The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to damages and back salary for the period of April 22, 2004, through May 31, 2006, pursuant to Subsection 1012.33(3)(g), Florida Statutes (2007), as well as interest and attorney's fees.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Charles V. Keene, has been employed by Respondent, the School Board of Escambia County, as a full-time Florida-certified public school teacher since April 22, 2004, under a series of annual contracts. Prior to his employment with Respondent, Petitioner was a full-time public school teacher in Alabama for 20 years and received satisfactory performance evaluations throughout the 20 years. At the time he was hired by Respondent, commencing April 22, 2004, Petitioner received credit for salary schedule placement for the one year he had previously taught in Florida, and for the two years he had taught in Georgia. He requested, but did not receive, credit for the 20 years of instructional service in the state of Alabama that he utilized to obtain his retirement in Alabama. Respondent operates under a collective bargaining agreement known as the "Master Contract." The Master Contract includes, among other things, a salary schedule that is the result of negotiations with the Escambia Educational Association ("EEA"), the collective bargaining agent that represents teachers. The negotiated salary schedule is then recommended by the Superintendent of Escambia County Schools pursuant to Subsection 1012.27(2), Florida Statutes, to Respondent for approval and adoption. The salary schedule adopted by Respondent governs the compensation payable to instructional personnel. The salary schedule includes "steps" with corresponding "salary." Placement on the salary schedule step depends, in part upon prior teaching experience. Generally, more prior teaching experience credited for placement on the schedule results in a higher level of compensation. At the time of Petitioner's hire on April 22, 2004, the Master Contract in place was the contract for the period of 1999-2002, extended by agreement of Respondent and the EEA until July 21, 2004. According to the Master Contract in effect on Petitioner's date of hire, limitations were placed on the amount of prior teaching experience that could be used for determining placement on the salary schedule. For example, credit for prior teaching, military, governmental, or employment service, not including Florida public school teaching experience, was limited to a maximum of fifteen years. The Master Contract also contained a specific provision for placement of retired educators. The contract provided as follows: II.5(C) Placement for Retired Educators Educators who retired from Escambia District Schools and who return to full time employment in Escambia District Schools shall be placed on Step 5 of Appendix A- Instructional Salary Schedule. Educators who retired from any other school district shall be placed on Step 0 of Appendix A-Instructional Salary Schedule. The effect of this provision was that Petitioner received no credit for the 20 years of Alabama teaching when placed on the salary schedule. Employees' rights for placement on the salary schedule are determined by the date of hire. With credit being given for prior teaching experience in Florida and Georgia, but without credit for 20 years of teaching experience in Alabama, Petitioner was placed on the salary schedule in accordance with the provisions of the Master Contract in effect at the time of his hire. Petitioner received annual instruction contracts under the authority of Section 231.36(2), Florida Statutes (later renumbered Section 1012.33(3), Florida Statutes). Petitioner's annual instructional contracts set forth the contract salary on an annual basis payable through twelve monthly installments. The contract specified the number of days to be worked and the daily rate of compensation. Respondent's standard form contract provides that "[t]his annual contract shall be deemed amended to comply with all laws, all lawful rules of the State Board of Education, all lawful rules and actions of the School Board and all terms of an applicable ratified collective-bargaining agreement." Respondent, as a matter of practice, provides newly hired teachers with information on how they are placed on the salary schedule. Additionally, Respondent's website has information available with a link to the Master Contract language which demonstrates how instructors are placed on the salary schedule. Human Resources staff members are instructed that the Master Plan governs placement of newly hired instructors on the salary schedule, and they advise the newly hired instructors of placement on the salary schedule. At the time of his hire, Petitioner was told he would not be credited on the salary schedule for his Alabama teaching experience which led to his retirement in that state after 20 years. Petitioner acknowledged that he received a copy of the Master Contract in August of 2004, when the school year started. Petitioner knew, at the time of hire, that his rate of pay was based on his placement on the salary schedule. Petitioner had agreed at that time to perform the services required by his contract based upon the compensation set forth in the contract. Petitioner inquired about receiving credit for his 20 years of teaching experience in Alabama at the time he was hired by Respondent. At that time, Petitioner was told by Judy Fung, an employee with Respondent's human resources office, that Petitioner would not be granted credit for his 20 years of teaching experience in Alabama. Petitioner provided Respondent, shortly after he was hired, all the necessary paperwork to document his 20 years of satisfactory service as a teacher in Alabama. Petitioner performed the agreed-upon instructional services and was paid the agreed-upon contractual amount. Petitioner's annual instructional contract specifies the salary paid through twelve monthly installments with a daily rate of compensation identified. The amount of compensation can be further broken down into an hourly rate based upon 7.5 hours per day, and provides for annual leave and sick leave. As is customary, if the employee takes leave and has no accrued leave balance, his pay will be reduced to compensate for the hours of leave without pay taken. Respondent maintains ledgers with all the compensation information for its employees, including Petitioner. The statutory provision governing credit for prior teaching experience at issue in this hearing is former Subsection 231.36(3)(g), renumbered through amended versions to Subsection 1012.33(3)(g), Florida Statutes. Although the statute has been amended several times since 2001, the language that applies to all instructional employees (which includes public school classroom teachers pursuant to Subsection 1012.01(2)(a), Florida Statutes) hired after June 30, 2001, remains the same: "[F]or purposes of pay, a school board must recognize and accept each year of full-time public school teaching service earned in the state of Florida or outside the state." The original version of the statute effective July 1, 2001, included language that this statutory provision "is not intended to interfere with the operation of a collective bargaining agreement except to the extent it requires the agreement to treat years of teaching experience outside the district the same as years of teaching experience within the district." § 231.35(3)(g), Fla. Stat. (2001). The statute was amended effective January 7, 2003, removing the reference to collective bargaining and clarifying that the statutory provision applied only to public school teachers. § 1012.33(3)(g), Fla. Stat. (2003). The Master Contract was amended effective July 22, 2004, to include language referencing Subsection 1012.33(3)(g), Florida Statutes. The changes to the Master Contract, however, applied only to those instructors hired after July 22, 2004. Petitioner, and certain other teachers hired after June 30, 2001, but before July 22, 2004, have requested their placement on the salary schedule be revised to include credit for previous years of teaching experience. Those requesting a revised placement on the salary schedule based upon uncredited experience include teachers who had previously retired utilizing that credit and some who had not retired. Respondent, uncertain as to the proper application of the statute, has addressed claims for placement on the salary schedule and/or past compensation on a case-by-case basis. In February 2006, Petitioner became aware that Respondent's position concerning his requested credit for 20 years of teaching experience in Alabama may have been incorrect. Petitioner made a request for retroactive credit and for back salary for his 20 years of teaching experience in Alabama in June 2006, and again provided Respondent with documentation of his Alabama satisfactory teaching experience. Petitioner's request for credit and back salary was refused. The only reason given to him at the time was that he failed to make his request within two years of his hire date. At the direction of its General Counsel and after approval by the School Board, Respondent's placement on the salary schedule was amended effective June 1, 2006, to allow credit for his 20 years of teaching experience in Alabama. Respondent's human resources department does not know why the retroactive credit and salary increase were allowed for Petitioner, nor why the date of June 1, 2006, was chosen, especially when the collective bargaining agreement, according to Respondent, does not allow such credit. Petitioner seeks from Respondent 20 years of service credit and back salary for his satisfactory Alabama teaching experience for the period of April 22, 2004, through May 31, 2006, in the amount of $39,209.50. Petitioner also seeks reimbursement of reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and interest, both pre- and post- judgment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Escambia County School Board enter a final order denying Petitioner's claim for back salary in the amount of $39,209.50, as well as pre- and post-judgment interest on this amount, and attorney's fees and costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of December, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of December, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph L. Hammons, Esquire Hammons, Longoria & Whittaker, P.A. 17 West Cervantes Street Pensacola, Florida 32501-3125 Michael J. Stebbins, Esquire Michael J. Stebbins, P.L. 504 North Baylen Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jim Paul, Superintendent Escambia County School Board 215 West Garden Street Pensacola, Florida 32502-5782
The Issue The issues here are as presented through an administrative complaint brought by the Petitioner against Respondent. In particular, it is alleged that Respondent falsified applications related to her certification as a teacher in the State of Florida and her employment as a teacher in the Duval County, Florida School System. In particular it is alleged that Respondent falsely answered questions pertaining to her arrest or conviction for a misdemeanor offense in Jacksonville, Florida. For these acts, Respondent is alleged to have violated Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, in that she has obtained her teaching certificate by fraudulent means and been guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces her effectiveness as an employee of the school system. Moreover, it is alleged that further fraud was committed related to Rule 6B- 1.06(5)(a)(g) and (h) Florida Administrative Code, pertaining to fraudulent statements or disclosures.
Findings Of Fact On April 28, 1981, Shirley Lambert made application to be certified as a teacher in the fields of health education and physical education. This certification request was made with a State of Florida, Department of Education Teacher Certification section. A copy of the application may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, admitted into evidence. As part of the application, question V asks, "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?" Lambert responded in the negative. Lambert also signed the application form below that portion of the application related to notarization which states "I understand that Florida Statutes provide revocation of a teacher's certificate if evidence and proof is established that the certificate is obtained by fraudulent means. (Section 231.28 FS). I certify that all information pertaining to this application is true and correct." As a result of this application, Respondent was issued a teacher's certificate from the State of Florida, Department of Education in the field of physical education. The date of the issuance was June 25, 1982, for a period ending June 30, 1983. A copy of this certificate is found as petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence. In fact, as was known to the Respondent at the time of making the application for certificate, she had been arrested and charged with petit theft for an offense that occurred on April 11, 1978, the taking of clothing less than $100 in value. The basis of the charge was Section 812.014(2)(c), Florida Statutes. Respondent pled guilty to this offense and was given a ten day jail sentence which was suspended and probation imposed for a period of six months. The particulars of this disposition may be found in Petitioner's composite Exhibit No. 3, which contained records of court related to the offense. On August 10, 1982, Respondent made application for employment with the Duval County School Board, Jacksonville, Florida. A copy of that application may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. This application had a similar question related to prior criminal offenses. The application stated, "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?" Again, the question was answered in the negative although Respondent was aware of the aforementioned criminal violation at the time she answered this questionnaire. The application was signed by Respondent and at the place of signature, Lambert was exposed to the language at the signature line which states "I certify that all information on this application is true and accurate and recognize that it is subject to verification and that my employment and/or continuance thereof is contingent upon its accuracy." Not being mindful of her prior criminal involvement the Duval County School System hired Respondent as a substitute teacher on September 13, 1982. Her criminal record was later disclosed to the administrators within that system and her employment was terminated effective October 12, 1982. Had the administration known of the prior criminal involvement, they would not have hired Lambert in view of the fact that they could be more selective and not choose a person with a prior criminal involvement, given the high number of applicants for jobs within their system. Dalton Epting, Director of Certified personnel of Duval County Public Schools, felt that a prior conviction of a misdemeanor offense of petit larceny would be in violation of standards required of teachers in Duval County. Likewise, the offense of petit larceny would be sufficient grounds to deny certification when requested of the State of Florida, Department of Education. Respondent testified that in the course of the final hearing and indicated in discussing both applications which are at issue that she read those applications too fast and made a mistake in answering the questions related to her prior criminal involvement. She felt in effect that she had not read the applications carefully. Moreover, in giving her explanation at final hearing, even though she recognized her prior criminal involvement in the way of arrest and the plea of guilty to petit theft, she stated that she did not feel the questions in the applications related to misdemeanors. She was of the opinion that the questions pertained to more serious crimes. Given the plain language of the questions in the application for certification with the State of Florida and the application for a position with the Duval County School Board and the precautionary statements related to accuracy and possible penalties for inaccuracy, Respondent's explanations are not plausible. Respondent's comments do not constitute a reasonable excuse for having falsified her applications for certification and employment.
The Issue Whether Petitioner has cause to terminate Respondent's professional service contract based on his failure to correct his performance deficiencies during his 90-Day Performance Probation. Whether Respondent’s performance was properly evaluated.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was a classroom teacher employed by Petitioner pursuant to a professional service contract. At all times material hereto, Petitioner was a duly constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Article IX, Constitution of the State of Florida, and Section 230.03, Florida Statutes. Petitioner has employed Respondent as a classroom teacher since 1993. He taught at Redland Middle School from 1993 to 1996. He taught at South Miami Senior High School from 1996 to 1999. During the times pertinent to this proceeding (the school years 1999/2000 and 2000/2001) Respondent taught eighth grade math at Palmetto. Between 1984 and the school year 1999/2000 all teachers employed by Petitioner were evaluated under the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS). The United Teachers of Dade (UTD) is the collective bargaining unit representing all classroom teachers employed by Petitioner, including Respondent. In 1997, Chapter 231, Florida Statutes, was amended to provide for a 90-day performance probation period for annual and professional service contract teachers who are observed to have unsatisfactory performance. 1/ Petitioner and the UTD collectively bargained a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to implement the 90-day performance probation. The new evaluation system is known as PACES, an acronym for the Professional Assessment and Comprehensive Evaluation System. The MOU amended the collective bargaining agreement between the UTD and Petitioner to authorize the replacement of TADS with PACES. During the 1999/2000 school year, the School Board piloted PACES in selected schools. During the 2000/2001 school year, PACES was utilized throughout the school district. Teacher evaluations at Palmetto were performed pursuant to PACES during the 1999/2000 and the 2000/2001 school years. The evaluations at issue in this proceeding were performed pursuant to PACES. PACES has been approved by the Florida Department of Education. PACES observers must be extensively trained to observe and evaluate teaching performance and student learning. School supervisory personnel perform PACES observations and evaluations. The principal and two assistant principals at Palmetto performed the observations and evaluations at issue in this proceeding. Respondent asserted at the final hearing that certain administrators who participated in observing and evaluating Respondent were insufficiently trained. That assertion is rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. PACES was a major district initiative, and both teachers and administrators received extensive training in PACES. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that the principal and the assistant principals at Palmetto who observed and evaluated Respondent were appropriately trained in observing and evaluating teachers in accordance with PACES procedures. 2/ Individual schools across the district, including Palmetto, conducted PACES training for teachers. During the 2000/2001 school year each faculty member at Palmetto had a handbook which contained PACES information, including discussion on each domain, the indicators, the PACES website, and training videos on the website. Several faculty meetings were devoted to discussions of PACES. There were mini-workshops within various departments at Palmetto and all-day workshops for teachers were available in the district. The Palmetto assistant principals divided all six domains between themselves and explained and discussed them with the faculty. A projector was used to show the teachers how to get to the PACES website on the computers. There were 300 computers for teacher use at Palmetto by which Petitioner’s website could be accessed. The faculty meetings at Palmetto were mandatory. If a teacher missed any of the meetings, it was the teacher’s responsibility to come to an administrator to find out what was missed. Teachers who missed meetings were given the handouts that had been utilized at the faculty meetings. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent knew, or should have known, the evaluation criteria of PACES. 3/ Prior to the beginning of the 90-day probation under PACES an appropriately trained administrator must observe the teacher's classroom performance and find that performance to be below articulated standards. This observation is officially referred to as the “initial observation not of record.” Unofficially, this observation is referred to as the “freebie.” The freebie observation triggers the probation process, but it is not used to terminate a teacher’s employment. The same administrator who conducted the freebie observation meets with the teacher, goes over the observation, and notifies the teacher that he or she will be observed in approximately one month. The administrator offers a PGT to the teacher, the use of which by the teacher is voluntary at this point. Next is the “first observation of record,” which is unofficially referred to as the "kickoff observation." If this observation is below performance standards, a Conference-for- the-Record (CFR) is held. Next, a Professional Improvement Plan (PIP) is first given to the teacher, and the 90-day Performance Probation begins the next day. The Performance Probation lasts 90 days, not counting certain specified weekends and school holidays. There must be two official observations within the 90-day period. A PIP is given after any official observation that is below performance standards. If the second official observation is below performance standards, a confirmatory observation takes place after the end of the 90-day period to determine whether the teacher has corrected the deficiencies. The confirmatory observation must be completed within 14 days after the conclusion of the probationary period. The evaluator must thereafter forward to the Superintendent a recommendation whether to terminate the teacher's employment. In PACES, there are six domains. Each domain has components and each component has indicators. It takes only one unacceptable indicator for an observation to be rated below performance standards. If a teacher improves in a particular indicator from one observation to the next, but becomes unacceptable in another indicator, the second observation is rated below performance standards. Mr. Cromer conducted Respondent’s freebie observation on October 24, 2001. The observation did not meet performance standards. Mr. Cromer testified as to his observation of Respondent on October 24, 2001, and stated the reasons Respondent's performance did not meet standards. The following findings are based on Mr. Cromer’s testimony. Respondent did not meet performance standards because he was going over 30 homework problems and simply giving out the answers, not making an effort to know whether the students understood. He did not seek input from the students. The students had no opportunity to participate. There was no interaction between Respondent and the students. There was no introduction to the lesson, thereby failing to establish motivation to learn. Respondent did not tell the students what they should learn from the lesson or why it was important that they understand the material. Respondent failed to provide a logical sequence and pace. He was going much too fast for the students. Respondent only demonstrated one math problem, failing to demonstrate any of the others, although there were six different types of problems for review. Respondent failed to utilize higher order cognition, teaching at only one cognitive level. There was no effort to clarify, using different words or examples. The students were not encouraged to make any association or consider examples from their own experience. The students were not asked questions and were not given an opportunity to answer questions. Respondent did not monitor the engagement or involvement of the students in the learning process. He made no effort to gauge whether the students understood the material. He sought no questions from the students and gave no feedback. Then Respondent sat down for approximately fifteen to twenty minutes. He did not walk around to monitor what the students were doing. Most of the students were not doing their work. Respondent failed to meet performance standards in components of Domain III, Teacher- Learner Relationships; Domain IV, Enhancing and Enabling Learning; Domain V, Enabling Thinking; and Domain VI, Classroom- based Assessment of Learning. Mr. Cromer met with Respondent on November 1, 2001, and went over each item on the observation and explained why Respondent did not meet performance standards. Mr. Cromer made suggestions for improvement. He advised Respondent that he would be coming back to do a follow-up observation and that Respondent was entitled to have a PGT. At first Respondent declined the PGT, but the next day, he accepted it. PGTs are for first year teachers and for any teacher on a PIP. PGTs are made up of seasoned teachers who are trained in PACES and give support and assistance to other teachers. Usually the administration chooses one member of the PGT and the teacher chooses the other. In this case, Respondent was permitted to choose both teachers. He chose Vivian Taylor and Maria Mayo. Both teachers gave appropriate assistance to Respondent. Under PACES, the same administrator who conducted the freebie observation must conduct the kickoff observation. On November 26, 2001, Mr. Cromer conducted Respondent’s kickoff observation. Mr. Cromer testified as to his observation of Respondent on November 26, 2001, and stated the reasons Respondent's performance did not meet standards. The following findings are based on Mr. Cromer’s testimony. Respondent did not meet performance standards because many of the students in his class were excluded from the first twenty minutes while Respondent focused exclusively on two students at the board. One student finished her problem very quickly. The other student was completely confused. Respondent did the problem for him but did not make sure the student understood. The rest of the class was ignored during that time. The students were not given any explanations as to what the two students had done. The remainder of the class talked among themselves, looked around the class, and one student was sleeping. There was no introduction to the lesson and no transition into the second portion of the lesson. The students were not engaged in critical analysis or problem solving. Respondent did not develop any associations between the pie graph he was working on and its relationship to percentages and fractions. Respondent did not provide sufficient “wait time” after questions to encourage the students to think about the answers. Instead, the same few students called out answers. Respondent did not meet performance standards in components of Domain III, Teacher/Learner Relationships; Domain IV, Enhancing and Enabling Learning; and Domain V, Enabling Thinking. On December 5, 2001, Mr. Merker and Mr. Cromer held a CFR with Respondent and Respondent’s union representative to address Respondent’s substandard performance, his Performance Probation, recommendations to improve the specific areas of his unsatisfactory performance, and Respondent’s future employment status with the School Board. Respondent’s input was sought. Those in attendance at the meeting on December 5, 2001, met again the following day. Respondent’s input was again sought. He was given a copy of the summary of the CFR and a PIP at that time. The PIP required Respondent to read and summarize pertinent sections from the PACES manuals. Respondent’s Performance Probation began on December 7, 2001. The time frame was established with the help of OPS. Respondent was provided assistance through his PGT and his PIP to help him correct his deficiencies within the prescribed timeframe. Respondent's deadline to complete his PIP was January 10, 2002. On January 15, 2002, Mr. Merker conducted an official observation of Respondent in his classroom. Mr. Merker testified as to his observation of Respondent on January 15, 2002, and stated the reasons Respondent's performance did not meet standards. The following findings are based on Mr. Merker’s testimony. Respondent did not meet performance standards because the students were not actively engaged in learning. Only six students out of 27 were involved in the lesson. Many of the students did not have the materials and were not able to follow through with the lesson. Respondent did not monitor what the students were doing. Many students were off-task, inattentive, and bored. Respondent did not re-engage the students. Respondent did not re-direct the off-task behavior, which persisted for the entire period. Learning routines were not apparent. Respondent did not give directions for the lesson. Respondent’s explanations were unclear. No adjustments were made. Respondent did not assess the learning progress during the lesson. Respondent solicited only basic knowledge in his questioning. He did not utilize a range of questions to assess student understanding. Respondent did not meet performance standards in components of Domain II, Managing the Learning Environment; Domain IV, Enhancing and Enabling Learning; and Domain VI, Classroom-based Assessments of Learning. Mr. Merker conferred with Respondent on January 24, 2002, made recommendations with respect to the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance, and provided assistance through a PIP and PGT to help Respondent correct his deficiencies. The PIP required Respondent to observe other teachers and to view PACES vignettes. Respondent's deadline to complete his PIP was February 22, 2002. On February 27, 2002, Mr. Meneses conducted the second official formal observation of Respondent in his classroom. Mr. Meneses testified as to his observation of Respondent on February 27, 2002, and stated the reasons Respondent's performance did not meet standards. The following findings are based on Mr. Meneses’ testimony. Respondent did not meet performance standards because the students were not engaged in learning. After wasting 27 minutes copying numbers from the board, only three to four minutes were left for the main part of the lesson. Respondent wasted a lot of time during the lesson going over non-essential information, and the students were only presented with basic knowledge-level tasks. Inaccurate information was given by Respondent and accepted by the students. Students were not given "wait time" after a question to think about the answers. The learners were not given any introduction to the learning outcomes of the lesson. Respondent did not meet performance standards in components of Domain IV, Enhancing and Enabling Learning; and Domain V, Enabling Thinking. Mr. Meneses and Mr. Merker conferred with Respondent on March 5, 2002, made recommendations with respect to the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance and provided assistance through a PIP and PGT to help Respondent correct his deficiencies. Respondent’s PIP required him to complete a self- assessment through the PACES website. Respondent's deadline to complete his PIP was March 22, 2002. Respondent’s Performance Probation ended on March 24, 2002. Respondent completed all of the activities required by all of his PIPs. He never indicated that he had any difficulty understanding them. Because Respondent’s second observation within the Performance Probation was below performance standards, a confirmatory observation was required after the expiration of the 90 days to determine whether or not Respondent had corrected his performance deficiencies. On March 26, 2002, Mr. Merker completed Respondent’s confirmatory observation. Mr. Merker testified as to his observation of Respondent on March 26, 2002, and stated the reasons Respondent's performance did not meet standards. The following findings are based on Mr. Merker’s testimony. Respondent did not meet performance standards in components of Domain IV, Enhancing and Enabling Learning; Domain V, Enabling Thinking; and Domain VI, Classroom-based Assessments of Learning, because the lesson appeared staged. It was a lesson on fractions that had been presented approximately five weeks earlier. Respondent went full steam ahead regardless of what the students were doing. Respondent had not improved his questioning techniques since Mr. Merker’s prior observation. Mr. Merker notified Respondent on March 26, 2002, that Respondent had not satisfactorily corrected his performance deficiencies during his Performance Probation and that Mr. Merker was going to recommend to the Superintendent of Schools that Respondent’s employment be terminated. 4/ Mr. Merker notified the Superintendent of Schools on March 29, 2002, that Respondent had not satisfactorily corrected his performance deficiencies during his Performance Probation and recommended that Respondent's employment be terminated. On April 3, 2002, the Superintendent of Schools notified Respondent that the Superintendent was going to recommend that the School Board terminate Respondent's employment contract because Respondent had failed to satisfactorily correct his performance deficiencies during his Performance Probation. Petitioner established that it met all procedural requirements and time frames set forth by statute, by PACES, and by the MOU. Under the collective bargaining agreement and under PACES, a teacher is entitled to a fair, equitable, and impartial evaluation. Respondent’s evaluations were fair, equitable, and impartial. On April 17, 2002, the School Board acted upon the Superintendent's recommendation and terminated Respondent's employment contract subject to his due process rights.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, enter a final order sustaining the termination of Respondent's professional service contract, effective April 17, 2002. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 10th day of September, 2002.
Findings Of Fact Thomas W. Bennett was employed by the Sarasota County School Board in the 1967-68 school year, and assigned Shop and Drafting at the Venice Junior High School. In 1968 he was assigned a satisfactory evaluation by his principal, Mr. Guy Rose, for this school year. Respondent continued to receive satisfactory evaluations from Mr. Rose, and acquired continuing contract status or tenure. By 1971 the principal, Mr. Rose, was becoming concerned about Respondent's behavior patterns involving both students and faculty. Specifically, he was cornered about Respondent allowing students on one occasion to ride on a flat bed trailer without guard rails, and about erratic behavior evidenced by notes to other faculty members left on light cords and other odd places which in tone and content sometimes irritated the recipients. On one occasion Mr. Rose was notified that some students were at the shopping center a few blocks from the school during school hours, and upon investigation he learned they were assigned to Respondent's class and had been sent out of the class because they did not have materials with which to work. On another occasion Mr. Rose found the shop area unlocked and Respondent not in attendance. This latter he considered a safety hazard both from the standpoint of potential injury to students due to unattended power tools, as well as a potential loss of small hand tools due to pilferage. At a meeting held on March 4, 1971 to consider Respondent's request for additional lumber for his classes, these concerns were discussed and Mr. Bennett was advised by Mr. Rose that his performance needed to improve. Exhibit 2 documenting the meeting held March 4, 1971 was admitted into evidence. In 1971 and 1972 two incidents came to light regarding Respondent striking or otherwise committing a battery on students. On one occasion he struck Douglas Letson on the back of the head with a small piece of plywood approximately 1/4" thick. While working in his shop class Letson carelessly drilled through the piece of plywood into the table. When he observed this incident Respondent said "God dammit, don't drill through my table", (or words to that effect), picked up the piece of plywood on which Letson had been drilling and hit Letson on the back of the head with sufficient force to cause contusions and a subsequent swelling. The skin was not broken. On another occasion a student with a bleeding scalp wound reported to the Assistant Principal (Mr. Guy Bennett) that Respondent Bennett had struck him. Respondent denies ever having touched this student and the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that a battery was in fact committed. In 1973, after Mr. Guy Bennett had succeeded to the position of principal at Venice Junior High School, he received a report of Respondent Bennett striking a student and had the Acting Assistant Principal investigate. Exhibit 18, the Affidavit of Brett Gordon Derby attesting to being battered by Respondent, was admitted into evidence. Shortly after Guy Bennett succeeded to the position of principal he prepared a Performance Agreement, Exhibit 13, for Respondent Bennett. Therein he listed those areas wherein he considered Respondent's performance below acceptable levels. Following the concept of positive thinking these deficiencies were phrased as Operational Objectives. One operational objective was "Teacher will demonstrate self control - VJA goal #12 (no striking of students)". Another was "Teacher will maintain mutual respect in classroom - VJH goal #22 (no profanity directed at students)". Those schoolwide goals are contained in Exhibit 15, extraction from the FIO Manual presented at the hearing. Mr. Guy Bennett was also concerned regarding Respondent's grading practices. On one occasion after the principal suspended a student on Respondent's recommendation the parents of the suspended student appeared with their son's report card showing Respondent had marked their son "A" in merit and "E" (for excellent) in citizenship. At times Respondent assigned grades recommended by the class. Principal Bennett considered the drop-out rate in Respondent's class to be much higher than it should have been, and that many more of his disciplinary problems should have been resolved in the classroom. Once Principal Guy Bennett had Respondent apologize to two visiting parents who heard Respondent, after being advised over the high school public address system that he had a telephone call, respond over the public address system "aw shit". In February, 1975, while assigned to bus duty, Respondent saw Annette Lanning, a 13-year-old 8th grade student, enter the line getting on a bus at a point near the beginning of the line. Annette Lanning and the bus driver both testified that she had been pushed out of the line and was returning to her rightful place when Respondent told her to go to the end of the line. She went near the end of the line where her older sister told her to get in the line along side her. Upon Annette's arrival at the bus door, Respondent pushed her out of the line with his hand on her throat some 6 to 10 feet to a fence. He pushed her against the fence several times and made threatening gestures with a clenched fist. The bus driver who observed the entire episode from inside the bus, rushed off the bus to pull Respondent back from Annette. When released Annette ran toward the bus. The bus driver, Mrs. Walsh, submitted a report of the incident immediately afterwards. This report was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 12, and the witness testified that the report accurately reflected what she observed and did. As a result of this incident Annette's parents filed criminal charges against Respondent Bennett. When Principal Bennett returned to Venice the evening of February 7, 1975 he was advised of the incident, and contacted the Lannings to request that they withdrew their complaint before a warrant was issued. After Principal Bennett convinced them that he could better handle the problem at the school level, the Lannings withdrew the complaint. A copy of the complaint report was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 11. In May 1975, a local businessman, Mr. Robert Anderson, gave Respondent permission to conduct his students on a field trip through Mr. Anderson's plant. During the visit and after ascertaining that smoking was not prohibited in the plant, Respondent advised the students they could light up. Mr. Anderson was sufficiently concerned about Respondent's permitting the smoking, which was in violation of school policy, that he wrote letters complaining about the incident, and testified at the hearing. Witnesses testifying on behalf of Respondent considered Respondent to be a good teacher who appeared well liked by his students. They never saw Respondent lose his temper, hit any students, or swear in their presence. They would not condone striking a student over the head with a board, or choking a student. Respondent acknowledged that he had hit Douglas Letson with the board through which Letson had drilled into the desk below. He further admitted that he sent students to the library when they did not have materials to perform shop projects, and he did not follow up to ascertain if they went to the library as he directed. With respect to the Annette Lanning incident, Respondent acknowledged pushing her from the line with his hand against her throat, but he denied choking her or threatening her with a clenched fist. He acknowledged signing the letter dated February 10, 1975, Exhibit 16, which was prepared by Principal Bennett but he has not sought professional help respecting his temper. In Exhibit 16 Respondent acknowledged that he overreacted in this situation.
Recommendation RECOMMENDED that he be dismissed as a teacher from the Sarasota County School System. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of December, 1975, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Richard W. Conney, Esq. Box 6167 Sarasota, Florida 33578 Louis Jackson, Esq. c/o Richard W. Cooney, Esq. Box 6167 Sarasota, Florida 33578 Sidney L. Matthew, Esq. 208 W. Pensacola Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is now, and has been employed as a teacher in the Pinellas County school District since the 1980-81 school year. Since the 1983-84 school year, he has taught biology and earth science at Tarpon Springs High school under continuing contract. In November, 1984, Petitioner applied for Associate Master Teacher Endorsement in the state Master Teacher Program for the 1984-85 school year. His application was approved, and he participated in the Master Teacher Program for the 1984-85 school year, receiving the appropriate salary incentive award of $3000. In October, 1985 Petitioner applied for continued participation in the Master Teacher Program for the 1985-86 school year. His application was again approved, and he participated in the program for the 1985-86 school year, receiving the appropriate salary incentive award of $3000. The 1986-87 school year was the third and final year of the State Master Teacher Program. The application deadline for continued participation by teachers previously endorsed as Master Teachers was November 1, 1986. According to Virginia Sasser, Petitioner meets all substantive requirements and criteria for continued participation in the program for the 1986-87 school year. However, it is the position of the Respondents that Petitioner failed to timely file his application by November 1, 1986, and therefore he was not eligible to receive a Master Teacher salary incentive award for the 1986-87 school year. The first notice that Petitioner received that he had not been approved for participation in the program for the 1986-87 school year was in August, 1987 when other Master Teachers at Tarpon Springs High School received their salary incentive awards of $3000, and he did not. Petitioner contacted the Department of Education and spoke with Virginia Sasser who told him that the Department had no record of his 1986-87 application for continued participation. No specific advice was offered by Sasser about what he should do. Subsequently, Sasser learned that the Pinellas County School District also had no record of ever receiving Petitioner's application for 1986-87. The 1986-87 application procedure required individual teachers to complete Form MT-5, and submit it to their principal for his certification and signature. The Form requires the principal to certify that he has returned a completed copy of the application to the teacher after the principal affixed his signature. Thereafter, the Form was to be forwarded by the principal to the School District Office for transmittal to the Department of Education. In January, 1987, acknowledgments were sent to teachers whose applications had been received by the Department of Education. Based upon the testimony of Petitioner, Chalmers Coe, Petitioner's principal, John Katsaris, fellow Master Teacher, and Patricia Burdette, Coe's secretary, it is specifically found that Petitioner did properly complete and submit Form MT-5 to Coe in mid-October, 1986. However, the Form was thereafter lost either in Coe's office or in transit from Tarpon Springs High School to the School District Office in Clearwater via courier. Petitioner was not responsible for, and was not aware of this loss. Although he was on the School District's list of Master Teachers from whom an application for continued participation would be expected to be received, no one from the School District Office ever contacted Coe or the Petitioner to inquire why his Form MT-5 had not been received. Petitioner reasonably assumed that Coe had properly processed the application he gave him, and that the intradistrict mail courier would deliver it to the School District personnel officer. Patricia Burdette testified that on occasion items she placed in the courier mail, or which were placed in the mail for her, were lost and never received. The testimony of Chalmers Coe, principal of Tarpon Springs High school is found to be credible and persuasive in that he clearly confirmed the following statements contained in a letter he sent to Virginia Sasser in September, 1987, after Petitioner had been informed by Sasser that his application had not been received by the Department: This is to notify you that Peter Lelekis, a teacher on our staff, did submit a completed application for the Master Teacher Program for 1986-87. This application was submitted before the deadline of November 1, 1986. I, as well as my secretary, Patricia Burdette can verify that Mr. Lelekis did comply with the instructions from the Master Teacher Division of the Department of Education. I personally signed and forwarded forms to Superintendent. The testimony of John Katsaris supports the testimony of Petitioner and Coe in that Katsaris testified he saw Petitioner take his Form MT-5 to Coe's office in mid-October, 1986, and spoke with Petitioner about the application. According to Larry Hutcheson, who administered the Master Teacher Program for the Department of Education from approximately June, 1985 to July, 1986, the Department followed a "hold-harmless philosophy" in administering the program whereby if an applicant did his part to comply with all application procedures, as verified by his principal or superintendent, an applicant whose application was not timely filed would be held-harmless for this omission and the substantive merits of his application would be evaluated. This philosophy was applied "not infrequently" according to Hutcheson. Virginia Sasser, who has continuing responsibilities for the program, confirmed this "philosophy," and stated that if the principal or superintendent conceded their error, a teacher's application would be accepted and evaluated. She further acknowledged that if an application was lost in the mail, the teacher should similarly be held- harmless for the courier's error. In this case, an error was made either by the intra-district mail courier, or by Coe in not insuring that Petitioner and the District Personnel Office received a copy and the original Form MT-5, respectively, after he signed this form. In either event, the error that was made was not made by Petitioner, and he should therefore be held-harmless in accordance with the Department's applicable "philosophy" for administering this program. Coe and Petitioner both testified that he meets all substantive requirements and criteria for continued participation for the 1986-87 school year, a fact not disputed by Respondents. Petitioner has timely sought review of the Respondents' decision, as set forth by letter dated September 17, 1987, to deny his continued participation in the State Master Teacher Program for the 1986-87 school year solely for the following reason: According to our records, a 1986-7 application was never received by our office for you. In addition, the Pinellas school district office records further confirmed that your application was not processed through their office. I regret that we cannot accept Mr. Coe's statement as evidence of your filing an application for continued participation in the program.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondents enter a Final Order approving Petitioner for continued participation in the State Master Teacher Program for the 1986-87 school year, and providing him with the appropriate salary incentive award of $3000. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 1988. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 7, 8. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 11. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 7. Rejected and Accepted, in part, in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 8, 11. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 11. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 7, 10, 11. Adopted in Findings of Fact 9, 10. Rulings of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary, and as a conclusion of law. 5-6. Rejected as unnecessary. The only issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to the third year salary incentive award. Thus, the general application and renewal process is irrelevant. 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 8-9. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 10. Rejected in Findings of Fact 4, 11. 11-13. Rejected as unnecessary, irrelevant and as a conclusion of law. Generalized discussion of the Master Teacher Program does not pertain to the issue in this case. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 6, 7. Rejected in Findings of Fact 7, 8. The primary testimony was offered by Coe and Was confirmed and supported by Katsaris, Petitioner and Burdette. 16-18. Rejected in Findings of Fact 7, 8, 10 and otherwise Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 10, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5 but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected in Findings of Fact 7, 8, 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 6. Rejected as irrelevant. 26-27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Findings of Fact 8, 12. Rejected as irrelevant. This is a de novo hearing to determine if Petitioner did submit his application. 30-31. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 9, 10, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and not based on competent substantial evidence. 32. Rejected in Finding of Fact 12. Petitioner's request for hearing was timely. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald G. Meyer, Esquire MEYER, BROOKS & COOPER, P.A. Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Charles S. Ruberg, Esquire Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Hon. Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Sydney H. McKenzie General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed against her, and, if so, whether her employment with Petitioner should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been employed by Petitioner as a teacher for 16 1/2 years. She holds a Florida teaching certificate in the areas of specific learning disabilities and educable mental retardation. Throughout her employment by Petitioner, she has been assigned to teach exceptional student education classes. For the 1995-96 school year, she was assigned to teach a varying exceptionalities class at Winston Park Elementary School. At that school, the principal and the assistant principal have a practice of visiting every classroom every day whenever possible. The visits usually consist of a general walk-through. As a result of his visits to Respondent's classroom, Assistant Principal Polakoff, an experienced varying exceptionalities teacher, became concerned about the lack of discipline in Respondent's classroom. Respondent made a large number of referrals of students to the administrators for disciplinary action. Polakoff discussed his concerns with Respondent. In late September or early October, the administration at Winston Park Elementary School requested Rene Miscio, an Exceptional Education Program Specialist from the area office to come and assist Respondent. Miscio identified concerns with Respondent's classroom performance and gave Respondent suggestions for improving her areas of deficiency. Miscio took Respondent to a different school so Respondent could observe that teacher. Respondent later advised her administrators that she was implementing the suggestions made by Miscio. On November 2, 1995, Respondent referred a student to the office. Assistant Principal Polakoff went to Respondent's classroom and observed for 30 to 40 minutes. He wrote detailed notes while he was in Respondent's classroom and later discussed his observations with Principal Smith. They determined that Respondent's performance was deficient in three areas: behavior management, classroom management, and lesson presentation. By letter dated November 2, Assistant Principal Polakoff advised Respondent that she was moved from the development phase to the documentation phase of the Instructional Personnel Assessment System (hereinafter "IPAS") because deficiencies had been identified. In the documentation phase strategies are formulated for remediating the identified deficiencies. The goal is to provide the teacher with strategies to become successful in helping students learn. Principal Smith and Assistant Principal Polakoff worked with Respondent in writing a Performance Development Plan. Such a Plan envisions ongoing contact between the administrators and the teacher to address the teacher's deficiencies over the course of a defined time period. Respondent was given a February 29, 1996, deadline for remediating her deficiencies. Assistant Principal Polakoff began working with Respondent to develop behavior plans for specific students because of his background in exceptional student education. The administrators also assigned the exceptional student education specialist at Winston Park to observe and assist Respondent to overcome her areas of deficiency. Principal Smith also assigned Carolyn Koesten, another special education teacher at Winston Park, to "model" in Respondent's classroom from November 27 through December 7, 1995. Koesten had "modeled" before. "Modeling" means that an experienced teacher teaches another teacher's class in order to demonstrate to that teacher classroom management skills, behavior skills, and academic skills. Principal Smith instructed Koesten to establish a classroom management system, to establish a behavior management system, and to teach the students. When Koesten took over Respondent's classroom, Respondent was on leave. Koesten assessed Respondent's class when she started her modeling. Respondent's lesson plans were sketchy, and no routine had been established in Respondent's classroom. Koesten conducted a class meeting to develop a schedule for daily activities. She, together with the students, set up a behavior management system, establishing the rules of conduct, consequences, and rewards. She experienced no problems with Respondent's students once they had established rules for that classroom. "Running reading records" was a school-wide system being implemented that year to help measure a student's progress in reading. Respondent had no running reading records when Koesten began modeling in Respondent's class. Koesten set up running reading records for Respondent's class, established a reading program using those records, and began using spelling words from the reading program. She also set up learning centers within the classroom so students who had finished an activity could begin other work rather than beginning to misbehave. Respondent did not have any learning centers in her classroom. Respondent returned to school on December 6. Koesten met with her in the morning to explain the changes which had been implemented. Respondent then spent the day observing Koesten teaching Respondent's class. At the end of the day, she again met with Koesten to discuss the reading program and learning centers which Koesten had established. On the next day, Respondent took over the class, and Koesten observed her teaching. During the time that Koesten was in charge of Respondent's class, the class ran smoothly with the classroom management system and the behavior management system she had put in place. The students liked the systems because they had participated in developing them. Neither the number of students in the class nor the mix of students presented Koesten with any problem. During the morning of February 13, 1996, Assistant Principal Polakoff received a referral on one of Respondent's students for whom they had just recently developed an individual behavior plan. He told Principal Smith about the referral, and Smith went into Respondent's classroom. Smith determined that Respondent had ignored the individual behavior plan which they had developed for that student. Principal Smith summoned Respondent to his office that afternoon to meet with him and Assistant Principal Polakoff so he could give her feedback on what he had observed regarding the deficiencies in her performance that still existed. When she arrived, Smith asked her to describe her behavior management plan, and she did. Smith then advised her that she was not following that plan when he was in her classroom. She told him she was not able to follow her behavior management plan because the children were misbehaving. Smith also told her she had not followed the individual behavior plan for the student whom she had referred that morning. Respondent became very loud, angry, and agitated while Smith was trying to discuss her failure to follow the behavior plans. She alternated between being very angry and calming herself. When she calmed herself, she sat down. When she became angry, she got up and leaned on Smith's desk and leaned toward him. Smith kept trying to focus on how Respondent could improve her classroom performance but Respondent would not discuss that subject. She began attacking Smith verbally. She told him he reminded her of her parents. She told him he was a terrible person and a terrible father. She told him she hated him and that everyone hated him. She told him she would not talk to him but would only talk to Assistant Principal Polakoff. Polakoff told Respondent she needed to talk with Smith because Smith was her boss. Smith remained very calm and "matter of fact." He did nothing to cause Respondent to become agitated. He continued to try to focus on what was needed in order for Respondent to correct her deficiencies. At the end of the conference, Respondent told Smith that he was treating her "shitty". Smith calmly responded that at that point her teaching was "shitty" and that it was "a joke". Also at the end of the conference which had lasted for an hour or more, Respondent told Smith that she was "going to get him". Smith asked her what she meant by that, and Respondent told him that he was just going to have to wait to find out, that he would not know when or where she was going to get him, but that she would. The meeting ended when Respondent walked out of Smith's office. Polakoff was so uneasy about Respondent's threats that he followed her when she left the building and locked the building behind her so she could not return. Smith was concerned for his safety, Respondent's safety, and the safety of the other employees due to Respondent's threats and her agitation level. Just a few weeks before, a Broward County employee had killed his co-workers. Smith was concerned regarding Respondent's emotional stability and whether she should be in a classroom. Principal Smith telephoned his supervisor, Area Superintendent Dr. Daly, and told her what had transpired. She gave him an oral reprimand for using the word "shitty" and told him to call Director of Professional Standards Ronald Wright. Wright also orally reprimanded Smith for using that word and told him to send Respondent a memo asking her to clarify what she meant by her statements that she was going "to get" Smith and that he would not know when or where. Wright also explained to Smith the procedures for requesting that an employee undergo a psychiatric and/or psychological evaluation to determine fitness to remain in the classroom. Principal Smith wrote such a memo to Respondent the following day. Two days later, Respondent replied in writing and stayed out of school for the next several days saying she was too depressed to function. Her written explanation is not accurate, does not reflect the tone of her voice or her anger, and is not believable. On February 14, 1996, Principal Smith initiated the procedure for requiring Respondent to undergo psychological and/or psychiatric testing. He also re-assigned her so that she would assist in the school's media center and not return to her classroom until completion of the psychiatric evaluation. While Respondent was assigned to the media center, she was very disruptive. She kept trying to involve students and parents in her anger toward Principal Smith. On Friday, March 1, Respondent initiated a conversation with Josetta Royal Campbell who was in the media center. Although Campbell was a fellow teacher, she had no personal relationship with Respondent. Respondent asked Campbell if she had been evaluated by Principal Smith, and Campbell replied that she had been. Respondent asked if Campbell had heard that Respondent had received a bad evaluation, and Campbell replied that she had not. Respondent followed her to Campbell's classroom. Inside Campbell's classroom, Respondent became very excited and loud and was easily heard by the custodian cleaning the classroom. Respondent told Campbell that she and Smith had a big argument, that Smith was "out to get" her, and that she was going to kill him. Respondent said she thought Polakoff was her friend but he was a "backstabber" and that Koesten was also "out to get" her. She told Campbell that she was "going to get them all", that Smith had ruined her life, and that "everybody involved would pay for it". She also said that she could not return to her classroom until after she had undergone psychological testing but that since she had been under psychological treatment for ten years, she could pass the test with "flying colors". Over the weekend Campbell thought about what Respondent had said. She was concerned about the threats Respondent had made toward Principal Smith and the others. She took Respondent's threats seriously. On Monday she wrote a letter to Principal Smith telling him what had happened. On March 6, Principal Smith re-assigned Respondent to temporary duty with pay in her own home. Respondent selected a psychiatrist from a list given to her by the Director of Petitioner's Instructional Staffing Department. She selected Dr. Fernando Mata and was evaluated by him on March 7, 1996. After seeing Respondent on that date, he recommended that she undergo psychological testing. Respondent was given a list of psychologists to choose from, and she selected Dr. Jack Singer. He evaluated her on March 22, conducting a personal interview and administering the Minnesota Multi-Phasic Personality Inventory II, the Thematic Apperception Test, and the Holtzman Inkblot Technique. Dr. Singer concluded that Respondent is unstable and unpredictable. He opined that Respondent cannot safely handle a classroom full of children at this time. Upon review of Dr. Singer's report, Dr. Mata issued a supplemental report agreeing with Singer's opinions and concluding that Respondent "should not be returned to a classroom setting at this time". A conference was held with Respondent, her union representative, Petitioner's Director of Personnel, Petitioner's Director of Professional Standards, and Petitioner's Director of Instructional Staffing to discuss with Respondent the options available to her under Petitioner's policies and the union contract due to the medical report determining that Respondent was not fit to teach at that time. Respondent was advised that she could elect: (1) family/medical leave of up to 12 weeks; (2) disability leave for up to two years; or (3) a personal leave of absence. The financial impacts of each type of leave were explained to Respondent. Respondent declined all leave options. By letter dated May 15, 1996, Petitioner's Director of Professional Standards wrote to Respondent asking her to confirm that she still declined all leave options. By letter dated May 22, 1996, Petitioner's Director of Professional Standards again wrote to Respondent confirming that they had spoken on May 20 and that Respondent still declined all leave options and that Respondent understood that her refusal to take any type of leave would force Petitioner to terminate her employment. Petitioner does not second-guess medical opinions. When Respondent declined all leave options, Petitioner had no choice but to initiate termination of Respondent's employment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED THAT a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint and dismissing her from her employment with Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this day of November, 1997, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day of November, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Eugene K. Pettis, Esquire Haliczer, Pettis & White, P.A. 101 Northeast Third Avenue Sixth Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Francisco M. Negron, Jr., Esquire Tom Young, Esquire FEA/United 118 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1700 Dr. Frank R. Petruzielo, Superintendent Broward County School Board 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-3125
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner school board has good cause to reject the Walton County School superintendent's recommendation of Ann Farrior (Respondent) for renewal of an annual contract to serve in the position of school psychologist.
Findings Of Fact Ann Farrior was employed as a school psychologist by the Walton County School District for the 1998-1999 school year. She was employed on the recommendation of the superintendent and under an annual contract for that school year. Title 20, United States Code, Chapter 33, is known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The intelligence testing and questions regarding assessment and placement of exceptional education students is governed by that federal statute and rules pendent thereto. The federal regulations implementing the IDEA provide certain federal funds to assist in their implementation by local school districts. The Walton County School District receives federal funding to implement the IDEA. The failure to comply with appropriate federal regulations governing testing, assessment and placement of exceptional education students can result in a loss of such federal funding for the District. The Superintendent, Mr. Bludworth, nominated Ms. Farrior for the school psychologist position at issue for the 1998-1999 school year with the understanding that although she was not certified as a school psychologist, she was eligible to be certified as such. During the course of her employment as a school psychologist that school year, state audit personnel determined that she was not properly credentialed to administer intelligence testing as part of the assessment process for exceptional education students, which is necessary to the formulation of Individualized Educational Plans (IEPs) which is in turn a necessary element of the ultimate decision of proper placement of such students in the educational system in a school district. In view of this situation, Mr. Sam Goff of the Bureau of Instructional Support and Community Services of the Department of Education wrote the superintendent on January 20, 1999, outlining specific requirements that the District would have to meet in order to bring itself into compliance with the IDEA as a result of Ms. Farrior's ineligibility to administer intelligence testing as part of the assessment and evaluation process for exceptional students. The superintendent also received notice by memorandum of January 28, 1999, and by letter of January 29, 1999, from the Auditor General's staff and the Auditor General (in evidence as Petitioner Exhibits 4 and 5), that audit findings had determined that the District employed a person as a school psychologist (the Respondent) concerning whom school district records did not indicate a basis for that person being qualified for the school psychologist's position. The Auditor General's findings noted that the position description for school psychologist employed by the school district included responsibilities for administering testing and assessing placement for all exceptional education students. The preliminary findings noted that the employee, the Respondent, then serving as a school psychologist possessed only a temporary Florida teaching certificate in "psychology" which had expired on June 30, 1998, and which did not constitute certification as a "school psychologist." District records did not show that the Respondent had renewed her teaching certificate or had otherwise met the minimum job requirements for the school psychologist position. The Auditor General recommended that the school district document its records with a basis upon which the individual, the Respondent, was determined to be qualified for the school psychologist position or to take appropriate action to provide for a licensed or certified school psychologist for administering testing and for assessing placement for exceptional students. As a result of receiving these communications and preliminary findings, the superintendent met with the Respondent and felt compelled to request her resignation. Nancy Holder had been the school psychologist in the position that Ann Farrior assumed. Early in the 1998-1999 school year, Ms. Holder, who is a certified school psychologist, had been transferred to the position of "Staffing Specialist" upon which occurrence Ann Farrior then occupied the position of school psychologist. Ms. Holder, in her testimony, described the duties of school psychologist as including, in addition to performing intelligence testing of students, testing for academic achievement, and personality testing as well as counseling duties involving students, their parent, and teachers. The school psychologist must also participate in staffing meetings and in the IEP formulation process and resulting decisions regarding placement of exceptional students; she must assist classroom teachers and parents with the particular problems involving both exceptional students as well as students who do not have exceptionalities or diagnoses. Because of the above-referenced preliminary audit findings by the Department of Education, Ms. Holder was required to assume the additional responsibility of supervising Ms. Farrior's activities for the remainder of her annual contract year as well as undertaking to re-test those students whom Ms. Farrior had previously tested. The school district alternatively obtained a consultant to perform the educational testing that otherwise would have been done by Ms. Farrior as school psychologist had she been qualified under the pertinent regulations to do so. The school district received a statement from the Department of Education's Bureau of Teacher Certification, dated March 22, 1999, concerning the Respondent's eligibility to apply for or to receive certification as a school psychologist. That statement of eligibility noted that the Respondent lacked 27- semester hours of graduate school credit in school psychology which would necessarily have to include six-semester hours of graduate credit in a supervised school psychology internship. Additionally, Ms. Farrior would have to submit a passing score on the state-required teacher certification examination. Ms. Farrior enrolled in an appropriate school psychology internship program for the 1999-2000 school year, but as of the date of the hearing in this case, she still lacked 24 of the required semester hours of graduate credit in school psychology and had not yet submitted a passing score on the Florida State Teacher Certification examination. The Walton County School Board has a written policy adopted August 13, 1996, and in force at times pertinent hereto which authorizes the superintendent "to select and recommended non-certificated instructional personnel for appointment pursuant to Section 321.1725, Florida Statutes, and State Board of Education Rule 6A-1.0502, when special services are needed to deliver instruction." Section 228.041(9), Florida Statutes defines the term "instructional personnel" as including "school psychologists." There is no showing in the evidence of record, however, that "special services" are needed to deliver instruction. That is, although the school psychologist position is statutorily deemed to be in the category of "instructional personnel" it does not involve the teaching of students. Rather the school psychologist position, which is the subject of this case, involves testing, evaluation, assessment, and assistance in the placement of exceptional students in appropriate courses of instruction. There was no showing that special services were needed to actually deliver instruction, as envisioned by the above-referenced written policy of the School Board concerning the appointment of non-certificated instructional personnel, such as Ms. Farrior. Given the above-referenced audit findings in relation to the controlling federal regulations referenced above and the Board's policy allowing employment of certificated personnel "out-of-field" only in cases where special services are needed to deliver instruction, it has not been demonstrated that the School Board realistically had an option, in the proper exercise of its discretionary authority, to hire Ms. Farrior "out-of-field" as a "school psychologist" based merely on her only certification, which was a temporary certificate authorizing the teaching of psychology (not certification as a school psychologist which is really a pupil support position). Moreover, the School Board's policy authorizes the employment of teachers for instruction in areas other than that for which they are certificated only in the absence of available qualified, certified instructors. Although the school psychologist position at issue remains unfilled, there is no evidence to demonstrate why it is unfilled and no evidence of record to demonstrate that there are not qualified, certified personnel available to be hired as a school psychologist to fill that position. When the superintendent recommended the Respondent for a second annual contract in April of 1999, he was already aware that she was not qualified to perform the duties of a school psychologist and that the District would have to contract with outside consultants or other qualified persons to at least secure the administration of intelligence and other psychological testing, which testing is a part of the job description and duties of a school psychologist. The then exceptional education director for the District, Ms. Rushing, had suggested to the superintendent that he recommend the Respondent in April of 1999 for the position of "evaluation specialist." This would more represent the actual duties Ms. Farrior had been performing after the Department of Education audit finding that she was not qualified to serve as a school psychologist. Unfortunately, however, there was no authorized position of "evaluation specialist" and the superintendent has no authority to set the qualifications for a particular position or a recommend a person for a position that had not otherwise been approved nor its qualifications approved of by the School Board. In summary, as of the date of the hearing, the Respondent was not yet eligible to receive either a regular or temporary certificate from the Department of Education as a school psychologist and still lacked 24 semester hours of graduate credit necessary for such certification; she had not yet passed the Florida State Teacher Certification Examination for school psychologist although she had secured and enrolled in an appropriate internship to satisfy the above-referenced six-hour internship requirement.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the School Board of Walton County rejecting the nomination of Ann Farrior to serve in the position of school psychologist for the school year 1999-2000, because good cause for such action has been demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence in the manner found and concluded above. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 16th day of June, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph L. Hammons, Esquire Hammons & Whittaker, P.A. 17 West Cervantes Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 George R. Mead, II, Esquire Clark, Pennington, Hart, Larry, Bond, Stackhouse & Stone 125 West Romana Street, Suite 800 Post Office Box 13010 Pensacola, Florida 32591-3010 John F. Bludworth Superintendent of Schools Walton County School District 145 Park Street, Suite 3 DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32433
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 Respondent's continued employment with the Dade County Public Schools, as set forth in minutes of the School Board for October 19, 1977.
Findings Of Fact During the 1975-1976 and 1976-1977 academic school years, Respondent was an employee of the Petitioner as a teacher at the Richmond Heights Junior High School. (Stipulation) By order of the State Board of Education, dated September 20, 1977, the teaching certificate of Respondent, Department of Education Number 3436, was suspended for a period of two years. The matter is currently being appealed to the First District Court of Appeal. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, Stipulation) On October 19, 1977, Respondent was suspended without pay from his position by Petitioner due to the suspension of his teaching certificate by the State Board of Education. On October 31, 1977, Respondent requested a hearing in the matter. Petitioner provided Respondent with formal notice of charges on December 13, 1977, seeking his dismissal from employment with the school system. Respondent became a teacher in 1937 and has been employed in that capacity by Petitioner since 1961. He testified at the hearing to the effect that, in his opinion, the present proceedings are improper in that the action by the State Board of Education was premature and should not have been taken until the charges upon which such action was based had been considered by Petitioner in administrative proceedings. Respondent sought to introduce character testimony in his behalf by a number of witnesses, but upon objection by Petitioner, such testimony was not permitted by the Hearing Officer as it would be irrelevant to the proceedings. The proffered testimony would have shown that the witnesses had all known the Respondent for a lengthy period of time and that he is a dedicated employee of the school system who has served his community and church as an example for students. (Testimony of Anders, Respondent)
Recommendation That Respondent, Raphu S. Williams, be dismissed from employment as a teacher by the School Board of Dade County, Florida, under the authority of Section 231.36(4), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of April, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jesse McCrary, Esquire Dade County Public Schools Lindsey Hopkins Building 1410 Northeast 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Elizabeth DuFresne, Esquire One Biscayne Tower Suite 1782 Miami, Florida 33131 Phyllis O. Douglas, Esquire Dade County Public Schools Administrative Office Lindsey Hopkins Building 1410 Northeast 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact On September 9, 1982 Petitioner filed an application with the Teacher Certification Section of the Florida Department of Education to be re-certified as a teacher in the State of Florida. He was previously certified as a teacher in Florida from September 3, 1974 until 1979 in the field of cooperative distributive education. Mr. Hill is a graduate of the University of South Florida with a bachelor's degree in distributive education and he has 20 to 25 hours of credit towards his master's degree in administration Supervision. From 1974 until 1977 he successfully taught school in the Orlando area. In December of 1979 Petitioner had an argument with his father. During the course of that argument Mr. Hill picked up a 12 gauge shotgun and hit his father in the stomach several times. Petitioner was arrested, charged with aggravated assault, and subsequently adjudicated not guilty by a reason of insanity. The court order adjudicating him not guilty found that "At the time of the alleged offense, defendant's psychological condition caused him to function under paranoid delusions and persecutory relations. He not only had such thoughts and beliefs, but they were held so firmly that he was acting upon them." After the entry of that order on March 24, 1980, Petitioner was found to meet the criteria for involuntary commitment to a state mental hospital pursuant to the provisions of the Baker Act. He was treated at G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital until June 1980 and then released to the Peace River Center for Personal Development as a resident there. In either October or November 1981 Mr. Hill ceased taking the psychotropic medication which had been prescribed for him. By March 1982 he was again readmitted as an involuntary patient at G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital and after treatment there he was released in August 1982 back to the Peace River Center. Dr. M. Saleem Jeewa has been his treating psychiatrist since June of 1980. At the present time Dr. Jeewa prescribes Mellaril, a major tranquilizer, and Pamelor, an anti-depressant medication for Petitioner. Mr. Hill now visits Dr. Jeewa on a monthly basis unless something unusual happens in the interim. Additionally Petitioner attends group therapy three times a week and lives in one of the satellite apartments at Peace River Center. The satellite apartments are an arrangement where three or four patients live together to share expenses and help each other as a peer group. The satellite apartments are not part of a residential facility but are leased out in the community by the Peace River Center. In April 1983 Petitioner began working at American Building Maintenance, a Tampa janitorial service. His other employment history subsequent to his arrest, but prior to this hearing, includes janitorial work for Goodwill Industries. This employment was terminated when, due to an automobile accident, Mr. Hill was injured and physically unable to perform his job. Prior to that employment he worked for a CETA program where he assisted in locating jobs for handicapped persons. With respect to Mr. Hill's present psychological state he has no evidence of any thought disorder. His speech is logical, coherent and relevant. He has a fair amount of insight into his own condition and his judgment is adequate. No psychosis is apparent. He continues however to display a mild form of mixed anxiety and depression. At the present time it would be difficult however, for Mr. Hill to handle a job where he is fairly independent, must be flexible with considerable responsibilities and handle a variety of tasks. In order for Mr. Hill to be a successful teacher in a classroom situation with responsibility for 15 to 20 children, he would initially need some additional assistance and support over and above that normally required by a new teacher. It is unlikely that due to Mr. Hill's present condition he would cause any harm or be dangerous to students or other people around him. While it is within the realm of possibility that Petitioner, if certified, could successfully handle the responsibilities of a distributive education teacher, that possibility is not probable in view of Petitioner's present fragile psychological state.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the State Board of Education as the head of the Department of Education, enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for certification as a teacher in the field of distributive education. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 4th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of November, 1983.
