at work the following Monday. On February 15, 1989, Dr. Vilasuso telephoned Carver Middle School and spoke with Assistant Principal Heise. Dr. Vilasuso told Heise that Respondent was under his care. He was vague, however, regarding the nature of Respondent's illness and he did not indicate when Respondent would be able to return to work. On February 21, 1989, not having heard anything further from either Respondent or Dr. Vilasuso, Principal Gay sent Respondent the following letter: The purpose of this communication is to determine your intentions for the balance of this school term. You've been absent from your teaching position at Carver Middle School since 12:00 a.m [sic] on January 30, 1989. On Saturday, February 11, you called my secretary, Mrs. Bonce, indicating you would return to work next week. On February 15, an individual identifying himself as your doctor called Carver Middle School and spoke to the assistant principal, Mrs. Heise. When he was requested [to provide information] about your illness, medical status and your ability to return to work, he stated he would not give further information without your approval. Until now we have not heard from you since February 11 when you contacted Mrs. Bonce at home. Also, the phone number and address we have on record obviously are no longer yours, therefore, I am unable to ccntact you. In addition to the above, we have no lesson plans, roll books, grade books for your students. It has been reported to me by custodial staff that you are frequently observed in the building after duty hours yet you have failed to communicate with me personally or the assistant principal or speak with your department head or the assistant principal for curriculum. I must call your attention to the contract between Dade County Public Schools and UTD and the teacher handbook which has information whiih addresses teachers' absences. You are clearly in violation of these documents. Finally, may I remind you of a memorandum given to you on January 27. A written response was due to me on February 1st. In addition, a conversation for the record was scheduled for February 1st. That conference will be held. You simply need to tell me when. I must remind you that failure to comply with district and local rules can result in non-reappointment for the 1989-90 school year. After receiving the letter, Respondent, on Thursday, February 23, 1989, telephoned Carver Middle School and spoke with Gay. Although he did not indicate to Gay when he was going to return to school, he did leave Gay with the impression that his condition was improving. Respondent also intimated during the telephone conversation that Gay would be receiving a letter from Dr. Vilasuso concerning Respondent's illness. The following Monday, February 27, 1989, at around 9:00 p.m., Respondent telephoned Secretary Bonce at her home and told her that he would be absent from school the remainder of the week due to illness. On Wednesday, March 8, 1989 Respordent telephoned Gay at school. He told Gay that he wanted to apply for sick leave and asked how he would go about doing so. Gay responded that he had referred Respondent's case to the School Board's Office of Professional Standards and that therefore the matter was "out of his hands" and Respondent would have to contact that office. On no occasion other than during the foregoing telephone conversations of February 11, 23 and 27, 1989, and March 8, 1989, did Respondent communicate with Gay or any member of Gay's administrative staff concerning his absence. Respondent's failure to so communicate with either his immediate supervisor or anyone on his immediate supervisor's administrative staff was willful. On March 28, 1989, Dr. Joyce Annunziata, the head of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards, sent Respondent a letter, which provided in pertinent part as follows: The Office of Professional Standards has been advised that you have been absent without authority from your duties as an employee in the Dade County Public Schools. During this period you did not obtain authorized leave from your supervisor. Florida Statute 231.44 provides: Any District school board employee who is willfully absent from duty without leave shall forfeit compensation for the time of such absence, and his employment shall be subject to termination by the school board. Your absence without authorized leave constitutes willful neglect of duty and subjects your employment with the Dade County Schools to immediate termination. Please be advised that unless you provide within five days from receipt of this letter a written notification to the Office of Professional Standards, 1444 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 215, Miami, FL 33132, of your resolution of your unauthorized leave status, your termination will be submitted to the School Board for final action at its meeting of April 19, 1989. Respondent received Dr. Annunziata's letter on April 10, 1989. He did not provide the Office of Professional Standards with the requisite "written notification" within five days of his receipt of the letter. Accordingly, the matter was considered by the School Board at its April 19, 1989, meeting. Thereafter, Respondent submitted to the Office of Professional Standards a written request for leave without pay for illness. The request sought leave for the period from February 8, 1989, through June 19, 1989. Although the form on which Respondent made his request noted that a "[d]octor's statement indicating diagnosis [and] length of time required for leave" was required, no such statement accompanied Respondent's request. A letter from Dr. Vilasuso concerning Respondent's condition was subsequently received by the Office of Professional Standards on April 28, 1989.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment as an annual contract teacher pursuant to Section 231.44, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of January, 1990. STUART M. LERNER 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 2nd day of January, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-3231 The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties: School Board's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted and incorporated in substance, although not necessarily repeated verbatim, in this Recommended Order. Rejected because it adds only unnecessary detail. Rejected because it adds only unnecessary detail. First, second and third sentences: Rejected because they add only unnecessary detail; Fourth and fifth sentences: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. First sentence: To the extent that it suggests that Respondent "never" complied with the "2:00 pm. notification requirement," it has been rejected because it is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Otherwise, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. Second sentence: Rejected because it adds only unnecessary detail. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. To the extent that it suggests that Respondent was absent without authorization during a portion of the period from January 30, 1989, to April 19, 1989, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. To the extent that it suggests that he was absent without authorization during the entire period, it has been rejected because it is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Rejected because it adds only unnecessary detail. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected because it adds only unnecessary detail. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected because it is irrelevant and immaterial. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected because it adds only unnecessary detail. Rejected because it is a summary of testimony, rather than a finding of fact based upon such testimony. Rejected because it is a summary of testimony, rather than a finding of fact based upon such testimony. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Rejected because it is a summary of rather than a finding of fact based upon such testimony. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Second sentence: Rejected because it is a summary of testimony, rather than a finding of fact based upon such testimony. Rejected because it is more in the nature of argument than a finding of fact. Accepted and incorporated in substance. First sentence: Rejected because it is more in the nature of argument than a finding of fact; Remaining sentences: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence to the extent it suggests that a teacher need not comply with the "2:00 p.m. notification" requirement to obtain authorized leave for illness and that Respondent was on such authorized leave during the first 30 days of his absence. Otherwise, they have been accepted and incorporated in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Jaime C. Bovell, Esquire 1401 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Coral Gables, Florida 33134 William DuFresne, Esquire 2929 Southwest Third Avenue, Suite One Miami, Florida 33134 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Joseph A. Fernandez Superintendent of Schools Dade County School Board School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact An Administrative Complaint was served on the Respondent in April, 1983. Herb A. Sang, Superintendent of Duval County County Schools, was responsible for those charges. In the complaint, it is alleged that Respondent is guilty of professional incompetency in fulfilling his duties as a teacher in the Duval County School System in the years 1979-80 and 1980-81. Respondent is a tenured teacher in the Duval County School System and had held that tenure at all times relevant to this inquiry. Respondent opposed these allegations, leading to the formal Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes hearing. Respondent, who has been employed in the school system since 1954, was transferred to Duncan U. Fletcher Senior High School in 1971. Lee remained at Fletcher High through the school year 1979-80. In that year, Lee taught 10th grade English. His performance in the classroom was observed by Dr. Andrew Knight, principal at Fletcher High School, and by other professionals in the school. These observations commenced in September 1979 and continued throughout the school year. By January 30, 1980, Dr. Knight had gained a sufficient impression of the performance of the Respondent to write and inform him of areas of deficiency. A copy of that letter of evaluation may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7, admitted into evidence. In addition to setting forth deficiencies, the letter suggests techniques that might be employed to correct the deficiencies. Relevant areas of concern involved classroom management, teaching effectiveness and classroom performance. Those observations as set out in the letter of evaluation and critique of the Respondent's performance are an accurate depiction of the performance. All these items set forth relate to teacher competency and this depiction of Respondent, coupled with similar observations which were testified to during the course of the hearing, demonstrate a lack of competency on the part of the Respondent in performing his teaching duties. The deficiencies set forth in the letter of evaluation were explained to the Respondent in person. Following the interim evaluation of January, 1980, the annual formal evaluation was made on March 12, 1980. A copy of that evaluation may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 9, admitted into evidence. As depicted in this document, Respondent was still perceived in March, 1980, as giving a poor performance as a teacher. This characterization of his performance, as found in the evaluation of March 12, 1980, is accurate and those observations, together with the observations of his performance as testified to in the hearing, point to the fact that the Respondent continued to be less than competent in his teaching. Throughout that school year, classroom management was the most obvious deficiency. In particular, students were sleeping and talking to each other and not paying attention, a problem not satisfactorily addressed by Lee. As a result, the learning experience was diminished. Moreover, this circumstance was made worse by the fact that Lee's perception of how to plan for instruction and his efforts at carrying out these plans were not structured in a fashion to hold the attention of his classes and promote the goals announced in the Duval County School course Curriculum for Tenth Grade Language Arts. See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 33. Based upon his unsatisfactory evaluation for the school year 1979-80, and in keeping with the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act, Respondent was transferred to Edward White High School in the school year 1980-81. The principal at that school was John E. Thombleson. Thombleson was aware of the unsatisfactory rating that Lee had received and undertook, during the course of Respondent's stay at White High School, to observe and assist Lee in trying to improve Lee's teaching. That improvement was not forthcoming. Lee continued to have problems related to classroom management and teacher effectiveness and he was not responsive to beneficial ideas of improvement offered by Thombleson related to in-service assistance. Ideas for improvement which were posed to the Respondent include those set forth in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 11, admitted into evidence which is a memorandum concerning a conference held with Respondent by Principal Thombleson. Other exhibits admitted pertaining to observations by Thombleson and other administrators at White are found to be accurate depictions of the atmosphere in Lee's classroom related to management and teaching effectiveness. Through October, 1980, visits to Respondent's classes revealed a lack of attention on the part of students, a lack of preparedness by the Respondent, a failure to proceed in a sequence which would be commensurate with the curriculum goals set for the classes, tardiness on the part of the Respondent and students, failure to provide lesson plans to the administration observer, failure to conform to the scheduled lesson plan for the day, and failure to provide continuity between the lesson of the day and the following day's assignment. These were problems that had been observed during Lee's 1979- 80 year at Fletcher. Consequently, the required interim evaluation of October 30, 1980, was not favorable to Lee. A copy of that formal evaluation may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 18, admitted into evidence and the observations set forth therein are found to be accurate. Lee was also provided with a memorandum on that date, a copy of which is Petitioner's Exhibit No. 19, admitted into evidence. This document suggested ways to improve classroom management, teaching effectiveness and classroom performance. Both the evaluation and memorandum of improvement were discussed with the Respondent and the matters of that conference are set forth in the memorandum of October 30, 1980, a copy of which is found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 20, admitted into evidence. On November 6, 1980, Respondent's grade book was evaluated and found to be deficient, a finding which is accepted. The grade book was not properly documented, among other shortcomings. Respondent, by correspondence of November 18, 1980, a copy of which is admitted as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 24, requested Principal Thombleson to give concrete examples of expectations of the Respondent in fulfilling his teaching responsibilities. This correspondence was replied to by memorandum of December 5, 1980, a copy of which is admitted as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 25, and contains a continuing explanation of ideas of improvement which had been previously suggested by Principal Thombleson. Lee's performance did not improve after this exchange and the final evaluation at White of March 12, 1981, was not positive. A copy of that evaluation may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 27, admitted into evidence and the evaluation's conclusions are accepted. Overall, in the year 1980-81, Respondent did not perform as a competent teacher while at Edward White. Respondent did not conclude the teaching year at Edward White in 1980- In the face of an attitude which Thombleson considered to be insubordinate and the Respondent's expressed desire to be transferred, Lee was reassigned to William Raines Senior High School in April, 1981. For the remainder of that academic year he served as a substitute teacher. It was not established in the course of the hearing what quality of performance Lee gave as a substitute teacher when assigned to Raines High School and it is therefore assumed that that performance was satisfactory. In the school year 1981-82, Respondent was assigned to Raines High School and acted primarily as a substitute teacher. He remained in the high school for that school year premised upon a settlement negotiation between the Respondent and the Duval County School Board pertaining to an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint which he had filed pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. For the school year 1981-82, the Duval County school administration decided that they would not afford a performance evaluation to the Respondent and none was given. There being no evidence to the contrary, it is assumed that Respondent fulfilled his role as substitute teacher adequately. In the school year 1982-83, Respondent was reassigned to Raines school and worked primarily in the media center program in a nonteaching capacity. Lee did a limited amount of substitute teaching in that year. Jimmie A. Johnson, Principal of Raines school found his work as a substitute teacher to be acceptable as set forth in the memorandum of March 23, 1983, a copy of which is admitted as Respondent's Exhibit B. No contrary position being offered on the question of the quality of performance in the limited role of substitute teacher during that school year, Respondent is found to have performed the role of substitute teacher in a satisfactory manner. Lee's performance as a substitute teacher in the years 1981-82 and 1982-83 while accepted as satisfactory does not overcome the established fact that in the school years 1979-80 and 1980-81, when performing the role of full- time tenured teacher in Duval County, he was not a competent teacher. This performance in the substitute role, while similar, is not sufficiently so to provide a quality of rehabilitation which would set aside the present perception that Respondent is not competent to fulfill the role as full-time classroom teacher in Duval County. This finding is supported by the observations of Dr. Jeffrey Weathers, a professional educator who specializes in teacher evaluations related to their classroom performance as to subject matter and general methodologies. Although some of the tasks which Weathers observed in the Respondent's classroom both at Fletcher and White did not pertain to active instruction, to the extent that other tasks observed called upon Respondent to teach, he was not doing so in an effective manner. As Dr. Weathers described, the vital link between activity and learning could not be found in Lee's classes. Weather's observations, together with those of other professionals at Fletcher and White, coupled with the Respondent's less than cooperative attitude, results in the finding that Respondent has not removed the stigma of his incompetence as a full-time classroom teacher through his teaching in the substitute role at Raines. Finally, while the quality of performance by those students at Fletcher and White who were taught by Lee and participated in the MLST minimum skills tests were similar to students of other teachers in the aggregate, this fact is not enough to set aside the impression of the Respondent's competence. As Dr. Curtis Randolph, who was assistant principal at Fletcher in 1979-80, correctly stated upon reflecting on Respondent's performance, Lee is not competent to teach in Duval County Schools.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, Sharon Lambeth, should be reprimanded and reassigned from her position as Countryside High School principal to a position as a supervisor with the school system's Title I office, at the same rate of pay.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Sharon Lambeth, has been involved in the field of education for over 20 years. She moved to Volusia County in 1985 to begin her career in Florida. She began as assistant director of personnel but went through target selection and became an elementary school assistant principal, an elementary school principal, and then the principal of Volusia County's largest high school. She married and moved to Pinellas County in 1993 and was hired as an assistant principal at Gibbs High School for the 1993-94 school year. She was promoted to principal of Countryside High School for the 1994-95 school year. During her tenure in Pinellas County, Lambeth was a very effective principal and generally very well-liked (although, like almost all principals, she had her detractors as well as her supporters.) Lambeth's performance evaluations during her tenure in Pinellas County through May 8, 1998, have been excellent. Lambeth's employment as principal of Countryside High School has been under successive annual contracts with the Pinellas County Schools. The contract for the 1997/98 school year provided, in pertinent part: . . . The Board may, upon recommendation of the Superintendent, transfer and assign the Employee to a similar position in any other location of the district, provided that the duties shall be similar to the duties originally assigned, and the salary shall be heretofore set forth. * * * 5. The Board may suspend or remove the Employee for just cause. The Employee shall not be entitled to receive any salary from and after the date of such suspension or removal unless such suspension is revoked and in no event shall the Employee be entitled to any compensation subsequent to the cancellation of this contract. * * * 11. Failure of either party to fulfill the obligations under this contract, and to carry out the lawful provisions, hereof, or as otherwise provided by law, shall constitute sufficient grounds for the termination of this contract by the other party, provided, however, no termination shall be effective without reasonable notice. On April 28, 1998, Lambeth again was appointed to a position for the 1998/99 school year, "subject to assignment and transfer." Lambeth accepted the appointment on May 8, 1998. There exist Pinellas Administrators Association Personnel Practices and Grievance Procedures. These documents were developed jointly by the Superintendent of Schools and the Executive Board of the Pinellas Administrators Association; they were approved by the School Board on July 14, 1976. The Personnel Practices provide in pertinent part: COMPLAINTS A. Complaints, oral or written, involving administrators or supervisors shall be investigated through line offices. A copy of such a complaint shall be immediately forwarded to the employee concerned so that he may respond. The employee shall be entitled to know the name of the person or group making the complaint. * * * TERMINATION Termination for Cause. Administrative and supervisory personnel may be terminated for cause on the same grounds as delineated in F.S. 231.36(6) at the discretion of the School Board. Termination shall include discharge, suspension without pay, demotion in salary or status, or any other action involving fault on the part of such administrator or supervisor. * * * C. Any administrator or supervisor terminated for cause subjected to a personnel action as defined above shall have the right to register his complaint through the Pinellas administrators' grievance procedures. However, the significance of these documents is not clear; nor is it clear that they are still are applicable at this time. They apparently are not duly promulgated School Board policy, and the School Board does not refer to them in the conduct of its employment relationships. They also are not part of Lambeth's employment contract. Even if generally applicable, it also was not clear whether they would apply to administrators who are not members of the Pinellas Administrators Association, and there was no evidence that Lambeth is a member. In August 1997, someone approached Countryside assistant principal, Kathleen Novak, to explain the circumstances of a 1997 graduate. The student was a few points short of the minimum grade required in certain core high school courses by either his college's admission requirements, the National Collegiate Athletic Association's (NCAA's) athletic scholarship requirements, or both. Novak went to her principal, Lambeth, to discuss the matter. Another assistant principal, Paula Flott, also participated in the discussion. The outcome of the discussion was that Lambeth asked Novak and Flott to try to contact "their" teachers (i.e., the teachers "assigned" to them for purposes of supervision and division of duties) to find out if there were any grades that could be raised enough through re-testing to meet the minimum requirements the student needed to meet. Before contacting the teachers, Novak first had occasion to confer with yet another assistant principal, Henry Moore. Moore helped Novak review the student's report cards and identified two grades he thought could be raised enough to give the student the minimum grade required. One was a "mid-point" grade in a history class the student took during his junior year (1995-96). Under School Board Policy 6Gx52-8.24(2)(g): "At the mid-point of each grade level, i.e., 3.5, 2.5, 1.5, .5, it will be the option of the teacher, subject to review by the principal, as to whether the higher or lower grade will be given." Moore also identified a psychology grade from the student's senior year (1996-97) which was borderline. It is not clear from the evidence whether Moore thought it was necessary to contact the history teacher, David Ferguson, about the mid-point grade. Moore understood Countyside's unwritten policy to be that, if a student improved his or her grade during the grading period, a mid-point grade would be increased to the next higher whole number or letter grade unless the teacher went to the principal to justify deviating from the policy. There was some evidence to suggest that Moore thought Lambeth, as principal, could raise the mid-point grade without re-testing; but the evidence was not clear that Moore communicated this to Novak or Lambeth at the time. In any event, Moore testified to his assumption that Novak would next contact the teachers concerning re-evaluation of the two grades. The next day, Novak reported to Lambeth the results of her conversation with Moore. Lambeth decided that the student should re-take the final examinations in both classes. She testified that she instructed Novak to contact the teachers about the re-evaluations and re-testing. Novak denied receiving explicit instructions to contact the teachers at this point. It is found that Novak would not have disregarded a direct instruction to contact the teachers. It is more probable that Lambeth simply instructed Novak to proceed to take care of it and assumed that Novak would contact the teachers. Novak also saw Flott that day. Flott told Novak that Flott had not contacted any of "her" teachers yet. Novak told Flott not to worry about it, that Novak had "taken care of it." Flott assumed Novak meant Novak had contacted the teachers. Actually, Novak meant that, since the two grades Novak and Moore already had been identified were enough, there was no need for Flott to contact any of "her" teachers. At this time during the summer, the teachers were on vacation, and Novak researched files of past exams maintained by the school administration to document grades and reproduced the final exams for the grades she and Moore had identified. Novak then made arrangements for the student to retake the exams and notified Lambeth that the student had improved his grades enough to meet the student's college requirements. When Novak reported to Lambeth, the deadline for the student's college requirements was imminent. Lambeth assumed but did not ask whether Novak had contacted the teachers whose grades were involved. Lambeth did not ask to see any documentation of the teachers' assent to a grade change or any documentation of the retesting. Lambeth just told Novak to change the grades in the official records and notify the college and/or the NCAA. Novak responded that she did not know how to do this. Lambeth told her to get assistance from clerical personnel who knew how to change grades; Lambeth herself took care of notifying the college and/or the NCAA. To notify the college and/or the NCAA, Lambeth modified a form used by Countryside's athletic department to document that a student-athlete's grade had been properly re-evaluated so as to regain eligibility to participate in interscholastic athletics. The form utilized had a place for the signature of the teacher whose grade was being re-evaluated. In modifying the form for purposes of notifying the college and/or the NCAA, Lambeth deleted the provision for the teacher's signature. Lambeth signed the form as principal on August 15, 1997, and sent the notification to the college and/or the NCAA. Lambeth denied that she deleted the teacher signature provision in the form because she knew the teachers were unaware of the grade re-evaluations. Although the teachers were at school on August 15, 1997, preparing for the start of the 1997-98 school year, Lambeth said she dispensed with the teacher signature provision in order to expedite the notification. A few days after the start of the 1997-98 school year, the girl friend of the student whose grades were changed told Ferguson that the student had retaken Ferguson's final exam. Ferguson was busy and told the girl that they would discuss it later, which they did about a month later. For another month or more, Ferguson did nothing about it. Towards the end of October or early November 1997, Ferguson approached Lambeth to let her know what had happened and that students were talking about it. To his surprise, Lambeth told him she knew all about it, having been directly involved herself in the grade re-evaluation. Lambeth did not act as if she saw anything wrong with what was done; she even seemed proud of her participation. Ferguson, who did not think it was right for one of his assigned grades to be re-evaluated without his knowledge, was taken off-guard by Lambeth's response and decided not to say anything else about it at the time. In about December 1997, Ferguson found the time to spend several hours looking into the circumstances of the grade re-evaluations. He discovered that the grades were changed in the student's official transcript, but that the changes were not otherwise documented. The lack of documentation also seemed wrong to Ferguson. During the spring semester of the 1997-98 school year, Ferguson approached Jim Watters, the psychology teacher whose assigned grade was changed. By this time, Watters was at a different school, and Ferguson thought it would be logical for Watters to be the one to complain about the grade changes since Ferguson not only still was at Countryside but also had to deal with Lambeth in his capacity as Pinellas Classroom Teachers Association (PCTA) union representative. Watters told Ferguson that he did not want to complain because he was near retirement and did not want controversy at that point in his career. Subsequently, Ferguson sought the advice of the PCTA as to whether he would be opening himself to discipline if he did not report the incident to the school district administration. It was concluded that the incident should be reported. On April 23, 1998, Rik McNeill of the PCTA contacted Dr. Martha O'Howell, an administrator in the school district's Office of Professional Standards, to report the grade change incident; the next day, Jade Moore of the PCTA sent O'Howell a letter reporting the incident. On or about April 30, 1998, O'Howell's office began an investigation of the reported incident. On May 11, 1998, O'Howell interviewed Lambeth, Novak, and others at Countryside and took written statements from them. When O'Howell told Lambeth that teachers had complained, Lambeth wondered aloud why, since they had participated. Novak's statement, on the other hand, was that the teachers were not notified or involved because they were not at school at the time. On May 14, 1998, O'Howell re-interviewed Lambeth and Novak. In her re-interview of Lambeth, the principal maintained her understanding that Novak had discussed re-testing with the teachers whose grades were involved. During her re-interview of Novak, O'Howell asked Novak for the second time to produce the re-tests she administered, but Novak reiterated that she could not find the re-tests or any documentation that re-testing had in fact taken place. She got the impression that O'Howell questioned the truth of her assertion that re-tests actually had been administered and became defensive. Novak got the impression that it was very important for her to be able to produce the re- tests. On May 21, 1998, Novak submitted a supplement to her earlier written statement. In the supplement, Novak expressed confusion about Ferguson's complaint in light of her recollection that Ferguson had told her "emphatically last year that it wasn't his responsibility to give early exams or make up exams if they might extend beyond contract hours" and said: "That's administration's problem, not mine." Afraid of what might happen to her if she could not produce the re-tests (that it could end her career and jeopardize her retirement benefits), Novak panicked. She tried to again re- produce the examination questions, and she forged answers. She presented the forgeries to O'Howell on June 2, 1998. O'Howell quickly saw through Novak's inept forgeries for what they were, and Novak was in even more trouble than she thought she was in before the forgeries. On or about June 9, 1998, Lambeth asked for a meeting with the investigator and Area Supervisor Bill Williamson. Their assessment of the situation was that it was "serious"; they suggested that Lambeth consider what parents would think. But Lambeth also knew about Novak's forgeries and assumed that Novak had become the focus of the investigation, not her. Indeed, at a meeting on June 18, 1998, O'Howell informed Novak that her job was in jeopardy; O'Howell said she was prepared to recommend that the Superintendent terminate her employment. At that point, Novak retained an attorney, who asked to meet with the School Superintendent, J. Howard Hinesley, and the School Board's attorney, Wesley Bridges. The meeting took place on June 24, 1998. At the meeting on June 24, 1998, Novak and her attorney tried to explain to Hinesley and Bridges why Novak forged the re- tests. They also told Hinesley and Bridges that Novak thought Lambeth was trying to blame Novak for the incident but that Lambeth never told Novak to contact the teachers whose grades were involved. Hinesley took this and other information given by Novak at the meeting into consideration in evaluating the situation. Based on the discussion at this meeting, Hinesley decided to reprimand and demote Novak to an instructional position with no reduction in pay, instead of terminating her employment. On or about June 29, 1998, Area Supervisor Williamson told Lambeth that it was time to have a meeting to resolve the matter. Williamson again emphasized that it was "serious," this time communicating to Lambeth that she was also in jeopardy. The meeting was set for July 2, 1998. At this point, Lambeth hired an attorney. The meeting was attended by Lambeth, Hinesley, their attorneys, Williamson, and O'Howell. Lambeth was informed that she was being removed as principal at Countryside for her role in the grade change incident and would be transferred to another position. She was told that a letter to that effect had been mailed to her. She was required to hand over her office keys and was told to make arrangement to clean-out her office at 5 p.m. She was told that she would not be allowed to return to campus without campus police being present. Campus police escorted her to her car. On or about July 8, 1998, Lambeth received Hinesley's letter dated July 2, 1998. Besides reciting facts found through the investigation, the letter accused Lambeth of failing "to ensure that the teachers of the two courses involved had knowledge of or approved the final examination re-takes and the subsequent grade changes" and "to ensure that the re-takes were properly administered and graded and that the results were documented." The letter reprimanded Lambeth for "violation of School Board Policy 6Gx52-8.23, as well as the Code of Ethics and Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida." (School Board Policy 6Gx52-8.23 sets the district's High School Credit and Student Performance Standards; section (6) of the rule provides that a student's mastery of performance standards "shall be determined by the teacher with the principal's approval.") The letter also stated that Lambeth's conduct "reflects a lack of sound professional judgment and seriously diminishes your effectiveness as a school leader." As a result, the letter stated, Lambeth was being removed her from her position as Countryside High School principal, was being placed on administrative leave, and would be reassigned to another position. By letter dated July 8, 1998, Hinesley notified Lambeth that she was being reassigned as a supervisor with the school system's Title I office. Lambeth's contract was not changed, and her pay was not reduced. Her new position is classified as Level 4 in the School Board's personnel system, while high school principal is a Level 8 position. There are some similarities between the two positions, but there also are differences. Both positions require a master's degree, certification in administration and supervision, and five years of related professional experience; a program supervisor for Title I also requires an additional minimum of three years of teaching experience. Both positions involve working with teachers; but while a principal supervises 95 teachers (plus non-teacher personnel and 1500 to 2000 students) at a school site, a Title I program supervisor works with but does not supervise principals, assistant principals, and teachers at 18 different elementary schools. Both jobs involve budget planning, but the nature of the budgets are different; a Title I program supervisor reviews budgets for federal funds. There is no provision for re-evaluating a student's grades after graduation. There is a policy to allow a student who has passed all 24 courses required to graduate, but did not earn the minimum grade point average (GPA) required to receive a diploma, to "walk" at graduation , receive a "certificate of completion," and return to school in the summer and/or an additional year of high school to re-take classes to hopefully raise his or her GPA enough to receive a high school diploma. But there is no evidence that the student involved in this case did not receive a diploma when he graduated at the end of the 1996-97 school year. He was no longer a student and should not have been able to change his grades at that point. In circumstances when it would be permissible to re- evaluate a student's grades, it should only be done in consultation with the teacher who assigned the grade. Subject to the requirement that grading policies are followed, student grading is the province of the teacher's exercise of professional judgment, subject only to the principal's approval. The integrity of the grading system depends the teacher's exercise of professional judgment. Likewise, the "education contract" among the administration, teachers, students, and parents presumes and requires integrity in the grading process. School Board Policy 6Gx52-8.28(4)(g) is clear that, in the case of "mid-point" grades, it is the "option of the teacher, subject to review by the principal, as to whether the higher or lower grade will be given." Clearly, this policy gives the principal the ability to review the teacher's grade and argue forcefully that a different grade should be assigned. Some teachers would succumb to the principal's choice, either because of the force of the principal's arguments or because of fear of the possible consequences of disagreeing with their principal. The policy may even enable a principal to overrule the teacher. But it is a violation of policy for a principal to change a grade without following the mid-point grade policy. Because of the importance of integrity in the grading system, it is incumbent on the principal to take reasonable steps to ensure that teachers are involved in any grade re-evaluation. Clearly, a principal must delegate responsibilities to assistant principals when necessary and appropriate, and a principal should be entitled to rely on an assistant principal to follow the principal's instructions (whether expressed ad hoc or in policy). For that reason, Lambeth normally would have been entitled to expect an assistant principal to involve the teacher in any grade re-evaluation. But re-evaluation of a student who had graduated was not normal, and Lambeth should have made it clear to Novak that Novak was not to proceed with re-testing and grade re- evaluation without the teachers' participation. It is not clear from the evidence that Lambeth made reasonable efforts make this clear to Novak. By the same token, because the situation was not normal, Lambeth should have made some effort to ensure that Novak properly documented the re-take of the examinations and the grade change instead of relying entirely on Novak. There is no question but that Lambeth's effectiveness as a school leader diminished as a result of this grade change incident. As Lambeth pointed out at final hearing, most principals have their supporters and detractors, and predictably there were some teachers and parents who testified that the grade change incident did not reduce Lambeth's effectiveness as far as they were concerned. But most of these witnesses did not know all of the facts and circumstances of the case and spoke from their limited perspectives. Meanwhile, there were many witnesses who testified that Lambeth's effectiveness was seriously diminished in their view, and they were not all detractors of Lambeth; they included Hinesley, other Pinellas County school administrators, retired Pinellas County School Superintendent Scott Rose, administrators from other school districts, teachers at other schools, and parents. Some of these also did not know all of the facts and circumstances of the case and spoke from their limited perspectives; but some knew all or most of the facts and circumstances and spoke from broader perspectives. Some witnesses expressed the idea that the reduction in effectiveness would not be insurmountable or permanent if Lambeth would admit her error, ask for forgiveness, and promise not to do it again. Unfortunately, Lambeth did not admit error until her testimony at the end of her case-in-chief. While she complained that she was not given the opportunity to do so before the meeting on July 2, 1998, she missed innumerable opportunities since; indeed, much of her case seemed aimed at proving that she had done nothing wrong. The authenticity of her eleventh-hour repentance is suspect. At the same time, while Lambeth's effectiveness certainly was diminished by the incident (and her refusal to admit her error, ask for forgiveness, and promise not to do it again), it is not clear just how seriously her effectiveness has been diminished. There were mitigating factors. First, Lambeth has an excellent record as an effective administrator. Second, while her efforts were misguided, her motive was to help a student gain educational benefits. The student was African- American and, while the Petitioner criticized Lambeth for testifying in deposition that the student's minority status was a factor in her efforts to help, the School Board in fact has a policy of emphasizing the delivery of educational benefits to minority students. Also, after what she has been through, it seems unlikely that Lambeth would be foolish enough to repeat this or any similar grade change blunder in the future. A reprimand and reassignment to Title I program supervisor certainly is a setback for Lambeth's career as a school principal. But, contrary to Lambeth's concern and contention in this case, it is found that such an action does not necessarily mean the end of Lambeth's career as a school principal in this or any other school district. Certainly, if Lambeth's offense is as minor as she contends it was, she may well be able to convince a school superintendent other than Hinesley to assign her as a school principal. It certainly seemed that retired School Superintendent Rose would have been open to the idea; there is no reason to be certain that others may not also consider Lambeth for a principal position. If Hinesley's position as Pinellas School Superintendent is as tenuous as Lambeth's evidence attempted to suggest (i.e., that he may be just one School Board vote from being the former Pinellas School Superintendent), the chances are that it may not be long before Lambeth could apply to a subsequent Pinellas School Superintendent for such a position. It even seems possible (although perhaps not likely) that Hinesley himself might reconsider and reassign Lambeth as a principal at some point in the future. Lambeth also contended that other School Board employees have been treated more leniently for worse offenses. But the evidence did not prove selective enforcement against Lambeth. The other situations either were too dissimilar to compare, or Lambeth's treatment was not clearly excessively harsh by comparison. Lambeth first points to the treatment of Novak. While it is true that Novak forged the re-tests, she was Lambeth's subordinate and subject to Lambeth's direction, and her treatment (reassignment to a completely nonsupervisory position) was somewhat harsher than Lambeth's. Lambeth also points to Ferguson, who Lambeth contends went unpunished after alleged violation of School Board Policy 6Gx52-6.22 by posting a copy of a portion of the School Board's investigative report on Lambeth and Novak on the bulletin board in the teacher's lounge. But Policy 6Gx52-6.22 provides: Employees shall not use the classroom, nor any other part of school facilities, as a platform for making disparaging remarks against students, parents, teachers and/or administrators. Conduct contrary to this policy may constitute grounds for disciplinary action. In addition, it is not clear that posting information about an investigation that was of genuine concern to the teachers is the same thing as using the bulletin board "as a platform for making disparaging remarks." Nonetheless, Lambeth's replacement as Countryside's principal considered the posting to be bad for morale and asked Ferguson to remove it. Initially, Ferguson refused to remove it; eventually, he removed it at the request of and as a favor to Jade Moore of the PCTA. (The evidence was that Hinesley was not aware of the posting.) Lambeth's other evidence on this point consisted of letters of reprimand to a principal and an assistant principal for not following proper procedures and immediately notifying the proper authorities of allegations of sexual abuse. It is not clear that these offenses are so similar to Lambeth's as to have required the School Board in fairness to also remove and reassign them.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order dismissing the Amended Petition for a Name Clearing, Due Process and Florida Statute 120.57 Hearing and approving the reassignment of the Respondent, Sharon Lambeth, to Title I program supervisor under the same contract and at the same pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of April, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Oscar Blasingame, Esquire Orange Park Center 696 First Avenue, North, Suite 400 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Louis Kwall, Esquire Kwall, Showers & Coleman, P.A. 133 North Ft. Harrison Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33755 Dr. J. Howard Hinesley, Superintendent Pinellas County School Board 301 4th Street, Southwest Largo, Florida 33770-2942
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this hearing, Respondent was a public school teacher licensed by the State of Florida to teach English language at the secondary school level, and her teaching certificate was current and in full effect. The Respondent, Queen Bruton, is employed by the Duval County School Board and holds tenure under the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act. On November 22, 1982, Respondent was sent a Notice of Proposed Dismissal by the School Board indicating the Board's intention to dismiss her as a teacher upon a charge of professional incompetency. The grounds for such conclusion include an indication that Respondent received unsatisfactory evaluations of her performance for the 1980-81 and 1981-82 school years. The Duval County Teacher Tenure Act (TTA), Chapter 21197, Laws of Florida (1941), as amended, permits the discharge of a teacher for, inter alia, professional incompetency as a teacher if certain conditions are met and procedures followed. All teachers in the Duval County public schools are evaluated whenever necessary, but at least once a year. Under the rating system in effect during the 1980-81 and 1981-82 school years, an unsatisfactory rating is awarded when an evaluation contains eight or more deduction points. Ratings are: (1) satisfactory, (2) needs improvement, and (3) unsatisfactory. On the rating form in use during the time in issue here, an unsatisfactory rating results in two deduction points in Items 1 through 27, and one deduction point in Items 28 through 36. An evaluation of "needs improvement" does not result in any deduction points. The School Board of Duval County has not, in any formal way, defined professional incompetence. The evaluation process is but one tool in the management of teacher employment. An unsatisfactory evaluation is not, therefore, conclusive of professional incompetence, but is one factor in that judgmental decision. The procedure used by the School Board in evaluating teacher performance was not adopted in conformity with the Administrative Procedure Act. At the time of adoption, the School Board was operating under teacher working conditions that had been implemented after extensive bargaining between the School Board and the teachers' union. These working conditions contained extensive provisions involving "teacher evaluation." When a contract was finally agreed upon between the School Board and the teachers' union, it contained provisions concerning teacher evaluation identical to those which were in effect under the working conditions previous to the implementation of the contract. These provisions, therefore, do not constitute rules "as defined in Section 120.52, Florida Statutes," but instead constitute guidelines for the evaluation of teacher performance arrived at not by decision of the School Board under conditions which require public hearing but jointly by agreement of the parties to the negotiations of the teacher contract between the School Board and the union, a collective bargaining agreement. Warren K. Kennedy was in Respondent's sophomore English class at Forrest Senior High School in Jacksonville during the 1980-81 school year. At one point during the school year, Kennedy saw a series of approximately 22 sexually explicit words or phrases written on the blackboard in Respondent's room. Kennedy copied these words and notified the principal, who went to Respondent's classroom and saw them himself. These words were placed on the board by someone other than Respondent, with her permission, and consisted of a part of an exercise in outlining. As such, Respondent claims the words themselves mean nothing, but words of that nature, including "orgasms, sexual intercourse, French tickler, blow job, condoms, dildo, masturbation, orgy," and the like serve no legitimate purpose in, and are not a legitimate part of, a sophomore English class. Respondent's classroom that year was chaotic. Students did little work, but instead talked openly and freely. Respondent sat quietly at her desk doing paperwork unless the noise got so great as to disturb other classes. Students felt free to walk out of class with impunity. Cursing was prevalent in class, and discipline was nonexistent. Defacing of school property occurred on at least one occasion with Respondent taking no corrective action. As a result, several students and the parents of other students requested their transfer from Respondent's class to another. Respondent was also unreliable in submitting grades and reports in a timely fashion. Observations of Respondent in the classroom environment by several different individuals revealed she did not insist her students come to class equipped with the proper supplies for effective writing or textbook activity. She rarely utilized visual aids pertinent to the matter being discussed. Classroom discussion with students did not generally involve a broad sampling of the class, but was focused on only a few class members. Her questions to the students were often vague and confusing to the students. Respondent's principal during that school year, Ronel J. Poppel, at whose request the above observations were made, himself observed Respondent in the classroom on several occasions. As a result of the input from those requested observations and of his own observations, he prepared an evaluation form on Respondent on March 15, 1981, which bore an overall rating of unsatisfactory and reflected that her performance was declining. This report, which reflected 7 of 36 items as unsatisfactory (12 total deduction points), had 20 other items rated as "needs improvement" and contained such written-in suggestions as "needs classroom management techniques, needs better standards of behavior, needs to have long-range planning from the beginning of the year, needs to show more enthusiasm for teaching--needs more variety in methods of teaching," and "should use better judgment in selection of topics." As a result of this evaluation, the observations of her principal and others, and the several counseling periods during which Respondent's deficiencies were pointed out to her along with suggestions for improvement, Respondent was put on notice of her failing performance and afforded the opportunity to take advantage of teacher education counseling (TEC) and, while she did enroll in at least one improvement course, failed to take full advantage of the available opportunities. Poppel's evaluation of Respondent as an incompetent teacher is based on: His personal observation; Evaluation by other professionals; Parent complaint follow-up; Her demonstrated lack of effective planning; Her lack of enforcement of school policies; Her lack of or inability to motivate students; Observed and reported chaotic classroom deportment; Her failure to keep proper records; and Her failure to leave lesson plans for substitutes. Notwithstanding the above, Respondent was well versed in the subject matter she was to teach and had the subjective background to be an excellent teacher. Her shortcomings, as described above, however, far outweighed the positive aspects of her credentials. Respondent was transferred for the 1981-82 school year to Fletcher High School in Jacksonville where she was placed under the supervision of Dr. Ragans, Principal, to teach English. Dr. Ragans spoke to Mr. Poppel, her former principal, about Respondent's weak areas so that he could develop plans to help her in those areas. In an effort to prepare Respondent for the coming year and to ensure she was fully aware of school policies and standards, Dr. Ragans held an extensive conference with Respondent to discuss her previous year's unsatisfactory rating and to make plans to remedy or remediate those areas. On August 25, 1981, he wrote a letter to Respondent in which he reiterated the items discussed previously. Review of this letter reveals there could be little doubt of what Dr. Ragans expected. Nonetheless, when he personally observed her in her classroom less than a month later, he found many of the same weaknesses previously identified, such as a noisy classroom environment, talking by students without being called on, Respondent appearing preoccupied with desk work, and inadequate lesson plans. In the observation report, he made numerous suggestions for improvement and offered Respondent the opportunity to a conference which she did not request. Prior to that observation, however, on September 8, 1981, Dr. Ragans and Respondent met with Dr. Jeff Weathers, TEC consultant for the School Board, in a full discussion of her professional shortcomings, at which meeting a suggestion was made that Respondent enroll in certain university-level courses in classroom management and motivation. Respondent was somewhat reluctant to take these courses because she felt they might interfere with her planning and her preparation for classes. Nonetheless, she did attend one class. Dr. Ragans had advised her he would arrange for substitute teachers for her so that she could take available classes. She was also invited to meet with master teachers in the school to seek assistance and to observe them, and she did in fact do so. In addition, a program was set up for her lesson plans to be reviewed by experts at the School Board. Respondent denies she ever submitted these plans, but according to Judith B. Silas, a resource teacher at School Board headquarters who reviewed Respondent's plans in December, 1981, her plans were confusing and lacking a consistent format: the dates on the plans reflect they were from an earlier series of years; objective numbers did not refer to the 1981 Curriculum Guide and did not cross-reference; and some included material had no relationship to plans or lessons. Ms. Silas's comments, forwarded to the school in February, 1982, were discussed with Respondent. A follow-up letter dated September 25, 1981, outlining the substance of the joint meeting with Dr. Weathers, was forwarded to Respondent. Shortly thereafter, on October 29, 1981, Dr. Ragans prepared a preliminary evaluation on Respondent rated overall as unsatisfactory in which 13 items were rated that way and 12 more rated as "needs to improve." On November 25, 1981, Respondent was provided with a lesson presentation checklist drawn by Dr. Weathers for her to use along with a notice of several night courses available to Respondent and a notice of a proposed observation of another teacher by Dr. Weathers and Respondent on December 14, 1981. After this observation, Dr. Weathers and Respondent discussed the positive aspects of that teacher's operation that Respondent could and should emulate. A new classroom observation of Respondent was set for January, 1982. In the interim, in January, 1982, Dr. Ragans received at least one parent request for a student to be transferred from Respondent's class because the classroom environment was noisy, unruly, and not conducive to learning. As a result of this letter and other parent contacts of a similar nature, Dr. Ragans had several informal discussions with Respondent during this period. On February 23, 1982, Respondent requested a conference with Dr. Ragans on her upcoming evaluation which was, she understood, to be unsatisfactory from a letter to her on February 5, 1982, from Dr. Ragans. This rating, conducted on February 2, 1982, but not signed by Dr. Ragans until March 3, 1982, was unsatisfactory, containing 14 items so marked and 13 marked "needs to improve." At the conference, held the same day as requested, Dr. Ragans advised Respondent he still felt she had marked deficiencies previously indicated regarding classroom control, authority, respect, lesson plans coordination, classroom planning, her failure to provide purposeful learning experiences, no student motivation, and her apparent inability to be understood by her students. Also cited to her were the continuing parent complaints and those of other teachers that their classrooms, used by her (she was a traveling teacher with no room of her own), had been damaged by her students. Much of this had previously been outlined in Dr. Ragans' February 2, 1982, letter indicating his intent to rate Respondent as unsatisfactory. Both Dr. Weathers and another school district supervisor, Dr. Henderson, observed Respondent in the classroom situation in late January or early February, 1982. Both individuals identified the same deficiencies as previously noted by so many others, and both made recommendations for improvement which were passed on, intact, to Respondent. In early March, 1982, Dr. Ragans advised Respondent in writing of his intent to evaluate her on March 15, 1982, to see if she had made any improvement. He did this because of Respondent's feeling that the previous evaluation had not given her enough time to work out improvements. This latest evaluation was also overall unsatisfactory. Two days later, on March 17, 1982, Respondent indicated in writing that she did not accept this evaluation. On April 30, 1982, Dr. Ragans again visited Respondent's classroom so that, if she had markedly improved, he could try to extend her contract or change her evaluation before the end of the school year. However, he could observe no appreciable change. Shortly after this visit, on May 3, he discussed with Respondent complaints he had received from several parents about warnings she had sent out on some students which inconsistently showed both satisfactory performance and danger of failing on the same form. She explained this as all students, including straight "A" students, who had not taken the MLST (test) were in danger of failing. Dr. Ragans felt this excuse was feeble and unjustified and demonstrated poor judgment on her part. All this was confirmed in a letter on May 17. A complaint from a parent of one of Respondent's students, received on June 11, 1982, initiated an audit of the grades given by Respondent during the school year. Results of this audit revealed at least 68 errors involving 46 students, including three students who received passing grades when they, in fact, had failed and should have been in summer school. A total of 13 student grades had to be changed, requiring a letter of notification and apology from the principal. Respondent did not deny the inconsistencies shown in the audit, but defended them on the basis of, in many cases, their being the result of her exercising her discretion and prerogative to award a grade different from that supported by recorded achievement if, in her opinion, other factors so dictated. In any case, the number of inconsistencies requiring a grade change was substantially higher than is normal. During the 1981-82 school year, Respondent had not been assigned a classroom of her own, but instead met and taught her classes in the rooms assigned to other teachers. This situation, while not unique to Respondent and one which several other teachers had as well, is nonetheless a definite handicap to any teacher. In an effort to alleviate the impact of this situation, all Respondent's rooms were scheduled as geographically close together as possible, and she was assigned only one subject to teach. Therefore, though she may have had several class periods which progressed at different speeds, the planning and preparation was similar and much less an arduous task than if she had different subjects to prepare for. In any case, there is little relationship between this and discipline and control in the classroom. Dr. Mary Henderson, Director of Language Arts/Reading for the Duval County School Board, observed Respondent in the classroom during both the 1980- 81 and 1981-82 school years at two different schools. Recognizing that Respondent has definite strengths in her knowledge of the subject matter to be taught and her recognition of and communication to the students of the relationship of their lessons to the test requirements, Dr. Henderson still felt Respondent was not a competent teacher. On both occasions, she found Respondent's lesson plans to be inadequate, her techniques in classroom management were deficient, she failed to make effective use of the students' time, and she failed to effectively motivate her students to participate in the classroom activities. Throughout all this period, according to both supervisors and others who observed her, Respondent always maintained a pleasant, calm, positive, and cooperative approach to all with whom she came into contact. At no time did she show hostility or resentment. Also, there was never a question as to her knowledge of the subject matter. Respondent possesses a bachelor's degree in English and a master's degree in administration and supervision. She has sufficient credit hours to qualify for a major in Spanish. She has also taken several in-service courses in such subjects as linguistics, methods of curriculum and instruction, British literature, and school administration. She is certified to teach English, Spanish, and typing. She has been a teacher in several Florida school systems for 29 years, of which the last 21 years were in various Jacksonville area schools. She is tenured. She was selected for summer school employment in 1980, while at Forrest High School, even though tenure does not ensure selection to teach summer school. During the 1980-81 school year, Respondent was caring for the aunt who raised her and who was suffering from terminal cancer. This required frequent travel back and forth to another part of the state, and in addition to being a physical burden, constituted a severe strain on her mental state. During that year, she started out teaching only twelfth grade classes, but as a result of a reduction in class sizes during the school year, she was given some additional tenth grade classes for which she had not prepared. Respondent feels her classroom discipline was not so unusual as to be remarkable. She feels she maintained classroom discipline as well as required and contested the allegations that she rarely referred students to the administration for additional discipline. She made all reasonable effort to improve her performance by enrolling in some of the courses recommended by Drs. Weathers and Ragans, but had to wait until the second semester because she did not get the information on the first semester courses until after they had started. The classes she took urged the use of listening and negotiating skills rather than the authoritative method in dealing with students. She tried to implement what she learned in her classrooms and feels she succeeded regardless of what the testimony shows. In addition, she took a course dealing with self- concept and self-confidence and applied for admission to Jacksonville University's master of arts program in an effort to upgrade her skills. Respondent admits that at the beginning of the 1981-82 school year, she was not using formal lesson plans. She had been asked by the administration for plans on a weekly basis and had jotted down ideas on paper. To formulate these ideas, she used prior years lesson plans, but did not turn any of these in. This does not track with Ms. Silas's testimony that the Respondent's plans she reviewed appeared to be from prior years. I find that prior years' plans were used by Respondent extensively and how these plans were transmitted to Ms. Silas for review is immaterial. Respondent, based on the above, while possessing the necessary technical qualifications to perform as a teacher, while possessing the appropriate knowledge of her subject matter, and while possessing the desire to impart that knowledge to her students, is nonetheless incompetent to conduct a class, maintain proper discipline, and generate adequate student motivation to accomplish these desired ends.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be removed from classroom teaching duties and be assigned some other function within the school system until such time, unless sooner released for other good cause, as she can retire with maximum benefits. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary E. Eckstine, Esquire Chief Administrative Hearings Section City of Jacksonville 1300 City Hall Jacksonville, Florida 32202 William F. Kachergus, Esquire Maness & Kachergus 502 Florida Theatre Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Herb A. Sang Superintendent Duval County Public Schools 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is Recommended that a Final Order be entered terminating respondent's employment with the Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of December, 1988.
The Issue Duval County School Board seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent based upon alleged violations announced in a Notice of Proposed Dismissal. In charge one Respondent is said to have been convicted of a felony involving moral turpitude, which is violative of Section 4(d) of the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act. A second charge accuses the Respondent of immoral character or conduct, in violation of Section 4(a) of the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act.
Findings Of Fact As alluded to in the statement of issues, the Duval County School Board has charged the Respondent with various violations of the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act. The notification of these charges is made through correspondence of November 12, 1987, from Herb A. Sang, Superintendent of the Duval County Public Schools. In particular, reference is made to a July 9, 1987 conviction in the case of the State of Florida vs. Lamar Leon Furlow in the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, in and for Duval County, Florida, Case No. 87-1402-CF, Division CR-A in which a jury found the Respondent guilty on July 9, 1987 of a lewd, lascivious, or indecent assault or act upon or in the presence of a child under sixteen years of age, a violation of Section 800.04, Florida Statutes. For this finding of guilt the court adjudicated the Respondent guilty and sentenced him to 7 1/2 years. In the face of this action by the court, the Duval County School Board through the superintendent made the assertion that this was a conviction of a felony involving moral turpitude as set forth in Section 4(d), of the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act. This constitutes charge one to the Notice of Proposed Dismissal. The second charge involving the claimed immoral character or conduct as contemplated in Section 4(a), of the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act deals with an allegation that, "on or about January 20, 1987, you unzipped the jeans of a 12 year old female student, placed your hand inside her panties and fondled her pubic area. This act occurred in a dark room at Eugene Butler School, Jacksonville, Duval, County, Florida." This allegation references the same factual events as were involved in the criminal court trial spoken to in charge one. It envisions the necessity of proof in substance of those same factual events through the hearing de novo in this administrative prosecution. In the face of these allegations, Respondent sought a formal hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings which request was honored through the formal hearing conducted on May 9, 1988. Respondent is the holder of a Teacher's Certificate issued by the State of Florida, Department of Education. That number is 313977 and the certificate covers the area of industrial arts. In the academic year 1986-1987, Respondent taught as a graphic arts instructor at Eugene Butler Seventh Grade Center. His classroom assignment was number 63. Room 62, which is an adjacent room served as a work area for the graphic arts instruction. Adjoining room 62 were three smaller storage rooms and they connected to two darkrooms. A schematic drawing of these rooms is found as Petitioner's Exhibit 1. Brandy Lee Guetherman was born on February 10, 1974. In the school year 1986-1987 which commenced in the Fall of 1986, she attended Eugene Butler Seventh Grade Center. One of her courses in that year was graphic arts and it was taught by the Respondent. January 20, 1987 was the last day of the first semester of the academic year 1986-1987. On that date Brandy Guetherman was interested in signing a memento board which was on the desk of the Respondent. To this end she asked the Respondent if she could borrow a marker and he responded in the affirmative and told her to come with him to the storage room. Once in the storage room, the Respondent gave a marker to the student. He then asked her if he could "touch it," to which the student replied "touch what" and he then pointed to the left breast of the student and pinched it. The student then slapped his arm and told him that it hurt. The storage area as being described is one of the rooms depicted in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. Respondent then told the student to go sign the board and bring the marker back to him. At sometime in the course of these events, Respondent grabbed the students arm and hand and pulled it toward his penis. She jerked her hand away and went back to her seat in the classroom. After these events Respondent told the student to get a hall pass that would allow her to access the hall within the school. All of these events being described occurred during the regular sixth period class which runs from 3:00 p.m. to 3:55 p.m. The student Guetherman had not heard Respondent tell her to get the hall pass and this message was conveyed by Billy Payne another student. In furtherance of the instruction by the Respondent the student obtained a hall pass. Having obtained a hall pass Guetherman returned to the classroom area at a moment when the Respondent was going to one of the darkrooms. When the student approached the Respondent, he told her to go the restroom as if she were running an errand for the Respondent and then to come back and to go into the darkroom. She did as she was told. She went out of the room, down the hall and waited around in the hall area near the bathroom. She returned after about three minutes. She brought the hall pass with her into the darkroom area where the Respondent was and he told her to put the hall pass back on his desk and get the grade book and not to let anyone follow her back into the darkroom. She complied with the instructions and brought the grade book back to the darkroom. While in the process of getting the grade book another student came into the darkroom area and the Respondent told that female student to get out of the darkroom area. Once in the darkroom Brandy Guetherman gave the grade book to the Respondent. At that time, Respondent told the student that he was just messing around with some activities in the darkroom. He then asked the student Brandy Guetherman to unzip her pants and unbutton her pants but she did not respond. The Respondent reached over and unbuttoned the pants and unzipped them. Those pants worn by the student were jeans. Respondent then stuck his hand in between the students legs by placing his hand inside the panties that the student was wearing under the jeans. This arrangement was such that the flesh of the Respondent's hand touched the flesh of the student in her vaginal area. He felt around in her vaginal area but did not, according to the student's explanation, penetrate by going "all the way in." During this assault the student was touched by the Respondent's fingers in her vaginal area. By the student's explanation he moved his hand around in a circle and back and forth. This transpired over a period of a couple of minutes. During the course of these events Respondent asked the student if she knew that he had big hands and she shook her head in the affirmative. He told her that it was warm down there. When he had stopped the assault the student zipped and buttoned her pants and left the darkroom area. Before leaving Respondent told her to come back the next day after her homeroom period and come straight to his class and to wear a dress or skirt. Altogether the student was in the darkroom with the Respondent for a period of fifteen minutes. When Guetherman returned to the classroom she told her friend Billy Payne of what had transpired and another student Carl Miller was told about the events involving the Respondent while riding home on the school bus on January 20, 1987. This incident with the respondent disturbed Brandy Guetherman and it was noticed in its effect by Billy Payne. When Guetherman returned home on the date in question she told her mother about the incident who in turn contacted officials at the Eugene Butler Seventh Grade Center. On the next day Brandy Guetherman's father took her to the school and met with school officials about this matter. Respondent is a person 6 feet 2 inches tall and weights 315 pounds, an imposing figure for a young female student to have to contend with. The events described concerning Brandy Guetherman formed the basis of the finding of guilt and the adjudication against the Respondent for this sexual battery under Section 800.04, Florida Statutes, as previously discussed. That conviction is on appeal together with the conviction pertaining to another student for offenses against that student Elizabeth Haygood. As a result of the accusations placed against the Respondent he was removed as a classroom teacher.
The Issue Whether Petitioner Rayburn should have been re-nominated and reappointed by Respondent as a teacher aide.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Doris Faye Rayburn was employed by the School Board of Leon County, Florida from 1973 to 1977: 1973-74 teacher aide, Nims Middle School; 1974-75 teacher aide, Nims Middle School; 1975-76 secretary/bookkeeper, Nims Middle School, later transferred during the school year to a teacher aide position at Nims Middle School; 1976-77 teacher aide, Nims Middle School. She was not reappointed for the 1977-78 term and thereupon filed a grievance procedure and then a petition for this administrative hearing. Petitioner's contract of employment as a teacher aide each year was for 180 days and included the right to participate in the State Personnel Retirement System to accumulate sick leave, and participate in the payroll deduction plan for 12 months insurance coverage. Thirty-six of the 165 teacher aides employed by the School Board in 1976-77 were not reemployed including Petitioner. The procedure for employment of teacher aides is by a recommendation from the Principal to the School superintendent, a nomination by the Superintendent and subsequent approval by the School Board. This procedure takes place each year for each teacher aide. Petitioner was not promised reemployment and was not reemployed. The principal testified that his decision not to recommend Petitioner for reemployment was not based alone on her comments to the Superintendent's wife or for things she had said concerning the operation of the school, although he was aware of her activities. There were some complaints about Petitioner "over- stepping" her job and posing as a counselor. After the expiration of Petitioner's last contract two assistant principals urged the Principal not to recommend Petitioner for future employment. Petitioner satisfied at least two guidance counselors with whom she worked. She is active and interested in school activities. Petitioner feels that she was not reappointed because of things she said concerning the school and its policies. She wanted to be reappointed and had so planned. Petitioner contends: Petitioner was denied employment as a result of exercising her first amendment right of freedom of speech. Mrs. Rayburn voiced her general concerns about the quality of education provided by the school system. These comments were within her right as a public employee, parent and citizen to publicly comment on events of community interests and her speech did not disrupt the efficiency of providing educational services. Section 231.141, Florida Statutes, gave Mrs. Rayburn an objective expectation in her employment as a teacher aide, protected by the fourteenth amendment. That she had "de facto" tenure and should have been reemployed. Respondent contends: Petitioner was a "non-instructional employee" and not entitled to tenure under the statutes. The fact that Mrs. Rayburn had been appointed to four previous years and the fact that 78 percent of the 1976-77 teacher aides were reemployed did not give Petitioner a constitutionally protected interest in continuing employment. That the incident of the comments Petitioner made regarding the school policy to the School Superintendent's wife was not constitutionally protected speech and that there is no showing that the Superintendent's decision not to again nominate her for employment as a teacher aide was related in any way to any speech or communication by Petitioner.
Recommendation Dismiss the petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of June, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Joyce Davis, Esquire Steven Seliger, Esquire Legal Services of North Florida, Inc. 822 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 C. Graham Carothers, Esquire Ausley, McMullen, McGehee, Carothers & Proctor Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Dodson, Esquire Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations treated herein, Respondent, William Wyche, held a Florida Teaching Certificate number 106113, issued on October 29, 1980, covering the area of industrial arts. Respondent applied for a Florida teaching certificate by submitting the required application form and documentation on or about October 20, 1980. At the time of submission, Respondent replied "no" to the question in Section V of the form which asks: "Have you ever been convicted or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation. . .?" This answer was false in that: On September 20, 1979, respondent was found guilty of driving while his license was suspended, and fined $50.00; On March 20, 1980, Respondent was found guilty of obtaining property by worthless check and fined $25.00; On March 20, 1980, Respondent was found guilty of driving with a suspended license and fined $100.00; On April 2, 1980, Respondent was found guilty of obtaining property by worthless check and was fined $25.00; and, On April 25, 1980, Respondent was found guilty of obtaining property by worthless check and was fined $25.00. On that same date, in a separate case involving an identical charge, adjudication was withheld but Respondent was placed on probation for sixty days. Respondent explains the check charges on the basis that at the time they took place, all within a few weeks of each other, his bank account had been garnished and because of that garnishment, though he had ample funds in his account to honor these checks, the bank did not honor them. There were quite a few checks dishonored for this reason-so many, in fact, that he lost track of some of them and though he redeemed most, he failed to redeem these. As to the convictions for driving with a suspended license, he thought these were minor traffic offenses that did not have to be listed. Respondent was employed as an industrial arts (IA) teacher at Kirby Smith Junior High School (KSJHS) in Jacksonville, Florida during the 1981-82 school year, teaching in the metal shop. During this period, he was evaluated on a regular basis, based on observations and evaluations by other school officials carried on at various times throughout the school year. During these evaluations, such things as classroom conditions, the instructor's presentations, the preparation of lesson plans, and the use of lesson plans as guidelines for in-class instruction were considered. Lonnie W. Davenport was assistant principal for curriculum at KSJHS during this period and had to insure that teaching was taking place properly in both form and substance. To do this, he contacted his teachers daily and also relied on observations such as described above, and reports submitted to him. These reports were regarding such things as student class size, grade reports by teachers, black/white student count in the homerooms, and teachers' lesson plans which were required from each teacher weekly. While he has no formal IA training, he has a lot of experience in the area. Mr. Davenport first took serious note of the Respondent in mid- December, 1981 when he noted that Respondent had not submitted complete lesson plans. There were holes in those submitted relating to time and quality. In addition, the principal had asked him to look into reported irregularities in Respondent's classroom. His examination of Respondent's lesson plans showed that they were inadequate because they: did not conform to the form required; did not cover the subject matter sufficiently; did not follow a time sequence properly; and, were not sufficiently specific. They should have broken down the instruction into segments for skill development on a step-by-step, day-by-day basis. In short, Respondent's plans did not adequately tell what he was intending to do in his classroom. As to Respondent's teaching, Davenport's observation showed that Respondent: had no plans to show what was expected of his students; maintained the shop in a depressing state. (Here, however, it was admitted that this school was old and the shop dingy, and Respondent could not control all of that. However, Respondent's teaching aids, such as posters, which were old, faded, and torn, added to the dinginess.) allowed shop metal to lay around the shop without being placed in stock storage, creating a safety hazard; failed to safeguard and neglected one student's artwork project, and other students' projects were left out and not placed in storage for the next class period; stored a large stack of sheet metal under a work bench with cutting corners end edges protruding (also a safety hazard) allowed equipment which should have been stored to remain out; failed to have safety lines placed on the floor around individual pieces of equipment; failed to insure that soldering forges were properly shielded or securely fastened down; and, failed to post safety rules prominently in the classroom. Respondent contends that he submitted purchase orders requesting corrections be made of these deficiencies. However, with the exception of several orders for paint, some of which may have been used for the safety lines and to brighten up the area, the remainder of the purchase orders he introduced into evidence (Respondent's Composite Exhibit E), were for metal stock and other pieces of new or replacement equipment. There was no evidence of work orders for correction of any of the cited defects. Mr. Davenport's observations as to Respondent's teaching ability were that: He sat at his desk in the classroom while his students were working in the shop behind his back. As a result, students with problems had to come out of the shop to him for help rather than him being available in the shop to help; students were not required to wear safety goggles while operating power equipment nor did Respondent use them while operating the equipment; The student projects assigned or approved by Respondent were too simple and provided no challenge; The quality of the finished product turned out by Respondent's students was poor; Grading of student projects was accomplished on the basis of negotiation with the student and not on accomplishment or work quality; Once the student had completed the basic project, Respondent had no follow-up projects for them to do to use up the remainder of the school year. He, allowing them to occupy themselves with "busy work," showed to Davenport a lack of commitment to planning; Respondent was observed and overheard by Davenport to chastise a student by threatening to destroy the student's project, resulting in failure. This observation, which Respondent admitted to Davenport, is contrary to a school policy which prevents discipline from affecting an academic grade; and, In one particular class observed, Respondent came to class late. He had allowed a student to take roll, a function required of the teacher, and evidence available to Davenport, led him to believe this was a repeated- occurrence; Respondent's absence allowed students to engage in horseplay and rowdy behavior and, even when Respondent came into class, he chastised the wrong student. As to the type of instruction Respondent was observed to give, when a student would bring a project to him and ask a question, he would answer. For the most part, however, he stayed at his desk while the students worked unsupervised in the shop. He showed no initiative and did not even require students to draw plans or prepare material lists before starting work on a project. On one occasion, a student was injured in the shop. Respondent merely washed the injury, wrapped it, and sent the student back to work. Davenport, who observed this incident, told Respondent on the spot that the student should go to the office for first aid and that Respondent should file an accident report on the incident. The report was not filed by Respondent and the student went to the office at the direction of Davenport, not Respondent. This showed a complete lack of concern, according to Davenport. Davenport counseled the Respondent on the above deficiencies but observed no immediate response. He went back to Respondent's class 5-7 times subsequently for follow-up visits of from 20 minutes to an hour in duration and found little change for the better. He repeatedly offered Respondent assistance in any area to correct the shortcomings and got no response until in March, 1982, when Respondent found out he was going to get an unsatisfactory rating. He had been notified in writing, on January 8 end again on February 5, 1982, by his principal Mr. Shanklin, in addition to others, including an evaluation on January 13, 1982 by Mr. Lowell T. Hudson, supervisor of industrial arts for the school board, that his performance was deficient. These warnings could have left little doubt as to the fact his performance was below standard. Finally, on March 15, 1982, Mr. Shanklin rendered an evaluation on Respondent which showed an overall rating of unsatisfactory. Of the six areas rated in classroom management, two were satisfactory and four were unsatisfactory. Of the twenty- one areas rated in teaching effectiveness, one was satisfactory, nine were rated as needing improvement, and eleven were rated unsatisfactory. Seven of the nine areas of professional/personal characteristics were rated satisfactory, one needed improvement, and one was unsatisfactory. Even after this unsatisfactory report, the school administrative staff still tried to help Respondent. They offered him direct help themselves and, in addition, the services of county in service resource personnel to help with planning. Respondent was receptive to this verbally, but never took any steps to use them. As a result, there was no improvement in Respondent's performance but merely a maintenance of the status quo. There were some minor improvements in the condition of the shop but these were merely cosmetic and did not, in any way, relate to the quality of instruction. In Davenport's opinion, Respondent does not meet the minimum standards of competency for teachers nor can he be trained to meet these standards. He is convinced, and it is so found that Respondent's race played no part in the evaluation process. The principal at KSJHS during this period, Mr. Jack H. Shanklin, agreed with and amplified on Davenport's analysis of Respondent. His first difficulty with Respondent came in October, 1981 when the Dean of Girls wrote him a memorandum stating that Respondent had struck a student with a dowel rod. This was not the first instance of Respondent's striking students. Since Respondent was not designated as one to administer corporal punishment, she had previously warned him to send all disciplinary problems to the office. When Shanklin discussed this with Respondent, he said he did it to control the class. Shanklin did not personally evaluate Respondent until early January, 1982, after Davenport's evaluation. Prior to going to the class, he reviewed Respondent's lesson plans and found them to be sketchy. In his opinion, a substitute teacher could not have taught from them and they were "totally unacceptable." When he went into the classroom, he found the Respondent lecturing end he could not understand what Respondent was trying to get across. Respondent mumbled, was hard to understand, and used few, if any, visual aids. It was obvious to him that the students were bored, confused, and were getting nothing from the presentation. In addition, he observed the shop and found it to be dingy, dirty, and a safety hazard. Mr. Shanklin discussed these deficiencies with Respondent a few days later when he gave him the letter regarding the observation. He went into these deficiencies, and recommendations to correct them, quite thoroughly. He made suggestions as to resource people available to help and pointed out specific references to the teachers' manual. In each case, Respondent always indicated he understood and would try to comply. However, in the succeeding month leading up to the February letter, there were no signs of improvement at all nor was there any indication he had utilized the resource people. Follow-up visits to the classroom showed no change and no indication Respondent was getting anything across to the students. After the February letter was given to Respondent by Mr. Shanklin personally, they had a conference in which Shanklin discussed Respondent's deficiencies and he was told what he had to change to get a favorable evaluation. The most critical areas for improvement identified were: lesson plans safety conditions, and classroom appearance, as well as Respondent's personal untidy and nonprofessional appearance. After this discussion, Shanklin made several visits to Respondent's classroom prior to the March evaluation and did note some improvements in classroom appearance and safety, but not in lesson planning or teaching. Even after the March evaluation, up to the end of the school term, he noted no improvement. On March 29, 1982, he gave Respondent a third letter outlining areas for improvement. Respondent finished out the 1981-82 school year but because of the unsatisfactory evaluation he received, requested a transfer to a different school for the 1982-83 school year. In Shanklin's opinion, Respondent did not meet minimum standards of competency nor could he achieve them because of a lack of effort to improve. Shanklin feels Respondent does not care about the education of children and would make only superficial efforts to be trained. Race is not a factor in this evaluation. At least 50 percent of Shanklin's staff is black. He has 85 teachers on his staff and in the last three years, he has rated 13 teachers unsatisfactory. Of these, 8 or 9 were black. Therefore, of the 255 teacher evaluations he has rendered in three years, 8 or 9 unsatisfactory's were given to black teachers. Dalton D. Epting, Director of Certified Personnel for the school board, talked with Respondent about his evaluation on several occasions when Respondent was at Wolfson High School. If a teacher is on tenure status and received an unsatisfactory evaluation, he may request a transfer to a different school for a second year during which efforts are made through counseling, training, and other assistance, to help him become satisfactory. When Respondent, due to his unsatisfactory evaluation at KSJHS requested a transfer, he was assigned for the second year, to Wolfson High where, for reasons cited below, he was rated unsatisfactory for the second year in a row. Respondent was sent to Wolfson for his second year because there was no vacancy for IA teachers in the system. Even though Wolfson was also full, rather than send Respondent back to KSJHS, they sent him to Wolfson, with all its teachers, so he could have the benefit of other good teachers. Race was not a factor in this decision. It is not automatic that a teacher who receives a second consecutive unsatisfactory rating is discharged. The system looks to see if the teacher was given every assistance to improve; to ensure that everything reasonable was done by way of counseling, resource help, training, and the like, to help him. If it was and the teacher did not improve, he is discharged. Here, school officials looked at all evaluations for both years, considered the discussions held with Respondent, and the input from cadre and resource personnel, and decided that Respondent was incompetent. The decision was made, therefore, to discharge the Respondent and this action was taken. During the 1982-83 school year, after his first unsatisfactory evaluation, Respondent worked for David E. White, principal at Wolfson High School. Immediately White sat down with Respondent, along with the IA supervisor to let him know what was expected of him and what help was available to him. He observed Respondent in the classroom on several occasions and, based on these and other factors in accordance with school board rules, in an effort to let the teacher know how he or she is doing, rendered an unsatisfactory rating on Respondent on October 30, 1982. Among the examples of Respondent's incompetence which led up to this evaluation were progress reports, discipline referrals, notes, and tests prepared by Respondent, some of which went home to parents, that contained obvious spelling, grammatical, and syntax errors. At first, White became aware of concern by students and their parents about Respondent's performance. When these complaints first began, White called in the IA supervisor for the school district, Mr. Hudson, to evaluate Respondent. He began evaluating Respondent himself when the complaints continued. These complaints were to the effect, basically, that the students could not understand Respondent. (It is noted here that Respondent suffers from a slight speech impediment). He would merely read from the textbook with no teacher-student interaction. There was little lab work - mostly lecture or reading. This was not appropriate in the Graphic Arts area which consists of such skills as printing, photography, silk-screening, and the like. Consistent with the notes, reports, end referral slips prepared by Respondent, White noted a lack of grammatical correctness in his oral presentations as well. In addition, White observed that the Respondent's students were not being motivated by him and spent little time on their classroom tasks, and he also observed that Respondent's presentation was lacking in technological detail. For example, on one occasion, Respondent was discussing a box camera and failed to detail the advantages and disadvantages of this type of camera, the type of films available for it, and the merits of each. When the class period was over, White discussed the above with Respondent, suggesting how the lecture could be improved. The following day White came back to class to see how Respondent carried the discussion forward and it was as if White had not said anything. Respondent continued to omit from his lecture the substantive technological information White, as principal, felt should be taught. White concluded that Respondent was not at all familiar with the subject matter he was teaching. 1/ Respondent was also considered to be deficient in his administrative skills. He lost (or had stolen) his grade book as well as his computer worksheets twice during one 9 week period. This created seven extra hours work for the curriculum office, with 3 additional hours by Respondent, to reconstruct, his grades. The fact that Respondent had to help in this project meant someone had to cover his classes for him. It also created a lot of inquiry by parents who, on learning of the lost grade book, questioned the validity of grades given their children. In addition, Respondent's attendance registers were not turned in on time notwithstanding frequent reminders in advance of due dates. At the end of the first semester, White had a conference with Respondent about the above. Respondent began being absent due to sickness in January, 1983 and went on sick leave on 9 February, 1983 which extended through the remainder of the school year. It is important to note that Respondent's absence at this time was valid and there is no inference or insinuation to the contrary. While he was absent, on March 8, 1983, Respondent was given a notice of intent to render an unsatisfactory evaluation report which was, in fact, issued on April 15, 1983. Here it must be noted that there could have been no improvement in performance between the notice and the evaluation as Respondent was not present for duty but was on sick leave. In any event, White contends that as a result of Respondent's teaching, the school's IA program has been seriously damaged, but that has not been shown. While Respondent's classes did net prepare his students for the second year curriculum in those areas, there is no evidence that the school's program has been seriously damaged. Nonetheless, it was shown be that, as white contends, Respondent did not meet minimum county standards and could not be improved to meet them. Consequently, on August 15, 1983, the superintendent of the Duval County public schools, by certified letter, notified Respondent that because of the two years of unsatisfactory evaluations, indicating professional incompetence, he was recommending the School Board discharge Respondent from employment. Thereafter, on January 16, 1984, the Duval County School Board, by Final Order, sustained the charge of professional incompetence, and discharged Respondent as a teacher. Race was definitely not an issue in White's evaluation. In his school, at which the student body comes from the upper level socioeconomic group, and which has rated first in Area Scholastic Aptitude Test scores for the past five ears, White has no black administrators or department chairmen on his staff. One black former department chairman was promoted to vice-principal at another school. His choices for personnel are based on qualifications, not race. At the present time, 12 percent of the teachers on staff are black and over the six years White has been principal at Wolfson High, only 3 black teachers have transferred out. While at both KSJHS and Wolfson High, Respondent was encouraged to consult with Everett T. Hudson, IA supervisor for the school board, and was, in fact, evaluated by him in both settings. He evaluated Respondent first on January 14, 1982, at the request of the Principal at KSJHS end observed Respondent during his 8-9 a.m. first period class. His conclusions were: classroom and shop cleanliness were poor; it appeared that activities were winding down shop organization was poor (no clean-up schedule was posted and metal stock was laying everywhere; the students' projects were not meaningful or of a quality nature; respondent spent too much time lecturing and did not allow for sufficient shop time, and, respondent's lesson plans were not available. When seen, it was obvious Respondent had not used the curriculum guide to draft the few plans he had. When Respondent transferred to Wolfson High, the Principal there also asked Hudson to come out and evaluate Respondent on a more frequent basis. Consequently, because of this request and because of the fact that due to Respondent's previous unsatisfactory rating he was on probation, Hudson evaluated Respondent ten times, at least once in each month, between September 8, 1982 and January 5, 1983. As a result of these evaluations, it appeared to Hudson that Respondent did not know how to: plan a project; lay out equipment; identify woods and where they came from; use certain equipment. It further appeared to Hudson that Respondent's lectures were poor in that he mumbled and he didn't seem to know what he was talking about. Further, his lesson plans were poor, and he failed to keep up with an appropriate time schedule for class. As a result, Hudson ended up, himself, helping the students rather than evaluating. When these observations were made, Mr. Hudson would go over them with Respondent and give Respondent a copy. Notwithstanding he pointed out these deficiencies repeatedly, there appeared to be no improvement at all. The school system here has a remedial program for teachers to use to improve their performance. There are resource teachers to provide assistance and there are also "in service" programs for teachers. Mr. Hudson suggested Respondent take some, one of which he was teaching right at Respondent's school. As he recalls, Respondent came twice out of 15 sessions. As a result of the above, Hudson does not believe that Respondent meets minimum competency standards and could not meet them. In his opinion, Respondent: suffers from a lack of organizational ability; has lackadaisical attitude toward improving the program; would not spend the necessary time to upgrade his skills, and has a weak knowledge of the subject matter. Here again, race was not an issue in these evaluations. Hudson supervises 95 IA teachers in the Duval County school system and is the only administrator. Of these teachers, approximately 25 are black. Over 13 years, he has been called in to evaluate, like this, 5 or 6 teachers, only one of whom was black, and of this number, only 2 have been discharged. Respondent has a Bachelor of Science decree in Education and a Masters degree in Industrial Education, both from Florida A & M University. In addition, he has attended a leadership development course at Michigan State University, military classes in the same while in the army at Ft. Dix, New Jersey, and numerous workshops in Florida at his own expense. It was his hope, when he started working in Duval County, to develop some feel for the IA field in that school system As a result of his experience there, he is of the opinion that the entire IA program is underfunded. Students have to pay for the wood and metal materials they use to build a prefect. He urges that without materials and equipment, a teacher cannot teach, a point concerned by Mr. Davenport, and that was the reason he submitted the purchase orders he did at KSJHS. In that regard, it would appear that about the time Respondent was teaching at KSJHS in 1981, a report by an Inspector (Jenkins) from the school district offices, reflected that materials and equipment in Respondent's class area did not meet minimum state requirements. In addition, there was some problem regarding the excessive size of the class. This problem was immediately corrected end certification in this area was restored. He also contends that a teacher's teaching style may differ from that of his principal's and still be correct. With regard to the April 15, 1953 unsatisfactory evaluation, Respondent contends, in an attempt to contest his rating, that since he was out sick much of the month of January, 1983, and all of the time from February 9, 1983 to the end of the school year, a rating dated in mid April would cover as large a period of time when he was not there as when he was. The Teacher Tenure Act under which this system operates provides for a second full year of evaluation before discharge. Since he was sick for half the second year, he contends, his discharge was not valid. He wants to fulfill his probationary period to prove he is a worthy teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, William Wyche's teacher certificate issued by the State of Florida be revoked for a period of three years, with provision for reinstatement as provided for by statute. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 16th day of August, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk with the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of August, 1984.
