Findings Of Fact Respectively on September 20 and September 9, 1988, the Petitioner and the Respondent submitted to the Hearing Officer their proposed Findings of Fact. In the Appendix To Recommended Order the Hearing Officer submitted recommending rulings thereon. The following constitutes the rulings in this Final Order on those proposed Findings of Fact. The petitioner's proposed Findings of Fact numbers 1 and 5 are hereby accepted and adopted in that they are supported by competent substantial, evidence. The petitioner's proposed Finding of Fact No. 2 is hereby rejected in that the petitioner did not terminate her position on August 17, 1987, and she was not reemployed on September 29, 1987, for the reasons stated above in paragraphs numbers 1 through 12. The Petitioner's proposed Finding of Fact No. 3 is hereby rejected upon the grounds and for the reasons stated in paragraphs No. 7 and 8 above. The Petitioner's proposed Finding of Fact No. 4 is rejected as phrased, for the reasons and upon the grounds set forth in paragraph No. 4 above. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact numbers (1) through (7) are each hereby accepted and adopted in that they are each based upon competent, substantial evidence.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Petitioner became a member of the Florida Retirement System in September 1987 and allowing Petitioner to transfer her previously-earned Teachers' Retirement System credits to the Florida Retirement System. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 1st day of November, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of November, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-0673 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-5 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-4 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 5 has been rejected as being contrary to the weight of the evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 6 and 7 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Patricia Ann Ash, Esquire Harold N. Braxton, Esquire One Datran Center, Suite 406 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, Florida 33156 Burton M. Michaels, Esquire Department of Administration 440 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esquire Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact The ultimate issue to be decided is whether the Petitioner is eligible to transfer from Florida Teacher Retirement Plan A to Florida Teacher Retirement Plan E and if so, whether he should be allowed to do so at this time. Robert L. Wonsick, the Petitioner, served as a classroom teacher in the Pinellas County School System for approximately 19 years. He resigned from his employment as a school teacher on approximately June 14, 1972 which resignation was accepted by his employer. At that time, Petitioner advised duly the employer through its agent, Jerry J. Switts, Director of Elementary Placement and Retirement, that he was unable to return too work the 72-73 school year due to illness; therefore he opted to, void his Florida Retirement System Transfer Ballot which would have been effective July 1, 1972, and requested disability retirement under the Teacher's Retirement System Plan. Petitioner was advised by Switt's to submit a written request for final decision on his application filed for disability retirement. As indicated by his petition filed on or about March 5, 1976, Petitioner takes the position that he should be entitled to transfer from Teachers Retirement System (hereinafter referred to as TRS) Plan A to TRS Plan E. Petitioner attempted to elect to transfer to the Florida Retirement System (hereinafter sometimes referred to as FRS) in 1972, the effective date to be July 1, 1972. This was denied inasmuch as Petitioner had already resigned his employment and never worked under or contributed to FRS, since by his own testimony he resigned in August, 1972, on or about the second day of pre-school. Respondent therefore denied the application for transfer based on Section 121.051(2)(a) 3(a), Florida Statutes. Petitioner submitted his transfer ballot which was received by Respondent along with numerous other employees in 1972. By letter dated September 8, 1972, Petitioner requested that his transfer ballot be cancelled. Upon learning that Petitioner had in fact not worked after July 1, 1972, the transfer ballot was forwarded for reasons previously stated by way of "Application for Retirement Acknowledgement Form" dated September 11, 1972. Petitioner was requested to supply certain information to Respondent and by that same form was advised that he might wish to transfer from TRS Plan A to TRS Plan B. By letter dated December 12, 1972, Petitioner was supplied with estimates of retirement benefits showing that his monthly benefits under Plan A would be approximately $129.00 per month and the benefits under Plan E would be approximately $260.00 per month with the caveat that in order to effectuate the transfer to Plan E (an option open to him at that time) it would be necessary for him to pay in approximately $2,550 in contributions. Said contributions were necessary to meet the statutory contribution rates for Plan E if Petitioner desired to become a member of said plan. Section 238.09, Florida Statutes. Petitioner was also notified that he would have to remit $228.47 if he wished to receive retirement credit for a leave of absence utilized by him during school year 1970-1971. Within the next few days i.e., December 15, 1972, Petitioner indicated without question that he intended to remain a member of Plan A and remitted the requested $228.47 in required contributions to receive retirement credit for the above mentioned leave of absence. During a hiatus of a considerable period, adequate medical evidence was provided to Respondent to demonstrate Petitioner's disability and he began receiving monthly benefits under his monthly benefit i.e., Plan A. Thereafter on September 12, 1973, Petitioner inquired of Respondent concerning difference in benefits available under Plan A and Plan E, and possibility of changing from one plan to the other. Respondent answered Petitioner's inquiry by letter dated January 4, 1974, informing him of his previous choice to remain in Plan A. In addition, Respondent informed him that inasmuch as he had chosen not to remit the additional $2,550 necessary to transfer to Plan E in 1972, there were no provisions under the law allowing a change in retirement plans to be made after an employee had elected to retire under another plan. It should be noted that Petitioner had been advised in December of 1972 of all options available to him prior to the time of his retirement and his subsequent choice of Retirement Plan was unequivocally made by him. Again, on May 9, 1974, Petitioner requested that his claim be reevaluated whereupon Respondent replied by letter dated May 20, 1974, advising that Respondent had followed his (Petitioner's) written instructions and had taken the action permitting him to retire under plan A per his request. He was again reminded of the status of the law which did not permit a change in retirement plans. He was reminded that assuming for the sake of argument that his account could be reopened and benefits be computed under the Florida Retirement System, it would be necessary for him too contribute more than $2,200.00 to his account which he had previously elected not to do when given the option. Accordingly, his request for reevaluation was denied by Respondent. Again, by letter dated June 5, 1974, Petitioner requested that he be credited with approximately $2,250.00 that he would have been eligible to receive had he retired under Plan E and requested that said amount be credited to his account in order to facilitate his transfer into Plan E. These requests were denied by Respondent by letter dated June 13, 1974. Thereafter, Petitioner wrote a series of letters to various state officials and agencies including federal agencies requesting reconsideration of Respondent's decision to decline his request to reevaluate his claim that he had not been afforded ample information to assist him in making an informed choice concerning his retirement benefits. Petitioner appeared and testified at the hearing and recalled the series of transactions entered into by him in transferring from the various plans. He testified that he was aware of the difference in benefits or that he became aware of the difference in benefits after he had made the decision to transfer from Plan E to Plan A. He voiced the opinion that he probably could not raise the additional $2,500.00 that would be required assuming that he was given the option of now transferring to Plan E. He indicated that he had received no public assistance and that his large family and the mental problems prevented him from making an intelligent choice at the time he made the election to retire under Plan A. During the hearing, he admitted that he had received full cooperation and assistance from Respondent but that it was his mental condition and other financial problems which hampered his ability to make an intelligent choice based on psychological problems, etc. Based on all the evidence presented in this case, it is clear that the Respondent afforded Petitioner all of the information requested and explained all the options available to him including the differences in the benefits of the various plans and his contributions for retirement in such plans. It is further clear that at each juncture, he was permitted to change his mind about enrolling in various plans when the change could be effectuated within the permissible guidelines under the law. With these facts in mind and inasmuch as there is no provisions in the law which permits a retiree from changing plans after his effective date of retirement, Petitioner's claim that he was wrongfully denied the opportunity to retire or to change his retirement plan to Plan E must fall as being unsubstantiated by the record evidence. I shall therefore recommend that his petition requesting permission to allow him to change from Plan A to Plan E be denied.
Recommendation Based on the above facts and conclusions of law, I recommend than the Petition filed herein requesting permission to retire from Plan A to Plan E be disallowed. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of August, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen S. Mathues, Esquire Assistant Division Attorney Division of Retirement 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Lawrence L. Black, Esquire 152 8th Avenue, Southwest Largo, Florida 33540 Robert L. Wonsick 6260 Second Avenue, South St. Petersburg, Florida 33707
The Issue May Petitioner be recognized by Respondent School District as a professional teacher association, pursuant to Section 231.6075, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Despite any typographical or other errors in the Petition, the parties are agreed that this cause is brought solely pursuant to Section 231.6075, Florida Statutes. Section 231.6075, Florida Statutes, effective June 21, 1999, reads as follows: 231.6075 Rulemaking authority; professional teacher associations. The State Board of Education shall adopt such rules as necessary to ensure that not-for-profit, professional teacher associations which offer membership to all teachers, noninstructional personnel, and administrators, and which offer teacher training and staff development at no fee to the district shall be given equal access to voluntary teacher meetings, be provided access to teacher mailboxes for distribution of professional literature, and be authorized to collect voluntary membership fees through payroll deduction. On July 7, 1999, Betty Coxe, Division Director, Human Resources Development, Florida Department of Education (DOE) wrote to Florida's District School Superintendents, advising them of the enactment of the statute and that DOE had identified "one statewide organization" which met the criteria to be a professional teacher association under this statute. That association was the Professional Educators Network of Florida, Inc. (PEN). Petitioner TEA was incorporated as a not-for-profit Florida corporation on September 22, 1999, by Jack Daniels as Chairman, Helen Heard as secretary-treasurer, and Daryl Grier as vice-chairman. The president, vice-president, and secretary- treasurer are elected by the Board of Directors. Currently, Chairman Daniels is also president. On October 25, 1999, Dean Andrews, Deputy General Counsel for DOE, issued a legal opinion on the following question: Must the State Board of Education adopt rules prior to school district implementation of Section 231.6075, Florida Statutes, relating to professional teacher associations? Mr. Andrews answered the question in the negative, concluding that "Section 231.6075, Florida Statutes, is self-executing." On December 20, 1999, David Ashburn, Director, Division of Human Resources Development, DOE, sent a letter to Florida's District School Superintendents "to provide further clarification for district level implementation" of Section 231.6075, Florida Statutes. That letter read, in pertinent part: It has come to the attention of the Department that there may be several associations that may meet the criteria for recognition in a district, and thus shall be afforded access to mailboxes, meetings, and payroll deduction as provided in the law. The professional association must provide documentation of compliance with the law and provide training in the district to establish recognition on an individual district by district basis. Therefore, a statewide listing or identification of the associations will not be possible. Implementation and compliance are to be at the local level. (Emphasis supplied) Sometime in January 2000, but before January 10, 2000, Mr. Daniels orally requested that Respondent Duval County School District recognize TEA as a professional teachers association, pursuant to Section 231.6075, Florida Statutes. His request was directed to Vicki Reynolds, Executive Director, Office of Policy and Compliance for the Duval County School District, who had been delegated the responsibility for handling this matter by Respondent's Superintendent of Schools. Ms. Reynolds has an extensive background with the Respondent School District. She was an elementary classroom teacher for eight years; served nine years as legal affairs liaison for the District; served as School District general counsel for two and a-half years; and has been in her present position for approximately one year. The record is silent as to whether she continues to be a certified or licensed professional teacher. In two trips to see Ms. Reynolds, Mr. Daniels delivered to her a copy of TEA's Articles of Incorporation and a copy of an October 13, 1999, letter from Buddy Worwetz, President of Worwetz Education Systems. According to Mr. Worwetz's testimony, Worwetz Education Systems is a "training, consulting, technology firm" which "mostly does adult basic training" and some "teacher training." Mr. Worwetz would expect to be paid for such services. The October 13, 1999, Worwetz letter indicated that Worwetz Education Systems had presented many workshops in "educator training" and "staff development," such as "drop out prevention and classroom management," which had been personally taught by Mr. Worwetz in Respondent's School District, and that the company had the capacity to provide workshops in "curriculum and instruction, various subject matter, technology, exceptional student education, communications, diversity, community relations, and the school improvement process," plus two, six- hour courses, taught by Dr. Kyker and Carla Jones, entitled "Introduction to Cooperative Discipline" and "Student-Centered Leadership." TEA contended that these courses constituted appropriate continuing education courses for professional teachers. In January 2000, when she reviewed TEA's Articles of Incorporation and the October 13, 1999, Worwetz letter, Ms. Reynolds accepted them at face value, but Ms. Reynolds could not identify any of the members of TEA's Board of Directors as teachers or educators. She also was not familiar with any of the names or the specifically-titled courses in Mr. Worwetz's October 13, 1999, letter. She was familiar with Mr. Daniels' background, which was primarily in insurance and union organization and litigation. On or about January 10, 2000, she orally denied TEA's recognition request. On January 11, 2000, Mr. Daniels wrote a letter to Respondent's Superintendent of Schools, requesting recognition of TEA. The Superintendent did not write him back, but that day, or shortly thereafter, Ms. Reynolds orally conveyed the Superintendent's denial to Mr. Daniels. On January 26, 2000, TEA filed a Petition for Formal Hearing, which was not acted upon by Respondent. TEA next filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the First District Court of Appeal, requesting that court to compel Respondent School District "to either grant or deny" TEA's request for formal hearing. Respondent opposed the Petition for Writ of Mandamus. On July 12, 2000, the First District Court of Appeal issued an Order, providing in pertinent part, as follows: We issued an order to show cause and find that respondent's arguments in opposition to the petition might ultimately prove to be valid reasons to deny the request for formal hearing or, if a hearing is held, to support the district's decision to decline to authorize TEA. They are not, however valid reasons to fail to act on the petition for formal hearing in a timely fashion. . . . Accordingly, we grant the petition and issue our writ of mandamus, directing the district to act on TEA's petition for formal hearing . . . . Respondent did not deny TEA's request for formal hearing. Rather, Respondent granted TEA's request for formal hearing, in effect declining to recognize TEA, and referred the case to DOAH, on or about August 17, 2000, for a hearing on the merits of recognition, pursuant to Section 231.6075, Florida Statutes. In either September or October 2000, Respondent, through Ms. Reynolds, accepted submittals from PEN (see Finding of Fact No. 3) at face value. She reviewed a four-page document provided by PEN, which listed all PEN's teacher education and staff development courses with course descriptions and objectives and named some of the instructors. Ms. Reynolds also reviewed a brochure naming PEN's Board of Directors and stating PEN's mission and vision, and a brochure listing the services PEN offers its members in exchange for their dues, which services include legal representation, insurance, and a statewide networking procedure.1 Ms. Reynolds was able to identify teachers and "educators" certificated and/or licensed by DOE on PEN's Board of Directors and certificated and/or licensed teachers named for its courses. Some of these persons she knew personally and others she knew by reputation from her nearly 20 years as a teacher and/or administrator in Respondent School District. Ms. Reynolds identified a former superintendent of Gadsden County Schools and a former president of Florida State University as being these "educators." She identified the courses offered by PEN as having some value to continuing teacher education. She also accepted that PEN was a statewide professional teacher association which presumably had DOE's imprimitur. (See Finding of Fact No. 3.) Thereafter, Respondent recognized PEN, pursuant to Section 231.6075, Florida Statutes, and Respondent now deducts PEN members' dues from Respondent's payroll. Ms. Reynolds also testified that representatives of a union, Duval Teachers United (DTU), had asserted that Section 231.6075, Florida Statutes, was unconstitutional and that they had urged that Respondent therefore not recognize any professional teacher associations, including PEN and TEA. It is unclear whether DTU has any affiliation with the AFL-CIO. At hearing, Jack Daniels testified and presented TEA's Articles of Incorporation, demonstrating that TEA is a not-for- profit corporation which offers membership to all teachers, non- instructional personnel, and administrators of all Florida School Districts. TEA apparently operates out of Mr. Daniels' home. TEA is not affiliated with the AFL-CIO. There are no professional (certificated or licensed) teachers on TEA's Board of Directors. It is not necessary to determine if an "educator" also may be a person trained in school administration, teacher qualification, and similar educational support services without also being a licensed or certificated teacher, because TEA's Board does not contain any of these professionals either. TEA did not demonstrate that any of its Board members had any education, training, or experience which would equip him or her to offer appropriate teacher training or staff development. Mr. Daniels has a background in insurance and union organization and litigation. Ms. Heard's qualifications were never clearly revealed. It was disputed whether or not Daryl Grier remained on TEA's Board of Directors as of the date of formal hearing, but in any case, TEA never affirmatively demonstrated that Mr. Grier has any background or qualifications as a teacher or "educator." In fact, his qualifications, if any, were never revealed. Buddy Worwetz testified concerning the courses described in his October 13, 1999, letter to Mr. Daniels (see Finding of Fact Nos. 10 and 11), but he never clearly explained the content of any course offered by his company, including those he has taught in the District. The other instructors available and named in the letter, Dr. Kyker and Carla Jones, were trained and "certified" by contributing authors, Pete DeSisto and Ken Blanchard, of a book with a title similar to one of the course titles, "Introduction to Cooperative Discipline." One of the proposed instructors, Dr. Kyker, reputedly is a "professor," but a professor of what discipline and where she serves as a "professor" was not explained. No mention was made of whether any of these people are certificated or licensed by DOE. Other qualifications, if any, of these proposed instructors were not explained. It was not demonstrated that Mr. Worwetz is a licensed or certificated teacher. Also, the cost and objectives of Worwetz's courses were not explained. However, evidence of Worwetz instructors and courses is essentially moot, since any planned collaboration between TEA and Worwetz Education Systems had ended before formal hearing. Effective May 26, 2000, Mr. Worwetz wrote Mr. Daniels that Worwetz Education Systems would no longer be available to contract with TEA for educational services. Mr. Worwetz's reasons for rescinding his October 13, 1999, offer to deal with TEA were his "gut feeling" that his organization "was being used to bolster TEA's eligibility and capability"; because Mr. Daniels had not contacted him in more than 30 days; and because he believed contracting with TEA would hurt his business with an AFL-CIO rival of TEA. It is clear from Mr. Worwetz's candor and demeanor while testifying that AFL-CIO members had influenced his decision to distance himself from TEA, but there is no evidence of any efforts of the Respondent School District in that regard. TEA currently has no employees, agents, or contractors who can offer continuing teacher education. TEA presented no evidence it currently has any members besides its three Directors, let alone any members who are professional teachers in Respondent's school district who might value receiving TEA materials in their mailboxes and deductions for TEA dues from their paychecks. TEA presented no evidence concerning the content or credit-hour value of educational courses it currently intends to offer. Apparently, TEA expects Respondent to list courses Respondent considers acceptable for teachers' continuing education and staff development and then Mr. Daniels, on behalf of TEA, will try to contract with some entity to produce these courses or will try to contract with an entity already offering such courses. Such a scenario hardly seems feasible, and TEA offered no evidence that any qualified entity exists which is willing to contract with TEA for this service. TEA presented no evidence that it has operating funds with which to provide the educational programs contemplated by the statute. Respondent School District, as represented by Ms. Reynolds, is aware of a prior labor dispute decided by the Florida Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC) which partially went against Respondent and in favor of a non-AFL-CIO union which Mr. Daniels represented. There also has been litigation before PERC which required Mr. Daniels' union "client" to pay money to Respondent, and the money has not been paid. Despite Ms. Reynolds' denial, her candor and demeanor when testifying suggests that she and her advisers have a concern that Mr. Daniels has a secret union agenda connected with TEA and that this concern was a component of Respondent's denial of recognition to TEA, pursuant to Section 231.6075, Florida Statutes. Respondent School District, as represented by Ms. Reynolds, views access to teachers' mailboxes and use of payroll deductions as having fiduciary overtones. She and her advisers have reservations about Mr. Daniels' fitness to administer such activities and funds on behalf of TEA. It is feared that programming into Respondent's system a payroll deduction for TEA may cause some of Respondent's employees to believe that Respondent has checked TEA's reliability in fiscal matters and is endorsing TEA in that regard. Respondent does do such checks on the tax-sheltered annuity firms for which Respondent makes payroll deductions. Supporting its concerns about union agitation and fiscal responsibility, Respondent had admitted in evidence PERC Show Cause Order Docket No. RC-99-014; Order No. 99E-070, dated March 18, 2000, found at 6 FPER paragraph 31099. That Order, in pertinent part, found as fact as follows: In 1990 Florida American Union (FAU) . . . through Daniels, filed an unfair labor practice charge which it knew was frivolous or groundless and ordered FAU to pay the [Duval County] School District its reasonable attorney's fees and costs. The Commission approved this recommendation. See Florida American Union v. Duval County School District, 16 FPER ¶21150 (1990). In 1993, . . . Daniels [as lay representative of a union] filed a motion asserting racial allegations against the Commission. That motion contained inaccurate and deceptively stated information and the Commission denied the motion as devoid of merit in form and substance. See Brotherhood of Black Custodial and Food Service Workers v. Duval County School District v. Florida Public Employees Council 79 AFSCME 19 FPER ¶24067 (1993). In 1994 . . . the hearing officer disqualified Daniels as a lay-representative for creating and using false evidence, presenting false testimony, and engaging in ex parte communications with the Commission. Recognizing the gravity of Daniels' misconduct in the ACE case, the Commission stated that in future cases Daniels would be subject to a show cause order when he asks to serve as a lay-representative. See Association of City Employees v. City of Jacksonville, 22 FPER ¶27052 (1996) appeal dismissed, No. 96-168 (Fla. 1st DCA Oct. 30, 1996). In 1996, . . . [w]hen Daniels sought to act as JETs lay-representative, the hearing officer issued an order to show cause why he should not be disqualified. Jacksonville Employees Together (JET) v. Jacksonville Housing Authority v. Florida Public Employees Council 79, AFSCME Case No. RC-96- 054 (Fla. PERC HOO Dec. 13, 1996). The hearing officer noted Daniels' flagrant misconduct in the ACE case and that Daniels' response only attacked Commissions ACE decision; thus, according to the hearing officer, Daniels failed to provide sufficient reasons why he should not be disqualified to serve as JET's lay- representative. Jacksonville Employees Together v. Jacksonville Housing Authority v. Florida Public Employees Council 79, AFSCME, Case No. RC-96-054 (FLA. PERC H00 Dec. 19, 1996); see also Jacksonville Employees Together v. Jacksonville Housing Authority v. Florida Public Employees Council 79, AFSCME, 23 FPER ¶28109 (1997). On appeal, the court affirmed the hearing officer. Jacksonville Employees Together v. Jacksonville Housing Authority, Case No. 97- 1784 (Fla. 1st DCA Aug. 19, 1998). In 1997, . . . the hearing officer disqualified Daniels as JET's lay- representative because he engaged in conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice. Fla. Admin. Code Rule 28- 106.107(3)(b) . . . See Jacksonville Employees Together v. City of Jacksonville v. Florida Public Employees Council 79, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Case No. RC-97-034 (Fla. PERC H00 July 24, 1998, appeal withdrawn, Case No. 98-0343 (Fla. 1st DCA Mar. 4, 1999); see also Jacksonville Employees Together v. City of Jacksonville v. Florida Public Employees Council 79, AFSCME, AFL- CIO, 25 FPER ¶30047 (1999). On August 31, 1998, . . . [t]he circuit court . . . adjudged Daniels in contempt for failing to honor a lawfully issued subpoena. . . . In re: The Petition of Florida Public Employees Council 79, AFSCME, Case No. 98- 4935-CA (Fla. 4th Cir. Ct. Nov. 16, 1998). [Bracketed material added for grammar and clarity.] The PERC Order gave Mr. Daniels 10 days in which to respond. TEA presented no evidence that the foregoing PERC Order to Show Cause had been responded to, reconsidered, vacated, set aside, or even appealed. Mr. Daniels testified, without refutation but also without any subsequent PERC Order to support his testimony, that, due to a change of PERC Commissioners, he has been re-admitted to practice before PERC. This evidence, even if believed, does not alter the facts as previously found by the PERC Order in evidence.2
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Duval County School District enter a final order denying Teachers Education Association's request for recognition pursuant to Section 231.6075, Florida Statutes, as of the date of the final order.5 DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of January, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 5th day of January, 2001.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner should enter into a new professional service contract with Respondent and whether Respondent's employment with Petitioner should be terminated, due to Respondent's failure to correct his teaching deficiencies.
Findings Of Fact John Kent (Respondent) was employed with the Palm Beach County School Board (Petitioner) as a social studies teacher since 1980 at Palm Beach Lakes High School (PBL High) and its predecessor school, Twin Lakes High School (TL High). During his employment with Petitioner, Respondent held a professional service contract. Respondent has been a teacher for over 30 years, having taught in both the Illinois and Florida school systems. In the latter part of 1996, concerns regarding Respondent's performance, as a teacher, were first raised in Petitioner's school system. Prior to that time, his teaching performance was evaluated as being satisfactory. From 1992 to 1996, PBL High's principal, Nat Collins, evaluated Respondent's teaching performance as satisfactory, with no record of incidents. Principal Collins is a certified Florida Performance Measurement System (FPMS) observer. FPMS is the system adopted by Florida's Department of Education for measuring the performance of teachers, using domains and concepts for each domain. Principal Collins had specifically praised Respondent's planning abilities and lesson delivery skills in three evaluations. Principal Collins' last evaluation of Respondent was in May 1996, in which he specifically praised Respondent for Respondent's lesson delivery skills. In August 1996, PBL High was assigned a new assistant principal, Thomas Carroll. Assistant Principal Carroll notified the teaching staff at PBL High in his first faculty meeting in August 1996 that he would be performing more critical observations of them. Assistant Principal Carroll is a certified FPMS observer. Principal Collins considered Assistant Principal Carroll's remark to be of poor judgment and chastised Assistant Principal Carroll for making such a comment. For the 1996-97 and 1997-98 school years, the assessment instrument used by Petitioner to evaluate its teachers was the Classroom Teacher Assessment System (CTAS). Using CTAS, teachers received a rating of either a one (a concern) or a two (acceptable) in 16 areas of teacher performance. A satisfactory evaluation of a teacher was one in which the teacher received a rating of 28 or above, out of a maximum of 32, or of 5 concerns or less. School-site improvement efforts may accompany a rating in which one concern is noted. During the 1996-97 and 1997-98 school years, the CTAS required a teacher at PBL High, whose performance was rated unsatisfactory at the end of the school year, to be placed in a District-Level Professional Development Plan (District-Level Plan) during the entire following year of improvement. If the teacher failed to sufficiently improve during the subsequent year, as determined by the principal, the teacher would be dismissed. During the 1996-97 school year, Respondent received a CTAS mid-year evaluation dated December 9, 1996. He received a score of 27 and was rated as unsatisfactory, with five concerns, also referred to as deficiencies. The concerns listed were Management of Student Conduct; Instructional Organization and Development; Establishes an Appropriate Classroom Climate; Demonstrates Ability to Plan Effectively; and Demonstrates Ability to Evaluate Instructional Needs. Subsequently, during the same school year, on April 16, 1997, a CTAS annual evaluation of Respondent was conducted. Respondent received a score of 28 and was rated as satisfactory on the annual evaluation. Four areas of concern were listed: Management of Student Conduct; Instructional Organization and Development; Establishes an Appropriate Classroom Climate; and Demonstrates Ability to Plan Effectively. During the 1996-97 school year, Respondent was not pleased with Assistant Principal Carroll's assessment of his teaching performances as inadequate. Respondent expressed his displeasure to Principal Collins regarding Assistant Principal Carroll's assessments. During the 1997-98 school year, on November 21, 1997, Assistant Principal Carroll observed Respondent. He determined that Respondent failed to teach any concepts during the class period. Subsequently, Principal Collins conducted a CTAS mid- year evaluation of Respondent on December 4, 1997. Assistant Principal Carroll provided input to Principal Collins regarding Respondent's mid-year evaluation. Respondent received a score of 30 and was rated satisfactory, with two concerns being listed. The concerns were Instructional Organization and Development; and Presentation of Subject Matter. Principal Collins was concerned that Respondent's last annual evaluation, which was performed on April 16, 1997, identified four concerns. As a result, on December 4, 1997, a School-Site Assistance Plan (School-Site Plan) was developed for Respondent. The School-Site Plan included professional standards seminars. Assistant Principal Carroll notified Respondent that the Peer Assistance and Review (PAR) Program was also available to provide assistance. The PAR Program is a master teacher assistance program. Both the Palm Beach County Classroom Teachers Association (Union) and Petitioner developed the PAR Program to assist teachers with the correction of deficiencies. As Respondent had raised concerns regarding Assistant Principal Carroll's observations of him, Principal Collins requested that an outside observer from Petitioner's district school staff observe Respondent. By memo dated February 27, 1998, Principal Collins noticed Respondent of the observation by the outside observer. The outside observation was to take place on March 10, 1998. As a result of the satisfactory mid-year evaluation, Respondent could not understand why he was being observed again and, this time, by an outside observer. In March 1998, Respondent expressed his concern in a memo to Principal Collins regarding the observation by the outside observer. Prior to the observation, Respondent's wife learned that Respondent was going to be evaluated by one of Petitioner's district staff persons. By letter dated March 4, 1998, to the General Counsel of the Florida Department of Education (DOE), Respondent's wife made allegations of ethical violations by Assistant Principal Carroll, regarding Respondent's observations, and requested an ethics inquiry by DOE. She copied the letter to Petitioner's chief personnel officer (Dr. Joanne Kaiser); Principal Collins; one of Petitioner's members; Petitioner's superintendent; and the Union's Executive Director. On March 9, 1998, Principal Collins completed a CTAS annual evaluation of Respondent. Respondent received a score of 29 and was rated satisfactory, with three concerns being noted. The concerns listed were Management of Student Conduct; Instructional Organization and Development; and Presentation of Subject Matter. Principal Collins did not recommend placement of Respondent in a District-Level Professional Development Plan. On March 10, 1998, Dr. Jeanne Burdsall, manager of Petitioner's Professional Standards, observed Respondent. She developed both the instructional and non-instructional evaluation and assistance plans. Dr. Burdsall's duties include monitoring the evaluation system. She is a certified FPMS observer. Dr. Burdsall had no knowledge of Respondent's prior evaluations. She noted six areas of deficiencies or concerns in Respondent's teaching and provided him with recommendations for improvement. The deficiencies were Management of Student Conduct; Instructional Organization and Development; Presentation of Subject Matter; Communication: Verbal and Nonverbal; Classroom Climate; and Planning. Dr. Burdsall determined that Respondent had conducted an ineffective lesson. On April 21, 1998, Respondent experienced a classroom management problem. Unidentified students in Respondent's classroom had covered his clothing with ketchup. Dr. Burdsall met with Respondent subsequent to the observation. She discussed the observation with Respondent and provided him with suggestions for improvement, employing a behavior management system and teaching a lesson. Dr. Burdsall urged Respondent to become involved in the PAR program. The Union filed a grievance challenging Respondent's observation of March 10, 1998. The grievance was denied at Step II of the process and was not pursued any further. Respondent was entitled to request a deficiency hearing and he did so. A deficiency hearing was held and Respondent's deficiencies were reviewed with him. On May 18, 1998, Patricia Kaupe, Petitioner's Instructional Support Team Member, Area 3 Administration, observed Respondent. Her duties include observing and assisting teachers with teaching performance deficiencies. Ms. Kaupe is a certified FPMS observer. She determined that Respondent had an ineffective lesson. Ms. Kaupe met with Respondent subsequent to the observation and provided him with feedback regarding more effective teaching practices. She concluded that Respondent was an incompetent teacher. At his discretion, on May 29, 1998, Principal Collins completed a second CTAS annual evaluation of Respondent. Assistant Principal Carroll provided input and expressed his concern that classroom management remained a concern and that Respondent continued to need improvement in that area. Principal Collins considered input by Assistant Principal Carroll, prior observations, including the observations of Dr. Burdsall, and the ketchup incident in April 1998. Respondent received a score of 26 and was rated unsatisfactory, with six deficiencies. The deficiencies were Instructional Organization and Development; Presentation of Subject Matter; Communication: Verbal and Nonverbal; Establishes an Appropriate Classroom Climate; and Demonstrates Ability to Plan Effectively. Principal Collins had further concerns regarding the safety of students and of Respondent and regarding the instruction level being provided by Respondent. This second CTAS annual evaluation, which rated Respondent unsatisfactory, was less than "6 weeks prior to the end of the postschool conference period." 4/ Respondent had requested a transfer and on July 17, 1998, he met with Petitioner's chief personnel officer, Dr. Joanne Kaiser. Those in attendance included Principal Collins, Assistant Principal Carroll, and Respondent's union representative. Respondent's request for transfer was denied in that Dr. Kaiser determined that Respondent's main concern was Assistant Principal Carroll, which concern was resolved; that Respondent's needs could be met at PBL High; and that Respondent was not on a District Plan as statutorily required. The granting or denial of the transfer was within the complete discretion of Dr. Kaiser. The evidence fails to demonstrate that Dr. Kaiser abused her discretion in denying the transfer. In addition to Respondent's transfer request, the discussion at the meeting on July 17, 1998, included Respondent's concern regarding Assistant Principal Carroll's being on Respondent's review team. Principal Collins recommended and it was agreed that Assistant Principal Marjorie Lesser would replace Assistant Principal Carroll. It was further agreed that Respondent would be placed on a 30-day School-Site Plan at the upcoming Fall term of school. Assistant Principal Lesser developed a 30-day School- Site Assistance Plan for Respondent. She met with Respondent on August 31, 1998, and reviewed the plan with him. Respondent's union representative did not attend the meeting and his presence was not a requirement. The focus of the School-Site Plan was to address Respondent's six teaching deficiencies listed on Respondent's CTAS annual evaluation of May 29, 1998, and to structure activities to assist him, which included reading materials; viewing professional development video tapes, regarding the deficient teaching domains; observing other teachers; being assisted by peer teachers; having other professionals observe his teaching; and meeting with Respondent and providing feedback on his teaching behaviors. Additionally, Assistant Principal Lesser arranged several seminars and workshops for Respondent. Respondent was also recommended for the PAR Program but he declined. On September 1, 1998, Assistant Principal Lesser observed Respondent. She is a certified FPMS observer. During the observation, Assistant Principal Lesser observed Respondent's efforts in complying with her suggestions; however, he was not successful. Assistant Principal Lesser determined that Respondent's teaching was ineffective and six deficiencies or concerns were identified. The deficiencies were as follows: Domain 3--inadequate directions provided to the students; Domain 3--too many students off-task; Domains 3 and 5--students sent mixed communication message; Domain 5--used a monotone voice; and Domain 2--a lack of consistency in management of student conduct. Periodically, during the implementation of the School- Site Plan, Assistant Principal Lesser met with Respondent, his union representative, and Principal Collins to review Respondent's progress and to discuss continuing concerns and the direction needed to be taken between meetings. The contents of each meeting were recorded and signed off by everyone. At no time did Respondent or his union representative raise a concern as to the timing or the appropriateness of the School-Site Plan. On September 16, 1998, Ms. Kaupe observed Respondent again. She determined that Respondent had failed to teach any concepts and concluded that his lesson was ineffective. Ms. Kaupe offered Respondent suggested strategies for improvement. On October 12, 1998, Assistant Principal Lesser again observed Respondent. She determined that Respondent's teaching was ineffective and that the same six deficiencies remained. Assistant Principal Lesser provided recommendations for improvement to Respondent. Safety concerns arose regarding Respondent's management of student conduct in his classroom because problems erupted into incidents involving students. To ensure safety in Respondent's classroom, Principal Collins implemented a physical change in Respondent's classroom. Principal Collins directed the removal of the light switch in Respondent's classroom, so that it could not be manually turned on and off, and the placement of a device which required a key to turn the light on and off. To further ensure safety in Respondent's classroom, not for behavior management or teaching, Principal Collins placed a teacher's aide in Respondent's classroom at the recommendation of Dr. Kaiser. In October 1998, Principal Collins' concern for safety heightened after a student was injured in Respondent's classroom. After the incident, Dr. Kaiser met with Principal Collins and others, regarding the student injury, and recommended the placement of a teacher's aide in Respondent's classroom for safety reasons, not for behavior management of the students, which was Respondent's responsibility, or for teaching of the students. On November 3, 1998, which was near the end of the 30- day School-Site Plan, Principal Collins observed Respondent. Principal Collins determined that a sufficient number of deficiencies were not corrected but remained. The deficiencies were as follows: Domain 1--Planning; Domain 2--off-track behavior; Domain 3--instructional organization; and Domain 5-- communication verbal and nonverbal. Principal Collins provided recommendations for improvement to Respondent. Respondent agreed, after encouragement, to participate in the PAR Program and to have a PAR teacher. Principal Collins referred Respondent to the PAR Program. At the end of the 30-day School-Site Plan, Respondent was given a CTAS mid-year evaluation by Principal Collins on November 10, 1998. Principal Collins considered the observation that he conducted on November 3, 1998, and Respondent's past observations on September 1, 1998, September 16, 1998, and October 12, 1998. 5/ Respondent received a score of 26 and was rated unsatisfactory, with six deficiencies. The deficiencies were Management of Student Conduct; Instructional Organization and Development; Presentation of Subject Matter; Communication: Verbal and Nonverbal; Establishes an Appropriate Classroom Climate; and Demonstrates Ability to Plan Effectively. Principal Collins recommended the placement of Respondent on a 90-day District Level Professional Development Plan (District Plan). The purpose of the 90-day District Plan was to assist in the remediation of the deficiencies. On November 16, 1988, Dr. Jeanne Burdsall met with Respondent and his union representative to review the 90-day District Plan. The meeting was also attended by Principal Collins and Assistant Principal Lesser. Neither Respondent nor his union representative raised an objection to the applicability of the 90-day District Plan to Respondent. At that meeting, among other things, Respondent's union representative requested a transfer of Respondent and a deficiency hearing. Petitioner's Superintendent noticed Respondent that he was being placed on a 90-day District Plan. Respondent's 90-day District Plan was the first teacher assistance District Plan implemented by Petitioner under the change in Florida Law which Petitioner interpreted as now requiring 90 days of assistance. As interpreted by Petitioner, the 90-day District Plan was effective beginning the 1997-98 school year. The 90-day District Plan consisted of an additional 30-day School-Site Plan followed by the now statutorily required 90 days of assistance. Under the new and revised 90-day District Plan, a new evaluation instrument was used, which required only three teaching deficiencies versus the five teaching deficiencies that were required under the former District Plan. For Respondent's 90-day District Plan, a decision was made to continue evaluating Respondent using the prior instrument requiring five deficiencies. The prior District Plan was not a part of the Union contract. However, the new 90-day District Plan, requiring a 30 plus 90-day assistance plan, was adopted by the Union and incorporated by reference in the Collective Bargaining Contract in Spring 1999. The Union and Petitioner worked for several years developing the new 30 plus 90-day assistance plan. Respondent's 90-day District Plan consisted of workshops, professional observations and feedback from the observers, peer teaching observations and school sites visits, and special assistance with planning. Periodic assistance and progress meetings were also held, which included the attendance of Principal Collins, Respondent, Respondent's union representative, and Dr. Burdsall or one of her staff members. The content of those meetings were recorded and signed-off on. On December 4, 1998, Dr. Lisa Troute, Petitioner's instructional specialist, Professional Standards, observed Respondent. Dr. Troute is a PAR teacher and is a certified FPMS observer. She determined, among other things, that Respondent had failed to develop any concepts. Dr. Troute concluded that Respondent's lesson was ineffective. She provided Respondent with recommendations regarding the six deficiencies. Dr. Troute returned to Respondent's classroom on December 15, 1998, and did not notice that any of her recommendations had been followed by Respondent. On December 10, 1998, Dr. Burdsall observed Respondent. As to the six deficiencies, she provided Respondent with the same teaching strategies for improvement that she had provided at her observation of March 10, 1998. Dr. Burdsall determined that Respondent failed to teach anything relative to the lesson and that his student management remained a problem. She concluded that Respondent's teaching was ineffective and that he was an incompetent teacher. A meeting regarding Respondent's 90-day District Plan was held on December 10, 1998. Persons in attendance included Respondent and his union representative, Principal Collins, Assistant Principal Lesser, and Dr. Burdsall. In January 1999, Dr. Kaiser held a meeting with Respondent and his union representative to address Respondent's request for a transfer. Dr. Kaiser held the meeting in January 1999, because she wanted a 90-day District Plan in place before considering the request. Granting the transfer was in Dr. Kaiser's sole discretion. She considered Respondent's, as well as the district's, concerns in making her decision. Dr. Kaiser denied Respondent's request. She determined that PBL High had taken sufficient precautions to assure the safety of Respondent and his students and that, even though vacancies existed at other schools in social studies, Respondent's remaining at PBL High would serve the best interest of everyone concerned. By letter dated January 15, 1999, Respondent was noticed of the denial. Respondent was placed on a 30 plus 90-day School-Site and District Plan. The statutory provision in effect at the time, as interpreted by Petitioner, only required 90 days of assistance. An adjustment in the 90-day timeline was made due to a hurricane make-up day in February. The timeline was changed to March 11, 1999. On January 14, 1999, Steve Byrne, Petitioner's program planner for social studies, multi-cultural students, and students who speak languages other than English (ESOL), observed Respondent. He is a certified FPMS observer. Respondent had requested that a content teacher observe him to assist him with content and teaching strategies; and Mr. Byrne's observation was for the purpose of content and teaching strategies. Mr. Byrne determined that Respondent had failed to teach any concepts and concluded that Respondent's lesson was ineffective. He met with Respondent and provided Respondent with feedback and strategies for improvement, including suggesting the use of cooperative learning as a more effective strategy. A deficiency hearing was held. A determination was made that sufficient evidence was present to warrant Respondent being placed on a 90-day District Plan to correct the deficiencies. On January 20, 1999, Dr. Mary Gray, assistant professor at Florida Atlantic University, observed Respondent. Since around 1982, she has trained trainers in the FPMS. Dr. Gray is a certified FPMS observer. For several years for PBL High, she observed teachers on District Plans and diagnosed teaching problems. When Dr. Gray observed Respondent, she observed, among other things, serious management problems and nothing meaningful being taught. Dr. Gray provided Respondent with improvement strategies. She concluded that Respondent's lesson was ineffective and that Respondent was incompetent as a teacher. Dr. Gray reviewed Respondent's School-Site Plan, other observations, and the 90-day District Plan. She determined that a pattern existed which demonstrated a lack of teaching concepts, inability to manage student conduct, and off-task behavior. Dr. Gray concluded that Respondent was an incompetent teacher. On January 28, 1999, Ms. Kaupe observed Respondent again. She completed an anecdotal observation, as there was no interaction between Respondent and his students. Ms. Kaupe determined, among other things, that Respondent had failed to teach any concepts and that students were off-task. She concluded that Respondent's teaching was ineffective. Ms. Kaupe provided Respondent with feedback and information regarding more effective teaching strategies. On February 10, 1999, a meeting regarding Respondent's 90-day District Plan was held. Persons attending the meeting included Respondent and his Union representative, Principal Collins, Assistant Principal Lesser, and Dr. Burdsall. On February 24, 1999, Principal Collins observed Respondent. The six deficiencies were addressed, and recommendations were made; the six deficiencies remained. Student misconduct remained a problem. On March 11, 1999, a meeting regarding Respondent's 90-day District Plan was held. Persons attending the meeting included Respondent and his union representative, Principal Collins, Assistant Principal Lesser, and Dr. Burdsall. Principal Collins conducted a CTAS annual evaluation of Respondent on March 12, 1999, at the conclusion of the 90-day District Plan. In preparing the evaluation, Principal Collins considered the following observations: December 4, 1998, observation by Dr. Troute; December 10, 1998, observation by Dr. Burdsall; January 14, 1999, observation by Mr. Byrne; January 20, 1999, observation by Dr. Gray; January 28, 1999, observation by Ms. Kaupe; and February 24, 1999, observation by Principal Collins, himself. 6/ Principal Collins determined that Respondent had not corrected the six deficiencies. These deficiencies were the same deficiencies that were present at the conclusion of the 30-day School-Site Plan. The deficiencies were in the areas of Management of Student Conduct; Instructional Organization and Development; Establishes an Appropriate Classroom Climate; Communication: Verbal and Nonverbal; Presentation of Subject Matter; and Demonstrates an Ability to Plan Effectively. Principal Collins determined further that Respondent was an ineffective teacher and that Respondent's teaching did not meet minimum standards to obtain a satisfactory evaluation. Respondent received a score of 26 and was rated unsatisfactory. Principal Collins recommended to the Superintendent the termination of Respondent's employment with Petitioner. By letter dated March 23, 1999, Respondent was noticed by the Superintendent that she was going to recommend his suspension without pay, effective April 8, 1999, and termination, effective 15 days after Petitioner's scheduled meeting on April 7, 1999. Petitioner's professional development plan had several components, including a School-Site Plan, the PAR Program, and the 90-day District Plan. Respondent was provided all of the aforementioned three components. The evidence demonstrates that Respondent cooperated with Petitioner and attempted to comply with the recommendations and assistance provided by Petitioner even though his attempts were deemed unsuccessful by Petitioner to correct the deficiencies. Respondent is a diabetic and some of the assistance conflicted with his medically required living- routine. The evidence fails to demonstrate that Petitioner provided Respondent sufficient assistance to correct one of the deficiencies or concerns. Observers noted that one deficiency was that Respondent spoke in a monotone and lethargic manner. Respondent's speech is as described but such speech, as observed by the undersigned and supported by the evidence, is considered by the undersigned to be a part of Respondent's make-up, his nature and has been so apparently throughout his teaching career. The responsibility was upon Petitioner to assist Respondent in correcting his deficiencies. The evidence demonstrates that the assistance provided to correct this deficiency did little, if anything, to remedy Respondent's speech pattern. Petitioner did not ascertain as to whether Respondent's speech pattern was capable of being changed through avenues other than that provided by Petitioner, such as speech therapy, since peer observation was obviously not a remedy. Speech therapy was not even suggested by Petitioner as a remedy. Petitioner failed to provide Respondent sufficient assistance to correct his speaking in a monotone and lethargic manner. The evidence is insufficient to support a finding that PBL High has a significant discipline problem. The evidence demonstrates that Respondent has meticulously prepared lesson plans and that his lesson plans are satisfactory. The evidence also demonstrates that he becomes frustrated when he has to deviate from his lesson plans. The evidence demonstrates that Respondent is knowledgeable in the subject area of social studies. Respondent had requested two significant forms of assistance, which were denied. The first assistance Respondent requested was to have his PAR teacher model more effective teaching behaviors with his students using his course curriculum. According to Dr. Troute, Petitioner can make modeling services available upon request from principals at "D" and "F" rated schools, such as PBL High, to assist teachers experiencing performance problems at such schools. Principal Collins was unaware of the availability of modeling services and, as a result, Respondent's request was denied. The evidence fails to demonstrate that the denial was a detriment to Respondent's performance in correcting his deficiencies. The second assistance Respondent requested repeatedly was a voluntary transfer. The granting of Respondent's transfer requests was discretionary with Dr. Kaiser. The evidence fails to demonstrate that Dr. Kaiser abused her discretion. The evidence fails to demonstrate that Principal Collins, Assistant Principal Carroll, Assistant Principal Lesser, any of Petitioner's administrative or management staff who observed Respondent, or any of the observers retaliated against Respondent. Furthermore, the evidence fails to demonstrate that any of the aforementioned persons retaliated against Respondent because of the letter written by Respondent's wife, dated March 4, 1998.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board enter a final order and therein: Refusing to uphold the suspension without pay and recommendation for termination. Reinstating John Kent with full backpay and lost benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 June, 2000.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this hearing, Respondent was a public school teacher licensed by the State of Florida to teach English language at the secondary school level, and her teaching certificate was current and in full effect. The Respondent, Queen Bruton, is employed by the Duval County School Board and holds tenure under the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act. On November 22, 1982, Respondent was sent a Notice of Proposed Dismissal by the School Board indicating the Board's intention to dismiss her as a teacher upon a charge of professional incompetency. The grounds for such conclusion include an indication that Respondent received unsatisfactory evaluations of her performance for the 1980-81 and 1981-82 school years. The Duval County Teacher Tenure Act (TTA), Chapter 21197, Laws of Florida (1941), as amended, permits the discharge of a teacher for, inter alia, professional incompetency as a teacher if certain conditions are met and procedures followed. All teachers in the Duval County public schools are evaluated whenever necessary, but at least once a year. Under the rating system in effect during the 1980-81 and 1981-82 school years, an unsatisfactory rating is awarded when an evaluation contains eight or more deduction points. Ratings are: (1) satisfactory, (2) needs improvement, and (3) unsatisfactory. On the rating form in use during the time in issue here, an unsatisfactory rating results in two deduction points in Items 1 through 27, and one deduction point in Items 28 through 36. An evaluation of "needs improvement" does not result in any deduction points. The School Board of Duval County has not, in any formal way, defined professional incompetence. The evaluation process is but one tool in the management of teacher employment. An unsatisfactory evaluation is not, therefore, conclusive of professional incompetence, but is one factor in that judgmental decision. The procedure used by the School Board in evaluating teacher performance was not adopted in conformity with the Administrative Procedure Act. At the time of adoption, the School Board was operating under teacher working conditions that had been implemented after extensive bargaining between the School Board and the teachers' union. These working conditions contained extensive provisions involving "teacher evaluation." When a contract was finally agreed upon between the School Board and the teachers' union, it contained provisions concerning teacher evaluation identical to those which were in effect under the working conditions previous to the implementation of the contract. These provisions, therefore, do not constitute rules "as defined in Section 120.52, Florida Statutes," but instead constitute guidelines for the evaluation of teacher performance arrived at not by decision of the School Board under conditions which require public hearing but jointly by agreement of the parties to the negotiations of the teacher contract between the School Board and the union, a collective bargaining agreement. Warren K. Kennedy was in Respondent's sophomore English class at Forrest Senior High School in Jacksonville during the 1980-81 school year. At one point during the school year, Kennedy saw a series of approximately 22 sexually explicit words or phrases written on the blackboard in Respondent's room. Kennedy copied these words and notified the principal, who went to Respondent's classroom and saw them himself. These words were placed on the board by someone other than Respondent, with her permission, and consisted of a part of an exercise in outlining. As such, Respondent claims the words themselves mean nothing, but words of that nature, including "orgasms, sexual intercourse, French tickler, blow job, condoms, dildo, masturbation, orgy," and the like serve no legitimate purpose in, and are not a legitimate part of, a sophomore English class. Respondent's classroom that year was chaotic. Students did little work, but instead talked openly and freely. Respondent sat quietly at her desk doing paperwork unless the noise got so great as to disturb other classes. Students felt free to walk out of class with impunity. Cursing was prevalent in class, and discipline was nonexistent. Defacing of school property occurred on at least one occasion with Respondent taking no corrective action. As a result, several students and the parents of other students requested their transfer from Respondent's class to another. Respondent was also unreliable in submitting grades and reports in a timely fashion. Observations of Respondent in the classroom environment by several different individuals revealed she did not insist her students come to class equipped with the proper supplies for effective writing or textbook activity. She rarely utilized visual aids pertinent to the matter being discussed. Classroom discussion with students did not generally involve a broad sampling of the class, but was focused on only a few class members. Her questions to the students were often vague and confusing to the students. Respondent's principal during that school year, Ronel J. Poppel, at whose request the above observations were made, himself observed Respondent in the classroom on several occasions. As a result of the input from those requested observations and of his own observations, he prepared an evaluation form on Respondent on March 15, 1981, which bore an overall rating of unsatisfactory and reflected that her performance was declining. This report, which reflected 7 of 36 items as unsatisfactory (12 total deduction points), had 20 other items rated as "needs improvement" and contained such written-in suggestions as "needs classroom management techniques, needs better standards of behavior, needs to have long-range planning from the beginning of the year, needs to show more enthusiasm for teaching--needs more variety in methods of teaching," and "should use better judgment in selection of topics." As a result of this evaluation, the observations of her principal and others, and the several counseling periods during which Respondent's deficiencies were pointed out to her along with suggestions for improvement, Respondent was put on notice of her failing performance and afforded the opportunity to take advantage of teacher education counseling (TEC) and, while she did enroll in at least one improvement course, failed to take full advantage of the available opportunities. Poppel's evaluation of Respondent as an incompetent teacher is based on: His personal observation; Evaluation by other professionals; Parent complaint follow-up; Her demonstrated lack of effective planning; Her lack of enforcement of school policies; Her lack of or inability to motivate students; Observed and reported chaotic classroom deportment; Her failure to keep proper records; and Her failure to leave lesson plans for substitutes. Notwithstanding the above, Respondent was well versed in the subject matter she was to teach and had the subjective background to be an excellent teacher. Her shortcomings, as described above, however, far outweighed the positive aspects of her credentials. Respondent was transferred for the 1981-82 school year to Fletcher High School in Jacksonville where she was placed under the supervision of Dr. Ragans, Principal, to teach English. Dr. Ragans spoke to Mr. Poppel, her former principal, about Respondent's weak areas so that he could develop plans to help her in those areas. In an effort to prepare Respondent for the coming year and to ensure she was fully aware of school policies and standards, Dr. Ragans held an extensive conference with Respondent to discuss her previous year's unsatisfactory rating and to make plans to remedy or remediate those areas. On August 25, 1981, he wrote a letter to Respondent in which he reiterated the items discussed previously. Review of this letter reveals there could be little doubt of what Dr. Ragans expected. Nonetheless, when he personally observed her in her classroom less than a month later, he found many of the same weaknesses previously identified, such as a noisy classroom environment, talking by students without being called on, Respondent appearing preoccupied with desk work, and inadequate lesson plans. In the observation report, he made numerous suggestions for improvement and offered Respondent the opportunity to a conference which she did not request. Prior to that observation, however, on September 8, 1981, Dr. Ragans and Respondent met with Dr. Jeff Weathers, TEC consultant for the School Board, in a full discussion of her professional shortcomings, at which meeting a suggestion was made that Respondent enroll in certain university-level courses in classroom management and motivation. Respondent was somewhat reluctant to take these courses because she felt they might interfere with her planning and her preparation for classes. Nonetheless, she did attend one class. Dr. Ragans had advised her he would arrange for substitute teachers for her so that she could take available classes. She was also invited to meet with master teachers in the school to seek assistance and to observe them, and she did in fact do so. In addition, a program was set up for her lesson plans to be reviewed by experts at the School Board. Respondent denies she ever submitted these plans, but according to Judith B. Silas, a resource teacher at School Board headquarters who reviewed Respondent's plans in December, 1981, her plans were confusing and lacking a consistent format: the dates on the plans reflect they were from an earlier series of years; objective numbers did not refer to the 1981 Curriculum Guide and did not cross-reference; and some included material had no relationship to plans or lessons. Ms. Silas's comments, forwarded to the school in February, 1982, were discussed with Respondent. A follow-up letter dated September 25, 1981, outlining the substance of the joint meeting with Dr. Weathers, was forwarded to Respondent. Shortly thereafter, on October 29, 1981, Dr. Ragans prepared a preliminary evaluation on Respondent rated overall as unsatisfactory in which 13 items were rated that way and 12 more rated as "needs to improve." On November 25, 1981, Respondent was provided with a lesson presentation checklist drawn by Dr. Weathers for her to use along with a notice of several night courses available to Respondent and a notice of a proposed observation of another teacher by Dr. Weathers and Respondent on December 14, 1981. After this observation, Dr. Weathers and Respondent discussed the positive aspects of that teacher's operation that Respondent could and should emulate. A new classroom observation of Respondent was set for January, 1982. In the interim, in January, 1982, Dr. Ragans received at least one parent request for a student to be transferred from Respondent's class because the classroom environment was noisy, unruly, and not conducive to learning. As a result of this letter and other parent contacts of a similar nature, Dr. Ragans had several informal discussions with Respondent during this period. On February 23, 1982, Respondent requested a conference with Dr. Ragans on her upcoming evaluation which was, she understood, to be unsatisfactory from a letter to her on February 5, 1982, from Dr. Ragans. This rating, conducted on February 2, 1982, but not signed by Dr. Ragans until March 3, 1982, was unsatisfactory, containing 14 items so marked and 13 marked "needs to improve." At the conference, held the same day as requested, Dr. Ragans advised Respondent he still felt she had marked deficiencies previously indicated regarding classroom control, authority, respect, lesson plans coordination, classroom planning, her failure to provide purposeful learning experiences, no student motivation, and her apparent inability to be understood by her students. Also cited to her were the continuing parent complaints and those of other teachers that their classrooms, used by her (she was a traveling teacher with no room of her own), had been damaged by her students. Much of this had previously been outlined in Dr. Ragans' February 2, 1982, letter indicating his intent to rate Respondent as unsatisfactory. Both Dr. Weathers and another school district supervisor, Dr. Henderson, observed Respondent in the classroom situation in late January or early February, 1982. Both individuals identified the same deficiencies as previously noted by so many others, and both made recommendations for improvement which were passed on, intact, to Respondent. In early March, 1982, Dr. Ragans advised Respondent in writing of his intent to evaluate her on March 15, 1982, to see if she had made any improvement. He did this because of Respondent's feeling that the previous evaluation had not given her enough time to work out improvements. This latest evaluation was also overall unsatisfactory. Two days later, on March 17, 1982, Respondent indicated in writing that she did not accept this evaluation. On April 30, 1982, Dr. Ragans again visited Respondent's classroom so that, if she had markedly improved, he could try to extend her contract or change her evaluation before the end of the school year. However, he could observe no appreciable change. Shortly after this visit, on May 3, he discussed with Respondent complaints he had received from several parents about warnings she had sent out on some students which inconsistently showed both satisfactory performance and danger of failing on the same form. She explained this as all students, including straight "A" students, who had not taken the MLST (test) were in danger of failing. Dr. Ragans felt this excuse was feeble and unjustified and demonstrated poor judgment on her part. All this was confirmed in a letter on May 17. A complaint from a parent of one of Respondent's students, received on June 11, 1982, initiated an audit of the grades given by Respondent during the school year. Results of this audit revealed at least 68 errors involving 46 students, including three students who received passing grades when they, in fact, had failed and should have been in summer school. A total of 13 student grades had to be changed, requiring a letter of notification and apology from the principal. Respondent did not deny the inconsistencies shown in the audit, but defended them on the basis of, in many cases, their being the result of her exercising her discretion and prerogative to award a grade different from that supported by recorded achievement if, in her opinion, other factors so dictated. In any case, the number of inconsistencies requiring a grade change was substantially higher than is normal. During the 1981-82 school year, Respondent had not been assigned a classroom of her own, but instead met and taught her classes in the rooms assigned to other teachers. This situation, while not unique to Respondent and one which several other teachers had as well, is nonetheless a definite handicap to any teacher. In an effort to alleviate the impact of this situation, all Respondent's rooms were scheduled as geographically close together as possible, and she was assigned only one subject to teach. Therefore, though she may have had several class periods which progressed at different speeds, the planning and preparation was similar and much less an arduous task than if she had different subjects to prepare for. In any case, there is little relationship between this and discipline and control in the classroom. Dr. Mary Henderson, Director of Language Arts/Reading for the Duval County School Board, observed Respondent in the classroom during both the 1980- 81 and 1981-82 school years at two different schools. Recognizing that Respondent has definite strengths in her knowledge of the subject matter to be taught and her recognition of and communication to the students of the relationship of their lessons to the test requirements, Dr. Henderson still felt Respondent was not a competent teacher. On both occasions, she found Respondent's lesson plans to be inadequate, her techniques in classroom management were deficient, she failed to make effective use of the students' time, and she failed to effectively motivate her students to participate in the classroom activities. Throughout all this period, according to both supervisors and others who observed her, Respondent always maintained a pleasant, calm, positive, and cooperative approach to all with whom she came into contact. At no time did she show hostility or resentment. Also, there was never a question as to her knowledge of the subject matter. Respondent possesses a bachelor's degree in English and a master's degree in administration and supervision. She has sufficient credit hours to qualify for a major in Spanish. She has also taken several in-service courses in such subjects as linguistics, methods of curriculum and instruction, British literature, and school administration. She is certified to teach English, Spanish, and typing. She has been a teacher in several Florida school systems for 29 years, of which the last 21 years were in various Jacksonville area schools. She is tenured. She was selected for summer school employment in 1980, while at Forrest High School, even though tenure does not ensure selection to teach summer school. During the 1980-81 school year, Respondent was caring for the aunt who raised her and who was suffering from terminal cancer. This required frequent travel back and forth to another part of the state, and in addition to being a physical burden, constituted a severe strain on her mental state. During that year, she started out teaching only twelfth grade classes, but as a result of a reduction in class sizes during the school year, she was given some additional tenth grade classes for which she had not prepared. Respondent feels her classroom discipline was not so unusual as to be remarkable. She feels she maintained classroom discipline as well as required and contested the allegations that she rarely referred students to the administration for additional discipline. She made all reasonable effort to improve her performance by enrolling in some of the courses recommended by Drs. Weathers and Ragans, but had to wait until the second semester because she did not get the information on the first semester courses until after they had started. The classes she took urged the use of listening and negotiating skills rather than the authoritative method in dealing with students. She tried to implement what she learned in her classrooms and feels she succeeded regardless of what the testimony shows. In addition, she took a course dealing with self- concept and self-confidence and applied for admission to Jacksonville University's master of arts program in an effort to upgrade her skills. Respondent admits that at the beginning of the 1981-82 school year, she was not using formal lesson plans. She had been asked by the administration for plans on a weekly basis and had jotted down ideas on paper. To formulate these ideas, she used prior years lesson plans, but did not turn any of these in. This does not track with Ms. Silas's testimony that the Respondent's plans she reviewed appeared to be from prior years. I find that prior years' plans were used by Respondent extensively and how these plans were transmitted to Ms. Silas for review is immaterial. Respondent, based on the above, while possessing the necessary technical qualifications to perform as a teacher, while possessing the appropriate knowledge of her subject matter, and while possessing the desire to impart that knowledge to her students, is nonetheless incompetent to conduct a class, maintain proper discipline, and generate adequate student motivation to accomplish these desired ends.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be removed from classroom teaching duties and be assigned some other function within the school system until such time, unless sooner released for other good cause, as she can retire with maximum benefits. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary E. Eckstine, Esquire Chief Administrative Hearings Section City of Jacksonville 1300 City Hall Jacksonville, Florida 32202 William F. Kachergus, Esquire Maness & Kachergus 502 Florida Theatre Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Herb A. Sang Superintendent Duval County Public Schools 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207
Findings Of Fact Petitioner retired under the provisions of the Florida Teacher Retirement System (TRS) on October 1, 1988. Prior to her retirement, Petitioner had been employed as an accounting instructor by Broward Community College (BCC). BCC is a tax-supported institution of higher learning in the State of Florida which participates in the Florida Retirement System. All instructional personnel at BCC are classified as "instructors". There is no job classification of "teacher" used by BCC. On December 14, 1988, Petitioner worked three hours as a substitute instructor at BCC and was paid $61.35. On March 17, 1989, Petitioner worked five hours as a substitute instructor at BCC and was paid $102.25. petitioner worked -as a substitute instructor at the request of personnel at BCC. Prior to agreeing to substitute on these two occasions, Petitioner had read and had relied on certain information provided by Respondent to retirees from the Florida Retirement System (FRS) and from the Florida TRS. That information was contained in a pamphlet published October 1987 entitled "Florida Retirement System - After You Retire" and the 1988 Supplement to that publication. Petitioner was aware that retirees from the TRS could not receive both a salary from a participant in the FRS and retirement benefits from TRS. Petitioner was aware that the pamphlet published October 1987 discussed two exceptions that did not apply to her situation. Petitioner construed a third exception, discussed in the 1988 Supplement, as authorizing her to be1 reemployed as a substitute instructor at BCC without that reemployment interfering with her retirement benefits. The 1988 Supplement discussed the third exception as follows: A third exception to the reemployment law was provided by 1988 legislation. After being retired and "off the payroll" for one calendar month, FRS and TRS retirees may work for 780 hours of the first 12 months as an hourly teacher on a noncontractual basis. The language from the 1988 Supplement which discusses the third exception to the reemployment law provided by 1988 legislation and upon which Petitioner relied fails to advise the retiree that the exception is limited to teachers employed by district school systems. This failure lead to Petitioner's misunderstanding as to the scope of the exception. Following an audit, Respondent advised Petitioner by letter dated September 21, 1989, that she was not entitled to payments of retirement benefits for the months of December 1988, January 1989, and March 1989, because she had been reemployed by BCC during those months. Respondent demanded that Petitioner repay the sum of $3,270.41 that she had received for those three months. On November 15, 1989, Respondent advised Petitioner by letter that it had revised its determination and that only the months of December 1988 and March 1989 were in dispute. Respondent demanded reimbursement of the sum of $2,173.54, the amount of the retirement benefits paid to Petitioner for the months of December 1988 and March 1989. Petitioner timely requested a formal hearing to challenge Respondent's determinations in this matter.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order which finds that Petitioner received overpayment of retirement benefits for December 14, 1988, and for March 17, 1989, due to her reemployment by Broward Community College and which requires her to repay the retirement benefits she received for December 14, 1988, and for March 17, 1989. DONE AND ENTERED this 12 day of March, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of March, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE 89-6853 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent. end The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 1 are adopted in material part by paragraph 1 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 2 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3 are adopted in material part by paragraph 6 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 4 are adopted in material part by paragraph 7 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 5-7 are rejected as being recitation of testimony and as being subordinate to the findings made. COPIES FURNISHED: Nellie E. Dry, pro se 1501 South Ocean Drive, M804 Hollywood, Florida 33019 Stanley M. Danek, Esquire Department of Administration 2639 North Monroe Street Building C Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Shirley Hoefer Broward Community College 225 East Las Olas Boulevard Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Aletta Shutes, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 =================================================================
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
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been employed by Petitioner as a teacher's aide in a mentally handicapped classroom for the past three years. Prior to her employment, Respondent, who is the mother of a handicapped child, worked as a volunteer classroom aide. She is active in the Parent Teacher Association and is a girl scout leader. Respondent attended an orientation session at the beginning of the 1983-84 school year where school policies were discussed. However, she does not remember any explanation of corporal punishment policy and did not receive a copy of Petitioner's rules on this subject. Respondent has had no formal training in education and is not certificated. Respondent recalls a discussion at the beginning of the school year with the special education teacher who was her supervisor. The teacher advised Respondent not to hit Robert Pelligrino because his sister would likely take legal action. The teacher concedes that she made a special point of telling Respondent not to strike Robert Pelligrino, but claims to have forgotten everything else about the discussion including the reason for this unusual warning. On or about February 3, 1984, while engaged in her duties as a teacher's aide, Respondent slapped the student Robert Pelligrino in the face. She struck the child with sufficient force to leave a mark which was visible for a brief period following the incident. Although Petitioner presented no evidence to establish that Respondent struck Robert Pelligrino, she readily admitted doing so. However, Respondent claims she was merely trying to correct his finger-sucking habit. This alibi is rejected, in that events leading up to the incident provoked Respondent and caused her to believe that Robert needed to be disciplined while his unacceptable behavior was fresh in his mind. Robert, who is mentally handicapped, tripped a smaller, handicapped student who fell and was injured as a result of Robert's action. Respondent first went to the aid of the injured student and immediately thereafter slapped Robert. The two other incidents were attested to by Robert's sister, Mrs. Donna Ferrell, who was serving as a volunteer aide on February 1, 1984. Mrs. Ferrell and Respondent were both working with a group of handicapped children on the occasion of a class field trip. Mrs. Ferrell observed Respondent beating on the chest of one student in an effort to re-attach a "stick-on" name tag which the child had removed. Later, on the bus, Mrs. Ferrell observed Respondent reach out and strike or tap a student on the top of his head to gain his attention. This evidence did not establish that Respondent injured either student, that she used undue force, or that she was attempting to punish either of them.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing its charges against Respondent. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of September, 1984.
Findings Of Fact The Petition herein was filed by Petitioner with PERC on December 30, 1974. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1). The hearing in this cause was scheduled by notice dated April 18, 1975. (Hearing Officer's Exhibits 2, 3). 3, The Suwannee County School Board is a Public Employer within the meaning of Florida Statutes, Section 447.002(2). (Stipulation TR 4). The United Teachers of Suwannee is an organization which is seeking to represent employees of the Public Employer concerning working conditions, including wages, hours, and terms of employment. The United Teachers of Suwannee was formed through a merger of two organizations, one of which had previously entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the Public Employer prior to the adoption of the Public Employees Relations Act. There is no contractual bar to the holding of an election in this case. (Stipulation TR 7, 8). There is no bargaining history under the Public Employees Relations Act which affects this matter. (Stipulation TR 8). Requests for recognition as the exclusive representative of persons in the unit described in the Petition, and the Public Employer's response to the requests are set out in correspondence which has been received in evidence as Joint Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and 4. Petitioner clearly requested recognition. The Public Employer did not comply with requests for meetings as promptly as requested by Petitioner; however, the request for recognition was not explicitly denied. PERC has previously determined that the Petitioner is a duly registered employee organization. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 5). The Public Employer contends that Petitioner is not duly registered. The PERC registration file, PERC No. 8H-OR-744-1034, was received in evidence. The Public Employer sought to present the testimony of certain PERC officials with respect to its contention; however, Petitions to Enforce Subpoenas of these individuals were denied. 9, PERC has previously determined that the Petitioner filed the requisite Showing of Interest with it's Petition. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 4). The Public Employer sought to offer evidence that the requisite Showing of Interest had not been presented to PERC; however, no direct evidence in support of the Public Employer's position was presented. The parties agreed that the unit designation set forth in the Petition is appropriate, except that the Public Employer would exclude guidance counselors, occupational specialists, and the school psychologist from the unit. Petitioner would include these persons within the unit. The Public Employer employs five guidance counselors. One guidance counselor is employed at Branford High School, one at the Vocational/Technical School, one at the Suwannee Middle School, and two at Suwannee High School. Guidance counselors are charged generally with responsibility for counseling students and assisting them in understanding the school and it's environment, in understanding themselves in relation to others, in understanding their progress in relation to their abilities and limitations, and in understanding themselves in relation to education and vocational goals. Guidance counselors assemble and interpret information about students, encourage and participate in case conferences with parents and/or teachers, participate in school standardized testing programs, and distribute occupational and vocational material to pupils. In addition to these functions, which are generally associated with the position of guidance counselor, guidance counselors employed by the Public Employer perform additional functions which are probably unique to Suwannee County. Indeed, the functions performed by guidance counselors within Suwannee County vary from school to school and from counselor to counselor. The broad range of duties performed by a guidance counselor in Suwannee County will depend to a great extent upon the personality of the individual counselor and his or her relationship with the school principal. All guidance counselors within the Suwannee County School system have Masters Degrees. It is necessary for a guidance counselor to have a casters Degree in order to be certified as a guidance counselor. Although a good number of teachers within the school system have Masters Degrees, this is not a requirement. Guidance counselors are certified in a different category than are teachers. Guidance counselors have the same base pay as teachers. A beginning guidance counselor would receive the same pay as a beginning teacher with a Masters Degree. Guidance counselors have the same contract as instructional personnel. No guidance counselors employed by the Public Employer perform instructional duties. Guidance counselors receive mail at the schools in the same manner as instructional personnel, share the teachers' lounge, and eat lunch in the school cafeteria with instructional personnel. All guidance counselors have offices. Many teachers also have offices, but all teachers do not have offices. Teachers are scheduled for five instructional work periods per day and one planning period. Guidance counselors work six periods per day without any planning period. Teachers are generally hired on a ten-month contract basis, while guidance counselors are hired on a twelve-month basis. Students frequently relate complaints with respect to their teachers to guidance counselors. The guidance counselors who testified at the hearing each handled these complaints in a different manner. Among the actions that a guidance counselor might take upon hearing a number of complaints about a teacher are to counsel with the teacher, or to inform the principal. Guidance counselors are responsible for assigning new students to classes. In making these assignments guidance counselors will consider class sizes and the personality of the teacher and the student. Guidance counselors can make an assignment despite objections of a teacher. Guidance counselors periodically meet as a group without any teachers present. These meetings might be called guidance counselor meetings, communications meetings, or policy meetings. Guidance counselors occasionally attend meetings with the superintendent and his staff and principals. Policy matters which affect the entire school system are discussed at these meetings, and decisions are made based upon these discussions. A new diploma policy was recently adopted within the school system as a result of such meetings. Guidance counselors do not have the power to hire, fire, suspend or discipline teachers or other instructional personnel. Henry Clay Hooter is the guidance counselor at the Vocational/Technical School. In addition to the duties discussed above, Mr. Hooter serves as the school's Assistant Principal. He has served as Acting Principal on several occasions. On one occasion while serving as Assistant Principal, Mr. Hooter was placed in the position of preparing the Principal's School Budget. In the absence of the principal Mr. Hooter has been called upon to sign leaves of absence for teachers. In the absence of the Principal Mr. Hooter is generally responsible for maintaining order at his school. Because he serves as Assistant Principal, Mr. Hooter has more contact with the Principal than teachers have. Lonnie Bob Hurst is one of the guidance counselors at Suwannee High School. In addition to the general duties and responsibilities set outs above, Ms. Hurst participates in preparing the master school schedule. A teacher's entire workday is set out in the master school schedule. Decisions made in preparing this schedule will determine whether a teacher will have advanced, medium, or slow courses, when the courses will be taught, when the teacher will have a free period, and when the teacher will take lunch. The master school schedule is ultimately adopted by the Principal. Both the Principal and the Assistant Principal work on the schedule along with Ms. Hurst. Ms. Hurst makes recommendations respecting courses that should be offered at Suwannee High School. Her recommendations are generally followed. The Principal at Suwannee High School frequently meets with the school's two guidance counselors and the Assistant Principal to discuss scheduling, and other policy matters. Guidance counselors at Suwannee High School play an active role in determining which courses will be offered, and which teachers will teach the courses. Oscar Munch is the guidance counselor at Branford High School. Mr. Munch acts as Assistant Principal in the absence of the Assistant Principal. Mr. Munch was previously charged with the responsibility for drafting the master schedule, but the Assistant Principal now performs this function. Ms. Virginia Alford is the guidance counselor at Suwannee Middle School. The Principal at Suwannee Middle School, Mr. John Cade, relies upon Ms. Alford to perform numerous functions beyond those generally associated with the position of guidance counselor, and the duties and responsibilities discussed generally above. Mr. Cade has delegated the responsibility for developing the master school schedule to Ms. Alford. Mr. Cade has ultimate responsibility for approving the schedule, but he generally follows the recommendations of Ms. Alford. The guidance counselor at Suwannee Middle School is responsible for assigning students to teachers. In making these assignments the guidance counselor is expected to evaluate the student and the teacher. Mr. Cade relies upon Ms. Alford in preparing his evaluations of teachers. Ms. Alford does not fill out any formal evaluation form; however, Ms. Alford's observations respecting student complaints and the teacher's utilization of student files are solicited by Mr. Cade, and are used by him in rendering evaluations of teachers. Teachers make suggestions to Mr. Cade respecting the budget. Ms. Alford actually assists Mr. Cade in preparing the budget. She attends budget meetings with him, and is expected to give advice to Mr. Cade respecting overall school needs. Mr. Cade meets very frequently, approximately two times per week with his Assistant Principal and his guidance counselor. The guidance counselor's name is on the school stationery. Mr. Cade frequently takes his guidance counselor to meetings with the Superintendent and the Superintendent's staff. Limited negotiations were conducted between the Public Employer and a labor organization which ultimately merged with the Petitioner in this case. Guidance counselors, occupational specialists, and school psychologists did not participate in these negotiations on behalf of the school board. It is now the apparent intent of the Public Employer to place such staff members as guidance counselors, occupational specialists and school psychologists on the collective bargaining negotiating team on a rotating basis. The purpose this placement would be to have the persons who will ultimately have responsibility for administering an agreement participate in the negotiations. There are two occupational specialists employed by the Public Employer. The occupational specialists are not assigned to a particular school. Occupational specialists are charged generally with placing students who are leaving the school system in positions in business and industry. The occupational specialists follow up on students after graduation. The occupational specialists answer directly to the Director of Vocational Education. They prepare their own plan of operation and have a separate budget. Occupational specialists made specific recommendations to the Superintendent regarding items in their budgets. Occupational specialists perform no instructional duties. There is no requirement that an occupational specialist have a college degree. The school psychologist is a member of the Superintendent's staff. The school psychologist answers directly to the Superintendent. He has primary responsibility for the testing and placement of students within the school district. The school psychologist plays a major role in placement of students within the school system. He has a separate office and his own secretary. The school psychologist holds a "specialist degree", which is a level above a Masters Degree. The school psychologist plays a role in formulating school policy respecting special education programs. The school psychologist has virtually total discretion in administering budgetary funds which are allocated to him. ENTERED this 25 day of November, 1975 in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioners are entitled to the Best and Brightest Scholarship as established and defined by section 1012.731(3)(c), Florida Statutes (2017).
Findings Of Fact In 2015, the Legislature enacted, by way of a line item in the annual appropriations bill, the Best and Brightest Program to award cash scholarships to Florida teachers who have been evaluated as “highly effective” by their school districts and who scored at or above the 80th percentile (top 20%) on the SAT or ACT when they took the test. Ch. 2015-232, § 2, line item 99A, Laws of Fla.1/ In 2016, the Legislature enacted a stand-alone statute for the Best and Brightest Program, codifying the appropriations bill language and providing that the program is to be administered by the Department of Education (the “Department”). Ch. 2016-62, § 25, Laws of Fla., codified at § 1012.731, Fla. Stat. (2016). Rather than enacting a statutory scholarship amount, subsection (5) of the 2016 version of section 1012.731 provided that the scholarships would be awarded to every eligible classroom teacher “in the amount provided in the General Appropriations Act.”2/ The 2016 statute also explained that the Best and Brightest Program was intended to provide “categorical funding for scholarships to be awarded to classroom teachers, as defined in s. 1012.01(2)(a), who have demonstrated a high level of academic achievement.” § 1012.731(2), Fla. Stat. (2016). Section 1012.01(2) defines “instructional personnel,” including “classroom teachers,” as follows: INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL.— “Instructional personnel” means any K-12 staff member whose function includes the provision of direct instructional services to students. Instructional personnel also includes K-12 personnel whose functions provide direct support in the learning process of students. Included in the classification of instructional personnel are the following K-12 personnel: Classroom teachers.--Classroom teachers are staff members assigned the professional activity of instructing students in courses in classroom situations, including basic instruction, exceptional student education, career education, and adult education, including substitute teachers. Student personnel services.--Student personnel services include staff members responsible for: advising students with regard to their abilities and aptitudes, educational and occupational opportunities, and personal and social adjustments; providing placement services; performing educational evaluations; and similar functions. Included in this classification are certified school counselors, social workers, career specialists, and school psychologists. Librarians/media specialists.-- Librarians/media specialists are staff members responsible for providing school library media services. These employees are responsible for evaluating, selecting, organizing, and managing media and technology resources, equipment, and related systems; facilitating access to information resources beyond the school; working with teachers to make resources available in the instructional programs; assisting teachers and students in media productions; and instructing students in the location and use of information resources. Other instructional staff.--Other instructional staff are staff members who are part of the instructional staff but are not classified in one of the categories specified in paragraphs (a)-(c). Included in this classification are primary specialists, learning resource specialists, instructional trainers, adjunct educators certified pursuant to s. 1012.57, and similar positions. Education paraprofessionals.--Education paraprofessionals are individuals who are under the direct supervision of an instructional staff member, aiding the instructional process. Included in this classification are classroom paraprofessionals in regular instruction, exceptional education paraprofessionals, career education paraprofessionals, adult education paraprofessionals, library paraprofessionals, physical education and playground paraprofessionals, and other school-level paraprofessionals. In 2017, the Legislature amended section 1012.731(3) to establish that the scholarship award would be $6,000 for those classroom teachers rated “highly effective” who also had the requisite SAT or ACT scores: (3)(a) To be eligible for a scholarship in the amount of $6,000, a classroom teacher must: 1. Have achieved a composite score at or above the 80th percentile on either the SAT or the ACT based on the National Percentile Ranks in effect when the classroom teacher took the assessment and have been evaluated as highly effective pursuant to s. 1012.34 in the school year immediately preceding the year in which the scholarship will be awarded, unless the classroom teacher is newly hired by the district school board and has not been evaluated pursuant to s.1012.34. * * * In order to demonstrate eligibility for an award, an eligible classroom teacher must submit to the school district, no later than November 1, an official record of his or her qualifying assessment score and, beginning with the 2020-2021 school year, an official transcript demonstrating that he or she graduated cum laude or higher with a baccalaureate degree, if applicable. Once a classroom teacher is deemed eligible by the school district, the teacher shall remain eligible as long as he or she remains employed by the school district as a classroom teacher at the time of the award and receives an annual performance evaluation rating of highly effective pursuant to s. 1012.34 or is evaluated as highly effective based on a commissioner- approved student learning growth formula pursuant to s. 1012.34(8) for the 2019-2020 school year or thereafter. Ch. 2017-116, § 46, Laws of Fla. The 2017 amendment to section 1012.731 also added a new subsection (3)(c), providing that lesser amounts could be awarded to teachers rated “highly effective” or “effective,” even if they could not demonstrate scores at or above the 80th percentile on the SAT or ACT: Notwithstanding the requirements of this subsection, for the 2017-2018, 2018- 2019, and 2019-2020 school years, any classroom teacher who: Was evaluated as highly effective pursuant to s. 1012.34 in the school year immediately preceding the year in which the scholarship will be awarded shall receive a scholarship of $1,200, including a classroom teacher who received an award pursuant to paragraph (a). Was evaluated as effective pursuant to s. 1012.34 in the school year immediately preceding the year in which the scholarship will be awarded a scholarship of up to $800. If the number of eligible classroom teachers under this subparagraph exceeds the total allocation, the department shall prorate the per-teacher scholarship amount. This paragraph expires July 1, 2020. Id. By December 1 of each year, each school district must submit to the Department the number of eligible classroom teachers who qualify for the scholarship, as well as identifying information regarding the schools to which the eligible classroom teachers are assigned. § 1012.731(4)(a)-(c), Fla. Stat. For the 2017-2018 school year, the December 1, 2017, submission deadline was extended to January 2, 2018, due to a hurricane. The School Board’s deadline for teachers to apply for the scholarship was accordingly extended from November 1, 2017, to December 1, 2017. By February 1 of each year, the Department is required to disburse scholarship funds to each school district for each eligible classroom teacher to receive a scholarship. § 1012.731(5), Fla. Stat. By April 1, each school district is required to award the scholarship to each eligible classroom teacher. § 1012.731(6), Fla. Stat. In 2018, the Legislature amended section 1012.731 to provide that a school district employee who is no longer a classroom teacher may receive the $6,000 award if the employee was a classroom teacher in the prior school year, was rated highly effective, and met the requirements of this section as a classroom teacher. § 1012.731(3)(b)2., Fla. Stat. (2018). The Legislature did not add a similar provision stating that former classroom teachers who are still school district employees remain eligible for the $1,200 and $800 awards. § 1012.731(3)(c)2., Fla. Stat. (2018). The Legislature funds the Best and Brightest Program. The School Board had no role in creating the Best and Brightest Program. The School Board is required to determine the eligibility of classroom teachers who qualify for the Best and Brightest Program pursuant to the requirements of the statute. Petitioners in this case claim entitlement only to the $1,200 award established by the 2017 version of the statute. Brenda Troutman, director of Instructional Personnel, is the School Board employee in charge of the Best and Brightest Program application and submission process. Ms. Troutman has worked for the School Board for 17 years. She has been a junior high classroom teacher and an assistant principal and vice principal at the high school level. Though no longer teaching in the classroom, Ms. Troutman retains her certifications in math grades 5-9, exceptional student education (“ESE”), educational leadership, and school principal. When working as a high school administrator, Ms. Troutman was the master scheduler for her school, meaning that she built the schedule for every teacher at the school. This task required that she become very familiar with the School Board’s course code directory. Ms. Troutman also had to understand the certification system in order to hire and assign teachers. If a teacher asked to teach a certain course, Ms. Troutman had to know both the course requirements and the teacher’s certifications to determine whether the teacher was eligible to teach the course. As part of her current position in the School Board’s human resources department, Ms. Troutman is required to know the School Board’s various job titles and descriptions. She is responsible for replacing obsolete job descriptions and posting current job descriptions on the School Board’s website. Ms. Troutman testified as to how she manages the application and submission process of the Best and Brightest Program. She starts by making herself familiar with any changes the Legislature may have made to the program. She then issues a notice to teachers about the program and the current eligibility requirements. For the 2017-2018 Best and Brightest Program, Ms. Troutman prepared a draft email that Superintendent Addison Davis reviewed and sent to all of the school district’s teachers and administrators on September 28, 2017. The email explained that to be eligible for the $6,000, $1,200 or $800 scholarship, an applicant must meet the definition of classroom teacher as set forth in section 1012.01(2)(a). Ms. Troutman developed the School Board’s application for the Best and Brightest Program, based upon her understanding of the statutory requirements. All completed applications for the Best and Brightest Program come into Ms. Troutman’s office. Ms. Troutman testified that she received approximately 2,000 applications for the 2017-2018 award. Ms. Troutman, with the aid of her assistant, reviews and verifies the information on the applications. If Ms. Troutman has any questions about an application, she seeks the opinion of her direct supervisor David Broskie, the director of Human Resources. In some cases, they also have discussions with Superintendent Davis and School Board Attorney David D’Agata. The School Board employs two major data programs. FOCUS is the program/database that holds all student information, including attendance, grades, disciplinary actions, test information, and demographics. TERMS is the program/database that houses all employee information. When verifying information on the Best and Brightest Program applications, Ms. Troutman uses both FOCUS and TERMS, and on occasion conducts additional investigation. The School Board’s application asks for the teacher’s assignment. Because the application was titled “2017-2018 Clay County Application: Florida Best & Brightest Teacher Scholarship,” Ms. Troutman believed that the teachers were required to provide their 2017-2018 teacher assignments. As will be discussed in more detail below, the year of the teacher assignment was a major point of disagreement between Petitioners and the School Board. The application provided a checkmark system for the teacher to indicate which scholarship was being sought. The $1,200 scholarship line provided as follows: I am applying for the $1,200.00 highly effective scholarship. I have attached a copy of my 2016-2017 highly effective final evaluation (with student performance measures). The application’s language led Petitioners to believe that the 2017-2018 scholarship awards would be based on their teacher assignments and evaluations for 2016-2017. Ms. Troutman explained that this belief was incorrect. Eligibility for the 2017-2018 scholarship was based on a teacher’s assignment for the 2017-2018 school year. The plain language of the statute requires that one must be a “classroom teacher” in order to be eligible for the scholarship; having been a classroom teacher in a previous year does not suffice. Ms. Troutman stated that she verified with Mr. Broskie, Mr. Davis, and Mr. D’Agata that the School Board should base the award on the teacher’s 2017-2018 assignment. Petitioners, on the other hand, argue that the statutory language requires only an evaluation of “highly effective” for the 2016-2017 school year. The statute is silent as to whether a teacher applying for the $1,200 scholarship must be teaching in a classroom situation during the 2017-2018 school year. Petitioners argue that the School Board is reading a requirement into the statute that is not evident from the plain language. Ms. Troutman further explained that the applications for the 2017-2018 scholarships were to be submitted prior to the conclusion of the 2017-2018 school year. Therefore, as required by section 1012.731(3)(a)1. and (3)(c), the application requested the evaluation for “the school year immediately preceding the year in which the scholarship will be awarded.” Ms. Troutman testified that it is sometimes obvious from the teaching assignment that the teacher qualifies as a “classroom teacher.” If an application states that the assignment is “chemistry teacher” or “algebra teacher” or “fifth grade classroom teacher,” it is clear that the applicant meets the definition. Aside from verifying the assignment in the TERMS database, Ms. Troutman takes no further action. However, some applications require additional research before Ms. Troutman can conclude that the applicant qualifies as a classroom teacher. For example, Petitioner Abbie Andrews identified her assignment on her application as “classroom teacher.” Ms. Troutman went to TERMS and saw that Ms. Andrews was designated as an “ESE Support Facilitator” for the 2017-2018 school year. Ms. Troutman testified that ESE Support Facilitators are sometimes assigned to teach classes and therefore could be classified as “classroom teachers” for purposes of the Best and Brightest Program. Ms. Troutman examined both the master schedule and the teacher’s personal account in FOCUS to determine whether Ms. Andrews was assigned to teach any courses. Ms. Andrews had no teaching assignments for 2017-2018 in FOCUS. Ms. Andrews and fellow Petitioners Cherry Deaton, Donna Foster, and Danielle Perricelli held the position of ESE Support Facilitator during the 2017-2018 school year. The School Board concluded that these Petitioners did not qualify for the $1,200 scholarship because their schedules did not assign them the professional activity of instructing students in courses in a classroom situation, as required by the statute. It was undisputed that these Petitioners had been rated “highly effective” for the 2016-2017 school year. It was also undisputed that Ms. Andrews, Ms. Deaton, and Ms. Foster met the statutory definition of a classroom teacher for the 2016-2017 school year. The School Board’s general job description for an ESE Support Facilitator provides as follows: The teacher is responsible directly to the Principal. He/she provides for the instruction, supervision, and evaluation of assigned students on an as needed basis. He/she supports both general education and ESE teachers. He/she serves in a staff relationship with other teachers and supports and promotes ESE inclusion activities. (Emphasis added). The School Board contrasts this job description with that of “Classroom Teacher,” which provides: “The teacher is responsible directly to the principal for the instruction, supervision, and evaluation of students.” The classroom teacher is fully responsible for the “instruction, supervision, and evaluation” of the students in her classroom, whereas the ESE Support Facilitator performs those activities only “as needed.” The School Board also points out that, unlike a classroom teacher, an ESE Support Facilitator is not required to be certified in-field for the position. The ESE Support Facilitator is not the teacher of record for any particular course. Their schedule is fluid. The ESE Support Facilitator comes and goes as needed (“pushes in,” to use the teaching vernacular) in the classroom, and is expected to be wherever the ESE student assigned to them needs their services. Sometimes they push into the classroom and sometimes they pull students out of the class to work on a specific concept or skill. An ESE Support Facilitator is assigned “contact students” for whom individualized educational plans (“IEPs”) are prepared. The classroom teacher of record is responsible for giving the student course credit or a grade and is responsible for recording attendance in FOCUS. One-third of the classroom teacher’s evaluation is tied to student performance. Only the classroom teacher has default access to FOCUS in order to enter attendance and grade information for the students in the class. An ESE Support Facilitator must seek and be granted access to student’s FOCUS information. An ESE Support Facilitator is expected to meet with each contact student at least once a month; in practice, these meetings tend to occur more frequently. The ESE Support Facilitator goes over accommodations the student needs and assignments the student did not understand. The facilitator reteaches the course material if need be and stays in touch with the student’s teachers and parents, making sure all stakeholders in the student’s success are on the same page. The evidence presented at the hearing indicated that all of the students served by the ESE Support Facilitators in this case attended classes in regular classrooms, not in separate ESE classes. In such “inclusion” classes, the ESE Support Facilitator’s role is to push in and assist contact students in the regular classroom, ensuring that their IEP requirements are met and that the students are progressing satisfactorily through the course material. Based on these definitional and operative distinctions, Ms. Troutman considered ESE Support Facilitators to be “other instructional staff” as defined by section 1012.01(2)(d), rather than “classroom teachers” as defined by section 1012.01(2)(a). Ms. Andrews was employed as an ESE Support Facilitator at Middleburg High School during the 2016-2017 school year. She taught two periods of English and spent the remaining four periods fulfilling her ESE duties. She was evaluated as “highly effective.” As noted above, there was no dispute that Ms. Andrews met the definition of a “classroom teacher” for the 2016-2017 school year. During the 2017-2018 school year, Ms. Andrews was a full-time ESE Support Facilitator at Middleburg High School, not assigned to teach any courses. In FOCUS, she was assigned as the “contact teacher” for approximately 60 students, meaning that she was primarily responsible for writing their IEPs and ensuring that they made adequate progress in their classes. She met with all of her contact students on an as needed basis, at least once per month but often as much as twice per week. However, Ms. Andrews was not listed in FOCUS as the teacher of record for any class. Even though she routinely pushed into classes to support her assigned ESE students, Ms. Andrews was not the primary teacher of record. She was there to assist her contact students with whatever they needed to learn the course, but the course was not assigned to her to teach. Ms. Andrews did not have a traditional classroom. She was not the teacher of record in any course for which students received academic credit, and she did not assign grades to students for the material she was teaching. Ms. Andrews prepared IEPs that were individualized to particular contact students. She did not prepare daily lesson plans in the manner of a classroom teacher. Ms. Andrews described her job as an ESE Support Facilitator as follows: My job is to teach, mentor, challenge students to make them -- make them ready for graduation, become productive members of society. I believe that’s the same thing a classroom teacher does. I am using the Florida standards to prepare lessons for remediation if a student needs it. I am constantly having conversations with not just students, but their parents, keeping them on track or making sure their students are on track because ultimately, a parent wants that student to graduate on time as well. I believe that the questions that are asked of me as a support facilitator are the same questions that parents would ask of a classroom teacher because they are very concerned. I am not just answering questions based on one classroom. I'm answering questions based on six classes. I'm responsible for that student being successful in six classes. The IEPs that I write, they're legally binding. I am involved in the academics, behavior, discipline. I deal with discipline problems. All of these things are the same things that a classroom teacher would deal with. I do not have a schedule in Focus; however, when a need arises, I'm there, I'm in a classroom, I'm helping, and I'm doing what's needed to be done for the kids to be successful. Ms. Deaton was employed as an ESE Support Facilitator at Middleburg High School during the 2016-2017 school year. She taught two periods of English and spent the remaining four periods fulfilling her ESE duties. She was evaluated as “highly effective.” As noted above, there was no dispute that Ms. Deaton met the definition of a “classroom teacher” for the 2016-2017 school year. In 2017-2018, Ms. Deaton was a full-time ESE Support Facilitator at Middleburg High School, with approximately 60 contact students assigned to her in FOCUS. She was not assigned to teach any courses. If she pushed into a class to support her assigned ESE students, she was not the primary teacher of record. She was not designated as a co-teacher,3/ but she would assist teaching classes on an as-needed basis if she was not busy testing students or preparing IEPs. For those classes, she was provided access to view grades in FOCUS, but she did not have access to give grades. She would meet students as needed in her office, in another teacher's classroom, or in the computer lab. She did not develop lesson plans on her own, but provided suggestions and advice on lesson plans to the primary teacher. As an ESE Support Facilitator, Ms. Deaton did not have a classroom or teach a classroom full of students. She had no schedule assigned to her in FOCUS, but had contact students assigned to her in FOCUS. Ms. Foster was employed as an English/language arts and ESE Inclusion Teacher during the 2016-2017 school year. She taught four classes as ESE inclusion teacher. The remaining two periods were devoted to her position as ESE department head. Ms. Foster had a schedule in FOCUS. She had her own classroom and students, prepared daily lesson plans, and assigned grades. Students in her classes received academic credit. Ms. Foster was evaluated as “highly effective.” As noted above, there was no dispute that Ms. Foster met the definition of a “classroom teacher” for the 2016-2017 school year. Ms. Foster was employed as an ESE Support Facilitator and ESE department head during the 2017-2018 school year. She retired at the end of the school year, effective June 7, 2018. As an ESE Support Facilitator, Ms. Foster did not have a set schedule. Ms. Foster’s assigned ESE students did not receive academic credit for the services she provided, but her assistance was integral in helping them pass their courses. Ms. Foster assisted with an American history class during the 2017-2018 school year, but was not assigned as the primary teacher in FOCUS. Ms. Foster testified that she did not believe she had ever been identified as a co-teacher in FOCUS, though she thought she should have been. Ms. Foster testified that she had IEPs for the American history class that listed both the class setting and the service delivery method as “co-teach.” She explained that because the class had both general education and ESE students, the teacher had to be certified in both the subject matter and ESE. Because the primary teacher was certified only in the subject matter, it was necessary for Ms. Foster to co-teach the class. Ms. Foster testified that she split lesson plan preparation with the primary teacher. Ms. Foster believed she was not listed in FOCUS as the co-teacher because the school administration never bothered to remove the name of Kristin Heard, the ESE teacher originally assigned to the class, who was moved to a science class early in the year. Ms. Foster pursued the matter with the assistant principals at Lakeside Junior High, but nothing came of it. Mallory McConnell, the principal at Lakeside Junior High School during the 2017-2018 school year, confirmed that Ms. Foster was not listed as a co-teacher on the master schedule. Ms. McConnell testified that in 2017-2018 there were no “true co-teacher” situations, by which she meant two teachers who equally shared responsibility for the instruction and grading of every student in the class. Ms. McConnell was aware of situations in which a student’s IEP mandates co-teaching in a class, but she testified that she was unaware of any student at Lakeside Junior High School in 2017-2018 whose IEP required a co-teacher. Ms. McConnell conducted infrequent walkthrough observations of the American history class. She testified that she saw Ms. Foster providing support services to the ESE students but never saw Ms. Foster teaching at the front of the class. Ms. McConnell stated that she would not have expected to see Ms. Foster teaching the class or creating lesson plans for the class as a whole because those tasks were not her job responsibility. Ms. McConnell was in no position to state whether Ms. Foster did, in fact, prepare lesson plans and teach the class. Ms. McConnell was able to state that for at least one month during the school year, Ms. Foster administered tests to her ESE students, meaning that she could not have been co- teaching the American history class. Ms. Foster did not tell Ms. Troutman that she had assisted teaching the American history class during the 2017- 2018 school year, nor did she include such information on her application for the Best and Brightest Program, because she believed the award was based upon her position in 2016-2017 and because she believed the school administration’s failure to include her as teacher of record in FOCUS was an “in-house” issue. Ms. Perricelli was employed as an ESE Support Facilitator, ESE department head, and MTSS intervention team facilitator at Orange Park Junior High School. “MTSS” is an acronym for Multi-Tiered System of Support, a framework for providing support to students who are struggling academically or have an identified need in a specific area such as speech, language, or behavior. MTSS interventions may be used for regular education or ESE students. Ms. Perricelli testified that she was not the teacher assigned by FOCUS for any class in 2016-2017. In addition to her regular ESE duties, Ms. Perricelli taught “grade recovery” to two students in language arts, science, and math. Grade recovery is a class offered to students who have failed a course and lack the credits to move on to the next grade level. Ms. Perricelli designed lesson plans and curriculum assessments for each subject, graded papers and tests, and reported the students’ grades to the school. Ms. Perricelli testified that she was not given the authority to enter the grade recovery students’ grades into FOCUS in 2016-2017. She requested a course code but was never provided one. Ms. Perricelli taught grade recovery for two periods, one for each student. For the other four periods of the school day, Ms. Perricelli would push into classrooms and work with ESE students, usually in small groups with students who needed remediation. She had around 40 contact students and developed IEPs for each of them. Most of her contact students were in the classrooms that she was going into, so she would see them throughout the week. She would meet with her other contact students about once a week. Ms. Perricelli would work with the assigned teacher to modify the course material to meet the needs of the ESE students. Ms. Perricelli was evaluated as “highly effective” for the 2016-2017 school year, based on standard classroom teacher criteria. She was observed working with her grade recovery students and in the classrooms in which she pushed in. Ms. Perricelli testified that her assignments were the same for the 2017-2018 school year. She taught one student in a grade recovery course. Due to her persistence, Ms. Perricelli was able to get a course code from Ms. Troutman for the grade recovery course in 2017-2018. The grade recovery course was named “Unique Skills.” In 2017-2018, Ms. Perricelli was assigned around 70 contact students for whom she prepared IEPs. As department head, Ms. Perricelli oversaw 22 ESE instructors. She was the only ESE Support Facilitator at the school. Janice Tucker was vice principal at Orange Park Junior High School in 2017-2018. She testified that early in the school year, the assigned teacher for seventh grade math left for another county. A long-term substitute, Lashonda Campbell, took over as teacher of record. Ms. Perricelli testified that she developed some of the curriculum in Ms. Campbell’s math classes, which included ESE and non-ESE students. She stated that she taught the class alone once a week when Ms. Campbell started, then tapered off into pulling out small groups of ESE students who needed remediation. She worked with four periods of seventh grade math classes that year. Ms. Perricelli testified that she gave grades to students in those courses and gave them to Ms. Campbell for entry into FOCUS. Ms. Tucker testified that Ms. Perricelli was not a co- teacher for the math class. Ms. Campbell was the teacher of record. Ms. Tucker testified that when she observed the math class, she saw Ms. Perricelli working with small groups in the back of the class or at a table in the hallway, and Ms. Campbell at the front teaching the class. Ms. Tucker never saw Ms. Perricelli at the front of the class teaching. Ms. Tucker conceded that she had no knowledge whether Ms. Perricelli was involved in creating lesson plans or assigning grades for the math class. Ms. Perricelli was evaluated by Ms. Tucker for the 2017-2018 school year. Ms. Tucker observed Ms. Perricelli in the seventh grade math class and in the Unique Skills class. Ms. Perricelli was again rated “highly effective.” Ms. Perricelli testified that she did not mention teaching the math class on her scholarship application. She stated that she did not tell Ms. Troutman about the math class because at the time, the school was still attempting to get a full-time teacher for the class. Ms. Troutman obviously knew about the “Unique Skills” class, having issued the course code to Ms. Perricelli. Ms. Troutman testified that she consulted with Mr. Broskie and Mr. D’Agata as to whether having one assigned class in FOCUS should qualify Ms. Perricelli for the scholarship. They concluded that teaching one class with one student was insufficient to qualify as a “classroom teacher” for purposes of the Best and Brightest Program. Ms. Troutman testified that this conclusion was consistent with the School Board’s historic practice of considering two or more classes as the “cutoff” for a classroom teacher. Ms. Troutman believed that if an ESE Support Facilitator taught two classes, then she would qualify as a “classroom teacher.” Petitioner Easter Brown taught a fourth grade classroom at Grove Park Elementary School during the 2016-2017 school year and was rated “highly effective.” It is not disputed that Ms. Brown met the definition of a “classroom teacher” for the 2016-2017 school year. In 2017-2018, Ms. Brown was a full-time SPRINT specialist. “SPRINT” stands for Supervisor of Pre-Interns and New Teachers. SPRINT specialist is a support position for teacher trainees and new teachers, operating under an agreement between the School Board and the University of North Florida (“UNF”), each of which pays half of the SPRINT specialist’s salary. Ms. Brown taught field classes at UNF and conducted workshops for clinical educator training and professional development. Ms. Brown kept Grove Park Elementary as her home base and shared a classroom there with two other teachers. She taught UNF students in classes at the university and worked with new teachers at the school. She estimated that she spent half her time at UNF and half at Grove Park Elementary. Ms. Brown had no K-12 courses or K-12 students assigned to her in 2017-2018. She had no courses assigned to her in FOCUS. She gave grades to only UNF students. Ms. Brown did not create traditional lesson plans but did assist new teachers in writing lesson plans. Ms. Brown testified that she did some teaching in a regular classroom for purposes of modeling teaching techniques for her student teachers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Clay County School Board enter a final order: Finding that Petitioners Abbie Andrews, Cherry Deaton, and Donna Foster were not eligible for a $1,200 scholarship under the 2017 Florida Best and Brightest Teacher Scholarship Program because they were not classroom teachers during the 2017-2018 school year; and Finding that Petitioners Easter Brown and Danielle Perricelli were eligible for a $1,200 scholarship under the 2017 Florida Best and Brightest Teacher Scholarship Program because they were classroom teachers during the 2017-2018 school year, and directing staff to take all practicable measures to secure the scholarship monies for Ms. Brown and Ms. Perricelli. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of March, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of March, 2019.
