Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Respondent holds Florida Teaching Certificate 237129, covering the areas of social studies and work experience coordinator. At all times material hereto, the Respondent was employed as a social studies instructor at Columbia High School in the Columbia County School District. Respondent has been a school teacher since January, 1967 and has taught school in the Columbia County School District since 1968, excluding two (2) years for military service. Respondent has a good record as a teacher in the Columbia County School District and has never been accused of any professional misconduct in the past. Adrianne Lewis (Lewis) was a sixteen (16) year old student at Columbia High School in the first semester of the 1985/86 school year and became acquainted with the Respondent when she was a student in his third and sixth period classes. Lewis did not start in Respondent's sixth period class until two (2) weeks after the beginning of school in August, 1985 and was required to make up work missed during the first two (2) weeks. Respondent has a consistent policy with regard to make-up work which requires all students to make up work either before or after school and not during class. During the first six (6) weeks of school, Lewis made up several tests that she had missed both before and after becoming a student of Respondent. The complaining witness, Adrianne Lewis, testified that on two (2) separate occasions, most probably in September, 1985, the first time during a school pep rally and the second time while she was taking a make-up test after school, the Respondent, among other things, kissed her on the mouth and neck, fondled her breasts, rubbed and fondled her derriere, attempted to put a balloon under her shirt and asked why she was afraid of him and sex. However, the more credible evidence is that: (a) On September 13, 1985, Lewis went to Respondent's classroom during a school pep rally to take a make-up test, arriving around 2:50 p.m. She was given a copy of the test by Respondent and took the test in Respondent's classroom; (b) After Lewis turned in the test, Respondent spent approximately ten (10) minutes with Lewis discussing a problem she was having; (c) During the time Lewis was in the Respondent's classroom and office, Ken Stark was in an adjoining classroom with connecting windows which had only a portion of the view blocked; (d) Later in September, 1985, Lewis stayed after school to take another make-up test, arriving around 3:30 p.m. She was given a copy of the test by Respondent and took the test in Respondent's classroom; (e) During the time Lewis was in Respondent's office turning in the test, Respondent's elder son, John D. Evans, III was present and observed no misconduct on Respondent's part in regard to Lewis and; (f) Respondent, at no time during these two (2) occasions or any other occasion, improperly touched Lewis or engaged in any misconduct with respect to Lewis. During the second six (6) weeks of school, Lewis began missing class regularly. Due to a School Board policy concerning unexcused absences, Respondent consulted with Tom Grubb, Guidance Counselor, and was instructed to contact Lewis' parents. Respondent was unable to contact Lewis' parents or her grandmother, with whom she lived, but did contact her aunt, Denise Lewis. Respondent informed Denise Lewis of Lewis' absences and the need for Lewis to makeup her work or risk failing. Respondent's conversation with Denise Lewis occurred during the week of October 28, 1985 and about one (1) week later Denise Lewis conveyed the message to Lewis. Lewis did not mention the alleged improper touching by Respondent to Denise Lewis at this time but did say that Respondent did not like her and was going to fail her anyway. When Denise Lewis informed Lewis' grandmother of her absences, Lewis became upset because her grandmother had not previously known about Lewis' absences. On or about October 31, 1985, Lewis reported to Sergeant James Rutledge that she had been improperly touched and fondled by a teacher but did not disclose the teacher's name. During the week of November 6, 1985, Lewis again reported to Sergeant Rutledge that she had been improperly touched by a teacher but did not disclose the teacher's name. Rutledge went with Lewis and her girlfriend to the dean's office and notified the dean that Lewis was outside and needed to talk to him. On or about November 6, 1985, Lewis became upset with Respondent about calling her aunt and angrily told him not to call her aunt again. Lewis told Respondent that she was going to inform the administration of his alleged misconduct. Thereafter, the matter was reported and investigated by the administrator. As a result of the alleged misconduct, the Respondent was arrested and charged with battery. Subsequent to the arrest, the State Attorney for the Third Judicial Circuit of Florida filed a No Information and the cause was dismissed. There was no evidence to prove that Respondent's conduct had reduced his effectiveness as a teacher. There was no evidence that Respondent had exploited the teacher/student relationship with the minor female student for his own personal gain, exposing her to harm and unnecessary embarrassment. There was no evidence that Respondent had: (a) accepted or offered any gratuity, gift, or favor to, or from, anyone; (b) used institutional privileges for personal gain or advantage; (c) intentionally exposed a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement or; (d) failed to make reasonable effort to protect student from conditions harmful to learning or to health or to safety.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint. Respectfully submitted and entered this 15th day of May, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of May, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3994 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner: 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 3. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9 but clarified. Rejected that portion of the finding of fact concerning Lewis requesting Respondent to sign, and Respondent signing, a balloon as immaterial and irrelevant. The balance of the finding of fact is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. The fact that Lewis skipped classes is adopted in Finding of Fact 10 but the balance of the finding is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The fact that Lewis took a second test before December, 1985, is adopted in Finding of Fact 9 but the balance of the finding is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. 11.-12. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The fact that Lewis reported the alleged incidents is adopted in Finding of Fact 15 but the balance of the finding is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The fact that Lewis told the Respondent that she had reported the alleged sexual contact to the administration is adopted in Finding of Fact 14 but the balance of the finding is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The first sentence is rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. The second sentence is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. The fact that a No Information was filed and the case dismissed is adopted in Finding of Fact 16 but that the State Attorney dismissed because the contact was consensual is rejected as hearsay that does not supplement or explain any other evidence in the record. 19-21. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. In these findings, the Petitioner relies mainly on the testimony of Lewis, testimony which I did not find credible. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent: Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 7.-15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 16.-19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. 20.-23. Adopted in Findings of Fact 11, 12, 13 and 14, respectively. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Karen Barr Wilde Executive Director Education Practice Commission Room 418, Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Carolyn Thompson LeBoeuf, Esquire Brooks, LeBoeuf and LeBoeuf 863 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas W. Brooks Meyer, Brooks, and Cooper, P.A. 911 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Gloria E. Walker, holds Teaching Certificate No. 294140, issued by the Department of Education, State of Florida. Respondent is certified to teach in the area of music education. Respondent has been employed as a Music Teacher by Petitioner, School Board of Dade County since 1970. From 1973 until 1986, Respondent taught music at Dunbar Elementary School in the Dade County School District. During the 1970-71 through 1977-78 school years, Respondent received either unacceptable or marginally acceptable scores for five of the seven years on her annual evaluations. (Petitioner's Exhibits 29). During the 1973-79 school year, the School Board altered its evaluations System for instructional Personnel. During the 78-79 through 83-84 school years, Respondent's annual evaluations were rated as acceptable. However, during the school years 1981- 82 through 83-84, school and district Personnel made comments concerning Respondent's need to improve her performance and development in certain areas. (TR 298). Commencing with the 1973 school year, Respondent received assistance from Charles Buckwalter, music specialist for elementary schools for the Dade County School District. Respondent was initially contacted by Mr. Buckwalter that year because of concerns the school's Principal expressed regarding Respondent's lack of classroom management. During that year, Mr. Buckwalter visited and provided assistance to Respondent approximately seven (7) times. Mr. Buckwalter's assistance to Respondent continued during the following three (3) years. During the 1981-82 school year, Mr. Buckwalter assisted Respondent on more than four occasions during which time he attempted to demonstrate lessons concerning management techniques and the use of new materials; objectives of instruction and on January 26, 1982, Buckwalter, along with Dr. Howard Doolin supervisor of music for Dade County, visited Respondent so that Dr. Doolin could observe Buckwalter's assistance to Respondent. On April 26, 1982, Respondent and Mr. Buckwalter met for approximately three and one half hours. Buckwalter visited several of Respondent classes and demonstrated the use of certain new materials. As a part of that visit, he observed Respondent's teaching and noted that Respondent abandoned the new materials and returned to teaching the old curriculum. On November 11, 1982, Mr. Buckwalter spent approximately three hours with Respondent in which time he visited two classes and had a conference with Respondent concerning the new curriculum for level 1 students. On November 18, 1982, Mr. Buckwalter made a follow-up visit concerning Respondent's lesson plans and objectives. Additionally, he demonstrated a lesson to one of Respondent's classes. On or about November 29, 1982, Respondent was formally observed by assistant principal, H. Elizabeth Tynes. Ms. Tynes has a wealth of experience lasting more than thirty years in both Hillsborough and Dade Counties. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of classroom management, teacher/student relationship and in a subcategory of assessment techniques. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7). Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of classroom management based on a large number of disruptive students in her music class and Respondent's inability to control the students' behavior through either verbal or nonverbal strategies. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in the area of teacher/student relationship based on her failure to demonstrate consistency as concerns student behavior, failing to praise good behavior and reprimand students for disruptive conduct. On another occasion, assistant principal Tynes listened to a musical program Respondent's students were giving over the intercom system. Ms. Tynes rated the program a "total disaster". Ms. Tynes and the principal were "ashamed" of what they heard from Respondent's music class. Respondent demonstrated skills preparation for the program as observed by Ms. Tynes. On May 19, 1983, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Katherine Dinkin, who was then principal of Dunbar Elementary School. Following the observation, Respondent was evaluated unacceptable in areas of classroom management, teacher/student relationship, and techniques of instruction. (Petitioner's Exhibit 17). Principal Dinkins observed that Respondent's students were not on task, the classroom was chaotic and the students only responded to directives of the Principal, as a Person of authority. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instructions based on Ms. Dinkin's observation that students were being taught at levels beyond their ability; class openings and closings were not done appropriately and Respondent failed to develop a plan for the individual needs, interests and abilities of students. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the category of teacher/student relationships based on her failure to demonstrate warmth toward the students and her inability to command respect. During this period in 1983, principal Dinkins prescribed help for Respondent as concerns observing and working with other teachers for guidance. On April 12, 1984, Respondent was again formally observed by principal Dinkins and rated unacceptable in classroom management and techniques of instructions. (Petitioner's Exhibit 21). Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of classroom management based on her demonstrated inability to keep students on task or to develop strategies to control their behavior. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of techniques of instructions based on an inadequately prepared lesson plan and an inability to deliver the instructional components to students. Principal Dinkins observed that the material Respondent attempted to teach was too complicated for the students and she failed to Properly sequence her instructions. Principal Dinkins, who was tendered and received as an expert in the areas of teacher observation and assessment, was unable to observe any continuum of improvement by Respondent over the extended period of Principal Dinkins' supervision. Principal Dinkins opined that Respondent deprived her students of the minimal educational experience in music. During the 1983-84 school year, Respondent again received help from Mr. Buckwalter. As part of this help, Mr. Buckwalter organized small study groups in order to improve instructions throughout the music education department. These groups met on September 28, October 19, November 9 and 30, 1983. Respondent was asked to become part of the study group. The study group was Particularly concerned with focusing on the scope and sequence of curriculum, students' achievement and implementation of certain aspects of the curriculum, particularly as concern level 1 and 2 students. On or about August 30, 1983, Mr. Buckwalter spent the day with Respondent and a new music teacher, Ronald Gold. On or about September 27, 1983, Mr. Buckwalter visited Respondent for approximately 3 and 1/2 hours in which time he visited three of her classes and again attempted to discuss some work with Respondent concerning student management techniques including the use of a seating chart. On or about October 18, 1983, Mr. Buckwalter visited Respondent approximately four hours during which time he visited several classes and observed her using ideas gleaned from the study group. On or about November 7, 1983, Mr. Buckwalter again visited with Respondent for approximately four hours. After the conference, he taught classes with her and implemented the use of instruments to enrich the class lesson as well as the implementation and use of progress charts. On or about December 9, 1983, Mr. Buckwalter visited with Respondent for approximately 3 hours. At this time, Mr. Buckwalter expressed concern in that Respondent was not clearly understanding the intent of the school board curriculum. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of classroom management, techniques of instructions, teacher/students relationships, assessment techniques and professional responsibility during her annual evaluation for the 1984-85 school year. On or about October 29, 1984, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by assistant principal, Edwardo Martinez. Although Respondent was rated acceptable, this class was not a typical situation but rather a rehearsal of a specific program. On other occasions, assistant principal Martinez had opportunities to walk by Respondent's classroom. He often noted loud noises emanating from her classroom. During these instances, he would enter the room and immediately settle the students down. On March 26, 1985, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Maybelline Truesdell, Principal of Dunbar Elementary. Based on this formal observation, Respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of classroom management, instructional techniques and teacher/student relationships. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). As a result of the unacceptable evaluation, Respondent was given a prescription form suggesting methods in which she could improve areas in which she was rated unacceptable. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). Respondent was rated unacceptable in the category of classroom management based on her inability to retain the students attention; her failure to open and close classes appropriately and her general observation of students being off task. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of instructional techniques based on the observation that she did not interact verbally with students; students were inappropriately excluded from participating in discussions of the lesson and Respondent did not use instructional methods/materials which were appropriate for the students' learning levels. (TR pages 30-35). Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of student/teacher relationships based on her improper focusing on a small number of students; inappropriately criticizing a student assistant in the presence of other students, and a failure to use sufficient positive interaction to maintain class control. On may 3, 1985, Respondent was again formally observed by Maybelline Truesdell and rated unacceptable in the areas of classroom management; instructional techniques; student/teacher relationships and assessment techniques. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of classroom management as she failed to properly discipline students; failed to maintain classroom control and students were off task. In the area of techniques of instruction, Respondent received an unacceptable rating in one category which remained unremediated pursuant to a prior prescription issued by Ms. Truesdell. Respondent was again rated unacceptable in the area of teacher/student relationship based on her inability to display any of the indicators considered necessary to become acceptable and her continued rejection of students who volunteered or attempted to participate; her failure to involve the entire class by focusing her attention on a small number of students to the exclusion of others and her failure to appropriately address students by their name rather than "you." (TR 39-41). Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of assessment techniques based on her failure to follow county and state guidelines for assessing students. Specifically, Respondent failed to provide substantial evidence of (documentation) to justify grades assigned to students and her grade books did not indicate if or when she was giving formal quizzes or tests. In addition, there was no letter grade or numerical indication in Respondent's grade books to gauge academic progress. Additionally, there was insufficient documentation in the student folders to back-up student progress or to otherwise substantiate the grades assigned to students. During the 1984-85 school year, Mr. Buckwalter returned to Dunbar Elementary to again assist Respondent. On September 6, 1984, Mr. Buckwalter visited Respondent for approximately three hours during which time he visited a class; co-taught a class and attempted to assist Respondent concerning improvement in areas of student behavior and management. On November 2, 1984, Mr. Buckwalter visited one of Respondent's classes. He thereafter visited Respondent on March 22, 1985 at which time he spent approximately two hours in her classroom. He taught five classes to demonstrate strategies of progressing students from one level to another. He thereafter conferred with Respondent concerning the need to reflect a positive attitude toward students.. On March 29, 1985, Mr. Buckwalter again visited Respondent. Respondent was then using materials suggested by Mr. Buckwalter although she utilized them in a "rote" manner and included too many concepts within a single lesson. On April 18, 1985, Mr. Buckwalter returned to observe Respondent. The students were going over materials that had been taught in past years and the new curriculum was not being taught. On May 23, 1985, Mr. Buckwalter spent four hours with Respondent. They concentrated on the development of lesson plans; planned activities concerning class objectives and stressed the need to remain-on one concept until it was understood by a majority of the class. Respondent's evaluation for the 1985-86 school year was unacceptable in the areas of subject matter knowledge instructional techniques; teacher/student relationships; assessment techniques and Professional responsibility. On October 10, 1985, Respondent was formally observed by assistant principal William J. Kinney. Respondent was rated acceptable in the area of assessment techniques. Mr. Kinney offered certain suggestions to Respondent including the fact that the lesson taught would be more beneficial by more student participation. Respondent was advised of a need to immediately cure problems respecting students who were observed hitting bells with pencils and pens and the need to immediately address problems when students were observed off task. During the school year, Mr. Kinney made numerous informal visits to Respondent's classroom at which times he observed loud noises coming from Respondent's classes, chanting, fighting, furniture pushed into the walls, student misbehavior and other indications that Respondent's classroom management was ineffective. On December 3, 1985, Respondent was officially observed by principal Truesdell and was rated unacceptable in the areas of instructional and assessment techniques. (Petitioner's Exhibit 6). Respondent was made aware of her continuing problems and was provided with an acknowledged receipt of a summary of the conference-for-the-record dated Thursday, December 12, 1985. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7). Additionally, Respondent was given specific instructions in the form of a prescription concerning her grade book and instructed to strictly follow the conduct prescribed. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7). In the opinion of principal Truesdell (received as an expert in the area of teacher assessment teacher evaluation, teacher observation in the role of school principal) Respondent was unacceptable for further employment by the school district, was continuing to demonstrate ineffective classroom management, instructional techniques, assessment techniques and had done so for such an extended period of time that improvement appeared unlikely. Additionally, Ms. Truesdell considered that Respondent was unable to make sufficient competent analysis of students' individual needs and potential in the classroom; failed to ensure and promote the accomplishment of tasks to the proper selection and use of appropriate techniques; failed to establish routine and procedures for the use of materials and physical movements of students in her class; failed to employ the appropriate techniques to correct inappropriate student behavior; failed to demonstrate competence in evaluating learning and goal achievement by her students and failed to demonstrate appropriate interpersonal skills required of a teacher to maintain discipline and effectively teach in a classroom environment. On February 7, 1986, Respondent was officially observed in her class by Marilyn Von Seggern, music supervisor for Dade County and by Ms. McCalla, assistant principal at Dunbar, under the provision of the TADS program. (Petitioner's Exhibit 23). Following that observation, Respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of subject matter knowledge, instructional techniques, assessment techniques and teacher/student relationships. In the Professional opinion of Marilyn Von Seggern, received herein as an expert in the areas of music education, teacher observation and assessment, Respondent was depriving students of the minimum educational experience and had serious problems concerning her ability to communicate and relate to students respecting the music curriculum. On January 16, 1986, Respondent was formally observed in her classroom by Dunbar's assistant principal Carolyn Louise McCalla, and was rated unacceptable in the areas of classroom management, techniques of instruction and assessment techniques. (Petitioner's Exhibit 24). Based on Mr. Buckwalter's repeated observation of Respondent's classroom and teaching techniques, Mr. Buckwalter opined that Respondent's students were not receiving the minimum education required by the Dade County School System as concerns the curriculum for music. As example, on one occasion Mr. Buckwalter observed Respondent presenting an organized lesson to students which was quite successful and upon his return approximately five minutes later, Mr. Buckwalter observed that Respondent was not teaching the new successful lesson but had instead reverted back to an old lesson and her students were observed inattentive and generally off task. (TR pages 250-254). On March 26, 1986, Respondent was having difficulty maintaining her students' attention to the point that the students were out of control. While Respondent was attempting to stop a certain student from chanting and beating on the desk, Respondent tried to restrain the student and in so doing, Respondent broke her watch band and scratched the student on her face. The student required hospitalization and although the injury was deemed an accident, Respondent's lack of classroom control and management played a major part in causing the incident. Pursuant to a request by the School Board, Respondent, on April 30, 1986, was evaluated by psychiatrist, Gail D. Wainger. Dr. Wainger took a medical history from Respondent which included Respondent's revelation of previous psychiatrist treatment. Dr. Wainger observed that Respondent had a very flattened, blunted affect with little emotional expression. She related that this was a sign of a patient who was recovering from a major psychiatric episode. Additionally, Respondent showed difficulty recalling recent events. Dr. Wainger diagnosed Respondent as having chronic residual schizophrenia with a possible personality disorder including impulsive and avoidance features. Dr. Wainger opined that a person with such diagnosis would have difficulty being an authority figure and that this would be especially Problematic for students who needed positive reinforcement. On April 28, 1986, Respondent attended a conference-for-the-record with the school board's administrative staff. A past history of performance and evaluations was reviewed. Additionally, the investigative report concerning the injury of the student which occurred March 26, 1986 was also reviewed. Respondent was informed that the matter would be referred to the School Board for possible disciplinary action. (Petitioner's Exhibit 31). On May 21, 1986, the School Board took action to suspend Respondent's employment and initiated the instant dismissal proceeding against her. (Petitioner's Exhibit 32). For the 1985-86 school year, Respondent's annual evaluation indicated that she was rated unacceptable in five of seven categories and was not recommended for re-employment. (Petitioner's Exhibit 13).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner, School Board of Dade County, enter a Final Order sustaining the suspension, without pay, of Respondent, Gloria E. Walker and dismissing Respondent, Gloria E. Walker as a teacher in the Dade County Public Schools. That the Petitioner, Ralph D. Turlington, as Commissioner of Education, entered a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of incompetency and incapacity. It is further Recommended that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's Florida Teacher's Certificate No. 294140, issued by the Department of Education, State of Florida, for a period of three years based on incompetence and incapacity. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 2nd day of February, 1987.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, John R. Tenbroeck, held teaching certificate number 228148 issued by petitioner, Betty Castor, as Commissioner of Education. The certificate covers the areas of administration, bookkeeping, mathematics, physical education and biology and is valid through June 30, 1996. When the events herein occurred, respondent was employed as assistant principal at Westside Skills Center (Westside) in school year 1989- 1990 and as assistant principal at Raines Senior High School in school year 1990-1991. The schools are a part of the Duval County School District. In school year 1989-90, Angela McKenzie, who was born on May 15, 1974, was a tenth-grade student during the morning hours at Westside and attended Edward White High School during the afternoon session. Angela's schedule called for her to arrive by bus each day at the Westside campus around 7:45 a.m. She remained on that campus until 11:00 a.m. when she rode a school bus to the other campus. During the same school year, respondent held the position of assistant principal at Westside and occupied an office in an area designated as the office of student services. Angela first met respondent during school orientation in January 1990. Because of an impending divorce by her mother and stepfather, which ultimately became final in May 1990, Angela had occasion to speak with respondent, whose duties included counseling with students. Although Angela denied that their teacher-student relationship grew into a personal relationship, it is found that the two began seeing each other on a personal basis sometime during the spring of 1990. This finding is based on the findings below. She was then fifteen years old while respondent was forty-eight years of age. During the spring of 1990, respondent and Angela were observed on numerous occasions talking with each other at the bus stop from around 7:45 a.m., when she first arrived on campus, until 7:55 a.m., when respondent's duty of monitoring buses ended. On several occasions during the same time period, she was observed visiting respondent's office and speaking with him behind closed doors. In addition, the two were seen leaving campus together in respondent's car several times either at mid-morning or during lunch hour, and several times they were seen arriving together by car early in the morning. Further, on several occasions Angela telephoned respondent at his office after she had left campus. Finally, one member of the Westside faculty recalled periodically seeing the two riding in respondent's automobile off-campus during the evening hours while another faculty member described seeing the two spending an "unusual" amount of time together. While some of the observations of the two being seen together may have been occasioned by respondent giving Angela a ride to the Edward White campus at lunch hour (if she missed her ride on the school bus), or giving her rides to karate practice in the evenings where he served as her trainer or coach, collectively these observations, coupled with the fact that the two were later married, support a finding that their relationship was more than that of a teacher-student. However, there is no competent, credible evidence that the two engaged in sexual activities prior to marriage or otherwise acted in a romantic or otherwise inappropriate fashion while on the campus or in the presence of other students and faculty. After rumors concerning the two surfaced at Westside that spring, respondent met with the Westside vice-principal and principal on three occasions and was told that he must not engage in a personal relationship with a student. At those meetings, respondent steadfastly denied that such a relationship existed. Because school administrators had no evidence of wrongdoing, no action was taken against respondent. In school year 1990-91, respondent was transferred to Raines High School where he served as assistant principal until he was suspended in January 1991. It should be noted that after the last warning was given by the principal at the close of school year 1989-90, there is no evidence that the two were seen together in public until after their marriage. On December 18, 1990, respondent and Angela were married in Nassau County, Florida. Because of Angela's age (she was then sixteen), it was necessary for her natural father to give his permission for her to marry. Following the marriage, Angela withdrew from school. However, at the time of hearing, Angela had resumed her education. The two are still married and Angela now uses respondent's last name. Although Angela simply said they got married because "it was the appropriate thing to do", and denied that they were involved in a personal relationship before that time, this assertion is not deemed to be credible. On January 15, 1991, or after the marriage became publicly known, respondent resigned his position with the School Board. The resignation was subsequently rescinded by the School Board and he was then placed on administrative leave. Testimony by a school administrator accepted as an expert in school administration established that by having a personal relationship with a minor student, which culminated in marriage and thereafter gained some notoriety in the community, respondent's effectiveness as a teacher was seriously impaired. However, the same administrator pointed out that there is no policy or rule which prohibits a teacher from marrying a student, and that by itself would not serve as the basis for taking disciplinary action against the teacher. Rather, the loss of effectiveness here arises as a result of respondent's personal relationship with a student. In terms of respondent's performance as an administrator-teacher, his most recent evaluation reflects that he was "an excellent dean", he displayed "significant skills" in management competencies, and was "a perfect example of team work."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner enter a Final Order finding respondent guilty of violating Subsections 231.28(1)(c), (f), and (h), Florida Statutes, that his teaching certificate be suspended for two years, such suspension to begin on January 15, 1991, that respondent receive a letter of reprimand from the Education Practices Commission, and that he be placed on three years probation after the suspension is completed with quarterly reports given to the Commission by his immediate supervisor. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of August, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of August, 1992.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether an unlawful employment practice was imposed upon the Petitioner by the Respondent, based upon her race, through a denial of her tenure and resultant termination from employment, as well as whether the Petition for Relief was timely filed, and therefore jurisdictional.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, at times pertinent hereto, was an Assistant Professor of Business Education. She was employed by the Respondent, FAMU and had worked in that capacity for a number of years since 1988, prior to which she had been employed by the Respondent University as an instructor. The Respondent, FAMU, is a university which is a part of the State of Florida University system, administered by the Board of Governors of the State University System, as well as its own Board of Trustees. The Petitioner was employed by the Respondent since 1983. She began as an instructor but was promoted to Assistant Professor of Business Education in 1988. In January 1999, she began working in a tenure-earning position as an Assistant Professor in the College of Education's Department of Business and Technology Education. She also served as chair of the department from 1998 through 2004. Florida Administrative Code Rules 6C-5.940(1)(e) and 6C3-10.211(5)(a) allow a period of six years during which one situated as the Petitioner, in a tenure-earning position, in continuous, full-time service, must earn and be granted tenure. If tenure is not earned and granted during that period, the Respondent must give notice to such an employee that further employment beyond the end of the seventh year of employment, without tenure, is not possible. The Petitioner applied for tenure on September 17, 2004. That tenure application was denied, which engendered the dispute involved in this proceeding. Prior to that application, however, at some point during her employment in a tenure-earning position, the Petitioner had previously applied for tenure, but the previous application had also been denied. That denial was presumably with leave for her to re-apply for tenure at a later time during her six year tenure-earning time period. After the Petitioner began her employment she received a copy of the applicable tenure criteria. The tenure criteria for scholarly publication require that a tenure candidate show that at least three publications by that candidate have at least been accepted for publication or have actually been published. Publications include books, monographs, and articles in national, regional, state or local journals, which meet peer review requirements. The publication requirements also mandate additional publication credit, which may include individual citations in quotations in a text or credits for scholarly endeavors. The requirements also contain the condition that at least two papers must be presented at state, regional or national professional meetings. The Petitioner's tenure application was submitted on September 17, 2004, and included references to three publications used by the Petitioner as meeting the publication requirements for tenure: a) a project for spring 2005 entitled "Professional Report Writing" with reference to Thomson Publishing Company; b) a 2005 project entitled "English and Grammar Skills Review for Business" also with reference to Thomson; and c) a 2005 project entitled "Charles Spencer Smith," with reference to the "Oxford Press." During the hearing, in her Exhibits 10 and 11, the Petitioner presented the cover pages of two of the projects, the "Professional Report Writing" text, as well as the "English and Grammar Skills Review for Business" text, in an attempt to prove compliance with the publication requirement for tenure. There was no showing, however, that the Respondent was provided with any documentation by the Petitioner during the tenure application process showing that these publications had been accepted by publishers for any of the projects. In September 2004, the Tenure and Promotion Committee within the College of Education (COE) was composed of Chair- Person Dr. Mary Newell, Dr. Arland Billups, Dr. Bernadette Kelly, Dr. Maria Okeke, and Dr. Theresa Shotwell. Dr. Shotwell did not vote on the Petitioner's tenure application to avoid the appearance of impropriety because she was chair of the department to which Petitioner belonged at the time. The COE Tenure and Promotion Committee considered the tenure application of the Petitioner and a secret ballot was held, resulting in a unanimous vote against granting tenure. The four members who testified in this hearing stated that they were not motivated by considerations of race when they considered the Petitioner's application. Once the individual college tenure and promotion committee votes on a tenure application, the matter is elevated for consideration by the University-Wide Tenure and Promotion Committee (University Committee). That committee considered the Petitioner's application for tenure on January 18, 2005, and voted to recommend approval of the application for tenure by a vote of 10 yeas, 1 nay, and 2 abstentions. The University Committee then considered the Petitioner's application for promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor, on February 23, 2005. That promotion apparently requires approval of tenure status, because the committee voted to recommend denial of the application for the promotion. During the time the Petitioner's tenure and promotion applications were pending, Dr. Larry Robinson served as the Vice-President of Academic Affairs and as Provost of the university. Dr. Robinson reviewed the Petitioner's tenure application after the University Committee and recommended against granting her tenure. His decision, according to his testimony, was not racially motivated, but rather he explained that the Petitioner's application was recommended to be denied by him because he to thought it lacked sufficient documentation of scholarly publications. The Interim President of the Respondent University during the time the Petitioner's tenure and promotion applications were pending was Dr. Castell Bryant. Dr. Bryant was responsible for making a final review or consideration at the University level, taking into account recommendations of the tenure committees reporting to her. She then had the duty to nominate for tenure, or to decline nomination, to the University's Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees had the authority to make final decisions concerning tenure applications. The Board would not consider a tenure application without a nomination by the University President. Dr. Bryant did not nominate the Petitioner for tenure to the Board of Trustees. She informed the Petitioner by letter of June 22, 2005, that the Petitioner's application for tenure was not approved for submission to the Board of Trustees. Dr. Bryant's letter to Dr. Young, in which she denied tenure, seems to indicate that Dr. Bryant was under the misapprehension that the University Committee had voted against recommending tenure when, in fact, it had voted in favor of tenure. Nonetheless, Dr. Bryant declined to nominate the Petitioner for tenure to the Board of Trustees, which act constituted a final denial, subject to the Petitioner's review rights concerning the decision. Dr. Deborah Austin was the Provost and Vice-President for Academic Affairs after Dr. Robinson left that position in September of 2005. She was requested to review the Petitioner's tenure denial, so Dr. Austin requested a "step-one grievance" reviewer, Dr. Charles MaGee, to review the Petitioner's tenure application. Dr. McGee found that the Petitioner's application did not satisfy the College of Education's tenure criteria (concerning scholarly publications) but he did recommend that the Petitioner actually receive tenure based upon her many years of service. Dr. Austin, however, did not agree with his assessment. She stated that the requirements for tenure don't provide for a substitution of the tenure criteria concerning scholarly publications and sponsored research, for years of service. In her letter of December 5, 2005, to the Petitioner Dr. Austin stated this reason for disagreement with Dr. McGee's assessment. She informed the Petitioner that this was the second time that she had applied for tenure and that, indeed, most faculty members are not given more than one opportunity to apply for tenure at the University. In that letter she also informed the Petitioner that she could file an appeal of the decision with Dr. Bryant within 30 days of receipt of the "step- one response" or file for an Administrative Proceeding with the Division of Administrative Hearings. She also advised the Petitioner of the steps to take in order to file a request for a proceeding before the Division of Administrative Hearings. Dr. William Tucker who testified on behalf of the Petitioner, and who has participated in faculty tenure review committees during his years at FAMU, pointed out that Dr. Bryant, the Interim President, had somehow misunderstood the university committee's vote. Dr. Tucker, however, indicated that he agreed with Dr. Austin that 22 years of service does not suffice as a criterion for granting tenure, although he did not agree with Dr. Austin's conclusion on the issue of tenure. The Petitioner sent a letter to Dr. Bryant requesting an appeal of Dr. Austin's decision (to Dr. Bryant) on January 4, 2006. She enclosed with that letter the cover pages for two of her projects and indicated that she thought they would serve as documentation for two of three publications needed for tenure. On April 3, 2006, Dr. Bryant sent a letter to the Petitioner as a follow-up to a meeting between those two on March 8, 2006, regarding re-consideration of the Petitioner's tenure application. Dr. Bryant indicated in that letter that, after thorough review of her tenure application package, Dr. Bryant found no reason to reverse the tenure decision previously made. The Petitioner contends that a comparator employee, Dr. Nancy Fontaine, was given an additional year to apply for tenure when she failed to achieve tenure and that the Petitioner was not accorded that opportunity. Dr. Fontaine is white. The Petitioner thus maintains that Dr. Fontaine was treated better than she and is a comparator employee outside her protected class. The Petitioner's evidence, however, does not establish that Dr. Fontaine and the Petitioner are actually similarly- situated employees. The Petitioner was not sure why Dr. Fontaine was initially denied tenure, but stated in her testimony that Dr. Fontaine was given another year to write an article or whatever she needed to do to qualify for tenure. The Petitioner did not, however, show that Dr. Fontaine lacked the same number of scholarly publications that the Petitioner lacked at the time of the tenure application, or that lack of publications was even the reason for Dr. Fontaine's initial tenure denial. She expressed no clear information in her testimony or other evidence as to what frailty, or degree of it, attended Dr. Fontaine's tenure application which was initially denied. Moreover, the Petitioner had a six-year period, as would any university personnel in tenure earning positions, to apply for tenure and then to re-apply if tenure were not granted on the first effort. The Petitioner, however, during that six- year period did not satisfy the Respondent's written scholarly publication requirement. The Petitioner adduced no persuasive evidence to show at what point in her tenure-seeking effort Dr. Fontaine was when she was denied tenure, and then given an additional year to earn tenure. It may be that Dr. Fontaine had a substantial portion of her six-year allowable period for tenure-earning still ahead of her. The evidence does not show. In any event, although the Petitioner attempts to compare the results of Dr. Fontaine's grievance process regarding her tenure denial to the Petitioner's application process, denial, and ultimate result, by way of showing disparate treatment, the evidence still does not show that Dr. Fontaine is a similarly-situated employee. When she was denied tenure, the Petitioner asked for a review of that decision and was granted one. As a result of that review, Dr. McGee recommended her for tenure, but acknowledged that she did not meet the requirement for scholarly publication. His recommendation had no binding effect, in any event, with regard to the Provost's and the Interim President's ultimate decision on the matter. Despite his recommendation, Provost Austin and Interim President Bryant chose not to grant tenure to the Petitioner on the basis of her publication deficiencies. Dr. Fontaine, on the other hand, used the complete grievance process under the university rules to file a complaint against the university pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 6C3-10.232. During this process Dr. Fontaine requested additional time to apply for and earn tenure and, as a result, in a settlement of the dispute by settlement agreement, Dr. Fontaine was given another year to apply for tenure. The Petitioner, however, although being informed by Provost Robinson in his September 1, 2005, letter to the Petitioner that she could use that process, chose not to do so. The Petitioner also conceded that she did not request additional time to satisfy tenure requirements. Therefore, the Petitioner and Dr. Fontaine are not truly comparable and similarly-situated employees in the above- referenced particulars. Parties settle litigation for many reasons. Often the motivations are grounded in practicalities, such as limitation of litigation expenses balanced against the perceived likelihood of a successful litigated result. There is no evidence that the decision by FAMU to enter into a settlement agreement with Dr. Fontaine, whereby she was accorded additional time to qualify for tenure, was predicated, in any way, on Dr. Fontaine's race. There is no sufficiently detailed evidence to support a finding that the factual circumstances of Dr. Fontaine's tenure application, and its grant-versus denial consideration, were substantially similar to that of the Petitioner's.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and the arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of June, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of June, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary L. Young Post Office Box 5452 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Elizabeth T. McBride, Esquire Florida A & M University Office of the General Counsel Lee Hall, Suite 300 Tallahassee, Florida 32307 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Glen Bassett, Esquire Renee S. Gordon, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether Respondent's employment should be terminated for the reasons set forth in the Notice of Specific Charges.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The School Board is responsible for the operation, control, and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Miami-Dade County, Florida, including Carol City Senior High School (Carol City). At all times material to the instant case, Mary Henry has been the principal of Carol City and James Meehan has been an assistant principal at the school. At all times material to the instant case, Respondent was a language arts teacher at Carol City holding an annual contract. Respondent began teaching at Carol City in September of 1997. She remained at the school until February of 2000. In accordance with the School Board's Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS), which it developed in concert with the United Teachers of Dade, the collective bargaining representative of the School Board's teachers, school principals and their designees have the authority to formally observe and evaluate teachers at their school and to prescribe required remedial activities designed to improve the teacher's performance. The categories of classroom performance that are assessed are "preparation and planning," "knowledge of subject matter," "classroom management," "techniques of instruction," "teacher-student relationships," and "assessment techniques." Under TADS, a teacher is also rated in a seventh area, that of professional responsibility, which encompasses matters that go beyond the teacher's performance in the classroom. TADS was modified following the 1997 session of the Florida Legislature to provide for a 90-day "performance probation period" for annual contract and professional service contract teachers determined to be performing unsatisfactorily. The modification was set forth in a Memorandum of Understanding between the School Board and the United Teachers of Dade, which provided, in pertinent part, as follows: Upon identification of any deficiency, either through the observation/assessment process OR a Category VII infraction, the PRINCIPAL MUST, within 10 days conduct a conference-for-the-record which address: results of the observation/assessment, or Category VII infraction, stipulations of the Performance Probation (90 calendar days, excluding school holidays and vacations), which begins upon the employee's receipt of the written plan of assistance (prescription), the plan of assistance and professional development opportunities to help correct documented deficiencies within a specified period of time, future required observations/assessments, and possible employment actions. A minimum of two observations/assessments must be conducted subsequent to the completion of the initial prescriptive timelines and during the Performance Probation. The annual evaluation decision will be based upon the result of the last observation/assessment . . . . Within 14 calendar days after the close of the Performance Probation, the evaluator (principal) must assess whether the performance deficiencies have been corrected and forward a recommendation to the Superintendent.- Within 14 calendar days after receiving the evaluator's recommendation, the Superintendent must notify the employee in writing whether the performance deficiencies have been satisfactorily corrected and whether the Superintendent will recommend that the School Board continue or terminate his or her employment contract. If the employee wishes to contest the Superintendent's recommendation, the employee must, within 15 calendar days after receipt of the Superintendent's recommendation, submit a written request for a hearing. . . . On October 21, 1999, Respondent was formally observed in her classroom by James Meehan, an assistant principal at Carol City and a certified TADS observer. Mr. Meehan rated Respondent deficient in "preparation and planning" (Category I.B.2.); "knowledge of subject matter" (Category II.A.2.); "classroom management" (Categories III. B.2. and 4. and III.C.1. and 4.); and "techniques of instruction" (Categories IV.H.1. and 2.). These unsatisfactory ratings were justified. Following Mr. Meehan's October 21, 1999, observation, he completed a "record of observed deficiencies/prescription for performance improvement" (First Report). The First Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category I.B.2., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by November 22, 1999, the following "prescription plan activities" that were reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION The lesson plan prepared by the instructor was not followed. The stated objective in the lesson plan was: "Student will demonstrate test taking skills and ability to visualize descriptive language; FCAT worksheet (reading comprehension)." The activities used to accomplish these objectives were stated as follows: "Test on literature; pictures of a descriptive passage with language being discussed included; reading comprehension worksheets." The actual lesson consisted of: (1) quiz on run-on sentences; (2) the introduction of the elements of a short story by the instructor; (3) the reading of an essay which the instructor mistakenly identified as a short story; and (4) students' written responses to "Questions for Study and Discussion," after the reading of the essay. There was no demonstration by students of their ability to visualize descriptive language, no FCAT reading comprehension worksheet, and no literature test." PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The instructor will prepare a set of detailed lesson plans, on the form designated by the assessor, and submit a copy to Ms. Ann Howard, Language Arts Chairman, on each Friday, for review and discussion prior to implementation. Mr. Meehan and Ms. Howard were listed in the First Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category I.B.2. The First Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category II.A.2., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by November 22, 1999, the following "prescription plan activities" reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION The instructor attempted to teach the elements of a short story by applying them to a work by Maya Angelou which is described in the handout given to students, as a "self-contained section from her first autobiography," and later on as an "essay" in the "Questions for Study and Discussion." The instructor continuously referred to this literary work as a short story; however, it is a work of non-fiction. The instructor erroneously applied the elements of a short story such as exposition complication, conflict, climax, and denouement to this non- fiction literature. This work was an example of a descriptive essay, not a short story. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The instructor will prepare a set of detailed lesson plans, on the form designated by the assessor, and submit a copy to Ms. Ann Howard, Language Arts Chairperson, on each Friday, for review and discussion, prior to implementation. Mr. Meehan and Ms. Howard were listed in the First Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category II.A.2. The First Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category III.B.2., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by November 22, 1999, the following "prescription plan activities" reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION The teacher did not utilize non-verbal techniques to redirect off-task learners. Off-task behavior was frequent and persistent throughout the class period. Of the 30 students present, 20 were off-task for significant period[s] of time. Students in A1, B1, C2, C4, D1, D2, G1, and G4 slept some 20 minutes or more. The students in F1 and F2 continuously passed notes to one another while the student in E4 read a sports catalog for at least 30 minutes. At one point, the students in A4 and G3 walked to the front of the room in back of the instructor, exchanged notes, and returned to their seats. The student in B5 combed the hair of the student in B4 and afterwards massaged his hands. The student in A1, when not sleeping, played with her hair. Other students stared into space or otherwise wasted time. The instructor never attempted to use non-verbal techniques such as eye contact, silence, clapping, or proximity to redirect these off-task behaviors. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The instructor will interview one English instructor, designated by the assessor, to record how he/she has successfully used non-verbal techniques to deal with off-task student behavior. The instructor will type a summary of the interview and develop a plan, incorporating some of the suggestions, to reduce the frequency of off-task behavior in her classes. The instructor will submit the material to Mr. Meehan for review and discussion prior to implementation. Mr. Meehan and Julia Fehr, a language arts teacher at Carol City, were listed in the First Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category III.B.2. The First Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category III.B.4., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by November 22, 1999, the following "prescription plan activities" reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION The teacher did not use techniques to maintain the attention of learners who have been redirected. Often times during the period, 50 to 70 percent of the students were off-task. Students were engaged in activities not associated with the lesson. They daydreamed, drew pictures, wrote notes, slept, or were distracted in other ways. The instructor made an attempt to verbally redirect some students who were off-task; however, they were not revisited and the off-task behavior continued when the instructor directed her attention elsewhere. The student in E4 was told to put his catalog away. He then put his head down on his desk instead. He was not revisited. The students in A1 and F1 were told to do their work and move their desks closer to the front of the room. When they did so, they continued their off-task behavior, F1 by throwing papers across the room into the garbage pail and gyrating to imaginary music, A1 by continuously getting up from her desk and fiddling with her hair. Neither student was revisited. Verbal and non- verbal techniques to maintain the attention of redirected learners were not employed by this instructor. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The instructor will interview one English instructor, chosen by the assessor, to record how he/she has successfully use[d] verbal and non- verbal techniques to maintain the attention of redirected learners. The instructor will type a summary of this interview and develop a plan, incorporating some of the suggestions presented, to reduce the frequency of recurring off-task behavior in her classes. The instructor will submit the material to Mr. Meehan for review and discussion prior to implementation. Mr. Meehan and Ms. Howard were listed in the First Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category III.B.4. The First Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category III.C.1., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by November 22, 1999, the following "prescription plan activities" reasonably resigned to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION Students exhibited persistent inappropriate behavior during the lesson such that it was obvious that expectations about behavior had not been established or were not clear to learners. Of the 30 students present, 14 arrived late. None of these students was asked for an explanation. The only reaction from the instructor was, "Do you see how aggravating this is?" When students had to sharpen pencils, they left their seats and walked across the room. Four students were observed leaving their seats to sharpen pencils while the instructor was lecturing or reading to the class. When disposing of garbage, several students threw their papers across the room. The student in F1 and another student in row G played basketball with balled up paper and the trash can. When responding to questions, students would blurt out answers. There was no systematic method established for asking or answering questions. At the end of the period, before the bell, 11 students left their seats and began walking around the room. One student left his seat and walked across desks to get to the side of the room. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The instructor will interview one English instructor, chosen by the assessor, for suggestions on how to deal with inappropriate student behavior during class. She will type a summary of each interview. The material will be submitted to Mr. Meehan for review and discussion. Mr. Meehan and Pamela Salkey, a language arts teacher at Carol City, were listed in the First Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category III.C.1. The First Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category III.C.4., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by November 22, 1999, the following "prescription plan activities" reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION Learners who acted inappropriately or otherwise interfered with the work of others were not identified and dealt with quickly or appropriately by this instructor. During the quiz, students in A3, A4, and F1 continuously looked at other students' papers, while students in A5 and B4 conversed. These behaviors continued without the instructor identifying or responding to the students involved. At another point during the lesson, the student in B5 yelled, "I don't give a fuck," loud enough to be heard across the room. There was no response from the instructor. The magnitude and frequency of talking that occurred during the lesson made it extremely difficult for students to hear what the teacher was saying and for students to complete their assignments. During the last 35 minutes of the class when students were assigned to respond to 4 questions dealing with the reading selection, only 8 of 30 students completed the assignment, 12 handed in no paper at all, while 7 did 1 or 2 of the questions. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The instructor will design an assertive discipline plan that includes suitable rules and appropriate consequences for students who misbehave in class. The plan will also include a reward system to promote and maintain appropriate student behavior in class. The instructor will submit the plan to Mr. Meehan for review and discussion prior to implementation. Mr. Meehan, Ms. Howard, and Ms. Theodora Woltch, a language arts teacher at Carol City, were listed in the First Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category III.C.4. The First Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category IV.H.1., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by November 22, 1999, the following "prescription plan activities" reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION Areas of confusion were not identified before learners asked questions. During the quiz on run-on sentences, students were confused as to what to do. Many students were puzzled as to why they could not use coordinating conjunctions or another method of connecting run-on sentences, rather than being restricted to writing two separate sentences as instructed by the teacher. Confusion was exacerbated by an explanation on the reverse side of the test which stated, "In fact, it is often better to join them than to put them into separate sentences." When students asked if they could use another method, the instructor said they could not, but would not be incorrect if they did. Students remained puzzled as to what was acceptable. These potential areas of confusion with the run-on sentence should have been anticipated by the instructor, but were not. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The instructor will construct detailed lesson plans each week and discuss potential areas of confusion with her department chairperson on the Friday prior to implementation. Mr. Meehan and Ms. Howard were listed in the First Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category IV.H.1. The First Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category IV.H.2., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by November 22, 1999, the following "prescription plan activities" reasonably designed to help Respondent improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION When students were assigned to write the answers to "Questions for Study and Discussion," several students asked if they could work in groups. The instructor responded that they could work in pairs. She then changed her mind and said they had to work individually. Afterwards, she again said they could work in pairs. Students were puzzled as to what to do. Students were further confused by what question they were assigned. Initially, the instructor assigned question 1, then 2 through 5, and later on told a student, "Do number 2 and I'll be happy." Again, many students were confused. When the instructor assigned students to grade each other's quiz papers, students did not understand what was correct, what was minus 5, and what was minus 10. The student in F3 stated that he was confused and the student in E3 claimed, "I don't understand." The instructor made no attempt to clarify these misunderstandings. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The instructor will interview one English instructor chosen by the assessor, regarding how he/she approaches the organization [of] his/her lessons on a daily, weekly, and long term basis. The instructor will type a summary of this interview and present it to Mr. Meehan for review and discussion. Mr. Meehan and Ms. Howard were listed in the First Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category IV.H.2. On October 28, 1999, Ms. Henry held a conference- for-the-record with Respondent to discuss the contents of the First Report, a copy of which was provided to Respondent. Also present were Mr. Meehan and United Teachers of Dade representatives. An explanation of the deficiencies found by Mr. Meehan was given. In addition, Respondent was advised of the commencement (that day, October 28, 1999) of the 90-day "performance probation period" and warned that "failure to demonstrate remediation of [her] deficiencies may result in termination of [her] employment contract" and that failure to complete "prescription plan activities" by the November 22, 1999, deadline would "result in an unacceptable rating on the Professional Responsibilities Component of TADS." On November 17, 1999, Ms. Henry held another conference-for-the-record with Respondent. Also present were United Teachers of Dade representatives. The purpose of the conference was to discuss Ms. Henry's findings concerning an incident that had occurred in Respondent's classroom during her fifth period class on October 5, 1999. Ms. Henry had determined, based upon statements from students, that Respondent, during this fifth period class, had "inappropriately disciplined a student by grabbing her by the arm to remove her from the classroom." 1/ At the conference, Ms. Henry advised Respondent of the determination she had made and admonished Respondent accordingly. Among other things, she told Respondent that she should seek the assistance of an administrator or security monitor if she had a disruptive student in her classroom. The following day, November 18, 1999, Respondent received a letter of reprimand from Ms. Henry, which read as follows: On October 5, 1999, you inappropriately disciplined a student while instructing your language arts class. You violated Rule 6Gx12-5D-1.07- Corporal Punishment and 6Gx13-5D-1.08- Maintenance of Appropriate Student Behavior. It is your responsibility as a classroom teacher to maintain control and discipline of students. However, it is imperative that you follow school and Miami-Dade County School Board rules in doing so. Rules governing student discipline are outlined in the Code of Student Conduct, Board Rule 6Gx13-5D-1.07 and the Faculty Handbook- Item 9 - Classroom Management, Item 16- Corporal Punishment Policy, and Item 85- Supervision of Students. You are immediately directed to refrain from using any physical means to manage student behavior. Your are also immediately directed to implement the appropriate procedures for dealing with inappropriate student behavior as stipulated in the above documents. The infraction, Case Number E-02750, was substantiated by students' statements. You are hereby officially reprimanded for violating your professional contractual responsibilities in that you grabbed the student's arm to remove her from class. You are directed to refrain from using inappropriate procedures in the performance of your assigned duties. You are hereby directed to implement approved procedures in the performance of your assigned duties. Any recurrences of the above infraction will result in further disciplinary action. The reprimand was signed and dated (November 18, 1999) by Respondent. Respondent failed to complete the "prescription plan activities" set forth in the First Report by the November 22, 1999, deadline. On December 8, 1999, Respondent was formally observed in her classroom by Ms. Henry, who, like Mr. Meehan, is a certified TADS observer. Ms. Henry rated Respondent deficient in "knowledge of subject matter" (Categories II.B.2. and 3.); "classroom management" (Categories III.A.3., B.2. and 4., and C.1.,3., and 4.); "techniques of instruction" (Categories IV.A.2. and 3. and F.1. and 3.); and "assessment techniques" (Categories VI.A.2., 3., and 4. and B.2. and 3.). These unsatisfactory ratings were justified. Following Ms. Henry's December 8, 1999, observation, she completed a "record of observed deficiencies/prescription for performance improvement" (Second Report), a copy of which was provided to Respondent. The Second Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category II.B.2., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by January 5, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" that were reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION The sequence of information presented was not logical. The teacher's lesson for the entire two hour block involved a test on vocabulary words, a bell shaped curve drawn on the chalkboard with the words "exposition," "climax" and "resatution (resolution)" around it, and an FCAT assignment for students to answer questions from pages 48, 49, and 50. Before one activity was completed, the teacher moved on to the next and then back again. This vacillation between activities was continuous throughout the lesson. At no point did the teacher attempt to establish a connection between elements of the lesson. There was no meaningful framework established by the teacher in which students could relate one component of the lesson with another. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The teacher will observe Ms Hayes' class during period 4 and summarize the instructional activities, techniques and strategies used by the teacher. The teacher must submit her observation in typed form to Ms. Henry, the principal. Elois Hayes, a language arts instructor at Carol City, and Ms. Henry were listed in the Second Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to help to improve her performance in Category II.B.2. The Second Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category II.B.3, and directed Respondent to engage in and complete, "weekly on Fridays," from December 17, 1999, through January 19, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION The teacher failed to select or incorporate important dimensions and applications of the subject to make the lesson meaningful to learners. Without preparation or warning the teacher began to call loudly four words to students to write down. After much student confusion about the vocabulary words, the teacher then drew a bell shaped curve on the board and asked students to read a story and write down the exposition, climax, and resolution. Shortly after assigning this activity, the teacher wrote another assignment on the board and instructed students to answer questions from the assigned pages. The classroom activities required only copying answers and writing responses to questions on paper. At no time did the teacher provide examples or explanations nor did she attempt to engage the students in any meaningful or relevant activities. The lesson presented by the teacher demonstrates limited knowledge by the teacher in selecting activities that required higher order thinking skills such as reasoning, synthesis, comparison, or evaluation. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The teacher must plan and present lessons on different cognitive levels beginning with information that is knowledge based and extends to the highest level which is evaluation. All lessons should be introduced, presented on two or more cognitive levels and summarized by the teacher. The teacher must prepare appropriate lesson plans which must be submitted and discussed with Ms. Henry, the principal. Ms. Henry was listed in the Second Report as a "recommended resource" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category II.B.3. The Second Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category II.B.4., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete, "weekly on Fridays," from December 17, 1999, through January 19, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION Subject matter was not presented at more than one cognitive level. The entire lesson was presented on the knowledge level. The instructional activities were limited to copying from the chalkboard. To entice students to copy or write assignment, the teacher instructed the class that each student would get three A's for the assignments. There were no other techniques used to encourage higher order thinking skills. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The teacher must meet with her department chairperson and media specialist to review lesson plan objectives, activities and supplemental materials that incorporate higher levels of reasoning in her lesson plans. The teacher must submit and discuss her lesson plans with Ms. Henry on a weekly basis. Ms. Henry, Ms. Howard, and Elaine VanNostrand, a media specialist at Carol City, were listed in the Second Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category II.B.4. The Second Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category III.A.2., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by January 6, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION There were constant unnecessary delays and disorderly behavior by both the teacher and students. The teacher began class by calling out vocabulary words during which time she stopped several times to threaten students about their behavior and about not taking the vocabulary test. She repeatedly told students, "Go to the office and get your class changed, if you don't want to be in here." Students talked loudly, moved freely around the classroom and yelled out answers to the vocabulary test. Approximately 9 to 12 students refused to do anything. Confusion resulted from the lack of clear directives being provided by the teacher. Time was wasted when the teacher argued with students, repeatedly yelled out the same vocabulary words to students, and passed out literature books to individual students who asked in confusion, "What words? What page? What are we doing? What story are we supposed to read? I don't know what you are talking about." So much time was wasted that the entire class became chaotic and neither teaching nor learning occurred. Approximately 65 to 75 minutes of instructional time was lost to unnecessary delays. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The instructor will invite her department chairperson to observe her class. During that time the visitor is to record the time the instructor spends on various activities while in class. Using the data, the instructor will then analyze her instruction on the basis of how much time she spends on instructional versus noninstructional activities. Once that information is known, the instructor will develop strategies to reduce her percentage of noninstructional time while in class. The instructor will type a summary of the results of this exercise. She will submit the material to Ms. Henry for review and discussion. Ms. Howard and Ms. Henry were listed in the Second Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category III.A.2. The Second Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category III.A.3., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by January 5, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION Instructional activities did not continue until the end of the allocated time period. The lesson attempted by the teacher ended at 1:40 p.m. while the students continued to do whatever they chose to do until 2:30 p.m., which was the time the class was scheduled to end. There was drumming and dancing, students playing church, students walking and socializing individually and in groups, hair combing, 4 to 5 students sleeping at various times and students who just took a break from misbehaving. Their teacher made no attempt to regain control of the classroom or to continue with the instructional activities. Instruction stopped 40 minutes before the scheduled end of the class. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The teacher must develop a seating chart for each class and use the seating chart to help maintain classroom management. The teacher must also make parental contacts and keep a log of all contacts made or attempted. The seating chart and parent contact log must be submitted to Ms. Henry for review and discussion. "Seating Chart," "Parental Contact Log," Student Service Staff," and Ms. Henry were listed in the Second Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category III.A.3. The Second Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category III.B.2., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by January 8, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION The teacher did not use non-verbal techniques to redirect off-task learners. Twenty-three students were present during the lesson. Of that number, 19 students in the classroom exhibited constant off-task behavior that lasted throughout the class period. Students were constantly observed walking around the classroom, drumming on desks, combing their hair, playing with the television, yelling, singing and dancing. The entire class was in a state of frenzy. The teacher did not use non-verbal techniques such as proximity, clapping or facial expressions, to redirect students to the lesson. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The teacher will prepare a seating chart for each class. Using the charts, the teacher will record the number of times she identifies and responds to off-task behavior. The teacher will also analyze her instruction and lesson plans to devise a strategy to significantly reduce the frequency of off-task behavior observed in her classroom. The teacher will submit her seating charts and strategy to Ms. Henry for review and discussion prior to implementation. "Textbook resource materials," Ms. Henry, and Ms. Howard were listed in the Second Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category III.B.2. The Second Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category III.B.4., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by January 4, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION The teacher did not use techniques to maintain the attention of learners who have been redirected. Constant and persistent off-task behavior was noted in this teacher's classroom. Students were observed talking, walking around the room, sleeping, singing, drumming on desks, dancing and playing with the television. Although the teacher yelled our commands and threats for behavior to cease, the behavior reappeared quickly once the teacher's attention was redirected to someone or something else. At 1:40 p.m. the teacher seemed defeated. She sat at her desk and attempted to address the assignments with students who were standing around her desk amidst total confusion. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The teacher will prepare a seating chart for each class. Using the charts, the teacher will record instances when students misbehave or otherwise interfere with the work of other students and the consequences imposed as a result of the behavior. The teacher will submit the seating charts with the recorded instances of misbehavior to Ms. Henry for review and discussion. "Textbook resource materials," Ms. Henry, and Ms. Howard were listed in the Second Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category III.B.4. The Second Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category III.C.1., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by January 13, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" reasonably designed help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION Students exhibited persistent inappropriate behavior during the lesson such that it was obvious that expectations about behavior were not established or clear to the students. Throughout the class period, 80% of the class were talking, walking around the room, yelling at other students or the teacher, singing, drumming on desks, dancing, combing hair, or turning on the television. The noise level was so high that the teacher had to yell to make a point. At one time the teacher walked over to the observer and said, "I guess you are happy. This is what happens when you bribe students in order to fire me." The teacher also advised students by stating, "Find a spot on the wall and talk to it and don't ask me anything." Other than yelling out commands to sit down, be quiet or threats to get out of the class, recurrent inappropriate behaviors were allowed to occur without consequences. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The teacher will design an assertive discipline plan that includes suitable rules and appropriate consequences for students who misbehave in class. The plan will also include a suitable reward system to promote and maintain appropriate student behavior in class. The assertive discipline plan will be submitted to Ms. Henry for review and discussion prior to implementation. Ms. Henry and Ms. Howard were listed as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category III.C.1. The Second Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category III.C.3., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by January 10, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION Learners who acted inappropriately or otherwise interfered with the work of others were not identified and dealt with quickly by this teacher. Students were observed in various acts of off- task behaviors. The behaviors would sometimes persist until students became tired of that misbehavior and moved to another inappropriate behavior. The teacher appeared angry and overwhelmed with students' misbehavior. Off-task behavior was not dealt with quickly. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The teacher will prepare a seating chart for each class. Using the charts, the teacher will record instances when students misbehave and the resulting consequences imposed by the teacher. The teacher will analyze her instruction to determine which techniques are most effective in dealing with inappropriate behavior. The charts and the resulting analysis will be submitted to Ms. Henry for review and discussion. "Textbook resource materials," Ms. Henry, and Ms. Howard were listed as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category III.C.3. The Second Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category III.C.4., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by January 7, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION Learners who acted inappropriately or otherwise interfered with the work of others were not dealt with appropriately or with suitable consequences by this teacher. Students were observed throughout the class period engaging in inappropriate behaviors. In certain instances, the teacher responded in anger yelling out a command to sit down or stop talking. As soon as the teacher's attention was diverted to another off-task behavior or question, the behavior challenged earlier would return. No consequences were ever imposed by the teacher when she addressed any particular behavior. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES Using outside resources, the teacher will identify and describe, at least two additional behavior management techniques which have been shown to be effective in the classroom. Using the information obtained, the teacher will devise a written plan to significantly reduce the frequency of inappropriate behavior in [her] classes. The teacher will submit this information to Ms. Henry for review and discussion prior to implementation. "Textbook resource materials," Ms. Henry, and Ms. Howard were listed as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category III.C.4. The Second Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category IV.A.2., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by December 17, 1999, the following "prescription plan activities" reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION The instructional methods employed by this teacher were not appropriate for the needs and abilities of the learners in the classroom. The teacher began the class by saying, "You are going to have a vocabulary test." Students were confused as to what vocabulary test they were to take, while some students stated that, "You never assigned us any words to study." After much confusion, the teacher yelled out four vocabulary words for students to write down. While students were copying vocabulary words from each other, the teacher hurriedly drew a bell curve on the chalkboard, wrote three words around the bell curve and asked students to find a sentence in the story that related to each of these words. Again, students informed the teacher that the class had not read the story. The teacher continued with this assignment by asking students to get a literature book. The teacher then began to vacillate between the vocabulary words and the bell curve relating to the story. Later, in the class period, the teacher wrote another assignment on the chalkboard which required students to answer question from the FCAT booklet. Students became frustrated, inattentive and disengaged with the lesson. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The lesson plans will reflect at least (3) different methods of delivering each lesson. The teacher will review the plans and methods with Mrs. Howard and Ms. Henry prior to their delivery. Ms. Henry and Ms. Howard were listed in the Second Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category IV.A.2. The Second Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category IV.A.3., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by January 3, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION The only materials used by the teacher were the chalkboard, textbook and FCAT workbooks. Supplemental materials such as handouts, computer assisted instruction, textbook glossary of words or dictionary and/or sticky notes were not employed to bring variety to the lesson and stimulate students' interest. The off-task behaviors manifested by students were the consequences of the teacher's failure to use a variety of materials. The instructor's limited use of basic curriculum materials was not appropriate for the needs and abilities of the learners in this class. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The instructor will meet with her department chairperson and the director of the Media Center in order to obtain assistance in finding supplementary materials that may assist her in her endeavors to instruct her English classes. The instructor will list the materials available and develop a plan to utilize some of these materials in her classes. The instructor will submit a copy of the list and the plan to Ms. Henry. The instructor will discuss the plan with Ms. Henry prior to implementation. Brenda Harrell, a media specialist at Carol City, Ms. Henry, and Ms. Howard were listed in the Second Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category IV.A.3. The Second Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category IV.F.1., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by December 17, 1999, the following "prescription plan activities" reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION The teacher did not establish the necessary background for the lesson. She began the lesson by calling out vocabulary words. A majority of the students informed the teacher that they had not been assigned any vocabulary words for study. The next assignment required students to use a short story to respond in writing to the three words (exposition, climax and resolution) written around the bell shaped curve on the chalkboard. The teacher insisted the students had read the story. Students likewise indicated that they had not read the story because of an incident relating to the teacher's stolen purse on the day they should have read the story. Next, the teacher placed another assignment on the chalkboard from the FCAT booklet. It was apparent from the students' responses that there was no background or prerequisites for the lesson nor did the teacher facilitate students' understanding of the lesson. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The teacher must prepare lesson plans that require more than student centered activities involving reading, writing, and copying answers from a textbook. The teacher must prepare lesson plans that are teacher/student centered and provide for the various levels of cognitive learning. She must also include activities that will motivate students to participate in the lesson. The lesson plans must be submitted to Ms. Henry prior to their implementation. "Lesson Plans," Ms. Henry, and Ms. Howard were listed as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category IV.F.1 The Second Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category IV.F.3., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by December 17, 1999, the following "prescription plan activities" reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION The teacher presented three different lesson components which were not appropriately sequenced during the class period. She began the lesson with four vocabulary words which [were] not related to any lesson. It appeared that the sole purpose of this exercise was to give the students a test. The next assignment was for students to find a sentence in the story that related to words written around a bell curve. Several students asked, "What story?" Other students informed the teacher that they never got to read the story because of her stolen purse. The teacher ignored the students' comments and proceeded with the assignment amidst confusion. In the last assignment, students were instructed to answer questions on certain pages from the FCAT booklet. Because of the lack of appropriate sequencing in the lesson components, students were unable to understand the lesson presented. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The teacher will include in her lesson plans the sequence in which the components of the lesson will be presented. The teacher will also include in her lesson plans at least three (3) different methods of delivering each lesson. The lesson plans will be submitted to Ms. Henry for review and discussion prior to implementation. "Lesson Plans" and Ms. Henry were listed in the Second Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category IV.F.3. The Second Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category VI.A.2., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by January 3, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION The teacher did not solicit responses or demonstrations from students. Students were asked only to write their responses to vocabulary words, to write sentences [with] words listed on the bell shape[d] curve and to write answers to question[s] from the FCAT booklet. At no time did the instructor ask students for a verbal response nor did she ask them if they understood the lesson. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The teacher will solicit informal responses from individual students as well as assessing students in a group. The teacher must also assess student demonstrations of the instructional objectives. This assessment must be properly labeled and dated in the gradebook. A weekly review will be made by Ms. Henry. The "Handbook for Educators on Authentic Assessment Techniques" and Ms. Henry were listed in the Second Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category VI.A.2. The Second Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category VI.A.3., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by January 3, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION Multiple levels of learning were not monitored. The teacher did not appear to monitor any level of learning. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The teacher will include at least two (2) class activities each week that require[] multiple levels of assessment of students' performance. The teacher will present the completed evaluations to Ms. Henry each Friday. "Students' Assessment Papers" and Ms. Henry were listed in the Second Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category VI.A.3. The Second Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category VI.A.4., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by January 3, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION A review of the teachers' gradebook and students' folders revealed only two to five teacher graded assignments. There was no documented nor observed activities in which students evaluated their own or each others' performance. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The teacher will include at least one (1) class activity each week that requires students to assess their own classwork or the classwork of another student. The teacher will present the completed evaluations to Ms. Henry each Friday. "Students' Assessment Papers," Ms. Henry, and Ms. Howard were listed in the Second Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category VI.A.4. The Second Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category VI.B.2., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by January 3, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION The teacher did not use a variety of assessment techniques to assess students' performance. A review of the gradebook revealed that only two to four grades had been recorded since the beginning of the school year. A review of students' folders revealed only two to three papers filed with dates [of] September, 1999. During the observation period, students were only required by the teacher to provide written responses to assignments. Most students did not complete the assignments. Of the 23 students present only 3 submitted papers for the FCAT assignment while 6 did so for the reading assignment and 17 for the vocabulary quiz. The teacher made no attempt to assess students' progress other than collecting papers at the end of the class. There was no evidence in the gradebook or student folders of unit tests, projects, homework, etc. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The teacher will present to Ms. Henry on a weekly basis her gradebook and sampling of students' folders showing classwork and the teacher's assessment of that classwork. The teacher must also properly label grades in the gradebook according to the assignment and date. "Lesson Plans" and Ms. Henry were listed in the Second Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category VI.B.2. The Second Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category VI.B.3., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete "weekly on Friday," from January 3, 2000, through January 19, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION There were no summative assessments reflected in students' folders nor in the teacher's gradebook for the period of August 31 through December 8, 1999. There were only two to four grades recorded for her five classes during the above period. There were no unit test[s] with a variety of test items. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The teacher will prepare a unit test which will include the following: 20 multiple choice question[s] 10 matching items 5 fill in the blank items 2 essay questions Submit to principal for review prior to testing of students. The "Handbook for Educators on Authentic Assessment Techniques" and Ms. Henry were listed in the Second Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category VI.B.3. Respondent failed to timely complete the "prescription plan activities" set forth in the Second Report. On January 19, 2000, Ms. Henry presented Respondent with a memorandum advising Respondent that she was being "granted 24 hours to complete" these activities and that "[f]ailure to comply w[ould] result in disciplinary action." On January 25, 2000, Respondent was again formally observed in her classroom by Mr. Meehan. Mr. Meehan rated Respondent deficient in "preparation and planning" (Categories I.A.1. and 2. and B.1. and 2.); "classroom management" (Categories III.A.3., B.2. and 4., and C.1. and 4.); "techniques of instruction" (Categories IV.B.1.,2., and 3.); and "assessment techniques" (Categories VI.A.1., 2., and 4 and B.2. and 3.). These unsatisfactory ratings were justified. Following Mr. Meehan's January 25, 2000, observation, he completed a "record of observed deficiencies/prescription for performance improvement" (Third Report). The Third Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category I.A.1., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by February 16, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" that were reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION The instructor did not have written lesson plans for the lesson presented. She did not have a stated objective, a homework assignment, activities or a means of monitoring student progress. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The instructor will develop weekly lesson plans containing objectives, activities, homework, and a means of monitoring student progress. She will submit the plans to Mr. Meehan for review and discussion on each Friday prior to their implementation. Mr. Meehan and Ms. Howard were listed in the Third Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category I.A.1. The Third Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category I.A.2., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by February 16, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" that were reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION The objectives of the lesson were not based on nor did they go beyond the Competency Based Curriculum or the Sunshine State Standards. Since there was no written lesson plan and learning outcomes were not communicated to students, it was difficult to decipher what the instructor was attempting to accomplish. When preparing to distribute a handout to students at the beginning of the period, she stated, "These are the wrong ones." She distributed them anyway. Since there weren't enough copies, she said, "You'll just have to share. Students worked on these handouts for approximately one hour. She then sent two students to leave the room to get workbooks. Without explanation, she assigned page forty-one. Students worked on this assignment for approximately thirty minutes. Neither of these assignments was reviewed nor evaluated. Students were given free time for the remainder of the period. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The teacher will prepare detailed lesson plans with objectives based on the Competency Curriculum and the Sunshine State Standards. She will review these plans with Ms. Howard, Language Arts Chairperson, on the Friday prior to their implementation. Ms. Howard was listed in the Third Report as a "recommended resource" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category I.A.2. The Third Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category I.B.1., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by February 16, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" that were reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION The lesson presented by the instructor did not fill the allotted time with prepared content and instructional activities related to objectives. The first hour of the period was consumed on a vocabulary puzzle. The next thirty minutes were spent on a spontaneous assignment given from page forty-one of a workbook. Neither assignment was reviewed. The remainder of the period was given as free time. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES When preparing her weekly lesson plans, the instructor will divide the time allotted for each period into thirty minute intervals. She will them state the specific activities that will take place within each of these intervals. She will discuss these timelines with Ms. Ann Howard on the Friday prior to their implementation. Ms. Howard was listed in the Third Report as a "recommended resource" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category I.B.1. The Third Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category I.B.2., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by February 16, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" that were reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION In the absence of a lesson plan, the instructor distributed puzzles and gave an assignment from a workbook. The remaining portion of the class was assigned as free time. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The instructor will interview Ms. Ann Howard, regarding how to best utilize the time allotted in block scheduling to plan her classes. She will type a summary of this interview and submit it to Mr. Meehan for review and discussion. Ms. Howard was listed in the Third Report as a "recommended resource" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category I.B.2. The Third Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category III.A.3., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by February 16, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" that were reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION Instructional activities did not continue until the end of the class period. The instructor stated that she wanted to close the period by allowing students to watch thirty minutes of television but could not because Mr. Meehan was in the room. She assigned free time instead. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The instructor will interview Ms. Theodora Woltch regarding how to utilize the final thirty minutes of a two hour block to enhance student learning. The instructor will type a summary of this interview and submit it to Mr. Meehan for review and discussion. Ms. Woltch was listed in the Third Report as a "recommended resource" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category III.A.3. The Third Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category III.B.2., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by February 16, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" that were reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION The instructor did not use non-verbal techniques to correct off-task behavior that was evident throughout the class period. Many of the twenty-eight students in attendance were off-task for significant periods of time. During the portion of the class when students were given classwork, three students in rows B and C read Spider Man comics, while the two students in the front of row A worked on unrelated assignments. Two students in the last seats of the middle rows of the classroom slept in each other's arms. A student in front of them drew on the arms of the student next to him. Another student in the middle of row B slept and one in the front of row C played the drums on his desk. During the entire two hour block, students left their seats to walk around the room, talk, and play. The off-task behavior was so extensive that the instructor accused the observer of collaborating with students to cause distractions. A student named Torrey stated, "Mr. Meehan, Ms. Abril thinks we're down." The student in front of row A told the instructor, "They don't do that." The instructor never attempted to return students to task by the use of non-verbal techniques such as eye contact, clapping, silence or proximity. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The instructor will observe Ms. Julie Fehr's class to see how she uses non- verbal techniques to deal with off-task behavior in her classes. She will then discuss with Ms. Fehr the techniques observed. The instructor will type a summary of her discussion and submit it to Mr. Meehan for review. Mr. Meehan and Ms. Fehr were listed in the Third Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category III.B.2. The Third Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category III.B.4., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by February 16, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" that were reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION The instructor did not use techniques to maintain the attention of learners who were redirected. At times during the period more than thirty-three percent of the students were off-task. Students were engaged in activities not associated with the lesson. They talked, sang, slept, and worked on unrelated assignments. The instructor attempted to verbally redirect some students, but their off-task behavior was not revisited and therefore resumed when the instructor turned her attention elsewhere. One young man in row B was corrected for using a Game Boy. He began to read a comic instead. His off-task behavior was not revisited and continued uninterrupted. He proceeded to share his comics with those around him. A young man named Torrey was told to get back to his seat after walking to the side of the room to see his reflection in a mirror. When he returned to his seat, he began to sing. His off-task behavior was never revisited. Verbal and non-verbal techniques to maintain the attention of redirected learners were not evident in this instructor's classroom. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The instructor will observe Ms. Theodora Woltch's class to observe how she deals with off-task student behavior. The instructor will prepare a typed summary of this observation and develop a plan to incorporate some of the strategies she learned to reduce the frequency of off-task behavior in her classes. The instructor will submit the material to Mr. Meehan for review prior to implementation. Mr. Meehan and Ms. Woltch were listed in the Third Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category III.B.4. The Third Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category III.C.1., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by February 16, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" that were reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION The inappropriate behavior manifested by students throughout the class period indicated that expectations about behavior were not made clear to learners. When seeking clarification about the puzzle assignments, students repeatedly blurted out questions without raising their hands. No standardized procedures were established for students to turn in their assignments. Some walked to the front of the room while others passed their papers to students in front of them or beside them. Students left their seats at will to walk around the room or open the classroom doors. With five minutes remaining in the period all of the students, except one, left their seats to go to the door. Some pushed the door open while others tried to close it. These inappropriate behaviors indicated that expectations about behavior had not been communicated previously. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The instructor will establish a set o[f] rules regarding appropriate student behavior and classroom procedures. She will type these rules and discuss them with Mr. Meehan before posting them around her classroom. Mr. Meehan and Ms. Howard were listed in the Third Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category III.C.1. The Third Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category III.C.4., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by February 16, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" that were reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION Students who acted inappropriately or otherwise interfered with the work of others were not dealt with appropriately or with suitable consequences by this instructor. Of the twenty-eight students present in the classroom more than 50 percent walked in late, thereby disturbing students attempting to do the puzzle assignment. Nothing was said by the instructor. Neither the students in rows B and C who began singing, "I'm a Soul Man," nor the students in row A who began singing an unidentified song, were given consequences as a result of their misbehavior. The instructor made no attempt to subdue or control the constant buzz created by students talking and yelling to each other across the room. Most of the students present contributed to this noise which lasted the entire two hour period. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The teacher will design an assertive discipline plan that includes suitable rules and appropriate consequences for students who misbehave in class. The plan will also include a suitable reward system to promote and maintain appropriate student behavior in class. In addition, the teacher will prepare a seating chart for each class. Using the charts, the teacher will record instances when students misbehave or otherwise interfere with the work of other students and the consequences imposed as a result of the behavior. The teacher will analyze her instruction to determine which techniques are most effective in dealing with inappropriate behavior. The teacher will submit this information to Mr. Meehan for review and discussion. The "Assertive Discipline Handbook" and Mr. Meehan were listed in the Third Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category III.C.4. The Third Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category IV.B.1., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by February 16, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" that were reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION Feedback was not provided to students about weaknesses in their performance. The assignments for the class period were a puzzle and page forty-one of the "Buckle Down" workbook. These assignments were neither reviewed nor corrected during the class period. Since the instructor failed to monitor the performance of students as a group or individually, she was not able to provide feedback regarding inadequacies in their work. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The instructor will interview Ms. Ann Howard regarding practical methods that can be utilized during class to monitor the performance of students and provide feedback regarding their inadequacies. She will type a summary of the interview and present it to Mr. Meehan for review and discussion. Mr. Meehan and Ms. Howard were listed in the Third Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category IV.B.1. The Third Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category IV.B.2., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by February 16, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" that were reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION Feedback was not provided to students about strengths in their performance. The instructor failed to monitor the performance of the students on any of the assignments during this class period. She was therefore unable to acknowledge good work and adequate performance. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The instructor will interview Ms. Ann Howard regarding practical methods that can be utilized during class to monitor the performance of students and provide feedback about their good work. The instructor will type a summary of this interview and submit it to Mr. Meehan for review and discussion. Mr. Meehan and Ms. Howard were listed in the Third Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category IV.B.2. The Third Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category IV.B.3., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by February 16, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" that were reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION No suggestions for improving student performance were made by the instructor during the class period. The instructor neither orally reviewed the answers to the assignments nor individually corrected student work. Consequently, she could not make suggestions for improving student performance and an opportunity for enhancing student learning was lost. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The instructor will interview Ms. Ann Howard about how learning is enhanced when suggestions for improvement are specific to the learner and the learning task, and when they are communicated in a way that encourages continued effort. She will type a summary of this interview and submit it to Mr. Meehan for review and discussion. Mr. Meehan and Ms. Howard were listed in the Third Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category IV.B.3. The Third Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category VI.A.1., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by February 16, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" that were reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION During this two hour class period there was no formal or informal examination of pupil work by the instructor. She made no attempt to periodically assess student progress by moving about the room making appropriate observations and asking pertinent questions. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The instructor will interview Ms. Theodora Woltch regarding making informal assessments of student work by moving about the room and asking probing questions. She will type a summary of this interview and submit it to Mr. Meehan for review and discussion. Mr. Meehan and Ms. Woltch were listed in the Third Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category VI.A.1. The Third Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category VI.A.2., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by February 16, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" that were reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION The instructor did not solicit responses or demonstrations from pupils relative to instructional objectives. She did not ask questions that reflected lesson content nor did she require students to demonstrate what they learned. There were no informal assessment techniques used by the instructor during this class period. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The instructor will interview Ms. Theodora Woltch regarding various ways to informally assess student work by having them demonstrate what they have learned during the class period. The instructor will type a summary of this interview and submit it to Mr. Meehan for review and discussion. Mr. Meehan and Ms. Woltch were listed in the Third Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category VI.A.2. The Third Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category VI.A.4., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by February 16, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" that were reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION The instructor did not have students evaluate their own and/or each other's performance. She did not request that learner's work together on checking each other's work or that pupils check their own responses against answers in the book or on the chalkboard. There was no assessment of student learning and progress made during this lesson. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The instructor will discuss with Ms. Ann Howard, Language Arts Chairperson, the advantages of having students grade their own work or each other's assignments during a class period. The instructor will type a summary of this interview and submit it to Mr. Meehan for review and discussion. Mr. Meehan and Ms. Howard were listed in the Third Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category VI.A.4. The Third Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category VI.B.2., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by February 16, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" that were reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION An examination of student folders revealed no evidence that more than one kind of assessment was made during the second quarter. Formative assessments such as a library classwork assignment and one quiz were found in some folders but there was no indication that any summative assessment was made during the second nine week grading period. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The instructor will read an article from an educational textbook or journal regarding formative and summative assessments. She will type a summary of this article and submit it to Mr. Meehan for review and discussion. Mr. Meehan and Ms. Harrell were listed in the Third Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category VI.B.2. The Third Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category VI.B.3., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by February 16, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" that were reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION Student folders did not indicate that adequate and sufficient summative assessments were made by the instructor during the second nine week grading period. There was no evidence of a summative assessment that included essay questions or performance tasks which are required of students to pass the FCAT examination. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The instructor will interview Ms. Julie Fehr regarding types of essay questions and performance tasks that should be included in ninth grade English assessments. She will type a summary of this interview and submit it to Mr. Meehan for review and discussion. Mr. Meehan and Ms. Fehr were listed in the Third Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category VI.B.3. On January 27, 2000, Ms. Henry held a conference- for-the-record with Respondent to discuss Respondent's failure to complete the "prescription plan activities" set forth in the First and Second Reports. Also present were Craig Speziale, an assistant principal at Carol City, and United Teachers of Dade representatives. At the conference, Ms. Henry reviewed the First and Second Reports with Respondent and admonished her for not completing the "prescription plan activities" set forth in these reports, which, she informed Respondent, she considered to constitute insubordination for which Respondent would receive an unsatisfactory rating in the seventh TADS category, professional responsibility. Ms. Henry subsequently completed a "record of observed deficiencies/prescription for performance improvement" (Fourth Report), in which she rated Respondent deficient in Category VII.B. based upon her "fail[ure] to comply with prescriptive activities and timeliness as outlined in the [First and Second Reports]" and directed her to complete all of these "prescriptive activities" no later than February 16, 2000. A copy of the Fourth Report was provided to Respondent on January 31, 2000. On that same day, January 31, 2000, Mr. Meehan directed Respondent to report for a "post-observation conference" to discuss the Third Report. Respondent refused to go. Respondent was formally observed in her classroom for a final time on February 18, 2000. This observation was conducted by Ms. Henry. Ms. Henry justifiably found Respondent to be deficient in "preparation and planning," "knowledge of subject matter," "classroom management," "techniques of instruction," and "assessment techniques." Because Respondent's 90-day "performance probation period" had expired without Respondent having corrected her performance deficiencies, and Ms. Henry therefore intended to recommend Respondent's termination, the report that Ms. Henry completed following the observation (Final Report) did not contain any additional "prescription plan activities" for Respondent to complete. The "prescription plan activities" described in the First, Second, and Third Reports were not completed by Respondent. On February 19, 2000, the day following Ms. Henry's formal observation of Respondent, Respondent was absent from school. Respondent telephoned the school to notify the administration of her absence, stating that she had injured her ankle and foot on February 17, 2000, and that she did not intend to return to work until after she had been seen by a doctor. Respondent never returned to work. (She did go to Carol City, however, on February 25, 2000, to pick up her pay check. During this visit, Respondent was asked to sign the Final Report, as well as a written recommendation for her termination that Ms. Henry had prepared and sent to the regional and district offices on or about February 22, 2000. Respondent refused to sign these documents.) By letter dated February 24, 2000, the Superintendent of Schools advised Petitioner that, pursuant to Section 231.29, Florida Statutes, he was recommending that the School Board, at its March 15, 2000, meeting "terminate her employment contract as a teacher, effective at the close of the workday, March 15, 2000 . . . because [she had] failed to satisfactorily correct identified performance deficiencies during [her] 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation and [because of her] gross insubordination." In his letter, the Superintendent further informed Respondent that she could contest his recommendation by requesting, within 15 days of her receipt of the notice, a hearing on the matter. Respondent requested such a hearing. Respondent was suspended without pay pending the outcome of the hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board issue a final order terminating Respondent's employment on the ground set forth in Count I of the Notice of Specific Charges ("Unsatisfactory Performance"). DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of September, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 8th day of September, 2000.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the University of Florida acted inappropriately in determining that Dr. Nancy Norvell's performance as an Assistant Professor was insufficient to meet the criteria for tenure and promotion.
Findings Of Fact The College of Health Related Professions of the University of Florida consists of nine departments, including the Department of Clinical and Health Psychology. Dr. Richard R. Gutekunst is dean of the college. Dr. Nathan W. Perry is chairman of the referenced department. Students in the Department of Clinical and Health Psychology are graduate level students pursuing advanced degrees in the study of abnormal behavior. The department operates a clinic which provides counseling services to appropriate individuals and is utilized as an instructional tool. Clinical instructors supervise student clinicians providing treatment to patients. Such students include graduate students from within the department and interns from outside the University. In April, 1984, Dr. Nancy K. Norvell was, by letter from Dr. Perry, offered employment as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Clinical and Health Psychology. Dr. Norvell accepted the offer and was hired, effective July 20, 1984. According to Dr. Perry's letter of April 16, 1984, Dr. Norvell's duties were "clinical teaching, research and assigned clinical responsibilities on the Adult Consult and Liaison Service and in the general Adult Clinic." Dr. Perry also advised that she would teach the Adult Psychopathology course during the Fall `84 semester. The April 16 letter stated that Dr. Norvell would be evaluated at least once annually in terms of performance of assigned duties and responsibilities. The letter advised that such evaluations were considered in recommendation and final decisions on tenure, promotions and salary. The letter stated that "[t]he criteria for promotion or for the granting of tenure shall be relevant to the performance of the work which the faculty member has been employed to do and to his performance of the duties and responsibilities as a member of the University committee." The letter also outlined the criteria relevant to the granting of tenure, identified as "broad categories of academic service" including instruction, research, and service. As identified in the, letter of April 16, "instruction" includes regular classroom teaching, direction of thesis and dissertations, academic advisement, extension activities, and all preparations for this work including continuing education. "Research" includes publications and other "creative" activities. "Service" includes public, professional, and University activities. Each semester, faculty members of the Department of Clinical and Health Psychology are assigned teaching, research, and service duties, expressed as percentages of employment responsibilities. Such assignments are communicated by memo to the individual faculty members. Dr. Norvell was aware of her assigned responsibilities each semester. During the 1984-85 school year, Dr. Norvell's duties were assigned as 62% teaching, 35% research, and 3% service. Typically, faculty members are evaluated by their students towards the end of each term. Such evaluations are performed in accordance with standardized procedures, which the University has adopted by administrative rile. Students assign overall numerical scores from 1 to 5 for the course and for the instructor, with 1 being the tops of the range. Instructors are not present during the evaluation. Results are not provided to the instructors until after course grades are determined. Such procedures provide anonymity to Dr. Norvell's students evaluated her performance in accordance with such procedures. During the Fall 1984 term, Dr. Norvell taught Adult Psychopathology, a required course for all department students. In the confidential evaluation, her students rated the course as 1.11 and her instruction as 1.11 above the respective department mean of 1.71 and 1.49. During the Spring of 1985, Dr. Norvell taught an elective course. An elective course is conceived by the instructor who teaches the course. The students who enroll in elective courses are generally interested in the subject matter. In the confidential evaluation, her students rated the course as 1.25 and her instruction as 1.25, above the respective department mean of 1.71 and 1.56. Students frequently rated elective courses higher than required courses. Dr. Norvell's first year was ,productive, according to Dr. Perry's letter of evaluation, dated June 26, 1985. In his letter, he stated that she "performed well in the range expected for progress towards tenure." The evaluation noted that Dr. Norvell's clinical billings were lower than other faculty members. Clinical billings are a measure of time spent in clinical teaching, but are not reflective of quality. Dr. Norvell's teaching included both clinical and classroom activities. Dr. Perry attributed the low billings to her recent arrival and expressed his anticipation that she would have no difficulty in increasing her billings. During the 1985-86 school year, Dr. Norvell's duties were assigned as 59% teaching, 33% research, and 8% service. In October, 1985, Dr. Perry became aware of conflicts between Dr. Norvell and clerical staff related to preparation and completion of written case reports. Dr. Perry wrote a letter to Dr. Norvell expressing his concern, advising that certain procedures would be instituted, and stating, "[e]ven with their adoption, it will still be necessary to relate to the staff with courtesy and understanding of their total work loads." During the Fall 1985 term, Dr. Norvell again taught Adult Psychopathology. In the confidential evaluations, her students rated the course as 2.44 and her instruction as 2.44, below the respective department mean of 2.37 and 226. By letter of evaluation dated June 25, 1986, Dr. Perry commended Dr. Norvell's research. He further noted her substantially increased clinical billings. However, Dr. Perry stated that her professional judgement was unsatisfactory, and that her negative attitude towards faculty colleagues and staff was "problematic." The evidence shows that from the beginning of her employment with the University until the end of academic year 1985-86, Dr. Norvell was assigned responsibilities as Chief of the Adult Consult Liaison Service. Dr. Perry testified that Dr. Norvell was to be supervised by Dr. Alan Glaros, Director of the Medical Psychology Service and the Pain and Stress Management Clinic. Dr. Glaros and Dr. Norvell recalled their relationship as that of equals. There was friction between Drs. Norvell and Glaros, at least to a degree that Dr. Perry found unacceptable. Following the academic 1985-86 period, Dr. Perry relieved Dr. Norvell of her responsibilities as Chief, in part because Dr. Norvell and Dr. Glaros were unable to work together to Dr. Perry's satisfaction, and because of a departmental reorganization. Dr. Perry subsequently did not assign any service responsibilities as part of Dr. Norvell's employment. During the 1986-87 school year, Dr. Norvell's duties were assigned as 65% teaching, 35% research, and 0% service. During the Fall 1986 term, Dr. Norvell again taught Adult Psychopathology. Her students rated the course as 2.00 and her instruction as 1.70. The respective department mean scores were 1.93 and 1.78. By evaluation letter dated June 3, 1987, Dr. Perry noted that Dr. Norvell's teaching and research continued to be productive. He commended her on receipt of an award for excellence in consulting research. Dr. Perry stated that her participation on a minority recruitment trip represented "outstanding university service." He also noted that her attitude and relationships with colleagues and students was much improved. During the 1987-88 school year, Dr. Norvell's duties were assigned as 53% teaching, 47% research, and 0% service. During the Fall 1987 term, Dr. Norvell again taught Adult Psychopathology. In the confidential evaluations, her students rated the course as 2.82 and her instruction as 2.91, below the respective department mean of 1.87 and 1.75. At hearing, Dr. Norvell asserted that the poor evaluation was caused by the specific class of students enrolled in her course during the Fall `87 term. As support for the assertion, Dr. Norvell provided testimony from another instructor, no longer at the University, who had received poor evaluations from supposedly the same group of students. The evidence does not establish that the poor were due to the specific class of students. On January 11 and 12, 1988, Dr. Perry met with Dr. Norvell to discuss the results of the Fall `87 student evaluation. He expressed concern with her attitude towards students as reflected by the individual student comments in the evaluations. (At that time, the department mean had not been calculated.) Dr. Perry also expressed his opposition to Dr. Norvell's practice, of which Dr. Perry had become aware, of soliciting student evaluations in addition to the department's standardized confidential evaluations. Dr. Perry believed the practice to be inappropriate, and, at hearing, stated that the practice could have resulted in inflation of the scores resulting from the standardized evaluations. While Dr. Norvell's activity may have been inappropriate, the assertion that such could have resulted in inflated student evaluations is unsupported by evidence. During the January 11-12 meetings, Dr. Norvell asked Dr. Perry if he would support her application for tenure. A faculty member at the Assistant Professor level eventually receives tenure or is terminated following the sixth year of employment. Dr. Perry replied that he could not support her application at that time. By letter to Dr. Perry, dated January 13, 1988, Dr. Norvell wrote that a review of the data "suggests that 89% of all students who have taken the adult psychopathology course regard me as adequate or better." Dr. Norvell stated that she appreciated his concern and requested a formal evaluation of her teaching, including clinical practice. By letter to Dr. Perry, dated January 19, 1988, Dr. Norvell expressed surprise at Dr. Perry's January 12 statement of nonsupport for her tenure application. Dr. Norvell stated, "I am eager to address any issues that you feel are of concern and would like any problem areas articulated so that I may work to correct any existing problems." She further requested that he provide "specific guidelines for remedying those particular problems." By letter to Dr. Norvell, dated January 21, 1988, Dr. Perry expressed "some surprise and considerable disappointment" in Norvell's letter of January In the letter, Dr. Perry recalled, at length, the discussions of January 11-12. According to the letter, the discussions included her use of additional, non-confidential, student evaluations, and her attitude towards students. Dr. Perry stated that students had become apprehensive at the fact that she requested evaluations prior to the close of the course, and that she personally collected written comments from students. He enumerated the reasons he recalled Dr. Norvell having given for the poor evaluation. Dr. Perry also discussed her previous course ratings and his disagreement with her interpretation of the evaluation scores. In concluding the letter, Dr. Perry stated that his concern is not her teaching ability, but her performance. He states that her "teaching performance and your combative rather than collaborative attitude regarding the evaluation is of serious question. As I said in our discussion, I do not want to prejudge the broader tenure evaluation, but if I had to vote at this time, I would not be able to support your candidacy." By letter to Dr. Norvell dated February 10, 1988, Dr. Perry noted that the letters appear to have crossed in mailing, and that he had not received her letter of January 19 prior to his writing of the January 21 letter. He noted that the department mean had become available and that Dr. Norvell's evaluation scores were below the mean. He again stated his recollection of the earlier meetings and, in response to her request for examples of her behavior, wrote "in our discussions, I ha[ve] given you numerous examples of your behavior that I considered to reflect your attitude." Subsequently, Dr. Norvell sent a letter to Dr. Perry, dated March 8, 1988, identical to her letter of January 19, in which she requested specific identification of her problems. Dr. Perry had previously responded to her request. Dr. Norvell was either unable or unwilling to accept his comments. By evaluation letter dated June 21, 1988, Dr. Perry stated that Dr. Norvell's research and clinical teaching remained productive. He acknowledged her service on university committees was appreciated. However he started that her course teaching and her judgement were unsatisfactory. He further expressed his displeasure with her response to his concerns, and referred to the previous series of letters exchanged. He stated that, although previously there had been improvement in her relationships with colleagues and students, additional improvement was required. Dr. Perry's June 21 letter advised that his concern was "with the great variability in your performance over time and your difficulty in objectively looking at your own role in this variability. Unless individuals can scrutinize their own behavior, it is difficult for them to make any improvement permanent. The improvement is also destined to be temporary to the extent that it is based upon compliance to administrative authority rather that a genuine acceptance that improvement is needed." Although matters related to tenure are supposedly confidential, knowledge of Dr. Norvell's tenure situation appears to have been widespread among faculty and some students. Dr. Norvell discussed the matter with faculty members. Dr. Perry found it necessary to discuss the situation with non-tenured instructors who were aware of the approaching Norvell tenure deliberations and who were personally concerned about tenure practices. During the Summer 1988 term, Dr. Norvell taught an elective course. Her students rated the course as 1.00 and her instruction as 1.00, above the respective department mean of 1.50 and 1.61 respectively. In the Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, a faculty member in Dr. Norvell's position may submit a tenure application in either the fifth or sixth year of employment. Generally, a candidate for tenure applies once. An assistant professor will usually apply for promotion to associate professor concurrently with the tenure application. Dr. Perry suggested to Dr. Norvell that she delay her application until her sixth year. Such would have permitted Dr. Norvell to teach the Adult Psychopathology course again and would have provided an additional set of student evaluations to be considered. Dr. Perry believed such course of action to be advisable in response to the poor evaluation from the Fall 1987 class. Dr. Norvell chose to submit the application in her fifth year. In October, 1988, Dr. Norvell began to prepare her tenure and promotion application. A candidate for tenure is responsible for preparation of the package of materials which are reviewed by appropriate personnel. Dr. Norvell's package included biographical and professional information, letters of professional recommendation, standardized student evaluation results, and previous employment evaluations. The package was completed by early November, 1988. Dr. Norvell's tenure package also included letters written by students supportive of her application. The inclusion of such letters, while unusual, was not prohibited. Dr. Norvell did not review the letters. There is no evidence that Dr. Norvell personally solicited the letters. While several witnesses testified that they believed the inclusion of the letters to be inappropriate, the evidence does not establish that the inclusion of the student letters materially affected the tenure deliberations. There is disagreement as to the availability of evaluations received from Dr. Norvell's clinical students. At hearing, Dr. Perry testified that such evaluations were received from Dr. Norvell's clinical students during the period of her employment and were available for her review. Dr. Perry testified that Dr. Norvell's clinical evaluations during her first two years were below average, but not to a significant degree. He also testified that, during that period, he did not inform Dr. Norvell that such clinical evaluations were below average. Dr. Norvell was apparently not aware that such evaluations had been performed. There is no evidence that actual clinical evaluations were considered by the tenure committee or that such evaluations materially affected the committee's deliberations. Such evaluations were not included in Dr. Norvell's application. Tenured faculty appropriately based their opinions of Dr. Norvell's clinical instruction on personal knowledge of her performance in the clinical practice. Applications for tenure are reviewed by department faculty at a scheduled meeting. The application is discussed and tenured faculty vote by secret ballot. Eight faculty members were eligible to vote on Dr. Norvell's tenure application. Applications for promotion are considered at the same time. All faculty members holding the rank sought by the applicant or higher are eligible to vote by secret ballot on the promotion issue. Nine faculty members were eligible to vote on Dr. Norvell's promotion application. The faculty meeting and balloting occurred in November 8, 1988. At the faculty meeting, Dr. Perry initially expressed his opposition to Dr. Norvell's candidacy. Dr. Perry conceded that her research was distinguished, but argued that neither her instruction nor service were of like quality. Dr. Perry had previously attended all but one faculty meeting related to a tenure decision, and had previously expressed his opinion at such meetings. He had not previously opposed a tenure application. Dr. Norvell asserts that Dr. Perry acted inappropriately in speaking against her application at the faculty meeting during which the Norvell application was considered. The evidence does not establish that Dr. Perry's opposition to Dr. Norvell's application was based on factors other than his personal opinion as to whether she had attained a level of distinction in two of the three criteria for tenure and promotion. There is no evidence that Dr. Perry's opinion affected the deliberations any more than the opinion of any other faculty member. The evidence does not suggest that the outcome of the secret ballot would have been otherwise had Dr. Perry not expressed his opinion. Given the faculty's apparent knowledge of the situation prior to the meeting, it is doubtful that any faculty member entered the meeting unaware of Dr. Perry's opposition to the application. Some of the tenured faculty who participated in the meeting testified at hearing. Of those testifying, one admitted to having felt pressured by Dr. Perry's actions at the meeting, but nonetheless voted in favor of Dr. Norvell's tenure application. One faculty apparently considered his antagonistic personal relationship with Dr. Norvell in reaching a decision and abstained from voting on the tenure issue. Had he voted in favor of her tenure application, as he admitted was probable up until shortly before the faculty meeting, it would have been entitled to additional review. In fact, as discussed below, the application was forwarded for additional review. The abstention by the referenced faculty member was irrelevant. The remainder of the faculty members testifying generally found either her teaching, her service, or both, to be unsatisfactory. The vote on Dr. Norvell's tenure application was three for, three against, and two abstentions. The vote on Dr. Norvell's promotion application was six for, two against, and one abstention. Promotion is rarely granted in cases where a tenure recommendation is negative. Although Dr. Norvell asserted that the results indicate that Dr. Perry pressured faculty to vote against her tenure application, and that the faculty voted otherwise on the promotion application, the evidence does not support the assertion. It is more likely, as witnesses testified, that the favorable vote on promotion was with due regard to her distinction in research. Subsequent to consideration and voting by department faculty, applications for tenure and promotion may be forwarded to the college level for further consideration if either the department faculty or the department chairman recommend an award of tenure. If the application receives a negative recommendation from both the faculty and department chairman, the application is not forwarded. However, given the circumstances of this situation, the Norvell application was forwarded for college level review even though neither the tenured faculty nor department chairman Perry recommended the granting of tenure. Applications for tenure and promotion within the College of Health Related Professions are reviewed by the college dean and the advisory Tenure and Promotion Committee. The committee members represent the several departments in the college. Six tenured faculty members, two of whom had participated in the previous tenure meeting, were members of the committee which considered Dr. Norvell's application. Dr. Perry was one of the persons on the committee. Due to the circumstances of the case, Dr. Perry was instructed, either by the college dean, the committee, or both, that he was not to participate in the college level deliberations. Generally, the appropriate department chairman forwards the application package with a transmittal letter and fully participates in the process. Dr. Perry initially decided not to provide such a transmittal letter. Upon learning that Dr. Perry would not be writing a letter, Dr. Norvell wrote and mailed a letter of her own to the college dean and committee members. Dr. Norvell's letter, dated November 23, 1988, expressed her opinion towards Dr. Perry. Dr. Norvell's letter charged that Dr. Perry's opposition to her application was of a personal nature, and stated "[i]f the tenure committee and Dean of the College of Health Related Professions is willing to objectively review my credentials I know I will receive tenure and promotion." After learning that Dr. Norvell had delivered her letter, Dr. Perry wrote a transmittal letter, dated November 14, 1988, in which he addressed Dr. Norvell's application for tenure and explained the rationale for his opposition to her application. Dr. Perry attended the committee meeting and read the letter to the members. He thereafter excused himself and did not participate in the deliberations or the vote. The committee reviewed the tenure package prepared by Dr. Norvell. Following the discussion, the committee voted by secret ballot. The result of the vote on the tenure application was five against and one absent. The result of the vote on the promotion application was five abstentions and one absent. One member of the committee testified that he abstained on the issue of promotion because promotion was rarely awarded without tenure, and saw no reason to do otherwise. Dr. Norvell asserts that Dr. Perry acted inappropriately in speaking against her application at the College meeting during which the Norvell application received further consideration. Dr. Perry was prepared to submit the application to the committee without further comment. He subsequently chose to do write the letter in response to Dr. Norvell's letter accusing Dr. Perry of personal bias. The evidence does not establish that under the circumstances, Dr. Perry's letter was inappropriate. Following the committee vote, the Norvell application was submitted to the Dean of the College of Health Related Professions, Dr. Richard Gutekunst, for review. Dr. Gutekunst reviewed the committee's recommendation and the application package. He determined that, although Dr. Norvell's research was acceptable, her teaching was inconsistent and unsatisfactory. He also determined her service to be undistinguished. He denied the application for tenure and promotion. The University of Florida has adopted rules which identify the requirements for tenure. Rule 6C1-7.019(3), Florida Administrative Code, provides that the criteria for the granting of tenure shall be relevant to the performance of the work which the faculty member has been employed to do and to the faculty member's duties and responsibilities as a member of the University community. The criteria recognize three "broad categories of academic service" including instruction, research, and service. To attain tenure, a faculty member must achieve "distinction" in at least two of the three "broad" categories. "Distinction" is defined as "appreciably better than the usual college faculty member of the candidate's present rank and field". During Dr. Norvell's employment with the University of Florida, her primary responsibilities were teaching and research. Beyond the service expected of all faculty members, such as participation on departmental committees and attendance at meetings, Dr. Norvell had minimal service responsibilities. Though minimal or no service duties were assigned to Dr. Norvell during her employment at the University, she performed minor service activities and was commended on her service in the annual evaluations. Dr. Norvell asserts that such service should be considered as part of the tenure evaluation. The administrative rules state that tenure criteria is applied in relation to the duties for which the candidate was employed. Accordingly, Dr. Norvell's service is minimally relevant to the tenure decision. Even if it the evidence does not establish that such service was appreciably better than the usual college faculty member of the candidate's present rank and field. The University concedes that Dr. Norvell's research was distinguished. Accordingly, to receive tenure, Dr. Norvell must also achieve distinction in instruction. The evidence does not establish that Dr. Norvell's instruction was of distinguished quality. As judged by the student evaluations obtained confidentially from students in her classes, and from faculty familiar with Dr. Norvell's clinical practice, Dr. Norvell's teaching was inconsistent. The evidence fails to establish that Dr. Norvell's instruction was appreciably better than the usual college faculty member of the candidate's present rank and field. In claiming that Dr. Perry acted in opposition to her application for personal reasons unrelated to her qualifications for tenure and promotion, Dr. Norvell related anecdotal information which she asserted demonstrated his personal bias. The evidence does not support her claim that Dr. Perry acted for personal reasons.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the University of Florida enter a Final Order dismissing the Petitioner's petition for tenure and promotion. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 9th day of March, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of March, 1990. APPENDIX CASE NO. 89-0144 The Petitioner filed proposed findings of fact which included, identified as "notes", comments as to the reliability of testimony and evidence. Such "notes" are regarded as argument and are rejected as subordinate. The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified in the Recommended Order except as follows: 12. Rejected, not supported by the cited testimony. Dr. Perry did not evaluate her service as outstanding in her first year. He did commend her in her third year on her outstanding service related to the minority recruitment trip, a year in which she had no assigned service responsibilities. 13-14. Accepted as to the statements excerpted from the letters of evaluation, however, it is noted that additional information was included in the evaluations which was less favorable. Rejected, not supported by greater weight of evidence. Rejected, contrary to the evidence and to the Petitioner's assertion that Dr. Glaros was not Dr. Norvell's supervisor. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of evidence. Rejected, immaterial. Issue is whether Petitioner met the criteria for award of tenure. The reference to clinical evaluations is rejected, irrelevant. Reference to Dr. Perry's discussions with "junior" faculty is rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence. 28. Rejected, Dr. Bauer's favorable vote would have permitted further review of application, which occurred despite his abstention, immaterial. 29-30. Rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence. 31. Although the Findings of Fact note the Petitioner's election as Teacher of the Year, such is found to be less persuasive or reliable that standardized student evaluations. 34. Rejected. The greater weight of evidence establishes that Dr. Perry was instructed not to participate and did not participate in the college level deliberations. The evidence does not establish that he was instructed not to attend. 35-36. Rejected, unnecessary. The fact that committee members would consider the department chairman's opinion to be persuasive does not establish that Dr. Perry acted, inappropriately in expressing his opinion of Dr. Norvell's qualifications. Dr. Perry's letter was written in response to Dr. Norvell's allegations of personal bias. 37. Rejected. Not supported by greater weight of evidence. 39-41. Rejected. Not supported by greater weight of evidence. Respondent The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified in the Recommended Order except as follows: The reference to clinical evaluations is rejected, irrelevant Rejected, unnecessary. 19. The reference to clinical evaluations is rejected, irrelevant. 27. The reference to clinical evaluations is rejected, irrelevant. Last sentence rejected, unnecessary. 34. Rejected, irrelevant. 35-36. Rejected, unnecessary. 42-43. Rejected, irrelevant. The referenced vote had no effect. 44-46. Rejected, cumulative. 56. Rejected as to the mariner in which Dr. Perry received notification that he was not to participate in the committee deliberations, immaterial. 58. Rejected, unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: John Lombardi, President Office of the President University of Florida Tigert Hall Gainesville, Florida 32611 Rodney W. Smith, Esq. Law Offices of Rodney W. Smith, P.A. Post Office Box 628 Alachua, Florida 32615 Barbara C. Wingo, Esq. Office of the General Counsel University of Florida 207 Tigert Hall Gainesville, Florida 32611
Findings Of Fact Respondent began working for Petitioner School Board in 1960 as a teacher and has been so employed for approximately twenty years, with several breaks in service. At all times material hereto, Respondent has held Florida Teacher's Certificate No. 112370, Rank 1, covering the areas of elementary education, social studies, and junior college. During the 1981-82 and 1982-83 school years, Respondent worked as a social studies teacher at Cutler Ridge Junior High School. Prior to the 1981-82 school year, Respondent served as a CSI instructor for several years. CSI is the Center for Special Instruction and is an indoor suspension system. Students who have had difficulty in school, such as skipping classes and defiance of authority, are sent to the CSI room where they are isolated from their classmates to work on their regular school assignments. When Dr. John Moore became principal of Cutler Ridge Junior High School for the 1981-82 school year, he became aware that the CSI program needed to be strengthened. Parents, community leaders, and staff members of the school felt that the CSI program was not supportive of the disciplinary structure of the school, and teachers had been complaining about CSI. When Respondent was informally observed in the CSI room, the students "seemed to be having an extremely good time there . . . [,and] were running their own show, . . . [so] they liked going to CSI." The students were out of their seats, moving around at will, and some were walking in and out of the classroom. The room was noisy and in one instance in November 1979 the students were throwing a football around the room. When Dr. Moore reviewed the schedule for 1981-82, he saw that Respondent had a split schedule of part-time in CSI and part-time in social studies. He changed Respondent to a full-time social studies schedule, initially with four seventh-grade classes and one eighth-grade class. As a result of the suggestion of Respondent and another teacher, Dr. Moore merged the two teachers' schedules so that Dr. Sullivan ended up with a straight seventh- grade schedule. This would have reduced the amount of lesson planning required by Respondent and would have made his work load easier. Seventh-grade social studies is the simplest assignment Dr. Moore could have given a social studies teacher. During the 1981-82 and 1982-83 school years, a pattern could be discerned in Respondent's teaching. During each of those years, there was a relatively positive start with erratic performance during the first semester. By second semester, there was substantial disaster and a total lack of a learning environment. This erosion pattern was attributed to Respondent's teaching techniques. During the first semester of each year, Respondent had the students working at the lowest level of cognitive ability, i.e., memory work. Students became bored with that after a period of time. Respondent was not using feedback mechanisms to tell him what the students were understanding. Respondent did not teach in a logical sequence beginning with the first semester. These things led to frustration and boredom on the part of the students, and negative behavior became apparent. The negative behavior became resistive. This led to the erosion as above described. Respondent was formally observed by Assistant Principal James Marshall on November 16, 1982. Respondent was rated overall unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. Respondent was unacceptable in preparation and planning because he had no lesson plans. He was rated unacceptable in classroom management because of the disorganization of his class. He was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because he did not adapt materials and methods to the needs and abilities of his students and failed to provide opportunities for the students to express their ideas. He failed to give specific directions to the students and only used one technique of instruction, i.e., the lecture method. Mr. Marshall prescribed help for Respondent. He recommended that Respondent formulate good lesson plans according to the scope and sequence of the curriculum. A portion of the lesson plan should contain a procedure for the evaluation of the students. He recommended that Respondent praise the students and that Respondent try to obtain enough textbooks. If he could not, he should utilize duplicated materials. Mr. Marshall pointed out how Respondent could change the seats of his disruptive children and call the parents to see whether he could get some backup from them. The next formal observation of Respondent was performed by Assistant Principal Albert Villar on January 8, 1982. Respondent was found overall unacceptable and was rated unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, classroom management, assessment techniques, teacher-student relationships, and professional responsibility. He was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because the students were taking a test which was written on the chalkboard. The test was confusing to the students, and they were not certain as to what part of the test they were to take. Further, the test was not visible to the entire class. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because students walked in and out of the classroom, several students were talking during the test, and some were putting on makeup. Respondent was marked unacceptable in techniques of instruction because the students needed to answer questions with the textbook, and not all of the students had a textbook accessible to them. Respondent told the students to share, which is inappropriate because there would be a tendency to cheat on the examination. Respondent was marked unacceptable in assessment techniques because he did not have a written copy of the test; therefore, it would be impossible for students who are absent to make up the test. There also should have been a copy of the test in the students' folders. Respondent was marked unacceptable in teacher-student relationships because the lack of textbooks led to a relationship which did not reflect equal recognition and respect for every individual. Mr. Villar made recommendations for improvement. He recommended that if Respondent wanted to use a chalkboard test, he should have a written copy in the students' folders, and he should enforce his classroom rules about students not talking during a test. Respondent's next formal observation was performed by the principal, Dr. John Moore, on January 27, 1982. Respondent was rated overall unacceptable and was found to be unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships, and professional responsibility. He was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because the lesson he taught was not the lesson described on his lesson plan. The inadequate planning led to classroom management problems. Throughout the observation, the students were "off task, doing their own thing, talking to each other and so on." The students and Respondent were talking at the same time. Eight students were chewing gum, which is against school rules. Techniques of instruction were rated unacceptable because the students were no on task. Respondent was not getting the students involved in discussions or in expressing their ideas. He was not getting feedback from the students because the students were talking among themselves. With teacher-questioning techniques, Respondent could have gotten the students involved. He could have gotten them on task by giving them quizzes or handouts which could structure their learning. Instructions were given while the majority of the class was talking, and the students were not challenged. Respondent was rated unacceptable in teacher-student relationships because throughout the observations there were repeated examples of students' disrespect, students yelling out across the room, students talking back and refusing to follow instructions. There was no reaction by Respondent. The bulk of the students were not responding. Professional responsibility was marked unacceptable because at the beginning of the year, Respondent was directed to enforce his class rules and to establish an effective learning environment. This was a general disciplinary project for the whole school. Dr. Moore prescribed help for Respondent. He recommended that Respondent work with his department chairman to review grade level objectives and to be certain that his lesson plans reflected the Dade County Balanced Curriculum requirements. Dr. Moore also recommended that he meet with a fellow teacher to review how she prepared her lesson plans. Dr. Moore recommended that Respondent enforce his class rules and that instead of using an oral approach, Respondent should develop handouts for the students. This would give them some structure as to what they are going to do. He recommended having homework guidelines and using review quizzes. Respondent was next formally observed by Mr. Marshall on February 5, 1982. Respondent was rated unacceptable overall and was marked unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because while he had lesson plans, they were not done according to the sequence and pattern prescribed in the school. Respondent did not get the students to work right away at the beginning of the period and the students were not on task. Classroom management was rated unacceptable because Respondent had no control of the students. The students were doing what they wanted to do and were disrupting the class. Respondent was marked unacceptable in techniques of instruction because he did not adapt materials and methods to the interests, needs and abilities of his students. He was lecturing the students, and this technique did not allow the students to participate. Respondent was marked unacceptable in teacher-student relationships because the relationship was not a positive one: the students were not guided into a class discussion by Respondent; there was no relationship between Respondent and the students, and the students did not want to give information to the teacher. They just wanted to sit there. Mr. Marshall prescribed help for Respondent. He requested that Respondent make sure that each student participate in the learning activities. He recommended that Respondent duplicate the assignments so that there would be enough for all students to have and that Respondent guide the students in a discussion from his daily lesson plan. Respondent was next formally observed on February 16, 1982, by Phyllis Cohen, Area Line Director for the Dade County Public Schools. Respondent was rated overall unacceptable and was found unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of the subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships. The instructions given to the class were not comprehensible. None of the things that were indicated in the lesson plan occurred. As a result, when the students were divided into three groups and told to read, without the appropriate directions, each group proceeded not to read. As the lesson progressed, the behavior deteriorated more and more until at the end of the lesson, three-quarters of the class was off task. There was an elaborate lesson plan, but it was not followed. Knowledge of the subject matter was rated unacceptable because the teacher did not demonstrate a knowledge of the content of the chapter while he was giving class directions. Respondent was marked unacceptable in classroom management because his class management practices needed much improvement. Respondent was marked unacceptable in techniques of instruction because he did not adapt materials and methods to the interests, needs and abilities of the students. Further, he did not use instructional strategies for teaching the subject matter. Respondent was rated unacceptable in assessment techniques because many of the students' papers were not graded, most of the work on file was work book papers consisting of mostly short answers and recall questions, and there were very few essays. Mrs. Cohen recommended help for Respondent. She directed him to develop lesson plans which are useful and which list key concepts, activities, questions and vocabulary. She directed him to work with the principal who would provide models for his use. She recommended that the department head arrange to have Respondent observe a master teacher presenting a civics lesson. She recommended that he observe teachers who exhibit good class control, that he become aware of what the students are doing, and that he review and enforce class standards for behavior. She recommended that he work with the assistant principal to improve class management techniques and that Respondent have a five-minute start-up activity on the board fro students to do when they enter the class in order to settle the class down, take attendance, and begin the lesson in a more orderly fashion. She also recommended that he improve his presentation strategies and teaching techniques by working with the social studies department head. The next formal observation was performed by Mr. Marshall on March 11, 1982. Respondent was rated overall unacceptable and was found to be unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. He was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because his lesson plans were not adequate, unacceptable in classroom management because there was still a problem with student control and participation, and unacceptable in techniques of instruction since he still was not adapting materials and methods to the interests, needs and abilities of the students and was not providing opportunities for the students to express their ideas. Mr. Marshall prepared a memo in which he listed teaching techniques that would help improve Respondent's teaching. He recommended that Respondent praise the students more. Respondent was next formally observed by the social studies supervisor for the Dade County Public Schools, Paul Hanson, on March 19, 1982. Respondent was rated overall unacceptable and was found unacceptable in the categories of classroom management, techniques of instruction, assessment techniques, teacher- student relationships, and in one subcategory of preparation and planning because the plans which were written were not compatible with what actually took place in the classroom. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because there was no means of controlling the students who talked and moved about the classroom at will. The discipline was nonconducive to a learning environment since students were talking, out of their seats, and not on task. Very little learning was taking place. Techniques of instruction were marked unacceptable because the students were not motivated, and the instruction given them was not conducive to learning for junior high students. The activities in the classroom did not reflect the adoption of materials and methods to the interests, needs, and abilities of the students, and there was confusion in the class. Respondent was rated unacceptable in assessment techniques because the test which was observed did not equate with the instruction taking place, the test construction was very poor, and there were a number of grammatical errors on it. What was being tested was not compatible with what was being taught at the time, according to the lesson plan. The grades and records of the students' achievement were not up to date but rather were about two to three weeks behind. Therefore, the students' progress was not being monitored on a daily basis. Respondent was marked unacceptable in teacher-student relationships because of the behavior problem in the class. There seemed to be very little respect for the students on the part of the teacher, and it was difficult to determine who was in control of the class. Mr. Hanson recommended that the lesson plan be more specific and that it equate with what takes place in the classroom. He recommended that Respondent observe other teachers for their classroom management techniques and that a staff development course be taken. He also suggested that Respondent observe a master teacher for the techniques of instruction. Mr. Hanson provided some reading materials to Respondent dealing with such topics as how to conduct a classroom discussion, how to manage a social studies classroom, and how to use audiovisual films in a social studies classroom. The next formal observation of Respondent was done by Dr. Moore on April 13, 1982. Respondent was rated overall unacceptable and unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, assessment techniques, teacher- student relationships, professional responsibility, and supportive characteristics. There was no improvement in this observation over the prior observations. Preparation and planning was unacceptable because the majority of students were off task during the observation, the written plan was not in compliance with the prior prescriptions and the lesson plan was not followed by Respondent. Knowledge of subject matter was marked unacceptable because Respondent failed to provide students with necessary explanations to implement the lesson plan. He confused the teaching objective with directions for student activity. Classroom management was marked unacceptable because the students were off task, were frequently moving, were constantly socializing, and a student was permitted to defy Respondent without consequences. Also, there were forty wads of paper on the floor. Techniques of instruction wee marked unacceptable because Respondent gave materials to the students prepared by the National Council of Social Studies for teacher use without modifying or adapting these materials for student use. He did not provide opportunities for students to express their ideas, although this was called for in his lesson plan, and he gave confusing directions to the students. The distribution of the National Council materials caused organization problems, and confusing directions used excessive class time. Respondent was marked unacceptable in assessment techniques because he did not make an assessment of each student's academic progress. He gave the students credit based upon untested assertions of mastery of assignments. He asked the students to "Tell me if you know this . . . I'll mark it down and you can go on. . . ." Teacher-student relationships was rated unacceptable because defiant students regularly disregarded his direction to stop talking. Respondent was marked unacceptable in professional responsibility because he had failed to comply with directives regarding remediation practices. He was found unacceptable in supportive characteristics because it was found that he did not contribute to the total school program. Dr. Moore recommended that Respondent review prior directives on lesson planning and comply with those. He further recommended that Respondent review material with his department head and that Respondent implement the posted consequences for student behavior. Dr. Moore submitted a memorandum to Respondent outlining the problems that he saw in this observation and compiled a list of pertinent materials available in the media center. On April 16, 1982, Dr. Moore made Respondent aware of a parent complaint concerning the basis for a student's grade and the failure to notify the parent of the lack of student progress. As a result of that parent complaint, Dr. Moore reviewed Respondent's grade book and found a variety of deficiencies: There were grades that were not identified; there was no indication of makeup work, and the mechanics of keeping grades were absent. The grade book is a document which is required by law and by School Board rule. It is an attendance record and a primary record of the student's progress as compared to the course standards. Dr. Moore provided a memorandum to Respondent indicating what improvement was needed. Around the same time, Respondent became ill and was hospitalized. A series of memoranda were sent from the school to the Sullivans and vice versa. It was difficult to ascertain the nature of Respondent's illness and the expected length of his absence. Eventually it was determined that Respondent's illness was genuine, and he was given an opportunity to return to his school to complete his prescriptions. Respondent was next formally observed by Althea King, Assistant Principal, on October 18, 1982. This was the first formal evaluation under the TADS system. There is no overall rating on the individual TADS observation forms. This observation showed a great improvement over the prior observations. Prior to this observation, Mrs. King met with Respondent to go over the things she would be looking for and made an appointment with Respondent for her observation. Although Respondent sincerely desired to improve, he was found unacceptable in preparation and planning because his plan did not fill the allotted time. Mrs. King observed Respondent for one hour and found that there were 20 to 25 minutes remaining in the class period when the students had finished an activity and were not provided another activity. Mrs. King noted that preparation and planning is very significant because it is the means of gaining control of the classroom. She recommended that Respondent read certain sections of the teacher handbook and complete activities therein to help him develop a lesson plan that would have the various essential parts. The next formal observation was done by Dr. Moore on November 8, 1982. He found that Respondent's classroom management was above a minimally acceptable level. The class was noisy, but it was under control. There was, however, substantial deterioration in the other categories. Dr. Moore directed Respondent to give priority attention to the other five areas since progress had been made in classroom management. He further directed Respondent to outline the sequence of key concepts and generalizations for each unit and to discuss them with the department head to insure consistent comprehension. He directed Respondent to use inquiry strategies and to review a section in the faculty handbook to implement activities listed therein. He directed Respondent to list specific student objectives in behavioral terms in his lesson plans. The next formal observation was done by Dr. Moore on December 15, 1982. The observation, which was scheduled in advance, was relatively good. There was improvement in a number of areas over the preceding observation although Respondent was still not dealing with students who were off task, a fault which eventually leads to deterioration. Respondent was weak in using feedback mechanism. This is a shortcoming in teacher-student communication, indicating whether or not the teacher knows what the students are really perceiving and learning. In order to help Respondent, Dr. Moore recommended that Respondent read sections in the TADS prescription manual and attend Teacher Education Center workshops on teacher-student relationships and on assessment techniques. Shortly after the Christmas break, there was apparent deterioration of behavior in the classroom. There were reports from other teachers of loud, disruptive behavior. Respondent was directed to confer with Assistant Principal Daniel McPhaul and to make sure the students know that there will be consequences if they do not behave. Starting at this point, there was the same pattern of disruption that had been seen in the prior school year. Respondent was making no visible effort to restore order in his classroom. The next formal observation of Respondent was done by Dr. Moore and Mr. Hanson jointly on February 8, 1983. Respondent was not found acceptable in any category. The class lesson consisted of giving workbooks to the students. There was no teaching, simply a passing out of materials. This failed to keep the students on task. There were consistent violations of the class rules and no consequences. Media still was not being used, and there were wads of paper on the wall. Respondent was marked unacceptable in preparation and planning because his lesson plan did not fill the allocated time. What was planned covered only 30 minutes of a 55-minute period. What was going on in the classroom did not follow the lesson plan, and what was being done was not included either in that lesson or the lesson plan for the next day. While Respondent exhibited knowledge of the subject matter, he was not found acceptable in the area of presentation of the subject matter. He used a "scattergun" approach. With the remaining 30 minutes, he filled in the time with something completely irrelevant to the plan for the day and irrelevant to the general overall plan for the week. The information presented to the children was simply handed to them with no logic or reason why they were getting this information. The information presented was not timely. Only one cognitive level was utilized in the entire classroom period, the lowest level-recall or remembering. No higher or challenging cognitive levels were presented, and the lesson was presented in an uninteresting manner. Classroom management was unacceptable because approximately two-thirds of the students were not on task, and the behavior was inappropriate for a classroom. This resulted in no learning taking place, and Respondent did not seem to make any attempt to correct the situation. Respondent was marked unacceptable in techniques of instruction because he gave a skills lesson which needed some demonstration. However, he simply gave the students materials and told them to do the work. He should have taken the time to give instructions and actually demonstrate what the students were to do. The activities that took place did not give the students an opportunity for participation and verbal interaction with Respondent. The students were not invited to raise questions and were not actively involved in the lesson. It was basically a teacher-directed lesson. The lesson that Respondent presented would have been an opportune one for using media, but Respondent chose not to do so. There was a great deal of confusion on the part of the learners -- they did not know what to do with the materials, and very little clarification took place. Respondent was marked unacceptable in assessment techniques because he did not give the students more than a book-type exercise, which was not challenging, and only required students to recall basic information. This technique did not require them to actually think or apply the knowledge they learned. In the student folders, there was only one kind of evaluation, a dittoed workbook-type of page with mostly fill-in-the-blank type activities. Respondent was marked unacceptable in teacher-student relationships because there was not any mutual respect on the part of the students or teacher. Mr. Hanson found no improvement over his prior observation of March 19, 1982. Mr. Hanson prescribed help for Respondent, and Dr. Moore concurred with those prescriptions. It was recommended that Dr. Sullivan observe a master teacher at a school close to his and that Dr. Moore, a former social studies teacher, help in demonstrating some of the techniques needed in a social studies room. Mr. Hanson provided additional reading materials for Respondent. The next formal observation of Respondent was done by Mrs. King and Mrs. Cohen on March 29, 1983. Mrs. Cohen found Respondent unacceptable in all categories, and Mrs. King found him unacceptable in all categories except teacher-student relationships. Mrs. King found that his lesson plan was much decreased in quality over her prior observation: the objectives did not reflect good planning, the activities did not fill the allotted time, and the plan was not followed. Because of these, she rated Respondent unacceptable in preparation and planning. Knowledge of the subject matter was rated unacceptable because the subject presentation was unacceptable. Information and activities were not timely and accurate, and the sequence of presentation was not logical. Interesting, unusual or important dimensions were not included, and different cognitive levels were not presented. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because many students were not on task, and behavior management was not done appropriately. Techniques of instruction was marked unacceptable because the materials that were used were inadequate for the lesson. Student participation was very minimal, and there was little, if any, discussion. Students were asked to work on information in their folders. Individual questions were asked and answered but there was no other kind of instruction taking place during the observation. Assessment techniques was marked unacceptable for there was no indication that assessment had taken place or would take place for this particular lesson. The students seemed vague as to what they were supposed to be doing. Teacher-student relationships was unacceptable because there was no attempt to involve all students in the instruction. Basically, there was no instruction. Mrs. Cohen found the same conditions that existed on her previous observation of February 16, 1982. While the method of teaching had changed, as worksheets were distributed and folders were given out, there was still no teaching occurring, there was lots of confusion, and there was little attempt to draw relationships. These things contributed to a lack of control and off task behavior. Mrs. King discussed with Respondent activities that he might use to direct the students, to establish and gain control of their behavior in the class. She recommended written assignments, discussions, and lectures, using a variety of activities that might help give direction to him and to the students in the classroom. The next formal observation was performed by Daniel McPhaul, Assistant Principal, on May 5, 1983. Mr. McPhaul found Respondent unacceptable in all categories except knowledge of subject matter. Preparation and planning was unacceptable because there were some items lacking from the lesson plans, and the lesson plan did not have objectives. Classroom management was unacceptable because there were many students who were not on task strewn about the classroom floor, the desks were out of order, and students were walking around communicating with each other while Respondent was giving instructions. Techniques of instruction was unacceptable because there was no student participation. His instructional strategies were limited. There was no use of media from the library, although some was available to him. Assessment techniques were unacceptable because the lesson ended with the ringing of the bell. There was no time allowed for assessment. He did not ask questions to see if the students understood the lesson and did not evaluate the students. Respondent was found unacceptable in teacher-student relationships because if the students were interested in receiving instructions from Respondent, they would not have been playing around and communicating with each other. Mr. McPhaul suggested that Respondent get the students on task as soon as possible. One way to do this is to have handouts or pop quizzes ready at the beginning of the class. He also suggested that Respondent communicate with parents. He suggested that the students be made to clean the classroom before leaving. On May 25, 1983, Dr. Moore dropped in to visit Respondent because of a teacher's complaint. When he got there, there were several students running out of the door. Respondent indicate that no lesson was in progress, and the students were running around because there was nothing to do. The next formal observation was performed by Dr. Moore on June 1, 1983. There was no improvement: the class was noisy and off task; the lesson did not match the lesson plan; the lesson was not attended to by most of the students; many students talked while Respondent gave instructions; and nineteen out of twenty students did not follow directions. Further, since Respondent was using an inappropriate teaching technique for a fact recall level lesson, five students did nothing, fourteen students wrote statements totally unrelated to the unit they were studying, and only one student wrote one question pertinent to the unit under study. Seven weeks into the nine-week grading period, there were no grades recorded in the grade book. Based on this there would be no way to know what a student had done or how well. There were no codes in the front of the grade book to interpret the grades. There was no basis to explain a child's grade to a parent. Dr. Moore gave Respondent copies of his summatives on or about November 12, 1982, December 17, 1982, February 10, 1983, April 11, 1983, and May 1, 1983. A summative combines the preceding two classroom observations and rates a teacher overall acceptable or unacceptable at any point in the process. All of Respondent's summatives were rated overall unacceptable. Respondent was offered help at other times as well. The assistant principal had conferences with parents of disruptive students. Mrs. Parker taught directly across the hall from Respondent and observed that at times students were completely out of control, with desks and books being thrown across the room. Respondent asked her for help, and she suggested methods of control. There was so much noise coming from Respondent's room that Mrs. Parker would put her stool in the doorway and sit there and control both her class and Respondent's class at the same time. Mrs. Griswold, Respondent's department head, taught across the hall from Respondent. At times she noted the chaos. Quite frequently the students would be talkative and on occasions they would be walking around. The noise interfered with her class to the point that she would have to close her door. She offered to help Respondent by meeting with him on several occasions to discuss lesson plans, methods of controlling students, and using different techniques. She gave him materials to help him. During the 1981-82 school year, she met frequently, on a weekly basis, to go over Respondent's lesson plans. During some time periods, Respondent's lesson plans were more than adequate; at other times, they were not adequate. During the 1981-82, Respondent was told by Dr. Moore to submit lesson plans to Mrs. Griswold. He did not always comply. When he did , Mrs. Griswold went over his lesson plans with him, checking to make sure that the materials that he was using were applicable to the students in his class. She checked to be sure he was following the course outline for social studies for seventh graders. She tried to aid him in any way she could to try to maintain discipline and control in his class. On January 28, 1982, Assistant Principal Marshall gave Respondent a memorandum which dealt with tips for teaching. Mr. Marshall then monitored Respondent with informal observations two to three times a week to see whether Respondent was utilizing the suggestions made to him. The assistant principals had to enter Respondent's room at numerous times to gain control of or restore order to the classroom. Fellow teacher Beverly Dunbar also went into Respondent's room to restore control to his class. She observed that the children were so noisy that her own students could not do their work. When she went into Respondent's room, almost all of the students in the room were out of their seats, throwing papers, books, and throwing over desks. Respondent was standing there, not saying anything to them. They were out of control. On February 5, 1982, Respondent's room was changed to the first floor so that he could be closer to the administrative offices and to relieve the classes which had been around Respondent's classroom. The assistant principals were directed to assist Respondent whenever needed to restore order to his class when it was out of control. The assistant principals removed youngsters from Respondent's classroom and offered to take others out. Mr. Villar had a conference with Respondent to set up classroom rules for him and offered suggestions on the use of a seating chart to take attendance quickly and to become familiar with where students were sitting and to notice patterns in behavior that may become disruptive. Mr. Villar tried several times to talk to Respondent about his problems, but Respondent was not responsive. Mr. Villar also suggested that Respondent observe teachers in their school and in other schools in the same academic areas. He also recommended that Mrs. Griswold assist Respondent on lesson plans, ordering materials, and making sure he had a complete set of classroom textbooks. Mrs. King had conferences with Respondent. She called these her "lay-it-on-the-line" conversations. These dealt with how to get control of the students and force them through classroom activities through discipline measures, to do what they are supposed to be doing. She gave very specific recommendations such as moving certain students and specific kinds of activities that would keep the students involved. One day she went into Respondent's class and began the class for him to show how it could be done and how students could be controlled through various methods. Dr. Moore invited Mr. Hanson, the social studies supervisor, to observe Respondent's class and make recommendations to help the situation. At one point, when the principal observed Respondent's class, the room was so noisy and the students were so off task that he suggested that Respondent work with the students regarding the necessity of self control and following directions. He further recommended that Respondent work with Assistant Principal Villar to arrange for any kind of backup he would need. Dr. Moore also gave education articles to Respondent to read. The principal followed through and arranged for observations of other teachers by Respondent. Respondent was given an opportunity to raise any questions that he had about the type of support he needed. He was given an opportunity to give the administration feedback of the things they were not doing that he would like them to do for him. Dr. Moore compiled a composite record of all the prescriptions that had been given to Respondent in order that Respondent could review them and did a demonstration lesson for Respondent as an example showing the use of techniques which were explained in the readings that were given to Respondent. In spite of all the help that was given, Respondent's class continued to interfere with other teachers' classes. Mr. May testified that the noise was so loud that his students could not hear him dictating a spelling test during a semester examination. Mr. May saw things thrown through the room, such as books, and saw students out of their chairs and totally out of control. He heard glass breaking and saw glass on the ledges of the second floor. He was also afraid that some child would go out a second floor window and recommended to Dr. Moore that Respondent's class be changed to the ground floor. There was no improvement in the control of Respondent's class after he was moved to the first floor. On the occasion that Mrs. Dunbar went up to gain control of Respondent's class, her students were prevented from doing their work by the noise coming from Respondent's room. Other teachers in Mrs. Dunbar's department complained to her, and teachers complained to the assistant principals about the noise in Respondent's room. During informal observations, Respondent fared no better than he did no his formal observations. His class was generally disorganized with 100% of the time being spent without teachings. When Mrs. Dunbar observed Respondent, he was not teaching. There was commotion going on. At times, clapping and chanting could be heard coming from Respondent's room across the courtyard. The administrators received more student and parent complaints about Respondent's class than they did about other teacher's classes. When Mrs. King walked by the halls, she would come in to help establish order in Respondent's class. Sometimes she would be sent for by Respondent or by a student or other teachers. Very often she notices that there was chaos in the classroom with students moving around without inhibition. They were talking, tossing paper, and off task. They were not involved in any kind of constructive classroom activity, and the noise level was very high. On Mrs. Cohen's informal visits to the school, she observed Dr. Moore going into Respondent's room to quiet it because someone had thrown paper outside the room. It was the consensus of opinion of the experts who observed Respondent in the classroom that there was a repeated failure on his part to communicate with and relate to the children in his classroom to such an extent that they were deprived of a minimal educational experience. Respondent has not maintained direction and discipline of students as assigned by the principal and has not kept good order in the classroom. He has not taken precautions to protect the life, health and safety of every student. On one occasion Mr. Marshall had to respond to the Respondent's classroom because of the presence of a railroad spike in the possession of one of the students. Because of the gravity of the situation, the parents of the student were contacted and additional documentation was forwarded to Dr. Moore. During the 1982-83 school year, Assistant Principal King walked by the Respondent's class and observed a student holding a chair up in the air "as if in the intent of throwing it at another student." Another time she observed a student on all fours crawling along a back counter. On those occasions Respondent was standing in the front of the class, simply observing and doing nothing to (re)gain control of the class. During the 1982-83 school year, on several occasions jalousie windows were broken in Respondent's classroom by students playing and bumping into each other. Some students complained to Assistant Principal McPhaul about the noise level and disorder in Respondent's class and the difficulty they had in doing their work due to harassment by other students who wanted to play during class. Overall, during the last two years of Respondent's service, in the 1981-82 and 1982-83 school years, Respondent failed to achieve an acceptable performance rating as determined by eight formal evaluations during the 1981-82 school year, done by five different evaluators, two of which were external to the work site. In the 1982-83 school year, Respondent failed to achieve an acceptable performance rating as noted on nine different formal evaluations conducted by six different evaluators, two of which were external to the school site. The administrators asked Respondent whether there were any health conditions or medical conditions which should be considered in his case. Respondent stated that health was not a factor in his classroom observations. Neither Respondent nor his wife ever communicated to the administrators that there was a health problem that interfered with Respondent's teaching. After his suspension by the School Board, Respondent was examined psychologically and was found to have an inability to organize his social events into a meaningful order. His perceptual abilities are significantly below his age level, and his functioning is significantly below what one would expect given Respondent's level of education and teaching experience. He has extreme difficulty in differentiating relevant versus nonrelevant aspects in his environment. His thinking is highly concrete, and he is unable to coordinate data and integrate them into meaningful concepts. Respondent is verbose and uses circular reasoning to eventually reach a final conclusion. Respondent's examining psychologist determined that it would be difficult for Respondent to learn new techniques for getting a class into order, it would be difficult for him to learn new ways of doing lesson plans in order to structure his classroom activities, he would have a hard time working in a school organization where he had to perceive social situations and what is going on in a classroom, he would have a difficult time dealing with teachers, administrators, and students, and he would have a hard time perceiving the motives of the administration. His perceptions are vague and amorphous, and descriptive in nature. He has inordinate difficulties in capturing the essence of what was presented to him. While there is no evidence of thought disorder, his thinking is vague, disorganized, fuzzy, and reflective of an individual with possible organic factors interfering with his thinking and organizational abilities.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered in Case No. 83-2649 finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Specific Notice of Charges filed against him, affirming his suspension, dismissing him from his employment, and denying him any claim for back pay. It is further RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered in Case No. 83-3793 finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against him and permanently revoking Respondent's Florida Teacher's Certificate No. 112370. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of January 1985 in 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 3rd day of January 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Craig Wilson, Esquire 315 Third Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 George F. Knox, Esquire Penthouse 200 Southeast First Street Miami, Florida 33129 Donald Griesheimer Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County School Board 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER (DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD) ================================================================= SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 83-2649 WILLIAM D. SULLIVAN, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact The Business of Respondent The complaint alleges the Respondent admits and I find that the Respondent is a public employer within the meaning of Section 447.203, Florida Statutes. The Labor Organization Involved The Respondent disputes the complaint allegation that the Charging Party is an employee organization with the meaning of Section 447.203(10) of the Act. Evidence adduced during the course of the hearing establishes that the Charging Party is an organizational faculty at Brevard Community College which desires the betterment of teaching conditions at the college. It seeks to represent public employees for purposes of collective bargaining and in other matters relating to their employment relationship with the college. The Charging Party is registered with PERC and has petitioned PERC to determine its status as a bargaining representative. Testimony also indicates that employees are permitted to participate in the organizational affairs and a representation election was held on March 3, 1976, which Involved the Charging Party. Based on this undisputed testimony, I find that the Charging Party is an employee organization within the meaning of Section 447.203(10) of the Act. The Alleged Unfair Labor Practices Background Patrick D. Smith, is employed by Respondent as Director of College Relations and he also serves as the editor of a college communications organ called the Intercom. Smith's immediate superior is Dr. King, the College's President who has the final authority for determining the Intercom's content. The Intercom is distributed to faculty and staff members in their college mailboxes and is published weekly during the school year. The Intercom is printed in and distributed from Smith's office on campus. On January 21, 1976, Lewis Cresse (then the Charging Party's President and a BCC faculty member) called Smith at his office and advised that he (Cresse) would like to announce a meeting that the Charging Party would be having in the Intercom. Approximately one week later, Cresse met President King in the college's parking lot and specifically asked that the BCCFT (the Charging Party) be allowed to use the Intercom. King indicated that he had no intention of allowing the Charging Party to use the Intercom and it suffices to say that Smith denied Cresse the use of it for announcing a meeting that the Charging Party would soon be holding in the Intercom. It is by these acts, that the General Counsel issued his complaint alleging that the Respondent discriminatorily denied the Charging Party the use of the Intercom and the college bulletin boards as a means of communicating the Charging Party's announcements and meetings. In attempting to establish that the above acts constitute violations of Sections 447.501 and 447.301 of the Act, the General Counsel introduced testimony to the effect that the Brevard Vocational Association, an organization whose purpose is to maintain communications for the benefit of all vocational, industrial education instructors in Brevard County had been permitted useage of the Intercom. Evidence also established that individuals were allowed to advertise personal items which they desired to sell in the Intercom and that such useage included advertisements regarding rummage and garage sales and that the Brevard Chapter of Common Cause, an organization which seeks to improve the workings of government by making it more accountable to the citizenry had frequently utilized the college's bulletin system. The Respondent bases its defense on its position that including in the Intercom, a meeting notice for the Charging Party which not only gave the time and place of the meeting but also urged faculty members to attend would have possibly violated the Act, by giving illegal assistance to the union; and that in any event, the college was not required to run the employee organization's notice in a publication such as the Intercom. Smith informed Cresse of Respondent's decision not to permit the employee organization to use the Intercom as a communications organ and thereafter, no other requests to use Intercom was made by the employee organization. Based on Smith's undisputed testimony that he raised the issue with Dr. King, college President, whether the employee organization's request would be granted, and that he (King) raised the question with the college's attorney, I find that the Respondent's denial is an act which is properly chargeable to Respondent. In support of its position that the Respondent discriminatorily denied the Charging Party to utilize the Intercom, the General Counsel introduced the February 19, 1976 issue of Intercom which contained a statement to the effect that Lewis Cresse, a professor at the college, would be speaker at a monthly meeting of the Brevard Vocational Association. Another item included in the Intercom was a meeting notice for the American Welding Society wherein it was announced that Sam Reed was Granted permission to announce a meeting for the society. In both examples, it was noted that the Brevard Vocational Association and the American Welding Society are organizations which the Respondent's administration encouraged faculty and staff members to participate in and for which the college reimbursed employees for expenses resulting from out-of-town meetings. Respondent's position is that it works closely with the society in that it fulfills its educational mission by preparing instructors which ultimately fulfills the college's mission. The remaining complaint allegations concerns the issue of a discriminatory denial to the employee organization of access to the college's bulletin Boards. Evidence reveals that the college has a well established procedure for the approval of documents to be posted on the college's bulletin boards and that such procedures are enforced. Prior to posting, they must be approved by Mike Merchant, Manager of the Student's Center and that approval takes the form of either a rubber stamp which indicates approval which is thereafter initialed by Mr. Merchant, or he writes the work "approved" on the document with his initials and the date. The facts relative to this allegation stems from a request by the Charging Party to post campaign materials on bulletin boards throughout the campus. Dr. Kosiba, provost of the Cocoa Campus informed Mr. Merchant that this request should be denied and it was. This request was also denied based on Respondent's position that it was not obliged to honor union requests to post union meeting notices on its bulletin boards and further that the items requested were "promotional materials" which were in truth "highly controversial campaign literature intended to gain support for the union in the then upcoming election." The items introduced were (1) a bumper sticker which encouraged employees to vote for the union and (2) a red, white and blue document covered with banner, stars and an eagle entitled "working draft of proposed agreement." To sustain the complaint allegations, it must be shown that (1) the Charging Party made a request to use the Respondent's communication facilities which in this case involved the Intercom and its bulletin boards and a denial of such request, (2) that similar requests had been approved of a similar nature and (3) that other alternative means of access were not available to the Charging Party. As to the first point, there is no question but that the Charging Party requested and was denied permission to use the Respondent's bulletin boards and its communications organ, the Intercom. However, the record evidence fails to establish that the Respondent had honored similar requests by other organizations in the past. In fact, all of the evidence tends to establish that with respect to the items here in dispute, Respondent vigorously opposed unionization, as was its right, and to have permitted the Charging Party to use the bulletin boards and its communications organ here would have been tantamount to a passive approval of the very ideas to which it had vigorously objected to. Furthermore, records evidence established that the union had abundant opportunity and did in fact communicate extensively with the employees. Among these other alternative means were: The college permitted the Charging Party to hold campus wide meetings for the faculty and staff on campus during daylight hours. The college provided a bulk distribution table conveniently located near the post office which was regularly visited by faculty and staff members. The college had an established policy which would have permitted the Charging Party to designate a single bulletin board for the posting of announcements. The employee organization was able to communicate extensively with faculty and staff by the circulation of numerous documents that were delivered to staff offices. (See Public Employer's Exhibits #3 - #24). Via the "faculty and staff directory", the employee organization had access to all names, home addresses and phone numbers of all members of the bargaining unit. (See Public Employer's Exhibit #26). The employee organization had available the campus newspaper THE CAPSULE, for meeting notices, announcements, etc. Local newspapers disseminated in the Brevard County area reported extensively on the union's campaign and activities. (See Public Employer's Exhibit #24(a) through (t)). Based thereon, I find that the Charging Party had numerous alternative means to communicate with the employees and the record is void of any circumstantial evidence that the rights of employees were interfered with, restrained or otherwise coerced by the Respondent's conduct as set forth above. I shall therefore recommend that the complaint filed herein be dismissed in its entirety.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Petitioner, Carol J. Cargill, was properly removed from her position as Director of the University's International Language Institute and the related stipend therefore properly terminated.
Findings Of Fact Dr. Cargill, a graduate of Brown, New York University, and Georgetown University, was recruited by the University in 1977. She was hired as a professor in linguistics on a nine month contract. In 1978 she began to develop the ILI, and thereafter took the title of Director, receiving therefor a 20 percent overload to her salary, separate and apart from her academic salary for a full time load. She was never officially appointed as "Director" of the ILI. Her duties with the ILI were separate and apart from her duties as a faculty member. Her appointment to the faculty at the University was as a 1.0 Full Time Effort, (FTE) professor in Linguistics in the Division of Modern Languages and Linguistics, for which she was tendered and signed a standard State University System contract for each year of her employment as a professor, and for which she received a salary pursuant to the United Faculty of Florida Collective Bargaining Agreement, (CBA). The "Directorship" of the ILI is not within the legislative classification of Director. Faculty and other appointments at the University are made either to a "position" which is a creation of the legislature, or to "Other Personnel Services", (OPS), which is, by its nature, temporary. On or about May 5, 1992, Dr. Roger Cole, Professor and Director of the Division of Modern Languages, requested that Dr. Cargill tender her resignation as Director of the ILI. Dr. Cargill refused to do so. Thereafter, on August 10, 1992, Dean Richmond, Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, recommended to Provost Meisels that Dr. Cargill be replaced as Director of the ILI. In response to that recommendation, Provost Meisels appointed a three- person review panel to review the material accumulated regarding Dr. Cargill's directorship of the ILI and to conduct such interviews as it deemed necessary. Provost Meisels, in his charge to the panel, directed it to advise him as to whether, in its opinion, Dean Richmond's recommendation, based on information submitted by Dr. Cole, that Cargill be removed, "might be reached by a reasonable individual." On October 5, 1992, the review panel notified Provost Meisels that it had concluded the recommendation met the "reasonableness" standard articulated, and on October 27, 1992, Provost Meisels, in a two page letter to Dr. Cargill, "immediately" removed her as Director of the ILI, and stopped payment of the salary overload she was receiving for those services, effective November 1, 1992. In this letter, Provost Meisels advise Dr. Cargill no additional responsibilities would be assigned to her for the balance of the semester, and she was provided with a "leave with pay for one semester and one summer at 1.0 FTE anytime before the end of the calendar year 1994. Though no specifics were provided either in the letter or at hearing regarding the basis for the apparent dissatisfaction with Dr. Cargill's performance at ILI, the underlying tenor of the letter clearly indicates such existed. Dr. Meisels characterized his action as a reassignment pursuant to Board of Regents Rule 6C-5.130, and though the University's decision to reassign her was discretionary and authorized by that rule, she had the right to file a grievance regarding the matter pursuant to USF Rule 6C4-10.010. The University neither followed nor attempted to follow the procedures for removal for just cause set forth in Rule 6C4-10.009, F.A.C. Dr. Cargill timely filed a Notice of Grievance and Request for Hearing pursuant to Rule 6C4-10.010 and, thereafter, the Step 1 hearing was conducted on June 3, 1993, by Dean Richmond. In his determination dated July 20, 1993, Dean Richmond found, "... there is no substantive basis for grievance on the issue of improper process in the termination of Dr. Cargill as Director of the International Language Institute." Dr. Cargill appealed this decision to then Assistant Provost Wright. In his Step 2 decision, Dr. Wright found the termination or reassignment of Dr. Cargill concerned a substantial interest of the grievant, but she had not met the burden of proof as required under the grievance procedure. He concluded that the recommendation for Dr. Cargill's removal from her position at ILI was consistent with the Board of Regent's rule and that no violation of that rule had occurred, which constituted a denial of her grievance. Dr. Cargill thereafter timely filed her Petition for Relief which forms the basis for this hearing. Ordinarily, a faculty member's assigned duties include a combination of both teaching and research, and, in addition, some faculty members are assigned administrative duties as a component part of their FTE. Though varying slightly from year to year, Dr. Cargill's assigned duties as FTE professor primarily consisted of teaching two courses and administering the graduate program within the Division of Language and Linguistics as "Director of Graduate Studies" which, though encompassing one third of her FTE, she considered an "administrative assignment." For this directorship, she received a one course release time. Over and above all that were her activities with the ILI. Dr. Cargill's assignments as a faculty member were recorded on periodic individual assignment of duties forms and activities reports. Her FTE directorship of graduate studies was listed thereon as "advisement." None of the ILI duties was ever included on either form. Up to 1992, the ILI was funded through the auxiliary budget of the School of Continuing Education and Dr. Cargill's ILI performance was evaluated by the head of the College for Continuing Education. Her FTE teaching and graduate student advisement performance was evaluated by the Director of the Division of Modern Languages and Linguistics. When she was first employed at the University, Dr. Gargill was tendered a standard one year State University System, (SUS), contract for each year of her employment as a professor. This covered her FTE activities only over the nine month regular school year. At no time was she offered or given a SUS contract for her ILI activities. Those activities were compensated for by the periodic issuance of an overload authorization which was signed by Dr. Cargill, the chairperson of the Division, and the Dean for the nine month regular school year. Notwithstanding Dr. Cargill understood the authorization form to be a contract for her services with the ILI, the overload form does not serve as an employment agreement. It merely serves to encumber the funds to be used to pay for the overload upon a showing that the work called for has been accomplished. Dr. Cargill was also given an OPS appointment for her summer term ILI duties when she was assigned no other duties. Overloads are instructional duties in an extension or continuing education activity which are in excess of a full appointment. They are not administered by the University's personnel department but, in this case, by the School of Continuing Education. They have never been considered as a position through which a person may attain tenure or any other right of continuing employment. To the contrary, the CBA requires overloads be offered "equitably". No notice is required before an individual performing overload duties can be denied further such assignments. By the same token, an OPS appointment is also temporary. An OPS appointment was used to compensate Dr. Cargill during the summer term because an overload is allowed only when the faculty member is carrying a full load. Since she had no assigned duties during the summer term except those involving the ILI, an overload would not have been the proper vehicle for compensating her for her summer term duties with the ILI. It must be noted here that OPS appointments, like overloads, carry no right of continuing employment and may be terminated without advance notice. While Dr. Cargill was serving in her FTE position and leading the ILI as well, her overload paid her an amount equal to 20 percent of her faculty salary, and the OPS summer appointment paid her sums in addition to that. During 1991, she was paid approximately $41,000.00 out of the University's Expense and General Funds for her services as an FTE faculty member. During the same period, she was also paid approximately $23,000.00 out of the University's Extension Incidental Trust Fund for her ILI activities. In his October 27, 1992 letter advising Dr. Cargill that her duties with the ILI were being terminated, Dr. Meisels specifically referred to the provisions of Rule 6C-5.130, F.A.C.. She was not given any new duties as a result of or subsequent to her removal from her position with the ILI. Instead, she continued her FTE teaching load and her FTE position as Director of graduate studies within the Division of Modern Language and Linguistics, but was not given an OPS appointment for the 1993 summer term. Dr. Cargill agrees she could have been relieved of her duties with the ILI for cause or from her FTE position as Director of Graduate Studies without notice or cause. However, she contends, the position with the ILI was an administrative assignment from which she could not be removed except for cause or consistent with the provisions of the other pertinent rules. The University does not assert she was removed from her position with the ILI for cause. It is not disputed that Dr. Cargill's duties, title, and pay in her ILI position gave her added prestige both on and off the University campus. Her removal from that position meant she would no longer have the prestige or receive the pay and as a result, she experienced an immediate substantial pay reduction and claims she was humiliated in front of her students and the community.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Dr. Carol J. Cargill's Petition for Relief be denied. RECOMMENDED this 6th day of September, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of September, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR DR. CARGILL: Accepted and incorporated herein. - 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 17. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 19. Accepted except for use of term, "appointed" which has a special meaning in the law. Correct word should be, "assigned." 20. - 22. Accepted and incorporated herein. 23. Accepted. 24. - 26. Accepted and incorporated herein. 27. & 28. Accepted. 29. - 32. Accepted. 33. & 34. Accepted and incorporated herein. 35. - 36. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE UNIVERSITY: & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. & 4. Accepted. - 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 14. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. 20. - 22. Accepted and incorporated herein. 23. & 24. Accepted. - 27. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but a statement of party position. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas M. Gonzalez, Esquire Thompson, Sizemore & Gonzalez 109 North Brush Street, Suite 200 Tampa, Florida 33602 Henry W. Lavandera, Esquire University of South Florida 4202 East Fowler Avenue, ADM 250 Tampa, Florida 33620-6250 Richard E. Fee, Esquire Glenn, Rasmussen & Fogarty 100 S. Ashley Drive, Suite 1300 Tampa, Florida 33601-3333 Noreen Segrest, Esquire Acting General Counsel University of South Florida ADM 250 4202 East Fowler Avenue Tampa, Florida 33620-6250
