Findings Of Fact By operation of the Constitution of the State of Florida, Article IX, Section 4(b), the Board is charged with the operation, control and supervision of all schools within Volusia County, Florida. By state law, Section 230.01, Florida Statutes (1991), the State of Florida has delegated to the Board the responsibility for the actual operation and administration of all schools within Volusia County. Section 230.23, Florida Statutes (1991), provides that the Board will exercise, inter alia, the following general powers: (5) PERSONNEL - Designate positions to be filled, prescribe qualifications for those positions, and provide for the appointment, compensation, promotion, suspension, and dismissal of employees as follows, subject to the requirements of Chapter 231: (a) Positions, qualifications and appointments. - Act upon written recommendations submitted by the Superintendent for positions to be filled . . . Section 230.33(7)(a), Florida Statutes, requires the Superintendent of Schools to make written nominations of persons to fill positions established by the School Board. With respect to classroom teachers employed by the Board, such employees may be granted tenure, that is the right to continuing employment subject to removal upon certain conditions. The tenure rights of classroom teachers employed by the Board are provided by the Volusia County Teachers' Tenure Law, Chapter 18964, Laws of Florida (1937), as amended (hereinafter referred to as "the Volusia County Tenure Law" or "the tenure law.") The procedure used by the Board in determining which teachers are to be granted tenure begins with a recommendation made by the principal who is supervising the teacher in question. The recommendation is made to the Board's personnel office which then passes it on to the Superintendent, who either supports the recommendation by making it to the School Board or not. Only the Board may reelect a teacher for employment, and such reelection is an essential precondition to the obtainment of status as a tenured teacher. The Volusia County Tenure Law provides for a probationary period of three years following which, if the teacher is reelected to employment for a fourth consecutive year and fills other requirements set forth in the tenure law, he or she will obtain tenure. In the case of the three individual Petitioners who are parties to this action, each was denied tenure following her third year of employment, but did obtain employment in the status of a fourth year probationary employee. The alternative to this fourth year of probation was described by the Board's representative as a "failure to enter into a contract for an additional year and termination." The Union introduced a list of three teachers besides the individual Petitioners in this action as Petitioners' Exhibit 7. Of the three persons listed in that exhibit, one, Hall, was granted tenure after her fourth year of probation. Another, Maynar, was granted tenure after his fifth year of probation. The third, Powers, was granted tenure after seven years of probationary status. The fact that two of those teachers served probationary periods in excess of four years was described to be as the result of "oversight" on the part of the Board. Petitioners' Exhibit 1 sets forth tenure treatment of classroom teachers employed by the Board from and including the 1988-89 school year to and including the 1991-92 school year. In the 1988-89 school year, 123 teachers received tenure after a third year of probation, 12 teachers were granted tenure after a fourth year of probation, 115 teachers were non-renewed (terminated) after their third year, and 23 accepted a fourth year of probation. In the 1989-90 school year, 110 teachers received tenure after their third year, 22 were granted tenure after a fourth year of probation, 25 were non-renewed, and 25 accepted a fourth year of probation. In the 1990-91 school year, 155 teachers received tenure after their third year, 25 were granted tenure after a fourth year of probation, 28 were not renewed after their third year, and 41 accepted a fourth year of probation. In the 1991-92 school year, the last year for which records were available at the time of the hearing, 198 teachers received tenure following a third year of probation, 46 were granted tenure after a fourth year of probation, 33 were not renewed after their third year of probation, and 9 accepted a fourth year of probation. On March 30, 1993, Dr. Willie D. Brennon, Assistant Superintendent for Personnel for the Board, issued an interoffice memorandum to all principals and department heads which informed those principals and department heads that contract "Status 5," that is the granting of a fifth probationary year, was no longer an option open to principals and department heads dealing with classroom teachers. The Board's Division for Personnel Services has also issued a document entitled "Procedure for Giving Notice of Non forms for the employment and treatment of teachers. The Board has not promulgated any set of standards to be used by a principal in deciding whether he or she will recommend a classroom teacher for tenure. On April 19, 1991, Pearl Coleman was employed by the Board as a classroom teacher. On that same day, Ms. Coleman's principal, Rowena Reddix, completed a form entitled "Instructional Personnel Reappointment 1991 School Year." In that form, Ms. Reddix requested that Ms. Coleman be recommended for reappointment for the 1991 On May 10, 1991, Ms. Reddix recommended that Ms. Coleman be granted tenure by completing a form entitled "Recommendation for Tenure 1991-92 School Year." However, Ms. Reddix later rescinded her recommendation that tenure be granted to Ms. Coleman. After the recision, on June 13, 1991, Ms. Reddix recommended that Ms. Coleman be appointed as a probationary (non employee for the 1991 document, Ms. Coleman accepted employment as a probationary employee by executing a sworn statement that read as follows: This is to inform you that I voluntarily accept classification as a probationary employee for the 1991-92 school year. When Ms. Coleman signed that statement and accepted employment as a probationary employee, she understood that, but for her acceptance of this status, she would not be employed by the Board. Furthermore, although Ms. Coleman believed she would receive tenure after her fourth year of probation, she understood that she did not have tenure in that fourth year. On May 15, 1992, Mr. Gerald L. Gill, who succeeded Ms. Reddix as Ms. Coleman's principal, signed a letter, which informed Ms. Coleman that she would not be recommended for employment for the 1992-93 school year and that the Board would not enter into a contract of employment with her for any period subsequent to the 1991-92 school year. Linda L. Williams was employed by the Board as a classroom teacher for the 1989-90, 1990-91, and 1991-92 school years. In her third year of employment, Ms. Williams was employed as a classroom teacher at Woodward Avenue School and served under principal Jo Anne Rodkey. In the same year, Ms. Rodkey informed Ms. Williams that she would not be recommended for reemployment because the school was losing a unit and therefore there was no position for her at the school. On May 12, 1992, Ms. Rodkey delivered to Ms. Williams a letter informing Ms. Williams that Ms. Rodkey would not be recommending her for tenure. Subsequently, Ms. Williams applied for a position as a sixth grade teacher at Holly Hill Middle School. Ms. Williams previously had been informed by Ms. Rodkey that any further employment by the Board would be as a probationary employee. Ms. Williams specifically understood that the only way she would be hired at Holly Hill was on a probationary basis and further understood that if she had not agreed to probationary status she would not have been employed at Holly Hill Middle School. Ms. Williams accepted employment at Holly Hill under these conditions. On June 12, 1991, Petitioner Lynne Demarest was employed as a classroom teacher at South Daytona Elementary School. On that same date, Ms. Demarest executed a notarized statement which stated: This is to inform you that I voluntarily accept classification as a probationary employee for the 1991 Subsequently, on June 14, 1991, Mr. David C. Butler, who was the principal at South Daytona Elementary School, recommended the reappointment of Ms. Demarest as a probationary employee for the 1991 time that Ms. Demarest accepted employment on probationary status, she understood that this was the only condition upon which she would be employed by the Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is ORDERED that the Petition is DENIED and DISMISSED. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of October, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of October, 1993. APPENDIX TO THE FINAL ORDER IN CASE NO. 93-1862 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Florida Education Association et al. 1. Proposed findings of fact 1-11 are unsupported by the competent and substantial evidence. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, School Board of Volusia County 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-17(1-17). COPIES FURNISHED: Lorene C. Powell Chief Trial Counsel, FEA/United 118 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1700 Thomas M. Gonzalez Attorney at Law 109 North Brush Street, Suite 200 Post Office Box 639 Tampa, Florida 33601 Carroll Webb Executive Director Administrative Procedures Committee Holland Building, Room 120 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1300
Findings Of Fact During 1978 and 1979, Petitioner was employed as a full-time teacher on an annual contract basis with the Leon County School Board. The principal at the Petitioner's school did not recommend him for reappointment for the 1979- 1980 school year. Petitioner, accordingly, was not reappointed. The Leon County School Board has adopted rules relating to the reappointment of teachers. School Board Rule 2.02(3)(a) provides: The building principal shall submit to the Superintendent for reappoint- ment, those members of his faculty recommended for reappointment. These reappointments, upon approval of the Superintendent, shall be recommended to the School Board at least six weeks prior to the close of the post school conference. In accordance with this rule, since Petitioner was not recommended for reappointment by his principal, he was not recommended by the superintendent and not reappointed by the School Board. Petitioner was not terminated from his position as a part of a School Board layoff. The Petitioner's job performance had been satisfactory. He was not recommended for reappointment because the school had three persons available to teach courses for which there were only two positions. The Petitioner was the least senior of the three persons and did not have tenure. Accordingly, he was not recommended for reappointment.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioners are entitled to the Best and Brightest Scholarship as established and defined by section 1012.731(3)(c), Florida Statutes (2017).
Findings Of Fact In 2015, the Legislature enacted, by way of a line item in the annual appropriations bill, the Best and Brightest Program to award cash scholarships to Florida teachers who have been evaluated as “highly effective” by their school districts and who scored at or above the 80th percentile (top 20%) on the SAT or ACT when they took the test. Ch. 2015-232, § 2, line item 99A, Laws of Fla.1/ In 2016, the Legislature enacted a stand-alone statute for the Best and Brightest Program, codifying the appropriations bill language and providing that the program is to be administered by the Department of Education (the “Department”). Ch. 2016-62, § 25, Laws of Fla., codified at § 1012.731, Fla. Stat. (2016). Rather than enacting a statutory scholarship amount, subsection (5) of the 2016 version of section 1012.731 provided that the scholarships would be awarded to every eligible classroom teacher “in the amount provided in the General Appropriations Act.”2/ The 2016 statute also explained that the Best and Brightest Program was intended to provide “categorical funding for scholarships to be awarded to classroom teachers, as defined in s. 1012.01(2)(a), who have demonstrated a high level of academic achievement.” § 1012.731(2), Fla. Stat. (2016). Section 1012.01(2) defines “instructional personnel,” including “classroom teachers,” as follows: INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL.— “Instructional personnel” means any K-12 staff member whose function includes the provision of direct instructional services to students. Instructional personnel also includes K-12 personnel whose functions provide direct support in the learning process of students. Included in the classification of instructional personnel are the following K-12 personnel: Classroom teachers.--Classroom teachers are staff members assigned the professional activity of instructing students in courses in classroom situations, including basic instruction, exceptional student education, career education, and adult education, including substitute teachers. Student personnel services.--Student personnel services include staff members responsible for: advising students with regard to their abilities and aptitudes, educational and occupational opportunities, and personal and social adjustments; providing placement services; performing educational evaluations; and similar functions. Included in this classification are certified school counselors, social workers, career specialists, and school psychologists. Librarians/media specialists.-- Librarians/media specialists are staff members responsible for providing school library media services. These employees are responsible for evaluating, selecting, organizing, and managing media and technology resources, equipment, and related systems; facilitating access to information resources beyond the school; working with teachers to make resources available in the instructional programs; assisting teachers and students in media productions; and instructing students in the location and use of information resources. Other instructional staff.--Other instructional staff are staff members who are part of the instructional staff but are not classified in one of the categories specified in paragraphs (a)-(c). Included in this classification are primary specialists, learning resource specialists, instructional trainers, adjunct educators certified pursuant to s. 1012.57, and similar positions. Education paraprofessionals.--Education paraprofessionals are individuals who are under the direct supervision of an instructional staff member, aiding the instructional process. Included in this classification are classroom paraprofessionals in regular instruction, exceptional education paraprofessionals, career education paraprofessionals, adult education paraprofessionals, library paraprofessionals, physical education and playground paraprofessionals, and other school-level paraprofessionals. In 2017, the Legislature amended section 1012.731(3) to establish that the scholarship award would be $6,000 for those classroom teachers rated “highly effective” who also had the requisite SAT or ACT scores: (3)(a) To be eligible for a scholarship in the amount of $6,000, a classroom teacher must: 1. Have achieved a composite score at or above the 80th percentile on either the SAT or the ACT based on the National Percentile Ranks in effect when the classroom teacher took the assessment and have been evaluated as highly effective pursuant to s. 1012.34 in the school year immediately preceding the year in which the scholarship will be awarded, unless the classroom teacher is newly hired by the district school board and has not been evaluated pursuant to s.1012.34. * * * In order to demonstrate eligibility for an award, an eligible classroom teacher must submit to the school district, no later than November 1, an official record of his or her qualifying assessment score and, beginning with the 2020-2021 school year, an official transcript demonstrating that he or she graduated cum laude or higher with a baccalaureate degree, if applicable. Once a classroom teacher is deemed eligible by the school district, the teacher shall remain eligible as long as he or she remains employed by the school district as a classroom teacher at the time of the award and receives an annual performance evaluation rating of highly effective pursuant to s. 1012.34 or is evaluated as highly effective based on a commissioner- approved student learning growth formula pursuant to s. 1012.34(8) for the 2019-2020 school year or thereafter. Ch. 2017-116, § 46, Laws of Fla. The 2017 amendment to section 1012.731 also added a new subsection (3)(c), providing that lesser amounts could be awarded to teachers rated “highly effective” or “effective,” even if they could not demonstrate scores at or above the 80th percentile on the SAT or ACT: Notwithstanding the requirements of this subsection, for the 2017-2018, 2018- 2019, and 2019-2020 school years, any classroom teacher who: Was evaluated as highly effective pursuant to s. 1012.34 in the school year immediately preceding the year in which the scholarship will be awarded shall receive a scholarship of $1,200, including a classroom teacher who received an award pursuant to paragraph (a). Was evaluated as effective pursuant to s. 1012.34 in the school year immediately preceding the year in which the scholarship will be awarded a scholarship of up to $800. If the number of eligible classroom teachers under this subparagraph exceeds the total allocation, the department shall prorate the per-teacher scholarship amount. This paragraph expires July 1, 2020. Id. By December 1 of each year, each school district must submit to the Department the number of eligible classroom teachers who qualify for the scholarship, as well as identifying information regarding the schools to which the eligible classroom teachers are assigned. § 1012.731(4)(a)-(c), Fla. Stat. For the 2017-2018 school year, the December 1, 2017, submission deadline was extended to January 2, 2018, due to a hurricane. The School Board’s deadline for teachers to apply for the scholarship was accordingly extended from November 1, 2017, to December 1, 2017. By February 1 of each year, the Department is required to disburse scholarship funds to each school district for each eligible classroom teacher to receive a scholarship. § 1012.731(5), Fla. Stat. By April 1, each school district is required to award the scholarship to each eligible classroom teacher. § 1012.731(6), Fla. Stat. In 2018, the Legislature amended section 1012.731 to provide that a school district employee who is no longer a classroom teacher may receive the $6,000 award if the employee was a classroom teacher in the prior school year, was rated highly effective, and met the requirements of this section as a classroom teacher. § 1012.731(3)(b)2., Fla. Stat. (2018). The Legislature did not add a similar provision stating that former classroom teachers who are still school district employees remain eligible for the $1,200 and $800 awards. § 1012.731(3)(c)2., Fla. Stat. (2018). The Legislature funds the Best and Brightest Program. The School Board had no role in creating the Best and Brightest Program. The School Board is required to determine the eligibility of classroom teachers who qualify for the Best and Brightest Program pursuant to the requirements of the statute. Petitioners in this case claim entitlement only to the $1,200 award established by the 2017 version of the statute. Brenda Troutman, director of Instructional Personnel, is the School Board employee in charge of the Best and Brightest Program application and submission process. Ms. Troutman has worked for the School Board for 17 years. She has been a junior high classroom teacher and an assistant principal and vice principal at the high school level. Though no longer teaching in the classroom, Ms. Troutman retains her certifications in math grades 5-9, exceptional student education (“ESE”), educational leadership, and school principal. When working as a high school administrator, Ms. Troutman was the master scheduler for her school, meaning that she built the schedule for every teacher at the school. This task required that she become very familiar with the School Board’s course code directory. Ms. Troutman also had to understand the certification system in order to hire and assign teachers. If a teacher asked to teach a certain course, Ms. Troutman had to know both the course requirements and the teacher’s certifications to determine whether the teacher was eligible to teach the course. As part of her current position in the School Board’s human resources department, Ms. Troutman is required to know the School Board’s various job titles and descriptions. She is responsible for replacing obsolete job descriptions and posting current job descriptions on the School Board’s website. Ms. Troutman testified as to how she manages the application and submission process of the Best and Brightest Program. She starts by making herself familiar with any changes the Legislature may have made to the program. She then issues a notice to teachers about the program and the current eligibility requirements. For the 2017-2018 Best and Brightest Program, Ms. Troutman prepared a draft email that Superintendent Addison Davis reviewed and sent to all of the school district’s teachers and administrators on September 28, 2017. The email explained that to be eligible for the $6,000, $1,200 or $800 scholarship, an applicant must meet the definition of classroom teacher as set forth in section 1012.01(2)(a). Ms. Troutman developed the School Board’s application for the Best and Brightest Program, based upon her understanding of the statutory requirements. All completed applications for the Best and Brightest Program come into Ms. Troutman’s office. Ms. Troutman testified that she received approximately 2,000 applications for the 2017-2018 award. Ms. Troutman, with the aid of her assistant, reviews and verifies the information on the applications. If Ms. Troutman has any questions about an application, she seeks the opinion of her direct supervisor David Broskie, the director of Human Resources. In some cases, they also have discussions with Superintendent Davis and School Board Attorney David D’Agata. The School Board employs two major data programs. FOCUS is the program/database that holds all student information, including attendance, grades, disciplinary actions, test information, and demographics. TERMS is the program/database that houses all employee information. When verifying information on the Best and Brightest Program applications, Ms. Troutman uses both FOCUS and TERMS, and on occasion conducts additional investigation. The School Board’s application asks for the teacher’s assignment. Because the application was titled “2017-2018 Clay County Application: Florida Best & Brightest Teacher Scholarship,” Ms. Troutman believed that the teachers were required to provide their 2017-2018 teacher assignments. As will be discussed in more detail below, the year of the teacher assignment was a major point of disagreement between Petitioners and the School Board. The application provided a checkmark system for the teacher to indicate which scholarship was being sought. The $1,200 scholarship line provided as follows: I am applying for the $1,200.00 highly effective scholarship. I have attached a copy of my 2016-2017 highly effective final evaluation (with student performance measures). The application’s language led Petitioners to believe that the 2017-2018 scholarship awards would be based on their teacher assignments and evaluations for 2016-2017. Ms. Troutman explained that this belief was incorrect. Eligibility for the 2017-2018 scholarship was based on a teacher’s assignment for the 2017-2018 school year. The plain language of the statute requires that one must be a “classroom teacher” in order to be eligible for the scholarship; having been a classroom teacher in a previous year does not suffice. Ms. Troutman stated that she verified with Mr. Broskie, Mr. Davis, and Mr. D’Agata that the School Board should base the award on the teacher’s 2017-2018 assignment. Petitioners, on the other hand, argue that the statutory language requires only an evaluation of “highly effective” for the 2016-2017 school year. The statute is silent as to whether a teacher applying for the $1,200 scholarship must be teaching in a classroom situation during the 2017-2018 school year. Petitioners argue that the School Board is reading a requirement into the statute that is not evident from the plain language. Ms. Troutman further explained that the applications for the 2017-2018 scholarships were to be submitted prior to the conclusion of the 2017-2018 school year. Therefore, as required by section 1012.731(3)(a)1. and (3)(c), the application requested the evaluation for “the school year immediately preceding the year in which the scholarship will be awarded.” Ms. Troutman testified that it is sometimes obvious from the teaching assignment that the teacher qualifies as a “classroom teacher.” If an application states that the assignment is “chemistry teacher” or “algebra teacher” or “fifth grade classroom teacher,” it is clear that the applicant meets the definition. Aside from verifying the assignment in the TERMS database, Ms. Troutman takes no further action. However, some applications require additional research before Ms. Troutman can conclude that the applicant qualifies as a classroom teacher. For example, Petitioner Abbie Andrews identified her assignment on her application as “classroom teacher.” Ms. Troutman went to TERMS and saw that Ms. Andrews was designated as an “ESE Support Facilitator” for the 2017-2018 school year. Ms. Troutman testified that ESE Support Facilitators are sometimes assigned to teach classes and therefore could be classified as “classroom teachers” for purposes of the Best and Brightest Program. Ms. Troutman examined both the master schedule and the teacher’s personal account in FOCUS to determine whether Ms. Andrews was assigned to teach any courses. Ms. Andrews had no teaching assignments for 2017-2018 in FOCUS. Ms. Andrews and fellow Petitioners Cherry Deaton, Donna Foster, and Danielle Perricelli held the position of ESE Support Facilitator during the 2017-2018 school year. The School Board concluded that these Petitioners did not qualify for the $1,200 scholarship because their schedules did not assign them the professional activity of instructing students in courses in a classroom situation, as required by the statute. It was undisputed that these Petitioners had been rated “highly effective” for the 2016-2017 school year. It was also undisputed that Ms. Andrews, Ms. Deaton, and Ms. Foster met the statutory definition of a classroom teacher for the 2016-2017 school year. The School Board’s general job description for an ESE Support Facilitator provides as follows: The teacher is responsible directly to the Principal. He/she provides for the instruction, supervision, and evaluation of assigned students on an as needed basis. He/she supports both general education and ESE teachers. He/she serves in a staff relationship with other teachers and supports and promotes ESE inclusion activities. (Emphasis added). The School Board contrasts this job description with that of “Classroom Teacher,” which provides: “The teacher is responsible directly to the principal for the instruction, supervision, and evaluation of students.” The classroom teacher is fully responsible for the “instruction, supervision, and evaluation” of the students in her classroom, whereas the ESE Support Facilitator performs those activities only “as needed.” The School Board also points out that, unlike a classroom teacher, an ESE Support Facilitator is not required to be certified in-field for the position. The ESE Support Facilitator is not the teacher of record for any particular course. Their schedule is fluid. The ESE Support Facilitator comes and goes as needed (“pushes in,” to use the teaching vernacular) in the classroom, and is expected to be wherever the ESE student assigned to them needs their services. Sometimes they push into the classroom and sometimes they pull students out of the class to work on a specific concept or skill. An ESE Support Facilitator is assigned “contact students” for whom individualized educational plans (“IEPs”) are prepared. The classroom teacher of record is responsible for giving the student course credit or a grade and is responsible for recording attendance in FOCUS. One-third of the classroom teacher’s evaluation is tied to student performance. Only the classroom teacher has default access to FOCUS in order to enter attendance and grade information for the students in the class. An ESE Support Facilitator must seek and be granted access to student’s FOCUS information. An ESE Support Facilitator is expected to meet with each contact student at least once a month; in practice, these meetings tend to occur more frequently. The ESE Support Facilitator goes over accommodations the student needs and assignments the student did not understand. The facilitator reteaches the course material if need be and stays in touch with the student’s teachers and parents, making sure all stakeholders in the student’s success are on the same page. The evidence presented at the hearing indicated that all of the students served by the ESE Support Facilitators in this case attended classes in regular classrooms, not in separate ESE classes. In such “inclusion” classes, the ESE Support Facilitator’s role is to push in and assist contact students in the regular classroom, ensuring that their IEP requirements are met and that the students are progressing satisfactorily through the course material. Based on these definitional and operative distinctions, Ms. Troutman considered ESE Support Facilitators to be “other instructional staff” as defined by section 1012.01(2)(d), rather than “classroom teachers” as defined by section 1012.01(2)(a). Ms. Andrews was employed as an ESE Support Facilitator at Middleburg High School during the 2016-2017 school year. She taught two periods of English and spent the remaining four periods fulfilling her ESE duties. She was evaluated as “highly effective.” As noted above, there was no dispute that Ms. Andrews met the definition of a “classroom teacher” for the 2016-2017 school year. During the 2017-2018 school year, Ms. Andrews was a full-time ESE Support Facilitator at Middleburg High School, not assigned to teach any courses. In FOCUS, she was assigned as the “contact teacher” for approximately 60 students, meaning that she was primarily responsible for writing their IEPs and ensuring that they made adequate progress in their classes. She met with all of her contact students on an as needed basis, at least once per month but often as much as twice per week. However, Ms. Andrews was not listed in FOCUS as the teacher of record for any class. Even though she routinely pushed into classes to support her assigned ESE students, Ms. Andrews was not the primary teacher of record. She was there to assist her contact students with whatever they needed to learn the course, but the course was not assigned to her to teach. Ms. Andrews did not have a traditional classroom. She was not the teacher of record in any course for which students received academic credit, and she did not assign grades to students for the material she was teaching. Ms. Andrews prepared IEPs that were individualized to particular contact students. She did not prepare daily lesson plans in the manner of a classroom teacher. Ms. Andrews described her job as an ESE Support Facilitator as follows: My job is to teach, mentor, challenge students to make them -- make them ready for graduation, become productive members of society. I believe that’s the same thing a classroom teacher does. I am using the Florida standards to prepare lessons for remediation if a student needs it. I am constantly having conversations with not just students, but their parents, keeping them on track or making sure their students are on track because ultimately, a parent wants that student to graduate on time as well. I believe that the questions that are asked of me as a support facilitator are the same questions that parents would ask of a classroom teacher because they are very concerned. I am not just answering questions based on one classroom. I'm answering questions based on six classes. I'm responsible for that student being successful in six classes. The IEPs that I write, they're legally binding. I am involved in the academics, behavior, discipline. I deal with discipline problems. All of these things are the same things that a classroom teacher would deal with. I do not have a schedule in Focus; however, when a need arises, I'm there, I'm in a classroom, I'm helping, and I'm doing what's needed to be done for the kids to be successful. Ms. Deaton was employed as an ESE Support Facilitator at Middleburg High School during the 2016-2017 school year. She taught two periods of English and spent the remaining four periods fulfilling her ESE duties. She was evaluated as “highly effective.” As noted above, there was no dispute that Ms. Deaton met the definition of a “classroom teacher” for the 2016-2017 school year. In 2017-2018, Ms. Deaton was a full-time ESE Support Facilitator at Middleburg High School, with approximately 60 contact students assigned to her in FOCUS. She was not assigned to teach any courses. If she pushed into a class to support her assigned ESE students, she was not the primary teacher of record. She was not designated as a co-teacher,3/ but she would assist teaching classes on an as-needed basis if she was not busy testing students or preparing IEPs. For those classes, she was provided access to view grades in FOCUS, but she did not have access to give grades. She would meet students as needed in her office, in another teacher's classroom, or in the computer lab. She did not develop lesson plans on her own, but provided suggestions and advice on lesson plans to the primary teacher. As an ESE Support Facilitator, Ms. Deaton did not have a classroom or teach a classroom full of students. She had no schedule assigned to her in FOCUS, but had contact students assigned to her in FOCUS. Ms. Foster was employed as an English/language arts and ESE Inclusion Teacher during the 2016-2017 school year. She taught four classes as ESE inclusion teacher. The remaining two periods were devoted to her position as ESE department head. Ms. Foster had a schedule in FOCUS. She had her own classroom and students, prepared daily lesson plans, and assigned grades. Students in her classes received academic credit. Ms. Foster was evaluated as “highly effective.” As noted above, there was no dispute that Ms. Foster met the definition of a “classroom teacher” for the 2016-2017 school year. Ms. Foster was employed as an ESE Support Facilitator and ESE department head during the 2017-2018 school year. She retired at the end of the school year, effective June 7, 2018. As an ESE Support Facilitator, Ms. Foster did not have a set schedule. Ms. Foster’s assigned ESE students did not receive academic credit for the services she provided, but her assistance was integral in helping them pass their courses. Ms. Foster assisted with an American history class during the 2017-2018 school year, but was not assigned as the primary teacher in FOCUS. Ms. Foster testified that she did not believe she had ever been identified as a co-teacher in FOCUS, though she thought she should have been. Ms. Foster testified that she had IEPs for the American history class that listed both the class setting and the service delivery method as “co-teach.” She explained that because the class had both general education and ESE students, the teacher had to be certified in both the subject matter and ESE. Because the primary teacher was certified only in the subject matter, it was necessary for Ms. Foster to co-teach the class. Ms. Foster testified that she split lesson plan preparation with the primary teacher. Ms. Foster believed she was not listed in FOCUS as the co-teacher because the school administration never bothered to remove the name of Kristin Heard, the ESE teacher originally assigned to the class, who was moved to a science class early in the year. Ms. Foster pursued the matter with the assistant principals at Lakeside Junior High, but nothing came of it. Mallory McConnell, the principal at Lakeside Junior High School during the 2017-2018 school year, confirmed that Ms. Foster was not listed as a co-teacher on the master schedule. Ms. McConnell testified that in 2017-2018 there were no “true co-teacher” situations, by which she meant two teachers who equally shared responsibility for the instruction and grading of every student in the class. Ms. McConnell was aware of situations in which a student’s IEP mandates co-teaching in a class, but she testified that she was unaware of any student at Lakeside Junior High School in 2017-2018 whose IEP required a co-teacher. Ms. McConnell conducted infrequent walkthrough observations of the American history class. She testified that she saw Ms. Foster providing support services to the ESE students but never saw Ms. Foster teaching at the front of the class. Ms. McConnell stated that she would not have expected to see Ms. Foster teaching the class or creating lesson plans for the class as a whole because those tasks were not her job responsibility. Ms. McConnell was in no position to state whether Ms. Foster did, in fact, prepare lesson plans and teach the class. Ms. McConnell was able to state that for at least one month during the school year, Ms. Foster administered tests to her ESE students, meaning that she could not have been co- teaching the American history class. Ms. Foster did not tell Ms. Troutman that she had assisted teaching the American history class during the 2017- 2018 school year, nor did she include such information on her application for the Best and Brightest Program, because she believed the award was based upon her position in 2016-2017 and because she believed the school administration’s failure to include her as teacher of record in FOCUS was an “in-house” issue. Ms. Perricelli was employed as an ESE Support Facilitator, ESE department head, and MTSS intervention team facilitator at Orange Park Junior High School. “MTSS” is an acronym for Multi-Tiered System of Support, a framework for providing support to students who are struggling academically or have an identified need in a specific area such as speech, language, or behavior. MTSS interventions may be used for regular education or ESE students. Ms. Perricelli testified that she was not the teacher assigned by FOCUS for any class in 2016-2017. In addition to her regular ESE duties, Ms. Perricelli taught “grade recovery” to two students in language arts, science, and math. Grade recovery is a class offered to students who have failed a course and lack the credits to move on to the next grade level. Ms. Perricelli designed lesson plans and curriculum assessments for each subject, graded papers and tests, and reported the students’ grades to the school. Ms. Perricelli testified that she was not given the authority to enter the grade recovery students’ grades into FOCUS in 2016-2017. She requested a course code but was never provided one. Ms. Perricelli taught grade recovery for two periods, one for each student. For the other four periods of the school day, Ms. Perricelli would push into classrooms and work with ESE students, usually in small groups with students who needed remediation. She had around 40 contact students and developed IEPs for each of them. Most of her contact students were in the classrooms that she was going into, so she would see them throughout the week. She would meet with her other contact students about once a week. Ms. Perricelli would work with the assigned teacher to modify the course material to meet the needs of the ESE students. Ms. Perricelli was evaluated as “highly effective” for the 2016-2017 school year, based on standard classroom teacher criteria. She was observed working with her grade recovery students and in the classrooms in which she pushed in. Ms. Perricelli testified that her assignments were the same for the 2017-2018 school year. She taught one student in a grade recovery course. Due to her persistence, Ms. Perricelli was able to get a course code from Ms. Troutman for the grade recovery course in 2017-2018. The grade recovery course was named “Unique Skills.” In 2017-2018, Ms. Perricelli was assigned around 70 contact students for whom she prepared IEPs. As department head, Ms. Perricelli oversaw 22 ESE instructors. She was the only ESE Support Facilitator at the school. Janice Tucker was vice principal at Orange Park Junior High School in 2017-2018. She testified that early in the school year, the assigned teacher for seventh grade math left for another county. A long-term substitute, Lashonda Campbell, took over as teacher of record. Ms. Perricelli testified that she developed some of the curriculum in Ms. Campbell’s math classes, which included ESE and non-ESE students. She stated that she taught the class alone once a week when Ms. Campbell started, then tapered off into pulling out small groups of ESE students who needed remediation. She worked with four periods of seventh grade math classes that year. Ms. Perricelli testified that she gave grades to students in those courses and gave them to Ms. Campbell for entry into FOCUS. Ms. Tucker testified that Ms. Perricelli was not a co- teacher for the math class. Ms. Campbell was the teacher of record. Ms. Tucker testified that when she observed the math class, she saw Ms. Perricelli working with small groups in the back of the class or at a table in the hallway, and Ms. Campbell at the front teaching the class. Ms. Tucker never saw Ms. Perricelli at the front of the class teaching. Ms. Tucker conceded that she had no knowledge whether Ms. Perricelli was involved in creating lesson plans or assigning grades for the math class. Ms. Perricelli was evaluated by Ms. Tucker for the 2017-2018 school year. Ms. Tucker observed Ms. Perricelli in the seventh grade math class and in the Unique Skills class. Ms. Perricelli was again rated “highly effective.” Ms. Perricelli testified that she did not mention teaching the math class on her scholarship application. She stated that she did not tell Ms. Troutman about the math class because at the time, the school was still attempting to get a full-time teacher for the class. Ms. Troutman obviously knew about the “Unique Skills” class, having issued the course code to Ms. Perricelli. Ms. Troutman testified that she consulted with Mr. Broskie and Mr. D’Agata as to whether having one assigned class in FOCUS should qualify Ms. Perricelli for the scholarship. They concluded that teaching one class with one student was insufficient to qualify as a “classroom teacher” for purposes of the Best and Brightest Program. Ms. Troutman testified that this conclusion was consistent with the School Board’s historic practice of considering two or more classes as the “cutoff” for a classroom teacher. Ms. Troutman believed that if an ESE Support Facilitator taught two classes, then she would qualify as a “classroom teacher.” Petitioner Easter Brown taught a fourth grade classroom at Grove Park Elementary School during the 2016-2017 school year and was rated “highly effective.” It is not disputed that Ms. Brown met the definition of a “classroom teacher” for the 2016-2017 school year. In 2017-2018, Ms. Brown was a full-time SPRINT specialist. “SPRINT” stands for Supervisor of Pre-Interns and New Teachers. SPRINT specialist is a support position for teacher trainees and new teachers, operating under an agreement between the School Board and the University of North Florida (“UNF”), each of which pays half of the SPRINT specialist’s salary. Ms. Brown taught field classes at UNF and conducted workshops for clinical educator training and professional development. Ms. Brown kept Grove Park Elementary as her home base and shared a classroom there with two other teachers. She taught UNF students in classes at the university and worked with new teachers at the school. She estimated that she spent half her time at UNF and half at Grove Park Elementary. Ms. Brown had no K-12 courses or K-12 students assigned to her in 2017-2018. She had no courses assigned to her in FOCUS. She gave grades to only UNF students. Ms. Brown did not create traditional lesson plans but did assist new teachers in writing lesson plans. Ms. Brown testified that she did some teaching in a regular classroom for purposes of modeling teaching techniques for her student teachers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Clay County School Board enter a final order: Finding that Petitioners Abbie Andrews, Cherry Deaton, and Donna Foster were not eligible for a $1,200 scholarship under the 2017 Florida Best and Brightest Teacher Scholarship Program because they were not classroom teachers during the 2017-2018 school year; and Finding that Petitioners Easter Brown and Danielle Perricelli were eligible for a $1,200 scholarship under the 2017 Florida Best and Brightest Teacher Scholarship Program because they were classroom teachers during the 2017-2018 school year, and directing staff to take all practicable measures to secure the scholarship monies for Ms. Brown and Ms. Perricelli. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of March, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of March, 2019.
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
The Issue The issue for determination in this case is whether Respondent should be discharged from her employment as a teacher in the Duval County Public School System for professional incompetency pursuant to Section 4(e) of the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act (Chapter 21197, Laws of Florida, as amended)
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, the Respondent, Jewel Jones, was a tenured public school teacher licensed by the State of Florida in elementary education and exceptional education, and is currently a certified teacher in the fields of elementary and exceptional education. She has been employed by the Duval County School Board for 28 years (T 467- 468). For seven years, she taught educable mentally retarded students and for eighteen years taught elementary education (T 468-469). Prior to the 1984-85 school year, Ms. Jones taught elementary education at Beauclerc Elementary School for twelve years (T 469). Until the 1984-85 school year she had received satisfactory performance evaluations for each of her years of employment (T 470, Res. Ex. 3). Respondent received unsatisfactory evaluations from two different principals at two different schools for the 1984-85 and 1985-86 school years. At the end of the 1983-84 school year, Ms. Jones transferred to a school closer to where her mother lived because her mother, who was an alcoholic, had health problems (T 146,472). Ms. Jones requested and ultimately received a transfer to the Hyde Park Elementary School where she was employed for the 1984-85 school year (T 475). During the summer of 1984, Ms. Jones experienced a number of personal family problems. On July 25, 1984, her son was arrested and charged with sexual battery. This same son had been previously charged and convicted of the same offense and had served over six years in prison. The son was tried in December 1984 and acquitted of the charge, but returned to jail for violation of his parole (T 476-478). In addition, Ms. Jones' daughter had dropped out of college and started writing a series of bad checks. Ms. Jones was concerned about the welfare of her family (T 479, 145-146). In January 1985 Ms. Jones sought the aid of a board certified psychiatrist and neurologist, Dr. John Stamm (T 144), who treated Respondent between January 23, 1985 and July 15, 1985 (T 144-149), while Respondent was at Timucuan Elementary School. Ms. Jones reported to Dr. Stamm that she had been depressed for about six months prior to seeing him and that she was having crying spells and difficulty sleeping (T 146). Dr. Stamm's diagnosis was that Respondent had suffered "a major depressive episode," which he treated with medication and psychotherapy, and which he felt was situationally related to the problems Respondent's mother, daughter, and son were having (T 149,150). As part of his treatment, Dr. Stamm prescribed "a significant amount of antidepressant medication" for Respondent (T 157). Dr. Stamm testified that Respondent's significant depression would have had an adverse impact on her work performance (T 160, 163) and could have been detected by some of the students in her class leading to a sense of unease or concern on their part (T 161). Dr. Stamm stated that most frequently depressive episodes are time limited, but that he was unable to determine whether the Respondent's condition was time limited or permanent (T 150). The principal at Hyde Park Elementary School during the 1984-85 school year was Virginia K. Greene. Greene observed the Respondent's work during the 1984-85 school year. Respondent was unable to maintain discipline, keep the children on task, and present her lessons in an organized fashion. Respondent jumped from one subject to another, losing the interest and the attention of the students in the process (T 82-83). Respondent's relationship and rapport with parents of the children in her class was poor. Respondent was absent from school on a total of 31 occasions during the 1984-85 school year, was tardy on numerous other occasions, and on various occasions failed to notify the school so that proper substitute teachers could be arranged (T 71-73). Ms. Greene attempted to secure assistance for Respondent from the School Board's teaching cadre. The teaching cadre assists teachers in their techniques. Respondent refused this assistance. Respondent never explained her family problems to Greene, nor gave Greene any reason why a teacher with her background was having problems. In accordance with the collective bargaining agreement and the documentation requirements of the School Board, Ms. Jones received an official notice of deficiencies (Pet. Ex. 4, Res. Ex. 1, Para. A-5) and had a conference with Greene regarding the notice. Although Jones' performance had improved, it was not enough to justify a satisfactory performance evaluation (T 504-508). On March 15, 1985, Ms. Greene gave Ms. Jones an unsatisfactory rating on her annual evaluation form. Ms. Jones received a total of nine reduction points on her evaluation form (Pet. Ex. 7, Res. Ex. 1, Para. A-1), one more than the maximum of eight which is considered unsatisfactory. Ms. Jones received eight of the nine reduction points in four areas under classroom management. Ms. Greene was an experienced teacher and principal and qualified to assess the Respondent's work. In Ms. Greene's opinion, the Respondent was not a competent teacher during the year based upon Greene's observations and those of the teaching cadre reporting to Greene. Greene's evaluation reflected her assessment of the Respondent's performance. In Greene's opinion, the students in Respondent's class did not have a successful year during the 1984-85 school year. The teacher evaluation form provides 36 factors or areas of teacher competency which are to be evaluated. No guidelines are provided to the evaluators on performance indicators to be used to evaluate each area of competency (T 140). Ms. Greene had a set of predetermined indicators based upon her experience that she used to evaluate all teachers. Some of the indicators Greene used to determine competency in classroom management were common to more than one of the six areas assessed under management. Structured observation forms are provided for the evaluation of beginning teachers. The forms for beginning teachers are more objective than the ones used for tenured teachers (T 399-400). Ms. Greene testified that in the 1984-85 school year, she used the same evaluation system for all the teachers whom she rated (T 186). Of the 28 teachers evaluated by Ms. Greene, only Ms. Jones received a less than satisfactory or a "needs improvement" rating in any of the 36 rated factors (T 180-185). Following the conclusion of the 1984-85 school year, Respondent was given the opportunity to transfer to a new school as required by Section 4(e)(2) of the Tenure Act. Respondent availed herself of that opportunity and transferred to Timucuan Elementary School, where she was employed during the 1985-86 school year. Jane Sharpe Condon was the principal at Timucuan Elementary School at the beginning of the 1985-86 school year. Ms. Condon reviewed Ms. Jones' personnel file and was aware that Ms. Jones was classified as a less than satisfactory (LTS) teacher. Ms. Condon counseled with Respondent, concentrating on the areas of indicated weakness (T 243, 244, 288). In addition, Condon counseled Respondent about avoiding derogatory remarks about students and the school, and the importance of maintaining professional relationships with parents and with school staff (T 244-248). Condon prepared a plan for Respondent to improve her classroom management. Ms. Condon followed the Board's instruction of documenting and establishing a record of Ms. Jones' performance, compiling a large number of documents regarding Ms. Jones' performance (T 275-276; Res. Ex. 1, 1a-4, b-2, b- 3, b-5; Pet. Ex. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24). During the 1985-86 school year, Ms. Condon evaluated Ms. Jones two times as required, once in October 1985 and again in March 1986, and rated Ms. Jones unsatisfactory (Res. Ex. 23, 24). Ms. Condon arranged for Betty John Miller, the school's reading resource teacher, and Marilyn Russell, a member of the Duval County School Board teaching cadre, to provide assistance for Respondent during the 1985-86 school year (T 248-249). Ms. Condon observed Respondent's classes. Respondent's class completely ignored Respondent's instructions. Respondent failed to maintain the students' attention. The Respondent "overdwelled" in her lesson presentation. The Respondent interrupted her teaching on numerous occasions to threaten disciplinary action against unruly students, but she failed to follow through when students continued their disruptive behavior (T 257-258). Betty John Miller, the reading resource teacher at Timucuan Elementary School during the 1985-86 school year, worked with the Respondent and observed her class in order to assist Respondent in improving her teaching technique. Respondent was unable to conduct a reading group with part of her class and keep the remainder of the class on task with their given assignments. Although Respondent listened to Miller's suggestions, she did not follow through in implementing them (T 306-307). Marilyn Diane Russell, a member of the Duval County School Board teaching cadre, observed the Respondent's teaching during the 1985-86 school year. Respondent had difficulty in communicating orally with her students and too frequently repeated instructions to the children (T 341). Respondent was unable to organize a lesson with a review, introduction and development of new material, practice activities, follow-up and another review (T 347). Respondent made excessive use of questions which require the simple recitation of facts. In the latter part of January or the early part of February, 1986, Russell was transferred to another position and ceased working with Respondent. Another member of the teaching cadre, Barbara Vandervort, began working with Respondent (T 357). Ms. Vandervort consulted with Ms. Russell, reviewed Respondent's file, and consulted with Ms. Condon to assure that there would be no break in the efforts to assist Respondent. (T 407-412). Ms. Vandervort worked with Respondent on numerous occasions in an effort to improve Respondent's behavior management and to eliminate her use of repeated reprimands in an attempt to keep order in the classroom (T 413-414). The deficiencies identified by Ms. Condon were still present during the latter part of the 1985-86 school year (T 417-418) when Vandervort observed Respondent's work. Ms. Vandervort saw student throw rubber bands at Respondent, who told the student to take a seat in the back of the room. When the student failed to do so, Respondent took no further disciplinary action (T 416). Ms. Vandervort observed that Respondent was unable to put all of the elements of a proper lesson development together at one time or to teach a complete lesson (T 416-417). Ms. Vandervort, Ms. Russell, and Ms. Miller reported their observations to Ms. Condon. Based upon these reports and her own observations, Ms. Condon evaluated Respondent's performance as below standard for the 1985-86 school year although there was some slight improvement noted from time to time (T 270-271). Condon did not consider Respondent competent as a teacher during the 1985-86 school year (T 271-272). The general memorandum on Evaluation of Instruction Personnel (Res. Ex. 1) was the only written instruction Ms. Condon received to assist her in compiling teacher evaluations (T 276-277). Respondent stated that her personal and psychiatric problems interfered with her performance during the 1984-85 school year and that she did not have a good year (T 539 & 540). Respondent admitted that it would have been better to have taken leave in order to work out her personal problems rather than continue to teach (T 541). Respondent admitted that she "probably did have problems" at the beginning of the 1985-86 school year, but that she felt she improved enough during the course of the year to be rated as satisfactory (T 547). Donna Darby, Respondent's principal at Beauclerc Elementary School during the 1983-84 school year, testified that Respondent's performance declined markedly during the latter part of 1983-84. Ms. Darby also testified that she discussed this problem with Respondent and indicated to Respondent that if her performance did not improve during the 1984-85 school year, Ms. Darby would request "additional support help" for Respondent (T 458-459). Respondent testified that she did not remember any conversations with Ms. Darby concerning her performance during the latter part of the 1983-84 school year (T 471-472). Numerous letters or memoranda were written to Respondent by various persons in an effort to point out her deficiencies and to offer suggestions for improvement. Her principals provided Respondent with clear and detailed statements of Respondent's deficiencies throughout 1984-85 and 1985-86. The School Board provided Respondent with limited in-service training during the 1985-86 school year in addition to the assistance of the teaching cadre. Respondent was afforded a public hearing, was informed of the nature and cause of the accusations, has confronted the accusing witnesses, was allowed to subpoena witnesses and papers, and secured the assistance of counsel. Neither the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act nor Duval County School Board has formally defined the term "professional incompetency;" however, the term is not specialized and is capable of general proof. At the start of the 1984-85 school year, the Respondent had a number of children with disciplinary problems (T 485); however, the children with disciplinary problems were evenly distributed among the four other third grade classes, as were the better students (T 70). During the first few months of 1984-85, Ms. Greene transferred four students from Ms. Jones' class (Pet. Ex. 3). The transfers were made primarily because of parent complaints to her (T 63-64) about Ms. Jones'. Ms. Greene did not have a cipal/teacher/parent conference with Ms. Jones to discuss the problems (T 493-495). During the entire school year, neither Ms. Russell nor Ms. Vandervort gave a demonstration class for Ms. Jones (T 524). The only help given by Ms. Russell and Ms. Vandervort other than critiques after their observations was a handwriting kit and two booklets (T 528-529, Res. Ex. 4, 5). The procedures utilized by the School Board are designed to document its decision to discharge a teacher as much as the procedures are intended to assist the teacher to improve his or her performance. No competent evidence was presented that the evaluation procedure used by the Duval County School Board is invalid. All of the Respondent's principals were teachers of significant experience, as well as having been principals for a number of years, and were qualified to evaluate the Respondent's performance. The acute depression from which Respondent suffered during the 1984-85 school year degraded her performance of her duties; however, her uncontroverted testimony was that she could now perform her duties. The data on class performance by students in Respondent's classes based on Jt. Exh. A, B, C & D reveals the following: At Hyde Park Elementary School, the grades of Respondent's class on the Standford Achievement Test were: Class Reading Math Rm. 13 53.88 55.64 Rm. 15 (Jones) 55.52 49.74 Rm. 16 60.23 50.42 Rm. 18 54.04 52.04 At Timucuan Elementary School the grades of the Respondent's class on the Standford Achievement Test were: Class Reading Math Rm. 18 1/ 62.00 54.52 Rm. 19 (Jones) 44.55 49.41 Rm. 20 43.52 47.19 Rm. 22 43.62 46.73 Rm. 24 2/ 72.23 81.73 At Hyde Park Elementary School the scores on the Essential Skills Test reflected Respondent's class had the next to the highest math performance and the lowest scores in reading, the opposite of the indications of the Standford Achievement Test. At Timucuan Elementary School the scores on the Essential Skills Test reflected the reading scores of the Respondent's students rose 6/10's, and her class was next to the worst class (Rm. 20) whose score fell from 80 to 74.6. The math scores of her class were the lowest. Again, these results are contrary to the Standford Achievement Test. The data above is counter to the opinion of the principals at both schools that Respondent's students suffered significantly in their learning. The Respondent's classes were average on the Standford Achievement Test which is indicative of a successful year.
Recommendation In the absence of the degree of proof required and mindful that the Respondent has been employed as a school teacher in Florida for over 25 years and that no action should be taken by the School Board which would have a chilling effect upon employees seeking professional help with mental and emotional problems, it is RECOMMENDED that: The complaint against Respondent be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of February, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 26th day of February, 1988.
Findings Of Fact During the 1977-78 school year, the Respondent, Erma Frederick, was employed as a classroom teacher in the Dade County Public School System, assigned to Buena Vista Elementary School. On October 10, 1977, a conference was scheduled between the Respondent, United Teachers of Dade, Representative, Ms. Mattie Squire and Ms. Linda E. Stuart, Principal of Buena Vista Elementary School. During the conference, Respondent was advised that based on two years of unsatisfactory evaluations (1973-74 and 1974-75) deficiencies in her teaching performance existed which, if not corrected by December 1, 1977, would affect her status as an employee in the Dade County Public School System and which, if not corrected by December 1, a complaint of incompetency would be filed seeking Respondent's dismissal. The substance of this conference was reduced to writing by letter dated October 10, 1977, and cited the following deficiencies: Failure to maintain pupil control by establishing and maintaining discipline. Failure to file instructional plans. Failure to implement lesson plans and to present materials correctly. Failure to correctly grade student papers and maintain accurate grade books. Failure to properly maintain cumulative records and to maintain attendance and other data entries on report cards. Failure to accurately take attendance. Failure to follow class schedules. Failure to maintain supervision of pupils at all times. Based on the Respondent's failure to otherwise remedy the above cited deficiencies to Petitioner's satisfaction, Petitioner suspended Respondent from her position as an instructional teacher on March 9, 1978. Respondent, although properly noticed, failed to appear at the hearing to refute the cited deficiencies relied on by Petitioner in suspending her as an instructional employee at Buena Vista Elementary School. Based thereon, and in the absence of any evidence having been offered by Respondent to refute or otherwise negate the above-cited deficiencies, they must be, and are, considered meritorious.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent's appeal of her suspension by Petitioner be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of April, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact Except to the extent they are consistent with these Findings of Fact, all proposed findings of fact are rejected as either not supported by competent, substantial evidence, contrary to the greater weight of the evidence or irrelevant. On November 6, 1974, LaRosa was granted a Florida Teacher's Certificate and subsequently was employed by the Duval County School System. On October 24, 1975, LaRosa failed to appear at 3 a.m. for work as a substitute teacher in the P.E. Department at John Gorrie Junior High School. After having been involved in a car accident the night before and not having gotten to sleep until 5 a.m., LaRosa overslept and therefore did not notify the school board that he would be absent or advise the school of the reason for his failure to appear for class until noon that day. On or about February 25, 1976, LaRosa was convicted in Duval County, Florida, of driving while intoxicated on the previous February 15. He was fined $200, and his driver's license was suspended for three months. On June 9, 1976, LaRosa was arrested in Duval County, Florida, for driving while intoxicated on that day. On or about July 2, 1976, LaRosa was convicted in Duval County, Florida, of having driven while intoxicated on June 9, 1976. He was sentenced to ten days in the Duval County Jail. LaRosa's convictions, set forth above, were considered by the Professional Practices Council of the Department of Education. The Council found "no probable cause to believe that the certificate be revoked or suspended at this time . . . and a letter of warning regarding repeated offenses be directed to the educator." By letter dated September 23, 1976, the Council warned LaRosa against future conduct that would reduce his effectiveness as an educator. Subsequent to the events set forth in the proceeding Findings of Fact, LaRosa left the teaching field and his certificate lapsed. From 1978 to the present, he has engaged in a number of employment positions unconnected with the field of education. On or about May 5, 1981, LaRosa was arrested for disorderly intoxication and public disturbance in Duval County, Florida. He subsequently was convicted on his plea of guilty and sentenced to 15 days' suspended sentence with six months' probation. In or about September, 1981, LaRosa was arrested for disorderly intoxication in Duval County, Florida. On November 18, 1981, be was convicted of that offense and violation of the probation alleged in the preceding paragraph. The court sentenced LaRosa to 68 days in jail (58 days were suspended) and given six months' probation for that offense, as well as for the violation of probation with regard to the previous offense. On or about July 6, 1982, LaRosa was convicted in Duval County, Florida, for driving while intoxicated during the previous March. He was sentenced to 38 days in jail. LaRosa's Application for Teacher's Certificate was received by DOE on August 26, 1982. The application reflects that it was signed by LaRosa and that be swore and subscribed to its accuracy before a notary public on August 20, 1982. In the application, LaRosa was asked the following question: Have you ever been convicted or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation or are there any criminal charges now pending against you other than minor traffic violations? The application then provided spaces for a yes/no response and asked for details about any arrests, dates, nature of charges and dispositions. LaRosa's August 28, 1982, response to the foregoing question was simply that he had been arrested in "Jax Fla" and that the nature of the charge(s) was "DWI." LaRosa failed to include any further statement about the nature of his charges, and he did not include any information or reference to the dates and dispositions of the arrests and convictions set forth in the preceding paragraphs. On February 25, 1983, LaRosa was convicted in Duval County, Florida, of driving while licensee was suspended in December 1982. He was sentenced to 68 days in jail with 58 days suspended and was placed on unsupervised probation. LaRosa was not intoxicated at the time of his arrest. At the time of the arrest for this incident, the police administered a field sobriety test, which LaRosa passed. The arrest report states that LaRosa bad been drinking. LaRosa denies that he had been drinking. But the circumstances were suspicious and, coupled with the police officer's observations, prevent me from finding that LaRosa was not drinking. Since LaRosa has the ultimate burden of persuasion, I find that he had been drinking immediately prior to the time of his arrest. In a letter dated May 26, 1983, LaRosa responded to a letter from Professional Practices regarding his admission of "DWI" arrest on Section V of the Application for Teacher's Certificate. In his letter, LaRosa wrote: The explanation of my charges are as follows: Driving while under the influence of alcohol. Driving on a suspended license. Public intoxication. I was sentenced 18, 38, and 68 days for these offenses. On October 6, 1983, LaRosa was again convicted in Duval County, Florida, for driving while license was suspended. For that offense, LaRosa received a 38-day suspended sentence and a $25 fine. When LaRosa was stopped by police, he at first misstated his name but was not intoxicated. At the time of the arrest, LaRosa again was given and apparently passed a field sobriety test. LaRosa denies having been drinking. But, again, the circumstances were suspicious, and the police arrest report contains a statement that the policeman thought LaRosa bad been drinking. Therefore, I find that LaRosa had been drinking just before the time of his arrest. LaRosa claims that be stopped drinking in August, 1982, after being released from jail, and that he has not been drinking since. As stated, I find his claim not to be completely accurate. He attended Alcoholics Anonymous meetings at least twice a month during the year 1982 and attended eight to ten meetings in 1983. At the time of the final hearing, LaRosa had not been to an AA meeting in four months. LaRosa's personal conduct, set forth above, seriously reduces his effectiveness as a teacher. Mr. Nolan G. Gillmore, Secretary Staffing Supervisor for the Duval County School Board, gave opinion testimony in the area of education and personnel administration in Duval County and the State of Florida and in the area of effectiveness of teachers. Mr. Gillmore is of the opinion that, at this time, LaRosa's conduct would disqualify him from being a person the Duval County School System would hire as a teacher. Mr. Gillmore also is of the opinion that, at this time, LaRosa could not be an effective teacher because of the effect of his conduct on his relationship with his students and that be would have difficulty in his relationships with his fellow teachers and the community. Finally, Mr. Gillmore opined that, upon the evidence DOE presented at the final bearing, the Duval County School System would move to terminate LaRosa if he were a teacher in the system. LaRosa concedes to wrongdoing and says he would "take a two-year suspension." He thinks he has rehabilitated himself from his drinking problems and thinks be can be a good teacher. So does his friend, Paul Galloway, who is a teacher and has taught with LaRosa in the past. But, Mr. Gillmore's testimony was more persuasive than the testimony of LaRosa and Galloway.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Education Practices Commission deny this application of Anthony W. LaRosa for a Florida Teacher's Certificate. RECOMMENDED this 15th of March, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 15th day of March, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Anthony W. LaRosa 3554 College Place Jacksonville, Florida 32204 Wilson Jerry Foster, Esquire 616 Lewis State Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Donald L. Griesheimer Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
