The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Section 231.28(1)(i), Florida Statutes (2000), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e), by using unauthorized methods of disciplining a student before allowing the student to visit the school nurse. (All chapter and section references are to Florida Statutes (2000) unless otherwise stated. Unless otherwise stated, all references to rules are to rules promulgated in the Florida Administrative Code in effect on the date of this Recommended Order.)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating certified teachers in the state. Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate Number 416888. Respondent's Florida teaching certificate is valid through June 30, 2003. Respondent is employed as a Special Education Teacher at Moore Haven Junior High School (the "school") in the Glades County School District (the "District"). Respondent has a long-standing practice in his classroom of disciplining male students by making them do push-ups and hold books while their arms are extended in front of them. Both practices violate rules and policies of the school and the District. Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge that discipline by push-ups and holding books violated the policies of the school and the District. The student handbook distributed to each teacher, including Respondent, prescribed the authorized methods of discipline. None of the authorized methods included pushups or holding books. Respondent submitted some evidence that administrators in the school deviated from officially stated policies and rules by condoning unauthorized methods of discipline such as pushups or holding books. However, the evidence submitted by Respondent was less than a preponderance of the evidence and was adequately refuted by evidence submitted by Petitioner. All of the students in Respondent's class are exceptional education students. Each student has an identified disability. Any method of discipline other than that authorized by applicable policies and rules must be clearly stated and authorized in each student's individual education plan ("IEP"). C.W. was an exceptional education student in Respondent's class on February 9, 2000. The IEP for C.W. did not authorize any alternative methods of discipline. During class on February 9, 2000, Respondent approached C.W. because C.W. had his head on his desk during class. Respondent instructed C.W. to do his assignment. C.W. complained that he felt sick and requested to see the school nurse. Respondent and C.W. exchanged brief repartees. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that during the exchange Respondent prevented C.W. from going to the nurse's office. Some witnesses testified that Respondent refused C.W.'s request to go to the nurse's office. Other witnesses in the classroom during the exchange testified that Respondent initially instructed C.W. to go to the nurse's office but that C.W. refused either to go to the nurse's office or to do his assignment. The testimony of all of those witnesses was credible. Because C.W. refused to do his assignment in class, Respondent instructed C.W. to stand at the back of the class with his arms extended in front of him. C.W. complied with Respondent's instruction. Respondent successfully completed the alternative method of discipline that required C.W. to stand at the back of the class. However, Respondent failed to effectuate other unauthorized methods of discipline that Respondent attempted. When Respondent placed books in C.W.'s arms, C.W. did not hold the books in his arms. Rather, C.W. dropped his arms, and the books fell to the floor. When Respondent instructed C.W. to do push-ups, C.W. refused Respondent's instruction. C.W. left Respondent's classroom under his own volition and went to the office of the school nurse. The evidence does not reveal the amount of time that transpired between Respondent's initial instruction for C.W. to stand at the back of the class and the time when C.W. left for the nurse's office. Therefore, there is no evidentiary basis to quantify the delay in medical attention. When C.W. arrived at the nurse's office, the school nurse determined that C.W. was feverish, suffered chills, and that his complexion was "splotchy." The nurse telephoned C.W.'s parents. The parents took C.W. home and subsequently to the hospital. The examining physician at the hospital diagnosed C.W. as suffering from mastoiditis. The physician admitted C.W. to the hospital for two days and successfully treated the medical condition. The medical condition represented an exigent threat of harm to C.W.'s physical safety within the meaning of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a). As previously found, however, the evidence is less than clear and convincing that Respondent violated Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) by failing to make a reasonable effort to protect the student from a medical condition that was harmful to the student's physical safety. Conflicting evidence was less than clear and convincing evidence that Respondent delayed C.W.'s attempt to see the school nurse or the length of any delay allegedly caused by Respondent. C.W. left Respondent's class under his own volition and went directly to the nurse's office. The conflicting evidence was less than clear and convincing that any delay between Respondent's initial contact with the student and the student's departure to the school nurse was significant enough that Respondent failed to make a reasonable effort to protect C.W. from conditions harmful to the student's physical safety. The evidence is clear and convincing that Respondent violated Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) by failing to make a reasonable effort to protect C.W. from conditions harmful to learning. The methods of discipline attempted by Respondent were harmful to C.W.'s ability to learn, violated C.W.'s IEP, and violated school policy. For the same reasons, Respondent violated Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e) by intentionally exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment and disparagement. Administrative staff at the school conducted a full investigation of the matter. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the District issued a written letter of reprimand to Respondent. The letter of reprimand issued by the District is disciplinary action by Respondent's employer. The judicial doctrine of double jeopardy does not preclude disciplinary action by Petitioner against Respondent's license. No evidence shows that Respondent has any prior disciplinary history by either Petitioner or the District. Petitioner seeks to have Respondent's teaching certificate suspended for 12 months. However, Petitioner's proposed penalty is based on the premise that Respondent committed all of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 231.28(1)(i) and Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e), and suspending Respondent's teaching certificate in Florida for six months. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Ron Weaver, Esquire Ron Weaver & Associates 528 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1518 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Educational Practices Commission Department of Education 224-E Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry W. Whitmore, Program Director Professional Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Carl Zahner, Esquire Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Moses N. Mwaura 214 Tenth Street Post Office Box 856 Moore Haven, Florida 33471
The Issue Whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Education Practices Commission is the state agency charged with the duty and responsibility to revoke or suspend, or take other appropriate action with regard to teaching certificates as provided in sections 1012.795 and 1012.796, Florida Statutes (2016). § 1012.79(7), Fla. Stat. Petitioner, as Commissioner of Education, is charged with the duty to file and prosecute administrative complaints against individuals who hold Florida teaching certificates and who are alleged to have violated standards of teacher conduct. § 1012.796(6), Fla. Stat. Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate 962539, covering the areas of English, English for Speakers of Other Languages, Middle Grades Integrated Curriculum, and Reading, which is valid through June 30, 2017. During the 2013-2014 school year, Respondent was employed as a science teacher at Sims Middle. He continued teaching at Sims Middle for the 2014- 2015 school year, and currently teaches at Woodham Middle School in Escambia County. Among his teaching assignments, Respondent taught an eighth-grade honors science class during the school day’s first period. Among his students in that class was T.L. T.L had, in 2010, been diagnosed with Type I diabetes. By her eighth-grade year, T.L. was an “independent diabetic,” using an insulin pump and capable of carrying her meter and lancing device with her. On March 6, 2014, during a discussion of the consequences of the failure of various organs, Respondent made a comment that was substantially similar to that alleged in the Administrative Complaint, i.e., “Your pancreas can die and you could go into sugar shock; go into a coma and die, like (T.L.) could.” Respondent was standing in front of T.L.’s desk at the time. His position meant that the students were, or should have had their attention directed to Respondent. Thus, his statement would have been obvious. The investigation performed by Mr. Stokes indicated that comments similar to that involving T.L. “are often made” by Respondent; that T.L. likely took the statement “the wrong way” due to Respondent’s “dry sense of humor”; that Respondent “often makes comments trying to be funny but it usually just makes people feel weird”; and that he has made similar comments regarding other students in the past. The statements contained in Mr. Stokes’ report are not accepted for the truth of the matters asserted, but are used herein as evidence of Respondent’s overly loose and unsuccessfully “funny” teaching style. The statements contained in Mr. Stokes’ report also support a finding, made herein, that Respondent did not single T.L. out for disparate treatment, but (misguidedly) used her condition, with benign intent, to reinforce the importance of his lesson plan. In that regard, even T.L.’s mother, who was aggravated by the incident, admitted that the instruction as to what can happen when one’s pancreas dies “would have been appropriate in the classroom,” with her concern being the personalization of the instruction. However, she acknowledged that Respondent’s “unprofessional” comments had previously been directed to other students, and were not restricted to T.L. The evidence suggests that T.L.’s diabetic condition was not unknown. T.L.’s close circle of friends knew, having been told by T.L. C.P. testified that T.L.’s diabetes was fairly common knowledge. On at least one occasion prior to Respondent’s statement, the alarm on T.L.’s insulin pump went off during class. Respondent asked the class whether the sound was a cell phone, to which T.L. replied “Oh, that is my pump, sorry,” and turned the alarm off. T.L. carried the pump in her pocket, and she testified that the other students “probably just thought I had something weird in my pocket, but didn’t really know what it was.” T.L.’s mother testified that “her tubing was usually visible, depending on what she was wearing.” Finally, the topic of T.L.’s award-winning science project was the effect of contaminants at the site of a finger stick when testing one’s blood for glucose. While there was no evidence that T.L.’s diabetes was the subject of a general announcement, or that it was a topic of particular concern amongst her peers, the preponderance of the evidence indicates that it was unlikely that her condition was unknown to those in her class. The comment that forms the basis for the Administrative Complaint, though related to the class lesson plan, was inappropriate and unnecessary. Despite the fact that T.L.’s diabetes was not unknown to her peers, Respondent’s act of using her as an example was embarrassing to her. Respondent’s testimony that his use of T.L. as an example of an unchecked diabetic reaction was purely happenstance is not plausible. The evidence is convincing that Respondent was well aware of T.L.’s diabetes, and used her as an example of someone who had the condition that was the topic of discussion. However, there was no evidence that Respondent made the statement maliciously, or with the intent to embarrass or humiliate T.L. Prior to the incident in question, T.L., along with other students, used her telephone with Respondent’s permission in his class after completing Florida Writes testing, and Snapchatted a video to a friend. That became known when the friend asked Respondent why students in her later class period could not use their phones in similar circumstances. Respondent verbally admonished both T.L. and her friend, with his primary concern seeming to be that he could get in trouble for having allowed his first-period students to use their phones in class. T.L. was not written up for the incident, and there was no adverse effect on her grades. On March 5, 2014, Respondent received a letter of reprimand from Sims Middle regarding the incident of allowing students to use telephones in class. Although the incident that forms the basis for the Administrative Complaint occurred on March 6, 2014, there is insufficient evidence to establish a causal connection between the two. The suggestion that the incident in question was retaliation, or was otherwise precipitated by the Snapchat incident, is not accepted. On March 28, 2014, Respondent received a letter of reprimand from Sims Middle for the incident in question. Other than the two reprimands described herein, both having been issued in the span of little more than three weeks, he had not been the subject of any previous disciplinary actions during his eleven-year period of employment with the Santa Rosa County School District. There was no evidence that T.L.’s mental health was actually affected by the incident. The testimony of T.L. and her mother is evidence that she was, and remains, a bright, articulate, well-adjusted, straight-A student. However, rule 6A-10.081(3)(a) “does not require evidence that Respondent actually harmed [T.L.]'s health or safety. Rather, it requires a showing that Respondent failed to make reasonable efforts to protect the student from such harm.” Gerard Robinson, as Comm’r of Educ. vs. William Randall Aydelott, Case No. 12-0621PL ¶ 76 (Fla. DOAH Aug. 29, 2012; EPC Dec. 19, 2012). Under the circumstances described herein, Petitioner proved that Respondent, though without specific intent or malice, failed to make reasonable effort to protect T.L. from embarrassment, a condition reasonably contemplated to be harmful to her mental health pursuant to rule 6A-10.081(3)(a).
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reached herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent violated rule 6A-10.081(3)(a). It is further recommended that Respondent be issued a reprimand. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of December, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of December, 2016.
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.
