Findings Of Fact Since August 16, 1972, and at all times material to this case, Alfred Gorton (Respondent) was employed as a member of the Lee County School District instructional staff by a continuing contract with the Lee County School Board. In February, 1993, the Respondent was teaching a Social Studies class during third period at Dunbar Middle School. The Respondent had recently been moved into the classroom and much of his instructional material remained boxed. While his students were working on an assignment, the Respondent began to search for a book in his possession which had been requested by another teacher. He intended to deliver the book upon its discovery. As he went from box to box, he chanted, "ennie meenie miny moe...ennie meenie miny moe." Upon opening a box and locating the book, he exited the classroom and completed his "ennie meenie miny moe" chant while standing just outside the classroom door by saying "catch a nigger by the toe." Immediately upon making the statement, he realized his error. He delivered the book to the teacher and returned to his classroom. Upon entering his classroom, he was confronted by some of his students who had heard the remark. Some of the students took offense at the statement and the connotation of disrespect towards black persons. At that time, the Respondent engaged the class in a brief discussion during which he attempted to explain his statement. He stated that, in his opinion, the word "nigger" could be applied to white or black person, apparently believing that no one should be offended. The Respondent testified, and there is no evidence to the contrary, that he had not previously used the term "nigger" in the classroom other than as to the history of slavery. He further testified that he did not intend to offend anyone. He stated that the rhyme was one he learned as a child, and that he was reciting it apparently absentmindedly while searching through the boxes. One student took specific offense at the remark. Several days after the incident, the Respondent discussed the matter with both the student and his father and apologized for his statement. The student's father suggested that the Respondent should also apologize to the entire classroom. The Respondent discussed the matter with the school's principal. Because of the lapse of time since the incident, the principal thought it better to let the matter rest and directed the Respondent to refrain from further classroom discussions regarding the statement. The school principal testified that he does not condone the use of the word "nigger" and does not believe the Respondent's behavior was appropriate. In discussions with the school board officials, the principal recommended that the Respondent receive a written reprimand for his behavior. On April 13, 1993, the school board suspended the Respondent without pay and benefits for twenty (20) working days.,
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Lee County School Board enter a Final Order rescinding the suspension of Alfred Gorton and providing for back pay and benefits for the 20 day period of suspension. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 10th day of January, 1994, 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 10th day of January, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-2936 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 and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 5-8, 10-12, 20-23, 25-26. Rejected, subordinate, unnecessary. Respondent The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 8. Rejected, subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. James A. Adams, Superintendent School Board of Lee County 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3988 Marianne Kantor, Esquire School Board of Lee County 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3988 John M. Hament, Esquire Kunkel & Hament Suite 785, 1800 Second Street Sarasota, Florida 34236 Robert J. Coleman, Esquire 2300 McGregor Boulevard Post Office Box 2089 Fort Myers, Florida 33902
The Issue The issue in this case is whether there is just cause, within the meaning of Section 231.36(1), Florida Statutes (1999), to terminate Respondent's employment as a non-instructional employee for alleged misconduct consisting of sexual harassment, inappropriate touching, and inappropriate comments. (All chapter and section references are to Florida Statutes (1999) unless otherwise stated.)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner employs Respondent as a security guard at the Alternative Learning Center High School (the "ALC"). Petitioner has employed Respondent in the capacity since November 21, 1995. The ALC includes a High School and Middle School. At all times material to this proceeding, Petitioner employed Respondent at the High School. Respondent has also worked continuously for the Department of Juvenile Justice from July 16, 1993. The Department employs Respondent as a group leader at the Price Halfway House. The Price Halfway House is a level six facility for delinquent youths between the ages of 14 and 18. Before Petitioner suspended Respondent from his employment with the Board, Respondent worked at the ALC from 7:00 a.m. until 2:30 p.m. each school day. Respondent then worked at the Price Halfway House from 3:00 p.m. until 11:00 p.m. Petitioner gave Respondent good performance assessments throughout Respondent's employment at the ALC. Respondent attained a rating described as an "effective level of performance observed." The ALC principal never had cause to question Respondent's professional conduct. The principal described Respondent's position as a "very tough position." Respondent deals with students who have discipline problems, and Respondent rarely has occasion to deal with students in a positive manner. Students at the ALC have violated the rules or code of conduct at their geographic school or have been arrested for a criminal felony offense. The ALC is an alternative to expulsion from the geographic school. The ALC is a "lock-down facility." Classrooms are locked while class is in session. Students are not allowed to move outside the classroom without permission. A student who has obtained permission to move outside the classroom cannot do so before personnel outside the classroom are notified by two-way radio of the student's movement. Group movement to and from school and during lunch is closely monitored by school personnel. Respondent's duties at the ALC consisted of monitoring activity on the school campus to ensure that students and faculty enjoyed a safe environment. Respondent's duties required him to monitor students for weapons, drugs, fights, gang behavior, and similar activity. Respondent interceded disruptive behavior by students, including fights and escorted students to the administrative offices for discipline and other matters. Petitioner maintains a policy that prohibits employees from engaging in sexual harassment of another employee or student. The policy defines sexual harassment as unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other inappropriate verbal, nonverbal, or physical conduct of a sexual nature. Sexual harassment includes conduct that has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with a student's educational performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive school environment. The policy lists examples that include repeated remarks with sexual or demeaning implications and unwelcome or inappropriate physical contact such as unnecessary touching. Respondent was aware of the policy. The Allegations On June 28, 1999, two female students at the High School reported to the principal at the Middle School that Respondent made inappropriate sexual comments to them and touched them in a sexual manner. The two students are Kimberly Battle and Stephanie Day. The principal of the Middle School is Mr. Charles Dailey. Ms. Battle and Ms. Day told Mr. Dailey that toward the end of the 1998-1999 school year and during summer school Respondent touched them on their buttocks and made inappropriate sexual comments to them. However, Ms. Battle is the only complainant who testified at the hearing. Ms. Day did not testify at the hearing. A representative from a home for unwed mothers represented that Ms. Day did not want to testify in the action and preferred to "drop the charges." The ALJ excused Ms. Day from her subpoena on the basis of a note from Ms. Day's physician recommending that she not be required to testify until she is "six weeks postpartum." Ms. Battle claims that Respondent violated the school policy prohibiting sexual harassment through repeated incidents of inappropriate comments and unnecessary touching. The incidents allegedly occurred during the regular school year and during the summer school session. Respondent allegedly made inappropriate sexual comments to Ms. Battle in the hallway of the high school towards the end of the 1998-1999 school year. Respondent allegedly said "look at that butt" and "I'm going to get that." Ms. Battle claims that Respondent made similar comments to her during the 1998-1999 school year while she was on the bus ramp before and after school. Respondent allegedly continued to make inappropriate comments throughout the 1999 summer school session. Ms. Battle also claims that Respondent repeatedly touched her buttocks with his hand and said it was a mistake. On June 23, 1999, Ms. Battle and Ms. Day told Ms. Elsa Rosado, the school bus aide, that Respondent was "a pervert or something, and he was all nasty." Ms. Rosado told the bus driver and spoke with Ms. Day's mother. On Friday, June 25, 1999, Ms. Battle claims that Respondent pulled up her skirt on two separate occasions in the high school. She claims Respondent pulled up her skirt the first time in the break room at approximately 12:18 p.m., and did so the second time in the office of the School Resource Officer after 1:00 p.m. During the second alleged incident, Ms. Battle claims that Respondent pulled out the waistband of her underwear and looked inside her underwear. On Friday, June 25, 1999, Ms. Battle rode the school bus to the Middle School. She intended to report Respondent to Mr. Dailey. Mr. Dailey was not at school that day. On Monday, June 28, 1999, Ms. Battle and Ms. Day reported the alleged incidents to Mr. Dailey. Mr. Dailey reported the allegations to Petitioner. Petitioner investigated the allegations, and this proceeding ensued. The Hallway and Bus Ramp Petitioner failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent made inappropriate comments to Ms. Battle or touched her unnecessarily while she was in the high school hallway or bus ramp. Ms. Battle claims that Respondent engaged in those incidents when "everybody was around" including students, teachers, the principal, and assistant principal. Ms. Battle could not say whether any of the people around at the time heard the alleged comments or saw any unnecessary touching. Petitioner did not call any witnesses that verified the alleged comments or touching. The school principal testified that repeated inappropriate comments or touching by Respondent in the hallway or on the bus ramp would have been observed by either the principal, assistant principal, or some other staff member. The school principal, assistant principal, guidance counselor, school resource officer, and the classroom teacher for Ms. Battle each testified that Respondent consistently conducted himself in a professional manner for more than five years. None of those individuals observed the comments or behavior alleged by Ms. Battle. Ms. Battle was uncertain of the frequency of the alleged comments and touching. She first estimated that Respondent made inappropriate comments on approximately 10 occasions but revised that estimate to "about three or four, two or three, somewhere around there." Ms. Battle's testimony was vague and inconsistent regarding the content of the comments allegedly made by Respondent and the specifics surrounding on alleged touching. Lifting the Skirt Petitioner failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent touched Ms. Battle unnecessarily by lifting her skirt and committing the other acts and comments alleged by Ms. Battle. Respondent was not present in school at the time of the second alleged touching. At the time of the first alleged touching, Respondent was either not at school or was in the process of leaving school. Ms. Battle claims that Respondent lifted her skirt the first time in the school break room while she was on break at approximately 12:18 p.m. She claims that the second incident occurred later the same day in the office of School Resource Officer sometime after 1:00 p.m. The school principal authorized Respondent to leave school with Mr. Eugene Robinson between 12:00 noon and 12:30 p.m. to perform plumbing repairs in Mr. Robinson's home. Respondent did so and worked on the repairs continuously until after 3:00 p.m. when Respondent left for his second job. Mr. Robinson was well known to the principal. Mr. Robinson had been an employee of Petitioner for over 40 years including 32 years as an administrator. Before retiring, Mr. Robinson was an assistant principal for the ALC. Mr. Robinson had an emergency plumbing problem in his home on June 25, 1999. He knew that Respondent had skills as a plumber and that the school resource officer, Mr. Robinson's son- in-law, had used Respondent as a plumber previously. Mr. Robinson went to the ALC High School between 12:00 noon and 12:30 p.m. on June 25, 1999. Mr. Robinson requested that the principal authorize Respondent to leave campus, and the principal granted the request. Respondent left school immediately with Mr. Robinson. The two drove separate cars to Mr. Robinson's house. After leaving school, Respondent took 15 minutes to stop at his house to pick up his tools and proceeded directly to Mr. Robinson's house where he worked until approximately 3:30 p.m. Respondent then went to his second job. Respondent did not sign the "sign-out" log when he left school on June 25, 1999, in violation of school policy. Although the policy required staff to sign the log when they came and left school, staff occasionally failed to do so. The guidance counselor, for example, was in school from June 22 through June 30, 1999, but failed to sign in. Even if Respondent were present after 12:00 noon on June 25, 1999, Petitioner failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the acts alleged by Ms. Battle. The allegations are inconsistent with several aspects of the evidentiary record. Students began summer school at 8:30 a.m. and ended their day at 1:30 p.m. The same classroom teacher had the same students all day. Students took a 15-minute break sometime around noon to get a drink and a snack at the break room. Ms. Battle's class took their break from 12:00 noon until 12:15 p.m. Two other classes took their break at the same time. Each teacher escorted his or her class to the break room. The principal dispensed change at the vending machines that were in close proximity to the break room. Students purchased drinks and food from the vending machine and then went into the break room to eat and drink. The break room door remained open. The principal located himself by the doorway in the hall. The assistant principal and Respondent positioned themselves inside the break room to monitor the students. Ms. Battle testified that the assistant principal gave her permission to remain in the break room for a couple of minutes after the other students left because she was about three minutes late getting to her break. Ms. Battle's regular break was over at 12:15 p.m. Between 12:15 p.m. and 12:30 p.m., Respondent had either already left school with Mr. Robinson or was involved in the process of obtaining approval from the principal and preparing to leave with Mr. Robinson. Ms. Battle testified that she "distinctly remembered" the assistant principal allowing her to remain in the break room after others had left. She also claims that the assistant principal and principal were outside of the break room the first time that Respondent allegedly lifted her skirt. Ms. Battle claims that she could hear the principal and assistant principal talking in the hallway outside of the break room. However, the assistant principal was in Massachusetts attending a wedding and was not present at school on June 25, 1999. Ms. Battle did not tell anyone of the alleged incident in the break room at that time. She returned to her classroom. She later obtained permission from her classroom teacher to go to the principal's office to request permission to go to the Middle School to speak with Mr. Dailey. The principal was not available, and Ms. Battle returned to her classroom. Ms. Battle claims that her classroom teacher later excused Ms. Battle to go to the bathroom. Ms. Battle claims that before she entered the bathroom Respondent signaled for her to come over to him by the office of the School Resource Officer. It was between 1:00 p.m. and 1:30 p.m., and classes for the day were almost over. Inside the office of the School Resource Officer, Ms. Battle claims that Respondent stood between the closed door and Ms. Battle. Ms. Battle claims that Respondent held the door handle with his left hand behind his back and indicated that the elbow of Respondent left arm was bent at more than 90 degrees. However, there was insufficient distance between the door handle and the wall to accommodate Respondent's elbow. Respondent allegedly lifted Ms. Battle's skirt with his right hand, pulled back her underwear with a finger of his right hand, and then released the door handle and placed his left hand on his groin while he looked at her "private area." Ms. Battle claims that she told Respondent her teacher would be mad at her and that she needed to return to class. Respondent allegedly allowed Ms. Battle to leave. Ms. Battle claims she returned to her classroom, sat in the back of the class, put her head down and cried. Ms. Battle claims Respondent relieved Ms. Battle's classroom teacher for the final 15 minutes of class because the classroom teacher had to attend to some other business. According to Ms. Battle, Respondent sat in the back of the classroom. Ms. Battle turned around to look at him and claims that Respondent "made his private area jump" without thrusting his hips or pelvis. Contrary to Ms. Battle's testimony, Ms. Battle's classroom teacher made Ms. Battle sit directly in front of her desk at all times to control her behavior. The teacher never allowed Ms. Battle to sit in the back of the class. Ms. Battle's teacher personally taught class on June 25, 1999. Ms. Battle sat directly in front of her desk at all times. Ms. Battle never appeared disturbed the entire day. The teacher never observed Ms. Battle put her head down on her desk, cry or otherwise appear distraught. Although Respondent did sit in for the teacher occasionally, it was never for more than two or three minutes. Whenever a student is not in class, staff maintain radio contact with each other concerning the student's location. When Ms. Battle left her classroom to go to the bathroom, her classroom teacher notified the front office, and staff monitored her movement by radio. The bathroom is in plain view of the front desk of the administrative offices. The door of the office of the School Resource Officer is visible from the front desk of the administrative office. Staff members would have known by radio contact of Ms. Battle's movement from her classroom and would have monitored her movement closely. Procedural Deficiencies Petitioner's investigation of the charges made by Ms. Battle and Ms. Day suffered from several deficiencies. The investigation did not include statements from either Mr. Dailey, Mr. Robinson, or Ms. Battle's classroom teacher. When Mr. Dailey told Mr. Robinson of the charges against Respondent, Mr. Robinson informed Mr. Dailey that Respondent was working on a plumbing problem at Mr. Robinson's house on June 25, 1999. Mr. Dailey did not tell Mr. Robinson to disclose the information to anyone else and did not relay the information to Petitioner's investigator. A statement from Mr. Dailey presumably would have uncovered the information from Mr. Robinson and led to a statement from Mr. Robinson. When Respondent disclosed in his predetermination conference that he was with Mr. Robinson on June 25, 1999, Petitioner did not obtain a statement from Mr. Robinson. Mr. Dailey was not friendly with Respondent. Their friendship had ended in 1998 over a disagreement concerning a female teacher. Mr. Dailey "banished" Respondent from the Middle School where Mr. Dailey was principal. On Monday, June 28, 1999, Ms. Battle and Ms. Day informed Mr. Dailey of the charges against Respondent. Mr. Dailey interviewed the two together rather than separately. Ms. Battle and Ms. Day had discussed the matter together the preceding weekend and that Monday morning before meeting with Mr. Dailey. On Monday morning, June 28, 1999, Ms. Battle and Ms. Day obtained permission to leave the High School to talk to Mr. Dailey in the Middle School. The guidance counselor at the High School observed the two students sign out. They obtained a pen from Respondent to sign out and did not display any apprehension in Respondent's presence. Rather, they exchanged "high fives." Ms. Battle and Ms. Day completed written statements for Mr. Dailey in the same room. They later gave collective statements to Petitioner's investigator and police investigators.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent not guilty of the underlying factual allegations; finding that there is not just cause to terminate Respondent's employment; and reinstating Respondent with back pay from the date of his suspension. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of September, 2000, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of September 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Bruce Harter, Superintendent Lee County School Board 2055 Central Avenue Boulevard Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3916 Victor M. Arias, Esquire School Board of Lee County 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3988 Robert J. Coleman, Esquire Coleman and Coleman 2300 McGregor Boulevard Post Office Box 2089 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-2089
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Education Practices Commission should deny Petitioner's application for a teaching certificate on the grounds that Petitioner lacks the requisite good moral character and that he has committed an act or acts for which such a certificate could be revoked.
Findings Of Fact The evidence presented at final hearing established the facts that follow. During the 1999-2000 school year, Rolle was employed as a public school teacher in the Miami-Dade County School District (the "District"). He was assigned to Mays Middle School, where he taught drama to sixth, seventh, and eighth grade students. Holding a temporary Florida Educator's Certificate, Rolle was hired initially to work as a substitute teacher. Later during the 1999-2000 school year, Rolle's contract status was reclassified, and he became a "3100" or "temporary" teacher. A 3100 teacher's contract automatically expires at the end of the school year. Before the close of the subject school year, Rolle was removed from the classroom after allegations of misconduct were made against him. When the school year ended, Rolle's supervisor gave him an unsatisfactory evaluation and recommended that the temporary teacher not be re-hired. Consequently, Rolle separated from employment with the District following the 1999- 2000 school year. In the meantime, Rolle applied to the Department of Education for a professional (i.e. non-temporary) teaching certificate, pursuant to Section 231.17, Florida Statutes. On March 28, 2001, the Commissioner, as the head of the Department of Education, issued a Notice of Reasons setting forth the grounds for denying Rolle's application. In a nutshell, the Commissioner alleged that Rolle lacked the good moral character required of a teacher and that he had violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession. Below are the relevant historical facts concerning the specific incidents upon which the preliminary denial of Rolle's application was based.2 The Vulgar Joke On March 17, 2000, Rolle told a vulgar joke to his sixth grade class. One of his students, an 11-year-old girl named D. M., reported the joke to the school's administration, submitting a handwritten statement dated March 23, 2000, that quoted Rolle's monologue.3 Rolle admits having told the joke; indeed, he repeated it in full while testifying at hearing. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by including the entire joke in this Recommended Order. The punch line——"Your mouth smells exactly like your butt"——is sufficient to convey the crudity of Rolle's ill-considered attempt at comedy, which would have been inappropriate in polite adult company. Telling such a coarse joke in the classroom to a group of young schoolchildren at a minimum reflected appallingly poor judgment on the teacher's part. The R-Rated Movies On several occasions during the school year, Rolle showed movies to his sixth and seventh grade classes.4 At least two of the movies, Rolle admitted, are rated "R." Another, Rolle claimed, is rated "PG-13."5 Rolle did not obtain the permission of his students' parents to show the children any of these films in class. While the movies themselves were not offered into evidence, it is a matter of general knowledge based on common experience that R-rated movies are intended for a "restricted" audience and typically contain language, images, and plots to which children under the age of 17 should not be casually exposed. At any rate, clearly, children aged 11 and 12 should not be shown R-rated movies in a public school classroom without parental knowledge and consent. Rolle showed these movies, not for a pedagogic purpose, but merely to entertain the children. Making matters worse, Rolle instructed his students to have sheets of paper on their desks while a videotape was playing so that they could pretend to be "critiquing" the movie if someone (presumably another teacher) were to enter the classroom. Rolle also directed the children not to tell others that R-rated films were being screened in his class, warning the students that if word got out, then someone might complain, with the predictable result that the school's administration would forbid such movies from being shown in the future. The Impromptu Skits In class, Rolle often required small groups of his students to act in impromptu skits as a means of developing improvisational skills. Rolle would describe a scene in broad terms, and the students selected to perform would play assigned parts, making up appropriate dialogue extemporaneously. The plots for some of these impromptu skits were taken from the students' textbooks. But Rolle required the students to act out some other scenes that he had imagined on his own. Several of these skits were highly inappropriate, to say the least. In the sixth grade class, for example, Rolle assigned children to play in a scene involving a lesbian having an affair with her female boss at work; a skit in which a girl describes losing her virginity and becoming pregnant; and a vignette wherein a girl who has been raped reports the crime to her parents and the police. Students not chosen to perform in these skits were obligated to watch them. D. M., the young girl who reported the gauche joke discussed above, was one of the sixth-grade students chosen to play a lesbian. She refused the assignment, whereupon Rolle threatened her with a failing grade. Rolle also instructed his seventh grade students to perform in impromptu skits having adult themes.6 More than once, the plot required these adolescent (or pre-adolescent) children, aged 12 and 13, to explore the subject of homosexual relationships. On one occasion, according to the credible testimony of a (then) seventh-grade student named M. M., Rolle suggested that two girls kiss. One of the girls refused. M. M. described a separate incident during which she and another girl, playing lesbians in an impromptu skit under Rolle's direction, actually did kiss one another, although M. M. professed not to have been adversely affected by the experience. Rolle's Explanations Rolle conceded that he had exercised "bad judgment" in connection with the incidents described above and stressed that he had been "reprimanded" by the District for them. Rolle admitted that he had believed his actions were appropriate at the time taken, but upon reflection he now recognizes that he made what he calls "first year teacher" mistakes. Rolle adamantly denied having intended to harm or embarrass any student. Ultimate Factual Determinations Rolle's classroom conduct during the 1999-2000 school year repeatedly fell short of the reasonable standard of right behavior that defines good moral character. By any reasonable measure, it is wrong for a teacher to show R-rated movies to impressionable sixth and seventh grade students; when that teacher, an authority figure acting in loco parentis, further instructs the students to be prepared to lie about or conceal the fact that such films are being shown, as Rolle did, he not only exhibits a propensity for dishonesty that is incompatible with the position of great trust he holds but also encourages the children in his charge likewise to be deceitful. Similarly, when Rolle told that scatological joke to his sixth grade class, he revealed a lack of respect for the rights of others and behaved in a manner inconsistent with the high standard expected of a public school teacher. Finally, asking children as young as 11 years old to act out or watch scenes in which lesbians discuss an illicit workplace romance; a rape victim describes her trauma; and a pregnant girl speaks about her first sexual experience, as Rolle did, reveals a personality that is preoccupied with subjects unsuitable for the middle school curriculum. If Rolle were soon permitted to teach again, parents understandably would question their children's safety and well-being. The risk of allowing Rolle to return to the classroom, at this juncture, is too great. The conduct in which Rolle engaged, moreover, took place in the classroom during the 1999-2000 school year and directly involved the students in his care. Thus, the conduct involved in this case is both recent and rationally connected to Rolle's fitness to teach in the public schools of Florida. In sum, the evidence fails to establish that, more likely than not, Rolle possesses the good moral character required of a teacher to whom the custody of children is entrusted. For that reason, Rolle is not eligible for certification. There is, further, ample proof that Rolle failed on numerous occasions to exert a reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to learning, health, or safety as required under Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, which is part of the Principles of Professional Conduct. Rolle's multiple violations of this Rule would be grounds for revocation of a teaching certificate and hence independently justify the denial of his application for one. Finally, the greater weight of evidence does not demonstrate that Rolle specifically intended to expose his students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement in violation of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order denying Rolle's application for a teaching certificate and providing that he shall not be eligible to reapply for certification for a period of 15 years from the date of the final order, during which time the Department of Education, in its discretion pursuant to Section 231.262(6)(a), Florida Statutes, may refuse to consider his application, neither granting nor denying same. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of December, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 14th day of December, 2001.
The Issue The issue for determination at hearing is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the administrative complaint, and if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Wilma Nottage (Respondent) held a teaching certificate issued by the State of Florida, Department of Education, having been issued educator's certificate #357933, in the areas of Early Childhood Education, Elementary Education, and English to Speakers of Other Languages. Her teaching certificate is valid through June 30, 1998. Respondent graduated from Florida Atlantic University in 1974 with a degree in Elementary Education and immediately thereafter began employment as a classroom teacher with the Dade County School Board (School Board). At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed with the School Board as a classroom teacher. For the 1989-90 school year, Respondent was hired by the Principal of Norwood Elementary School (Norwood) to teach fifth grade. The Principal interviewed Respondent and was very impressed with her professionalism and appearance. During Respondent's first year at Norwood, the Principal found Respondent's teaching ability to be acceptable and Respondent's behavior and appearance to be professional. Respondent received an acceptable annual performance evaluation for the 1989-90 school year. However, during the 1991-92 school year, the Principal observed that Respondent's appearance, performance, and emotional stability deteriorated and continued to deteriorate through the 1992-93 school year. At hearing, the Principal observed that the Respondent, who was present, was the Respondent that she saw, appearance wise, in the 1989-90 school year. For the 1991-92 school year, at Respondent's request, she was assigned to teach kindergarten at Norwood. 3/ The teaching concept was different for kindergarten in that there was only one classroom and the students were taught in a team concept with three teachers, Respondent being one of the three teachers. The teachers would plan together, but the subjects being taught would be equally divided. On or about October 30, 1991, the Assistant Principal of Norwood conducted an observation of Respondent's teaching performance after giving her proper notice. In an observation a teacher's classrooom performance is assessed as acceptable or unacceptable (deficient) in six areas: preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships, and assessment techniques. The Assistant Principal found Respondent's performance to be unacceptable in the area of classroom management. After an observation is conducted, a post-observation is held between the observer and the teacher to discuss the observation. If there are any deficiencies found, a plan for performance improvement, also called a prescription, is issued to the teacher. The prescription contains activities (strategies) for remediating the deficiencies, a date certain (time line) for completion of the activities of the prescription, and a date for the next observation, if necessary. On or about November 5, 1991, the Assistant Principal held a post- observation conference with Respondent to discuss his observation. A prescription was given to Respondent, with a completion date of November 25, 1991. Respondent failed to complete the activities of the prescription. The team concept was not working for the kindergarten class. Respondent was infrequently completing her lesson plans, and the grades of the students for whom Respondent was responsible for assigning and recording were not properly recorded. Further, the students for whom Respondent was responsible consistently failed to complete the required areas of study, and Respondent frequently left her students unattended. The Principal became concerned that a health problem was interfering with Respondent's performance in the classroom. The Principal did not question Respondent's ability to teach. On or about November 21, 1991, by memorandum to the Associate Superintendent for the Bureau of Professional Standards and Operation of the School Board, the Principal requested a medical fitness determination for Respondent, as a component of the employee assistance program. The Principal's request was based upon, among other things, Respondent's combative and emotional behavior, inefficient work performance (no grades in her grade book), and pattern of absences. Respondent participated in the employee assistance program. However, her participation prematurely ended, lasting only approximately one (1) month. Respondent was not attending the scheduled conferences and ended her participation indicating that she was getting assistance on her own. On December 16, 1991, a conference for the record was held with Respondent. During the conference, Respondent admitted that she had not completed any of the requirements set forth in the prescription issued November 5, 1991. Even though Respondent's observation of October 30, 1991 was unacceptable and she had not remediated the deficiencies, the Principal was recommending Respondent's reappointment for one year. Also, Respondent was afforded additional time in which to complete the prescription and was to submit the appropriate paperwork for the prescription by January 7, 1992. On January 22, 1992, the Principal observed Respondent's classroom performance after giving proper notice. The Principal found Respondent's performance unacceptable in the area of classroom management. Prior to the observation on January 22, 1992, the Principal terminated the kindergarten team because the team concept was not working. Even though Respondent's participation in the team was less than adequate, the other two kindergarten teachers contributed to the failure of the team concept by failing to provide Respondent a fair chance to join the team and teach in the kindergarten setting as established at Norwood. The other two kindergarten teachers did not properly assist or support Respondent or share needed materials. On January 29, 1992, the Principal held a post-observation conference with Respondent regarding the observation on January 22, 1992. A prescription, consisting of two activities, was given to Respondent with time lines for completing the activities. Respondent was unable to complete one of the activities due to illness. Respondent failed to complete the second activity. On February 27, 1992, the Principal observed Respondent's classroom performance after giving proper notice. The Principal found Respondent's performance unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. The Principal found the observation of February 27, 1992, unusual in that areas in which Respondent was previously found to be acceptable were now found to be unacceptable. The Principal's position is that, if a teacher is capable of doing something one day, the teacher is capable of doing the same thing another day. On March 5, 1992, a post-observation conference was conducted and a prescription was given to Respondent regarding the observation of February 27, 1992. The time line for completion of the activities of the prescription was March 27, 1992. As of March 27, 1992, the Principal had not received the material from Respondent showing that the activities of the prescription were completed. The Principal extended Respondent's compliance date for the prescription to April 1, 1992. By memorandum dated March 31, 1992, the Principal informed Respondent that her failure to comply with the required prescription by April 1, 1992, would result in a violation of professional responsibility which is a category VII classroom assessment violation. Not completing the activities of the prescription by April 1, 1992, Respondent requested an extension to April 13, 1992, which was granted by the Principal. However, on April 13, 1992, Respondent failed to complete the activities of the prescription. The Principal notified Respondent that her conduct of not completing the prescription constituted insubordination and could result in disciplinary action if it continued. By another memorandum dated March 31, 1992, the Principal requested an external review (external observation) of Respondent's classroom performance. The external observation provides an independent observation of Respondent's classroom performance. By memorandum dated April 1, 1992, the Principal notified Respondent that her unusually high number of absences since the beginning of the 1991-92 school year were adversely affecting the educational environment. The School Board allows 10 days for sick leave during a school year. The memorandum specified the dates of the absences, the category of the absences (whether personal or sick leave), and how the absences impacted the educational environment. Five of Respondent's absences were designated as sick leave. The Principal issued directives to Respondent as to how she should conduct herself in the future regarding absences and informed Respondent that her failure to comply with the directives would result in a review of her situation for disciplinary action. On April 30, 1992, a conference for the record was held with Respondent. The purpose of the conference was to discuss Respondent's attendance, her noncompliance with the directives to complete the prescriptions of January 22, 1992, and March 27, 1992, and her future job status. As a result of the conference, among other things, it was agreed that Respondent would present the materials needed to comply with all the prescriptions to the Principal by May 8, 1992. On May 13, 1992, the external observation which was requested by the Principal was conducted by the School Board's District Director of the Office of Instructional Leadership after giving proper notice. Simultaneously, in conjunction with the external observation, the Principal conducted an observation after giving proper notice. The District Director found Respondent's classroom performance unacceptable in the areas of knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. The Principal found Respondent's classroom performance unacceptable in the areas of classroom management, and techniques of instruction. When the two observations were reviewed together, the area of knowledge of subject matter was determined to be acceptable. On May 20, 1992, the Principal held a post-observation conference with Respondent. A prescription was given to Respondent with time lines for completion of the activities of the prescription. On May 29, 1992, the Principal observed Respondent's classroom performance after giving proper notice. The Principal found Respondent's performance unacceptable in the areas of classroom management, and techniques of instruction. On June 8, 1992, the Principal held a post-observation conference with Respondent. A prescription was given to Respondent with a June 18, 1992, completion date for the activities of the prescription. Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1991-92 school year was conducted on June 17, 1992. Her overall performance was found unacceptable in two areas: classroom management and techniques of instruction. Respondent had failed to remediate these unacceptable areas. Also, on June 17, 1992, a conference for the record was held with Respondent regarding her failure to complete the activities of the prescription due April 27, 1992, the unacceptable observation of May 29, 1992, and her future job status. Respondent was informed, among other things, that the prescription deadline for the activities due June 18, 1992, was changed to June 19, 1992, that she continued to have an opportunity to complete outstanding prescriptions, that she was ending the year on prescription and that her end of year evaluation was rated unacceptable. For the 1992-93 school year, Respondent was assigned to teach the fifth grade. Respondent did not receive this assignment until around the beginning of the school year. Expecting to teach kindergarten, Respondent had prepared for kindergarten; however, the enrollment for kindergarten declined and there was not a need for a third teacher in kindergarten. The Assistant Principal requested Respondent's lesson plans for the first week of classes, but Respondent failed to make them available. Furthermore, in her lesson plans for the second week of classes, Respondent failed to include four objectives which are required to be included in lesson plans. By memorandum dated September 23, 1992, the Principal reminded Respondent of the requirement for lesson plans and the objectives which are required to be included in lesson plans. On October 6, 1992, the Principal observed Respondent's classroom performance after giving proper notice. The Principal found Respondent unacceptable in the areas of classroom management, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. On October 13, 1992, the Principal held a post-observation conference with Respondent. A prescription was given to Respondent. The activities of the prescription were to be completed by November 16, 1992, with one to be completed by October 23, 1992. Respondent failed to complete the prescription. On November 17, 1992, the Assistant Principal observed Respondent's classroom performance after giving proper notice. The Assistant Principal found Respondent's performance unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. On November 23, 1992, the Assistant Principal held a post-observation conference with Respondent in which Respondent was given a prescription. The activities of the prescription were to be completed by December 4, 1992. Respondent failed to complete the prescription. Subsequently, the teachers' union interceded and changes were made in the results of the observation of November 17, 1992. The areas of knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction were found to be acceptable; and, therefore, Respondent's classroom performance on November 17, 1992, was unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, classroom management, and assessment techniques. On December 16, 1992, a conference for the record was held with Respondent to discuss, among other things, Respondent's performance assessments, her failure to provide required lesson plans and to complete required prescriptions, and her future employment. Respondent was informed, among other things, that her failure to comply with directives was insubordination and that, if she continued to have unacceptable performance ratings, her situation would be submitted to the Department of Education for review. At the December 16, 1992 conference, Respondent's behavior was unusual, out of character. She was very loud instead of her usual quiet self. On February 2, 1993, a conference for the record was held with Respondent. She was requested to provide the outstanding prescriptions. Because Respondent had not completed all of the requested prescriptions, she was given twenty-four (24) hours to complete and provide the unfinished prescriptions. Respondent failed to complete the prescriptions within the 24- hour period. On February 16, 1993, the Principal conducted an observation of Respondent's classroom performance after giving proper notice. The Principal found Respondent's performance unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, and techniques of instruction. On February 24, 1993, a post-observation conference was held and a prescription was given to Respondent. Included in the prescription was an unacceptable performance in the area of professional responsibility (category VII violation) regarding Respondent's failure to comply with prescription deadlines. The activities of the prescription were to completed by March 10, 1993. Respondent failed to complete the prescription. On March 17, 1993, the Assistant Principal observed Respondent's classroom performance after giving proper notice. The Assistant Principal found Respondent's performance unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, classroom management, and assessment techniques. The post-observation conference in which a prescription was issued was held on March 24, 1993. 4/ However, because the conference was not timely held, the observation was used only for assistance purposes. By memorandum dated March 24, 1993, the School Board's Associate Superintendent of the Bureau of Instructional Support requested an external observation of Respondent's classroom performance. On April 21, 1993, an external observation of Respondent's classroom performance was conducted by the School Board's Executive Director for Mathematics, Science and the Urban System Initiative after giving proper notice. Simultaneously, in conjunction with the external observation, the Principal conducted an observation of Respondent's classroom performance after giving proper notice. Both the Director and the Principal found Respondent's performance unacceptable in the areas of knowledge of subject matter, and techniques of instruction. A post-observation conference was scheduled for April 28, 1993; however, Respondent was absent that day. The conference was held on April 30, 1993. Respondent was given a prescription, consisting of two activities, with the activities of the prescription to be completed by May 10, 1993. Respondent failed to complete one of the activities by the due date. On April 14, 1993, a conference was held with Respondent and a prescription was given to her regarding her unacceptable performance in the area of professional responsibility (category VII). The prescription addressed Respondent's failure to provide upon request and to maintain lesson plans, grade books and graded material and her failure to comply with prescription deadlines. By memorandum dated May 14, 1993, and received by Respondent on June 3, 1993, the Principal advised Respondent of her excessive absences for the 1992-93 school year to date. Twenty-six of Respondent's absences were designated as sick leave. Moreover, the Principal advised Respondent that the absences adversely impacted the support services to students, the academic progress of the students, the continuity of instruction, and the effective operation of the school. The Principal issued directives to Respondent and advised Respondent that the failure to comply with the directives would result in review by the Office of Professional Standards and, possibly, in disciplinary action. On May 20, 1993, the Assistant Principal conducted an observation of Respondent's classroom performance after giving proper notice. The Assistant Principal found Respondent's performance unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, classroom management, and assessment techniques. On May 24, 1993, the Assistant Principal held a post-observation conference with Respondent. A prescription was given to Respondent. The activities of the prescription were to be completed by June 17, 1993. Respondent failed to complete the prescription. On June 2, 1993, Respondent's annual evaluation was conducted. The Principal found Respondent's overall performance unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, classroom management, assessment techniques, and professional responsibility. Respondent had failed to remediate these unacceptable areas. A conference for the record was held with Respondent on June 2, 1993, regarding her performance assessments and her continued employment with the School Board. Respondent was reminded and advised, among other things, that she had 31 absences for the school year, had not completed all prescriptions, and had two years of unacceptable evaluations, and that her performance would be recommended for review and termination procedures. Prior to the 1991-92 and 1992-93 school years, Respondent had not received an unacceptable annual evaluation, having been in the classroom for almost 17 years. Respondent experienced medical problems during the 1991-92 and 1992-93 school years. During the 1991-92 school year, Respondent's medical problems included high blood pressure, back pain, and a herniated disc. Also, Respondent received psychological treatment from a psychologist, which was independent of the employee assistance program. During the 1992-93 school, Respondent's medical problems included high blood pressure, pain and swelling in her legs and ankles, back problems, and fibroid tumors. These medical problems which were experienced by Respondent over the two school years caused her to be absent from school for many days. Obviously, the medical problems would have some affect on Respondent's teaching performance. However, there is no medical opinion, no objective evidence as to how and to what extent the medical problems affected or would affect Respondent's teaching performance. 5/ In June 1993, after almost 19 years as a teacher with the School Board, Respondent resigned from the School Board as a teacher. At the time of the hearing, Respondent was no longer receiving treatment for her physical or mental well-being. However, there is no medical evidence indicating that Respondent no longer needs such medical treatment. At no time during any of the post-observation conferences in which prescriptions were given did Respondent indicate that she was experiencing any medical problems whether they were physical or psychological. Because of Respondent's conduct during the 1991-92 and the 1992-93 school years, her effectiveness as a teacher was seriously reduced, she failed to provide the children in her classes the minimal education experience required or reasonably expected, and she has demonstrated that she did not possess the competence to teach or perform the duties of a teacher.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order: 1.Suspending Wilma Nottage's teaching certificate for 60 days; Requiring Wilma Nottage to submit to a physical and psychological evaluation, prior to reemployment, which must confirm that there is no physical or psychological impediment to her teaching students; Placing Wilma Nottage on a two-year probation, commencing at the time of reemployment, with the condition that, during the first year of probation, she successfully complete two three-hour college courses or the equivalent in- service training courses in the areas of classroom management and elementary education; and Reprimanding Wilma Nottage. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 22nd day of November 1995. ERROL H. POWELL 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 22nd day of November 1995.
The Issue The issue posed herein is whether or not the Respondent's recommendation received by the Superintendent made to the School Board that George H. Steel, Petitioner, be terminated for "gross insubordination and willful neglect of duty", as more particularly set forth hereinafter, should be upheld.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the arguments of counsel, and the documentary evidence received during the course of the proceedings, the following relevant facts are found. The School Board of Hendry County is the governing body of the school district of Hendry County, and as such, is the employer of all personnel within the school system. Section 230.23, Florida Statutes (1977). James C. Edwards, as the Superintendent of Schools for Hendry County, Florida, is the Chief Executive Officer for the entire school system. (TR. I-20). The Superintendent is charged with the responsibility for controlling and directing all employees of the school system. Subsection 230.33(7)(i), Florida Statutes, (1977). The position of Superintendent of Schools of Hendry County is an elected position. In the November, 1976, general election, George H. Steele, the Petitioner herein, was the incumbent Superintendent. The other candidate in that election was James C. Edwards, who was, at that time, principal in the Hendry County School System under Mr. Steele. Edwards defeated Steel in the election and assumed the office of Superintendent in January, 1977. Upon leaving office as Superintendent, the defeated Mr. Steele was re- employed by the Hendry County School Board and placed in the position of Director of Pupil Personnel Services for the remainder of the school year. The basis of the charge of gross insubordination was as follows: From the months of August through November, 1977, Steele failed to follow specific directives of the Superintendent and School Board policies concerning submitting payrolls through the sub-office. From the months of August through November, 1977, Steele failed to follow procedures for ordering textbooks and other items through the sub-office. During the months of September and October, 1977, Steele failed to secure all doors and gates of the school before going off duty each night as he was directed by the Superintendent and his job description. Steele attempted to undermine the programs of the adult community school by prematurely cancelling classes without proper authorization; improperly discouraging students from registering in the program of the adult community school; complaining about the organization and operation of the school in the presence of students; and being openly hostile and antagonistic toward the coordinator of the community schools. On November 3, 1977, Steele closed the school without authorization and without following the prescribed procedures as set forth in School Board policy. The basis of the charge of willful neglect of duty was as follows: During the months of June through November, 1977, Steele was absent from his assigned work location during the times that he should have been present, such absences not being authorized by duly approved leave. During the month of September, 1977, Steele failed to secure a teacher for a scheduled class and did not inform the coordinator of the unavailability of the teacher. On September 29, 1977, Steele was absent from his assigned work location and was not performing his assigned duties while watching a junior varsity football game with students in the night classes. On December 6, 1977, the School Board suspended Steele without pay pending a hearing on the charges, if requested. On November 29, 1977, prior to the School Board action suspending him without pay, Steele requested a hearing under the Administrative Procedures Act. On April 18, 1977, Mr. Edwards, the new Superintendent, called Mr. Steele in for a conference regarding his assignment for the next school year. Also present at that conference were William Perry (Director of Vocational, Technical, and Adult Education) and Thomas Conner (Community School Coordinator). Steele's attitude at that meeting has been characterized as belligerent. (TR I-44-46; TR II-231-234.) He started off the meeting by telling the Superintendent which assignments he would refuse to accept. (TR I- 45; TR II-232.) When the Superintendent informed Steele that he was going to be recommended as principal of the Adult Community School, Steele's reaction was openly hostile. (TR I-46.) Steele appeared at the next School Board meeting to protest his new assignment. At that meeting, he read a prepared statement to the School Board accusing the new Superintendent of "political hatchery". (TR I-49; Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3.) While Steele's right to speak directly to his public employer regarding the operation of the school system is unquestioned, his choice of works and his quarrelsome tone exceeded the bounds of propriety. Although Steel's conduct at this meeting is not cited as grounds for his termination, it is indicative of his attitude, which was repeatedly displayed thereafter, until the Superintendent recommended his dismissal. In August of 1977, when Steele assumed the position of principal of the Adult Community School, his immediate supervisor was Clarence Jones, the new Community School Coordinator. Jones' supervisor was William Perry, Director of Vocational, Technical and Adult Education. Perry's supervisor, in turn, was Mr. Edwards, the Superintendent. (TR-I-62, 131, 132; TR II-229.) As a result of Steele's desiring a clarification of his duties in his new position, a meeting was held on August 18, 1977, between the Superintendent and Steele. (TR I-52, 174, 175; TR II-236.) Perry and Jones were also present at this meeting. The Superintendent reviewed Steele's job description explaining, item by item, what he expected of Steele in his new assignment. Steele had a copy of the job description before him during this discussion. (TR I-56, 175; TR II-236.) Superintendent Edwards reminded Steele that his office hours were to be from 3:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m., and that he must not leave the campus under any circumstances, except in an emergency. (TR I-63, 175, 176; TR II-237.) Whenever it became necessary for Steele to leave the campus--either for emergencies or because he was ill--he was instructed to call Jones, Perry, or the Superintendent before leaving. (TR I-63, 175, 176; TR II-237.) On August 31, 1977, Jones received a call from the Superintendent asking him to meet the Superintendent at the Adult Community School, Clewiston. Jones went to the school and arrived there at approximately 9:58 p.m. Jones and the Superintendent inspected the campus and did not find Steele present. Steele's car was not present. They remained there until approximately 10:30 p.m. (TR I-181.) On September 15, 1977, Jones went to the school at 10:17 p.m. and found all the lights off and nobody there. Steele's car was not present. He stayed there until 10:30 p.m. Steele had not called Jones to tell him that he was leaving that night. (TR I-187 and 188.) On September 19, 1977, Jones went tot he office of the Adult Community School, Clewiston, during the first night of classes to assist in registration. He noticed that on the first night eleven classes had been cancelled. Some of the classes cancelled were some of the most important ones that were offered, such as English, GED, mathematics and drivers education. (TR I-190 and 191.) The proper procedure and the procedure that has always been followed since the beginning of the program under Steele as Superintendent was that registration was to be held open for two weeks. At the end of two weeks, if the class was under the fifteen students that were needed to continue the class, the class would be cancelled after a conference between Perry and Jones. There was no conference to cancel any of the classes, and if any cancellations occurred, they were done without going through Perry and without following the proper procedures. (TR I-194 and 196; TR II-241, 244, 245 and 247.) In September, 1977, Steele changed the course offering of shorthand to speedwriting. (TR II-247 and 247; TR III-18.) The proper procedure for changing a course that had been scheduled would be for the principal, Mr. Steele, to consult with the Coordinator of Community Schools, Mr. Jones, and then consult with the Director of Vocational, Technical and Adult Education, Mr. Perry, and then change the course from what had been offered. Perry had not been consulted before the course was changed from shorthand to speedwriting, but subsequently approved the change after the fact. (TR II-247, 248, 249 and 250.) During the night of registration for the fall term of 1977, Steele was complaining to the students that he did not know what was going on around the adult school and did not have the authority to do anything and did not know what was happening. Steele's attitude toward Jones that night in front of the students was belligerent. (TR I-191 and 201.) On September 20, 1977, the first night that the class of bookkeeping was scheduled to begin, Steele called Jones about 3:40 p.m. and informed Jones that Steele did not have a teacher for the bookkeeping course that was to begin at 7:00 p.m. that night. There were twenty people enrolled in the class. It is the principal's responsibility to be sure that each class that is to be taught has a teacher and it is unusual for a class to start without a teacher, particularly when there are twenty people enrolled in it. Jones had to secure the person to teach the class. (TR I-203, 206; TR II-245.) On September 21, 1977, Jones went to Steele's work location at 10:00 p.m. and found that Steele was not present. Jones called the Superintendent and the Superintendent arrived at the school at approximately 10:12 p.m. and remained until about 10:30 p.m. During that period of time Steele was not present. (TR I-66 and 213.) On September 22, 1977, Jones went to Steele's work location at 10:05 p.m. and Steele was not present. Jones and Phifer, the principal of Clewiston High School, walked around the campus to see if they could find Steele, but could not find him. Jones remained there until approximately 10:30 p.m. and Steele was not present. Steele had not called him to inform him that he would not be there. (TR II-9 and 10.) On October 11, 1977, at 10:05 p.m. Jones went to Steele's work location and found that Steele was not on duty. He found the gates were not locked and that both access gates on the north side of the campus were standing open and unlocked. Jones secured the campus and inspected the entire campus, but could not find Steele. There were no cars present at the campus. He was there until around 10:30 p.m. and did not see Steele the entire time. Steele had not called in to say that he would not be there. (TR II-56, 57 and 58.) On October 14, 1977, Jones went to Steele's work location at approximately 9:30 p.m. and all the lights were out and doors were locked. Steele was not on campus and had not called Jones to say that he would not be there. Jones inspected the campus and did not find Steele. There were no cars on the campus. Jones stayed there for about twenty minutes and Steele did not return. (TR II-59.) On October 21, 1977, Jones went to Steele's work location at 8:30 p.m. and found that Steele was not there. All the doors were locked and lights were out. Steele had not called him about leaving. Jones discovered that Steele had filed a leave form for October 21, 1977, but it was filed in the county office in LaBelle and did not come through the suboffice as instructed by the Superintendent. (TRII-60 and 61.) On November 2, 1977, at 9:55 p.m. Jones went to Steele's work location and Steele was not present. The lights in the office were out and all doors were locked. Jones searched the entire campus and Steele was not there. Jones remained there for about forty minutes. Steele had not called him to say that he would not be there. (TR II-65, 66 and 67.) The Superintendent also directed Steele to send his payrolls through the county sub-office in Clewiston, where Jones maintained an office, rather than directly to the district office in LaBelle. Similarly, the Superintendent directed Steele to send all purchase orders for materials, books and supplies through the county sub0office in Clewiston for Jones' review, rather than directly to the supplier. The Superintendent also directed Steele to send all sick leave forms, whether for himself or his employees, through Jones in the county sub0office in Clewiston. In short, the Superintendent re-emphasized that Jones was Steele's supervisor. Finally, the Superintendent directed Steele to insure that the school plant was secure each night before he left campus. (TR I-64.) At the conclusion of this August 18, 1977, meeting, the Superintendent requested Steele to conform to all School Board policies and all of the orders that he had been given at the conference. There can be little doubt that Steele fully understood the Superintendent's orders. After each item, the Superintendent asked Steele if he understood what he had just been told; on each occasion, Steel acknowledged that he understood his instruction. (TR I-65, 177; TR II-239, 240.) In closing, the Superintendent warned Mr. Steele that if he did not follow each and every directive of the Superintendent and adhere to School Board policy, the Superintendent would consider each breach an act of gross insubordination. (TR I-65, 177; TR II-239.) Steele indicated that he understood the import of the Superintendent's orders. (TR I-65, 177; TR II-239, 240.) The tone of the meeting was very serious and the other administrators present testified that they had no problem understanding exactly what the Superintendent had directed Steele to do. (TR I-178.) Following that August meeting, Steele, based on the acts and conduct set forth above, failed or refused to follow the standards of conduct laid down by the Superintendent, ultimately resulting in the Superintendent's recommendation to the School Board that Steele be terminated for gross insubordination and willful neglect of duty. The particular conduct by Steel is detailed below. On numerous occasions after the August meeting, Steele left school early without informing Jones, Perry or the Superintendent. (TR I-66, 97, 181, 188, 213; TR II-9, 10, 56-61, 65-67.) He refused to send his payrolls through Jones at the sub-office, but persisted in sending them directly to the county office in LaBelle (TR II-11, 65; Respondent's Exhibit Nos. 2 & 4), in clear violation of the Superintendent's express orders. He also refused to send his book orders and his requisitions for materials and supplies through Jones, choosing instead to send them directly to the suppliers. (TR II-13, 14,15, 17, 18; Respondent's Exhibit Nos. 3 & 4.) He consistently failed to send his sick leave forms through Jones in the sub-office (TR II-60, 61), as he had been specifically instructed to do. On several occasions, he failed to secure the school plant before leaving the campus. (TR II-56, 57 &58.) In addition to repeatedly disobeying various lawful orders of the Superintendent, Steele openly displayed a hostile and contemptuous attitude toward his supervisors. From the first meeting between Jones and Steele, Steele was contemptuous and hostile toward Jones. (TR I-51.) Jones, as was his practice, recorded those encounters with Steele which he considered out of the ordinary, either favorable or unfavorable. (TR I-141.) Steele's attitude towards his immediate supervisor, Clarence Jones, was particularly disrespectful, discourteous, and belligerent -- not only in private, but in public. On occasion, he would totally ignore Jones in the presence of others, under circumstances where his refusal to acknowledge Jones' presence could reasonably be considered as an attempt to demonstrate his contempt for Jones. On other occasions, Steele displayed open hostility toward his supervisor. For example, he angrily slammed a handful of papers down on his desk and invited Jones outside to settle the matter of who was going to be principal of the school. (TR I-288.) In view of the circumstances, Jones perceived Steel's statement as an invitation to fight; however, Steele -- further displaying his contemptuous attitude toward Jones -- claimed he would never challenge Jones to a fight because he did not feel Jones was a man. (TR III-104, 170.) On another occasion, Steele told Jones' supervisor, Mr. Perry, that he thought Jones was a "pip squeak" and that he "would like to bust him in the mouth" (TR II-260.) Steele's insolent attitude toward Jones became apparent to others, as well. In September, 1977, a student, Margaret DeCastro, wrote a letter to Perry commenting on the rude and disrespectful attitude Steele had displayed toward Jones in her presence. Upon receiving Ms. DeCastro's letter, Perry requested a report from Jones about his relationship with Steel. In response, Jones detailed all the problems he had with Steele up to that point. Perry, in turn, reported this matter to the Superintendent. However, Clarence Jones was not the only administrator to face Mr. Steele's wrath: Steele also acted in a disrespectful manner toward William Perry, who was director of all adult and vocational-technical programs in Hendry County. For example, in the latter part of September, 1977, Steele upbraided Perry in front of several staff members. (TR II 256-260.) Mr. Perry was sufficiently upset by the incident that he wrote a letter to Steele directing him to change his attitude. (TR II-261; Respondent's Exhibit No. 7.) Finally, Steele's hostile, belligerent, and insubordinate attitude extended directly to the Superintendent. In a meeting with Steele on November 7, 1977, in the presence of Perry and Jones, the Superintendent informed Steele that he and Clarence Jones had, on several occasions as set forth above, discovered that Steele was absent from his assigned work location during duty hours. Steele angrily responded that anybody who said that he had not been at his work location when he was supposed to be was "a damn liar and full of shit." (TR II-267.) At that same November meeting, the Superintendent also questioned Steele about closing the adult school on the evening of November 3, 1977, without prior permission from Jones, Perry or Edwards. District policy prohibits principals from closing their schools without first receiving approval from the County office. (TR I-101.) Mr. Steele had been instructed to comply with all School Board policies at the August 18, 1977, meeting between Steele, Edwards, Perry and Jones. (TR I-65, 177; TR II-239.) Steele admitted that he had closed the school that evening; however, he claimed the weather was extremely bad and contended that he was justified in closing the school. (TR I- 102; TR II-73, 266.) While Steele's decision to close the school may have been sound, in view of the weather, he had once again failed to follow School Board policy, and the Superintendent's direct orders that he advise Jones, Perry or the Superintendent of the conditions so that they could make the decision. School Board policy did not give a principal, such as Steele, the discretion to close a school without first consulting with the Superintendent or his delegate. The mere fact that his decision may have ultimately proved proper does not excuse Steele from his obligation to follow the procedures set down by the Superintendent. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION A Principal with continuing contract status may be dismissed for gross insubordination or willful neglect of duty. Subsection 231.36(5), Florida Statutes (1977). The harmful effect of an administrator's insubordinate attitude on the operation of the school system has long been recognized. For example, in Board of Education of the City of Los Angeles v. Swan, 250 P.2d 305 (Cal. 2d DCA 1952) the Court, citing precedent, noted: A teacher, and more particularly a principal, in the public school system is regarded by the public and pupils in the light of exemplar, whose words and conduct are likely to be followed by the children taught. An important part of the education of any child is the instilling of a proper respect for authority and obedience to necessary discipline. Lessons are learned from example as well as from percept. The example of a teacher who is continually insubordinate and who refuses to recognize constituted authority may seriously affect the discipline in a school, impairs efficiency and teach children lessons they should not learn. Such conduct may unfit a teacher for service in a school even though her other qualifications may be sufficient. Johnson v. Taft School District, 19 Cal.App. 2d 912, 913; Voorhees, Law of Public Schools, p. 136. Id. at 309 (emphasis added). Unfortunately, the term "gross insubordination" has not yet been defined by Florida courts. However, in conformity with a fundamental rule of statutory construction, the term should be accorded its plain and ordinary meaning. Pederson v. Green, 105 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1958). Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary (1976 Ed.) defines "insubordination" as "unwilling to submit to authority." In the context of public education, the term has been defined as: "A constant or continuing intentional refusal to obey a direct or implied order, reasonable in nature, and given by and with proper authority." Ray v. Minneapolis Board of Education, 202 N.W. 375, 378 (Minn. 1972). Another Court has stated: Insubordination imports a willful disregard of express or implied directions of the employer, and a refusal to obey reasonable orders. McIntosh v. Abbot, 231 Mass. 180, 120 N.E. 383. A practically indentical definition is found at 21A, Words and Phrases, Insubordination, 554, and was applied to uphold the dismissal of a teacher in Ellenburg v. Hartselle City Board of Education, 349 So.2d 605, 509, n. 2d (Ala.Civ.Appl1977): Insubordination imports willful disregard of express or implied directions or such defiant attitude as to be the equivalent thereto. (emphasis supplied) In the single Florida case construing the term, a teacher's dismissal for insubordination was upheld where he displayed "a disobedience of orders, infractions of rules, or a generally disaffected attitude toward authority." Muldow v. Board of Public Instruction of Duval County, 189 So.2d 415 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966). Lack of cooperation has been considered "a subtle species of insubordination." School District No. 8 v. Superior Court of Pinal County, 433 P.2d 28, 30 (Ariz. 1977). However, Florida Statutes requires something more than "a subtle species of insubordination" in order to terminate a continuing contract. The Continuing Contract Law says that the attitude or conduct of the educator must be "gross insubordination." Subsection 231.36(6), Florida Statutes (1977). The modifier "gross" when used with the term "insubordination" may also be interpreted in its common sense: "glaringly noticeable." Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary (1976 Ed.). One Federal Circuit Court, in Horton v. Orange County Board of Education, 464 F.2d 536 (4th Cir. 1972) affirming 342 F.Supp. 1244, construed the following actions as "downright" subordination: A teacher required her students to purchase two paperback books, despite a district policy which prohibited teachers from buying books for use in class or selling books to students, or collecting any fee from students, without first obtaining approval from the local Board of Education. When told of her violation, and informed that she must refund student monies, the teacher allowed a student to sell the book, in an apparent effort to avoid the regulation. 342 F.Supp. at 124. In Delaware, the statutory term analogous to "gross insubordination" is "willful or persistent insubordination", 14 Del. C. Subsection 1411. That term has been judicially defined as: "A constant or continuing intentional refusal to obey a direct or implied order which is reasonable in nature and has been given by and with proper authority." Shockley v. Board of Education, 149 A.2d 331, 334 (Del. Superior Ct., 1959). Although not dealing in those terms, a sensible and workable distinction between simple insubordination and "gross" insubordination is suggested by the Court in Fernald v. City of Ellsworth Superintending School Committee, 342 A.2d 704 (Me. 1975): In short, we are not dealing here with a teacher's ephemeral bad mood, minor clerical omission, or arguable negligence or inattention concerning an incidental matter. Rather, Plaintiff's conduct has the marks of a persistent, sustained, and unreasonable course of defiance. Such an attitude, over a course of time, breaches harmonious relations among colleagues and administrators. Id. at 708 (emphasis added). 1/ In other words, an occasional lapse of decorum or failure to follow orders may not be "gross" insubordination, since it may merely reflect an "ephemeral bad mood" rather than a disaffected attitude toward authority. But, when the misconduct is repeated, the breaches are more likely to be the result of persistent defiance rather than an "ephemeral bad mood." In order to flesh out the concept of insubordination as it applies in the context of public schools, a brief review of the manner in which the term has been applied in several specific cases is helpful. In Ray v. Minneapolis Board of Education, 202 N.W.2d, 375 (Minn. 1972) a "well-qualified Minneapolis high school teacher" (Id. at 377) was discharged for insubordination based upon his refusal to fill out an eight-page form which was part of the curriculum evaluation study conducted by an independent professional group, the North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools. 1. In Fernald, a teacher had notified the Superintendent that she intended to take leave. When he denied her request, she absented herself from class for two days. Her termination for insubordination was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Maine. When Mr. Ray finally completed the form, he failed to answer several questions. A month later, when his principal asked him to fill out a second form, Mr. Ray again left several questions blank and answered some of the questions in an unresponsive fashion. At that point, he told his supervisor to quit harrassing him. Thereafter, Mr. Ray was advised by the Associate Superintendent that his failure to complete the form would be regarded as an act of insubordination. When, in April, Mr. Ray once again refused to complete the from, he was dismissed for insubordination. Even though Mr. Ray had contended that he had a First Amendment right to refuse to fill out the form, the Court found that he was discharged because he deliberately failed to cooperate in a program which was within the scope of his duties as an educator. (Id.) After reviewing the evidence, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that Mr. Ray's refusal to complete the form was insubordinate (Id. at 378). In Calvin v. Rupp, 334 F.Supp. 358 (E.D. Mo., 1971), the Court rejected Mr. Calvin's contention that the true reason for his dismissal was his union organization activities (Id. at 359). Instead, the Corut--after taking testimony--found that Mr. Calvin "was guilty of undermining the school administration and of insubordination." (Id. at 362.) The specific acts of misconduct which the Court found constituted insubordination were his repeated failure to comply with the District policy regarding the report of drug use by students, coupled with his directing the publications class to cease working on the school newspaper. 2/ 2. The specific acts which were cited were: failure to report evidence of student drug activity, an omission which Mr. Calvin knew violated school policy (Id. at 361); notifying the Federal Narcotics Bureau about the suspected drug activity without first notifying the school officials (Id.); conferring with a narcotics agent on school property, without first notifying the school administration (Id.); discussing his suspicions with a student, after having been ordered by Superintendent Rupp "to say nothing further about the incident to anyone." (ID.); and directing his publications class to cease work on the student newspaper (Id. at 362). In Barnes v. Fair Dismissal Appeals Board, 548 P.2d. 988 (Oregon Court of Appeals, 1976), a tenured teacher was dismissed for insubordination where, on three separate occasions, he violated district procedures relating to corporal punishment of students. After the first incident, Mr. Barnes was warned by the principal that his conduct did not conform to the district policies. Nevertheless, some three years later, MR. Barnes again violated the district policies. A year later, in May, 1975, Mr. Barnes again punished a student without following the proper procedures. Two weeks later, the Superintendent notified Mr. Barnes that he was recommending his dismissal or insubordination. One other event which occurred between the second and third disciplinary incidents was cited by the Superintendent as evidence of Barnes' insubordination: On or about August 28, 1974, while attending the first day of in-service as a teacher *** you were asked to sign a roster of the record of your attendance. When you were advised it necessary that you do so, you did sign it by scrawling your name completely across the paper and making the remark, 'Give me that thing, and I will sign it for the son-of-a-bitch.' 548 P.2d at 990 n. 4. The Fair Dismissal Appeals Board concurred with the Superintendent and the School Board of Scappoose School District that Mr. Barnes' actions constituted insubordination, and upheld his dismissal. The Court of Appeals of Oregon, in the Opinion cited, affirmed the Appeals Board's action. Id. at 991. In view of the foregoing cases, and the misconduct of Steele cited herein, it is evident that Steele had engaged in a willful and persistent defiance of his duties as laid down by the Superintendent of Schools at the August 18 meeting. Steele's misconduct was exacerbated by his openly hostile and contemptuous attitude toward his immediate supervisor, Clarence Jones, whom he subjected to verbal abuse, snubbing, and even threatened with physical harm. Despite the express orders of the Superintendent, Steele often left school early, occasionally failing to even secure the campus. Apparently, Mr. Steele's defeat at the polls festered within him, and made him unwilling to graciously accept the fact that he was now subject to the direction and control of other administrators, whom he held in contempt. Steele's behavior during the period August through November, 1977, clearly constitutes gross insubordination and justifies his dismissal. As with "gross insubordination", the Florida Legislature failed to define "willful neglect of duty", which is another ground for dismissal under Section 231.36, Florida Statutes (1977). However, the term "neglect of duty", as used in Art. IV, Subsection 7, Fla. Const. (1968) and its predecessor, Art. IV, Subsection 15, Fla Const. (1885), was defined in State, ex rel Hardie v. Coleman, 115 Fla. 119, 155 So. 129 (1934): Failure on the part of a public officer to do and perform some duty or duties laid on him as such by virtue of his office or which is required of him by law. 155 So. at 132 Although both "gross insubordination" and "willful neglect of duty" involve failure to obey orders, the Legislature must have intended some distinction between the terms, or its use of the two terms in Section 231.36 would be redundant. Since the Superintendent of Schools has lawful authority to supervise or provide for the supervision and management of all school district personnel, Subsection 230.33(7), Florida Statutes' failure to abide by his orders would constitute willful neglect, if the failure to obey the orders was intentional, and gross insubordination if the disobedience was attended by disrespect. To avoid the redundancy, then, one must assume that breach of even minor rules could constitute "gross insubordination" where it is repeated, and where the breach is attended by overt defiance or hostility toward one's superiors. For willful neglect of duty, the contemptuous attitude may be lacking, but the rule or order violated must be somewhat more important to the efficient operation of the schools. Thus, for neglect of duty, one should look for the actual harm done; for insubordination, one should look to the attitude displayed towards the employer or supervisor. Statistical evidence is useful in gauging the extent of the harm Steele caused the Hendry County School System, generally, and the adult evening program, particularly, because of his persistent refusal to follow orders. The most telling statistic in this regard is the enrollment of the school before, during, and after Steele's tenure as principal. While Steele was principal of the adult evening school, enrollment in October, 1977, was down 40% from the previous year. The following October, after Steele had departed, enrollment was up over 100% above the level of enrollment for October, 1977. (TR II-84, 85, 88; Respondent's Exhibit No. 5). Thus, there was a severe dip in enrollment under Steele, followed by a significant rise after he left. The loss in enrollment under Steele, which is evidence of his neglect of duties, could logically be attributed to incidents such as the following: On August 17, 1977, Steele displayed his distaste for his new assignment by stating to Jones that he did not intend to be a "flunky" for the Adult Community School Program (TR I-149, 153, 159, 161-162). On September 19, 1977, the first night of registration for the Adult Community School, eleven classes had already been cancelled by Steele, including ones which Jones considered important, such as driver's education, GED, English and mathematics (TR. I-190-191). Even when Steele was Superintendent, classes were not normally cancelled until two weeks after registration night, (TR I-194, 196; TR II-241, 244, 245, 247). Steele changed a course in shorthand to speedwriting without first consulting with Jones or Petty, which was the proper procedure. (TR II-247- 250). More damaging was Steele's apathetic attitude towards the program: On registration night, he openly complained to students that he did not know what was going on around the school and that, in any event, he had no authority to do anything. (TR I-191, 201). Late in the afternoon of the day the bookkeeping class was to begin, Steele informed Jones that he had not yet secured a teacher for the class, even though it turned out that twenty students had already registered. (TR I-203, 206; TR. II-245.) As noted earlier, Steele was absent from school during assigned hours on numerous occasions during the fall of 1977. This, in spite of the Superintendent's direct order that he not leave campus without authorization, even to get a newspaper. (TR I-63, 175, 176; TR II-237.) On October 11, 1977, Steele not only left campus early, he failed to secure the building, as he had been specifically instructed to do. (TR II-59.) In summary, Steele's persistent failure to follow the rules of conduct laid down by the School Board, the Superintendent, or which are obvious requisites of his job as principal constitute willful neglect of duty and justifies his termination under Section 231.36, Florida Statutes. The statutory penalty for "gross insubordination" or "willful neglect of duty" is dismissal. For lesser offenses, lesser penalties may be authorized. However, where a continuing contract principal's misconduct constitutes gross insubordination or willful neglect of duty, as it has in the instant case, dismissal is appropriate. I shall so recommend
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, is is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, District School Board of Hendry County's recommendation that the Petitioner, George H. Steele, be terminated be UPHELD. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of September, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: J. Leonard Fleet, Esq. 4001 Hollywood Boulevard Hollywood, Florida 33021 John W. Bowen, Esq. and Andrew B. Thomas, Esq. Rowland, Bowen & Thomas Post Office Box 305 Orlando, Florida 32802 Owen Luckey, Jr., Esq. Post Office Box 865 LaBelle, Florida 33935
Findings Of Fact Introduction At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Michael A. Graham, was a middle school teacher at West Miami Junior High School (WMJHS) in Miami, Florida. He is under a continuing contract as a teacher for petitioner, School Board of Dade County (Board). He has been an employee in the school system since 1975 and a full-time teacher since 1981. Graham holds bachelor and master degrees from the University of Miami and is currently taking course work at Florida International University towards a second master's degree. On January 12, 1988 the Board voted to suspend Graham without pay for thirty days effective January 20, 1988 for "just cause and misconduct in office." On July 1, 1988 the Board issued a Notice of Charges containing six counts of alleged misconduct. 1/ The charging document alleged that respondent failed to disclose on his job application dated September 24, 1981 that he had been previously arrested on numerous occasions, (b) intentionally exposed a student, I.M., to unnecessary embarrassment, (c) intentionally exposed a student, V.E., to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement, (d) intentionally committed a battery on U.C., a student, (e) continually and intentionally refused to discontinue uttering profane and/or vulgar language in his classroom during school years 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88, and (f) continually and intentionally refused to discontinue excessive tardiness and excessive absences during the same school years. These charges will be taken up separately below. Filing A False Application (Counts I and II) During the course of his employment with the Board, Graham has filled out various applications and other informational forms. Relevant to this proceeding is an application for an instructional position filed with the Board on September 24, 1981. The application asked the following question: Have you ever been convicted of anything other than minor traffic violations? Graham responded in the negative. Sometime after Graham filed the above application, the Board had an occasion to run a background check on him. Among other things, the Board uncovered the fact that Graham had been arrested on February 29, 1976 for resisting an officer without violence to his person and disorderly conduct, both misdemeanors. The first charge was nolle prossed while Graham was found guilty of the second charge and received a suspended sentence. Certified copies of these records have been introduced into evidence as petitioner's exhibit 10. Although petitioner did not introduce into evidence certified copies of other arrests, there was testimony, without objection, that Graham had been arrested for the following charges: 12/17/71 - public drunkenness 6/05/74 - theft 5/14/76 - worthless checks 4/08/77 - "warrant arrests" 5/18/77 - worthless checks 9/11/79 - worthless checks 9/17/81 - aggravated battery 11/05/82 - worthless checks 2/21/86 - worthless checks During a conference with a school administrator on August 21, 1987, Graham acknowledged that, with the exception of the May 14, 1976 arrest which he did not remember, and the April 8, 1977 matter which he stated involved a voluntary return on his part to the State of Indiana, all other arrests occurred. However, there is no evidence that Graham was convicted of any of these charges, and his testimony that all charges were later dropped was not contradicted. At hearing Graham explained that he thought the question concerning prior arrests on the employment application meant whether his civil rights had ever been taken away. Since they had not, he stated he believed his negative answer was appropriate. Exposing Students to Embarrassment or Disparagement (Counts III and IV) It is alleged that in school year 1986-87, respondent exposed I.M., a seventh grade female student, to "unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement." The student did not appear at hearing but gave post-hearing deposition testimony. As clarified at hearing, this charge stems from alleged off-color remarks about I.M.'s clothing made by Graham to I.M. in front of the class. I.M. was a student in Graham's history class in school year 1986-87. While in class on May 11, 1987, I.M. left her desk to go to the restroom. She was wearing tight fitting pants. When she returned, Graham remarked in a loud voice, and in front of the class, that her pants were so tight he "could see her crack and count the hairs." Graham also made her perform a "fabric test" to ascertain whether she could pinch the cloth on the pants without pinching her skin. If I.M. pinched both skin and cloth, this confirmed that the pants were too tight. After Graham made his comments and required I.M. to take the "fabric test," I.M. became embarrassed, felt "cheap," began crying and left the room. She reported the incident to her counselor and prepared a written statement which is attached to her deposition. Also, she described the incident to a school investigator the same day, giving essentially the same version of events described above. This account is deemed to be more accurate and credible than a slightly different version of events given by I.M. by deposition some fifteen months later. Graham recalled the incident differently. According to his recollection, when I.M. returned from the bathroom to the classroom, he told her she had "inappropriate clothing," and if she disputed this, she would be given a hall pass to visit the principal. If the principal approved the pants, she could wear them to school. Otherwise, Graham told her not to wear them to his class in the future. Graham contended also that he said "Your clothing is too tight around the hips and crotch" and denied using the words "hairs" or "crack." He conceded he may have asked her to perform a "fabric test." However, this version of events is not deemed to be credible and is hereby discredited. Student V.E. is a fundamentalist Christian who was in Graham's American History class for the first three days of school year 1987-88. On the first or second day of class Graham gave a class assignment requiring the students to use the Bible as a historical reference but to explain the story without the (i ideas of miracles and deity. V.E. understood this to mean that she was to "take all miracles" out of the story and to "not have God in it." During class that day, V.E. asked a question about a Bible parable being discussed by Graham and, after she gave the biblical version of what happened, Graham asked her if she believed in magic. V.E. felt "bad" and "intimidated" by Graham's question. When she went home that evening, V.E. told her mother about the class assignment. The mother was upset and prepared a letter for Graham and the assistant principal questioning the subject matter of the assignment. V.E. was told by her mother to hand carry a copy of the letter to Graham the next day. Before she could do this, the assistant principal told Graham that V.E.`s mother had sent a letter. When she entered the classroom the next day, V.E. was asked by Graham if she had a letter for him. After being handed the letter, Graham asked V.E. why she told her mother about the assignment and added "I'm pissed." This episode took place in front of the entire classroom. This caused V.E. to be very "upset" and "embarrassed." She immediately transferred out of Graham's class. Graham countered that there was no "homework assignment" per se and that he was merely seeking to obtain "critical thinking" from his students. According to Graham, his discussion was consistent with the approved curriculum and was intended to have the students reconcile biblical stories with other theories of evolution of men. Graham believed that V.E. had misunderstood the discussion as being an attack on religion when in fact it was not. He added that, of all the students, only V.E. reached that erroneous conclusion. He conceded that he "may have" used the words "I'm pissed" but contended that he was justified in questioning her in front of the entire classroom because students frequently hurried off to other classes once the end-of-period bell rang. Battering Urbano (Count IV) In school year 1986-87, Urbano was a fifteen year old male student. He has since departed the state. It is alleged that Graham committed battery on Urbano. According to Graham, who gave the only eyewitness account of the entire fray, Urbano was still a student when the incident occurred but was in the process of withdrawing from school and moving to California. Urbano had been in several classes taught by Graham and had a history of disruptive conduct. Urbano returned to the campus one day to speak with a girlfriend who was in Graham's classroom. Urbano entered the classroom during a change in classes. Not wanting a confrontation, Graham requested the girl to ask Urbano to leave. When she did this, Urbano began cursing Graham and slowly backed into the hallway outside of Graham's classroom. As Graham attempted to close his door, Urbano blocked the door and pushed Graham who responded by pushing Urbano out of the doorway. Urbano then threw a four pound textbook into Graham's chest. After Graham asked Urbano to follow him to the principal's office, Urbano drew back his fist to strike Graham. At that point, and in self-defense, Graham struck Urbano with a blow to the side of his face. In retaliation, Urbano threw a karate kick into Graham's left knee. Graham followed by administering a second blow to Urbano's face. A female physical education teacher then approached the melee, grabbed Urbano on the shoulder and escorted him to the principal's office. According to Graham, Urbano was immediately suspended from school. This was not contradicted. There is no evidence that Graham was criminally charged with battery or disciplined by the school for the incident. Using Profane and Vulgar Language in Class (Count V) It is charged that in school years 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88 Graham was given direct orders to discontinue "uttering profane and/or vulgar language while in the performance of assigned duties as a classroom teacher," and that respondent "continually and intentionally refused to discontinue" doing so. The allegations stem from disciplinary action taken in the fall of 1985. On October 17, 1985 respondent participated in a conference for the record with WMJHS principal Kavenaugh for using "very salty language" in the classroom. Neither Kavenaugh or Graham could recall what words were actually used by Graham. As noted in finding of fact 11, Graham used the words "I'm pissed" while talking to student V.E. in September, 1987. About the same time, he recited a "parable" in V.E.'s class which went generally as follows: A large flock of birds immigrated south one winter but one bird's wings froze, and it fell to the ground. A horse came along and deposited cow shit on the bird. Although the cow shit did not smell good, it kept the bird warm. A cat then came upon the fallen bird, wiped the cow shit off of its wings and ate it. The moral: not everyone who shits on you is your enemy, and not everyone who does you a favor is your friend. Graham acknowledged reciting the above story in class but claimed he used the word "chip" instead of "shit." However, V.E. stated she heard the word "shit," and this version of the events is accepted as being more credible. Principal Kavenaugh gave some vague testimony about other incidents of vulgarity but could not give specifics as to when this occurred or what was said. Other than the order to quit using "very salty language" in October 1985, there is no evidence of any other orders given to Graham by a principal or administrative officer directing him to refrain from using vulgarity or profanity. Excessive Tardiness and Absences (Count VI) The notice of charges alleges that in school years 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88 Graham was "given direct orders to discontinue his excessive tardiness and/or excessive absences," and that he "continually and intentionally refused to discontinue" doing so. Assistant principal Sotolongo authored memoranda to respondent on May 27, 1986 and March 25, 1987 regarding class absences. The first concerned respondent sitting in the teacher's lounge ten minutes after class had started on May 23, 1986. For this infraction, Graham received a reprimand. The assistant principal stated that Graham was "periodically" absent from class but could not recall the number of times this occurred or the dates of such absences. The second memorandum was prompted by Graham being absent from school during the afternoon of March 24, 1987. Graham's explanation of having to see a doctor for a workers' compensation injury was not accepted as being satisfactory. Principal Kavenaugh authored a memorandum on May 6, 1986 concerning punctual attendance by Graham. The memorandum was prepared after Graham had been late to school at least ten times between January 10, 1986 and May 5, 1986. Respondent promised to make an "extra effort" to comply with attendance requirements. There is no evidence that, after the May 6, 1986 memorandum, Graham was late for school or that he refused to comply with attendance requirements. Miscellaneous Graham was told by principal Kavenaugh on one occasion "to be courteous and free of sarcasm" while teaching his students. This order was memorialized in a memorandum dated June 19, 1987. There is no evidence he disobeyed this order. On November 10, 1987 Graham was placed on prescription for one item of performance. This meant he had to correct a deficiency in professional performance and responsibilities. The prescription was prompted primarily by the V.E. incident and the parable given in the history class, both occurring in September, 1987. There is no evidence that Graham did not fulfill the terms of the prescription. According to Dr. D. Patrick Gray, who was accepted as an expert in professional ethics, performance appraisal and professional or personnel management, Graham violated the teachers' code of ethics by intentionally exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement, unreasonably denying a student access to a diverse point of view, and failing to keep the confidence of personally identifiable information concerning a student. He opined further that, given respondent's conduct as described in the Notice of Charges, Graham's effectiveness as a teacher had been seriously impaired.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of those charges in Counts I and II and a portion of Count III. All others should be dismissed. Respondent should also be suspended without pay for thirty days as proposed by the agency in its suspension notice effective January 20, 1988. DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of September, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 19th day of September, 1988.
The Issue Whether the District has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there was just cause to dismiss Thomas Brown, consistent with the provisions of the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act, Laws of Florida, Chapter 21197 (1941), as amended, and Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Thomas Brown, was a teacher of instructional music in the Duval County School District (District). As part of the instructional personnel with the District, Brown was subject to be evaluated on an annual basis pursuant to the teacher assessment system. The purpose for evaluating teachers is to make certain that instruction is occurring in the classroom and that students are learning the required subject matter. The evaluation process also makes certain that student safety in the classroom is taken into consideration by the instructional personnel (teachers). The District uses the teacher assessment system to evaluate all of its teachers regardless of the subject matter they instruct. From the 1999-2000 and the 2000-2001 academic school years, Brown was a teacher at Andrew Jackson High School where Jack Shanklin (Shanklin) is principal. Shanklin has evaluated teachers annually since he became a principal 22 years ago. He uses the classroom observation instrument within the teacher assessment system to evaluate all of his teachers. At the beginning of the 2000-2001 academic year, Shanklin; Ms. Pierce, assistant principal; Dennis Hester, professional development cadre member; and Mr. Dudley took part in creating a success plan for Brown. A success plan is a course of action designed to prevent an at-risk teacher from getting an unsatisfactory annual evaluation by engendering professional improvement. Shanklin discussed the success plan with Brown before it was implemented. Brown did not have any objections to the plan. Shanklin evaluated Brown for the 2000-2001 academic school year during March of 2001. He based his evaluation results on the observations and written reprimands that he had issued to Brown throughout the 2000-2001 year. During the year, Shanklin observed Brown's classes. In preparation for a classroom visit, he reviewed Brown's lesson plans for October 18, 2000. Lesson plans describe the daily plan for instruction of the students on a particular day. Shanklin had previously directed Brown to turn in his lesson plans on a weekly basis in order to monitor Brown's progress because of his departure from planned lessons. Shanklin attempted to observe Brown in his classroom on October 18, 2000; however, neither the class nor the teacher was present in Brown's classroom. Shanklin later found Brown and the class with the choral class in the auditorium; but Brown had failed to amend his lesson plans to include the choral visit, although he had adequate time to do. He had presented none of the lesson plan that had he filed. Shanklin returned on October 19, 2000, to observe Brown's classroom ten minutes after class has begun. As he entered the classroom, two students ran out the back door. When questioned, Brown had no knowledge of their identity. Shanklin witnessed students harassing other students without correction from Brown while he was addressing the needs of only five of his 35 students. While Brown spoke with the small group, the other students were doing whatever they wanted. There were no class assignments being conducted by the other students. Shanklin later identified one of the students who had been harassing other students as John Fields. Shanklin removed Fields from class because his behavior was so menacing. Brown should have prohibited and corrected the student misconduct, which he failed to do. Shanklin gave Brown a written reprimand by letter dated October 30, 2000. Shanklin also observed Brown on December 4, 2000, during a previously announced observation. Brown did not begin class with an appropriate review of recent material or outline of the day's lesson. Student misconduct again was uncorrected by Brown. Students were moving around and talking during instruction by Brown without correction. This class was not a band class, but a music appreciation class, and there was no need for student movement during instruction. After this observation, Shanklin reviewed his observations with Brown in January of 2001. Following the January discussion, Shanklin observed Brown again later that month, at a previously announced observation. He also discussed that visit with Brown. Shanklin also had Dennis Hester, a professional cadre member, observe Brown's classroom instruction. As part of Hester's responsibilities to improve "less than satisfactory" teachers, Hester reviewed and approved the success plan developed for Brown. Pursuant to that plan, Hester assisted Brown with both formal and informal observations and conferences through 2000 and 2001. After multiple informal conferences in January, Hester began formal observations in February. Hester utilized a number of tools to accurately document the classroom instruction by Brown. Domain One Instrument is a tool in the Florida Performance Measurement System which identifies a teacher's ability to plan lessons. The Domain Two Instrument is a classroom management tool used in the Florida Performance Measurement System (FPMS) to assess how a classroom is run. Hester was trained to evaluate teachers by using both tools and has done so with over 30 teachers in Duval County. Hester also used a conference planning guide which is a list of behaviors observed indicating areas to be worked on, and the Clinical Educator Training (CET) anecdotal instrument to clarify the events of a classroom observation in detail. Hester observed Brown's class on February 1, 2001, and saw a number of students off-tasks, and one child sleeping. Hester observed Brown tell the sleeping child to "wake up, no slobbering on the desk . . ." Brown should have taken positive steps to keep the student awake, and should not have accused him of "slobbering on the desk." Hester discussed these deficiencies with Brown towards the end of February. Hester was due to have all of his evaluations completed on March 15, 2001. Although the Domain One, on planning lessons, was due from Brown to Hester on January 18, 2001 for a February 27, 2001, class observation, Hester did not receive it until March 7, 2001. Thereafter, Hester faxed his commentary of the Domain One to the school for Brown to review as the remaining time permitted. Although Hester did not specifically provide Shanklin with his observation notes for review, the principal reviewed the cadre's notes which outlined the similar misconduct and classroom mismanagement Shanklin witnessed himself. Shanklin's evaluation was also made with the consideration of an incident at the May graduation of 1999/2000 academic school year. Brown's band refused to perform after Brown instructed them to do so. It was later discovered that those students who refused to perform were academically ineligible to be in the class. In prior years, Brown had allowed ineligible students to perform in the school band against the school's rules and regulations, and had been told to stop permitting this. On March 15, 2001, Shanklin gave Brown an unsatisfactory annual evaluation. In evaluating Brown as unsatisfactory for Competency No. 1, Shanklin considered his own observations of Brown's failing to follow his established lesson plans. Brown's failure to manage his classroom and correct student misbehavior supports Shanklin' unsatisfactory evaluation under Competency No. 3. Because of a lack of academic climate due to classroom mismanagement and unorganized instruction, Shanklin deemed Brown to have been unsatisfactory in Competency No. 4. In addition, regarding Competency No. 4, Brown allowed students to eat in his classroom which was critiqued by Shanklin in a letter to Brown dated December 6, 2000. In evaluating Brown unsatisfactory under Competency No. 5, Shanklin considered Brown's failure to provide sufficient evidence that any real grades could be disseminated to Brown's students as there were no rubrics or student work visible for assessments. Finally, Shanklin gave Brown an unsatisfactory evaluation on Competency No. 9 because Brown never demonstrated any type of diversified lesson designed to maintain the attention of the students; which was needed as evidenced by the repeated observation of students sleeping in his class. Following the 1999/2001 academic school year, Brown was transferred to Jefferson Davis Middle School where Bob Powell was principal. Powell created an initial success plan for Brown when he first arrived in the beginning of the year. After formally observing Brown, Powell created a second success plan dated October 29, 2001, which was discussed and agreed to by Brown. The plan was designed for Brown to implement the components for his own benefit. Throughout the year, Powell observed Brown's classroom instruction. On November 20, 2001, Powell formally observed Brown's instruction. Thereafter, Powell also observed Brown on two more occasions on January 10 and 18 of 2002. During his observations, Powell witnessed students talking during "warm-ups," whose attention Brown failed to get. Powell observed that Brown failed to provide praise to his successful students which is needed at the middle school age. Powell noted problems Brown had with communicating with band parents. Powell was concerned that a band parent reported that Brown had threatened to fail and throw her child out of band practice which Brown had no authority to do. In addition, band parents also complained that Brown placed their names as chaperones on a field trip, without their permission. When this was revealed, the trip had to be cancelled. Following the formal conferences with Brown, Powell discussed his observations with Brown. Brown admitted to Powell that other District personnel were telling him the same things Powell was mentioning. Notwithstanding the counseling, Brown was unable to constructively adapt. Powell also requested Patricia Ann Butterboldt to observe Brown during his instruction at Jefferson Davis Middle School. Butterboldt is responsible for supervising and overseeing the curriculum of music teachers throughout the District. During the 2001/2002 academic school year, Butterboldt observed Brown with an intermediate class on two occasions. On November 1, 2001, Butterboldt observed that Brown failed to follow his own instructional classroom schedule. In addition, Brown utilized students to instruct other students in complex musical exercises for which students had no ability to adequately conduct the drill. Butterboldt also witnessed Brown's students consistently off task. On January 23, 2002, observation, Butterboldt again observed inappropriate classroom instruction and management, to include Brown's failure to correct the class for ridiculing a student. Butterboldt noted that even if students forget their instruments, the teacher is responsible to provide instruction to that student. Following both Butterboldt's observations, Powell was provided copies of her observation's reports. Sue Martin, professional cadre member, was requested by Powell to provide feedback on Brown's instruction. Her report was introduced as Exhibit 29. During the same academic school year, Mrs. Saffer, vice-principal observed Brown pursuant to Powell's request. Saffer also utilized the classroom observation instrument during her observation of Brown. Saffer observed that Brown failed to properly correct the behavior of non-responsive students. Although critical, Saffer also complemented Brown on his positive action; however, after reviewing Brown's grade book for the day of her observation, Saffer was surprised that the students were awarded grades without any means of evaluation Saffer could decipher. Afterwards, Saffer met with Brown weekly regarding his grade book. In addition to the grade book, Saffer also discussed with Brown her observations (formal and informal) of his instructional conduct throughout the school year. Although Saffer did not evaluate Brown, she did provide her observations to Powell for his evaluation. In addition to school assistance and counsel, Powell provided Brown with many opportunities for professional training. Brown attended at least two training sessions to Powell's knowledge. However, Powell learned that Brown rejected a training conference in Jacksonville offered to him by Butterboldt because he said the presenters of the conference were "racists." On January 30, 2002, Powell provided Brown with a notice warning him of an unsatisfactory annual evaluation. Powell based his notice of a possible unsatisfactory evaluation on all of the observations and notations he made and had been provided to him. Thereafter, Powell observed another instruction by Brown in February of 2002. However, Powell never witnessed Brown perform pursuant to the schedule attached to a letter drafted by Brown which allegedly addressed Powell's concerns. Powell eventually prepared Brown's annual evaluation for the year which reflected Powell's assessment of Brown's unsatisfactory performance demonstrated throughout the academic year. John Williams is the director of professional standards for the District who was responsible for generating the termination letter once he received the second unsatisfactory evaluation. After reviewing all of the notices and evaluations, Williams not only determined that the manner in which both principals utilized the teacher assessment system was appropriate, but that Brown's performance required that the District initiate Brown's termination from employment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, Thomas Brown, be dismissed from employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of March, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 11th day of March, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Derrel Q. Chatmon, Esquire Duval County School Board 117 West Duval Street, Suite 480 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 David A. Hertz, Esquire Duval Teachers United 1601 Atlantic Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207 John C. Fryer, Jr., Superintendent Duval County Schools 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207-8182
Findings Of Fact Annie Jackson, currently Principal of Golden Glades Elementary, also served in that capacity during Elijah McCray's 6th grade experience there during the regular 1984-1985 school year. On December 10, 1984, Mrs. Jackson personally removed Elijah from the lunch room for shooting paper at other students. He was reprimanded after a conference and sent to an alternative eating place for a month. On March 5, 1985 the classroom teacher referred Elijah to Mrs. Jackson for disruptive behavior, running around, not working and splashing water. He was removed from class and received a conference with Mrs. Jackson. Mrs. Jackson called the parents the next day and reported the situation. On March 27, 1985 he was referred to Mrs. Jackson for laughing at his teacher and being defiant. On March 28, 1985 he was assigned 3 days outside detention by Mrs. Jackson because he had refused to serve assigned detention. On April 2, 1985, which was the day Elijah was due to return, Mrs. Jackson wrote his parents because he had again been referred to the office and defied the authority of the teacher referring him by not carrying the referral to Mrs. Jackson's office. He was referred to the school counselor by Mrs. Jackson. There was a subsequent 5 day suspension for disruptive behavior scheduled to begin on April 15, 1985. At 5:00 P.M. on that day, Mrs. Jackson personally conducted a teacher/parent/ student/administrator conference to discuss the April 15, 1985/ suspension. Present in place of the parents were Mr. and Mrs. Taylor, Elijah's grandparents. The teacher made known to the grandparents that she did not want Elijah back in her class because he would throw items and deny it and frequently disrupt the class by spitting in the classroom or by leaving the classroom to spit. The grandparents made known to the teacher, and to Mrs. Jackson that a sinus condition of Elijah's required him to spit frequently and Mrs. Jackson apparently engineered some rapport between the teacher and Elijah upon this information so that the planned 5 days suspension was rescinded by Mrs. Jackson. Mrs. Taylor testified that she was present at this meeting but felt she had not participated because she had left most of the talking to Mr. Taylor and Mrs. Jackson, but upon Mrs. Jackson's and Mrs. Taylor's testimony together it is specifically found that this parent contact did occur. On April 17, 1985, Mrs. Jackson referred Elijah to the school counselor because of a report from his classroom teacher that Elijah had said he would "swing his old gun" at her. While this language by the teacher is technically hearsay outside the admission exception, information on the report was recorded contemporaneously by Mrs. Jackson in the school records and regardless of what was actually said to the teacher, Mrs. Jackson personally observed the distraught behavior of the teacher in reaction to whatever threat had been made by Elijah. Mrs. Jackson called school security as a result. The investigation of the incident by Mrs. Jackson and the security investigator revealed that the teacher had been told by other students that Elijah had shot a relative of theirs but that he had in fact never done so. Elijah was warned that it is serious to make threats to teachers. On April 22, 1985 Mrs. Jackson received a formal written request from the classroom teacher requesting Elijah's removal from her class. Much of Mrs. Jackson's testimony suggests that the persistent disruptive behavior was that of the classroom teacher who referred Elijah for what she perceived as threats. This teacher was not present to testify. Elijah was returned to class by Mrs. Jackson over the teacher's objections with a final warning concerning making threats. A parent/teacher/student/ administrator conference was held to apprise the parents that this was a last chance. It may be that Mrs. Taylor was not present for this conference, but Mrs. Jackson indicates at least one adult was present on behalf of the child. On April 25, 1985, Elijah was returned to class. On April 30, 1985, Mrs. Jackson requested Officer Harris of Operation Pro Volunteer Listener to confer with Elijah about the seriousness of making threats. On May 1, 1985, Mrs. Jackson investigated a report that Elijah had threatened two girls (Mirland Joseph and Lesley Compton) in his class with a knife. The girls gave statements which Mrs. Jackson synopsized as stating that they thought they had been threatened with a knife by Elijah. The statements are not signed. The incident as reported in the statements composed by the principal are by themselves hearsay and that hearsay is not confirmed or corroborated by a statement made by Elijah directly to Mrs. Jackson that he had showed the girls the point of a nail file attached to a man's pocket toenail clippers and was "just joking with it." Mrs. Jackson received a broken pair of blunt toenail clippers from Elijah at the time of this admission and a xerox copy of the nailclippers was admitted in evidence as a true and correct copy of the implement. Because of the presence of the nailclippers, which Mrs. Jackson characterized as a "pointed object", Mrs. Jackson initiated transfer of Elijah to an alternative education program. She felt this was a lesser alternative to expulsion. Expulsion would otherwise be required by School Board policy in the presence of a "weapon." Mrs. Taylor testified that she had heard one of the girls who had given statements to Mrs. Jackson or perhaps a third girl named "Alexandra" say they had made up the May 1, 1985 incident. Mrs. Taylor stated Elijah and his sister had told her the night before the May 1, 1985 incident that the two girls or Elizabeth Carpenter was going to "start a problem for him the next day" or "going to fight him" the next day. There is no record evidence of failing grades, truancies, or unexcused absences for Elijah.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the School Board enter a final order returning Elijah McCray to the appropriate grade level in a regular school program with a different classroom teacher than previously assigned. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of September, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of September, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Jackie Gabe, Esquire Law Offices McCrary, Valentine & Mays P.A. 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 800 Miami, Florida 33137 Mrs. Sylvia Taylor 2971 N. W. 165 Street Opa Locka, Florida 33054 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire 1450 N. E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida Ms. Maeva Hipps School Board Clerk 1450 N. E. 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issue in this case is whether there is just cause to terminate Lontay Finney's employment with Palm Beach County School Board based upon the allegations made in its Petition.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within Palm Beach County, Florida. Article IX, Fla. Const.; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Petitioner has the authority to discipline employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Finney started his employment with the School Board on December 19, 2005. He was employed pursuant to an annual contract. Finney taught at Glades Central High School ("Glades Central") from 2010 through 2015. He was last employed as both a science teacher and assistant athletic director. Finney's annual evaluations were acceptable and effective during each year of his employment at Glades Central. As a teacher, Finney was expected to comply with the Code of Ethics. On June 1, 2010, he signed an acknowledgment that he received training, read, and would abide by School Board Policy 3.02, Code of Ethics. Reniqua Morgan ("Morgan") was a female student at Glades Central from 2011 to 2015. She was a cheerleader athlete but never had Finney as a teacher. Finney knew of Morgan as one of the daughters of his teacher colleague, Renee Johnson Atkins ("Atkins") and from seeing Morgan around school. Morgan and Finney also knew who each other were because they had a niece in common and lived in the small town of Belle Glade. However, Finney and Morgan did not associate with one another directly before March 2015. On or about March 22, 2015, Finney initiated contact, reaching out to Morgan by poking her on Facebook. Morgan poked him back and then Finney followed up by inboxing her next. Morgan was surprised that Finney was conversing with her. They continued to chat for several weeks not on an open feed of Facebook but messaging each other's inbox privately. Between 10:30 and 11:00 p.m. on Sunday, April 12, 2015, Finney initiated a conversation with Morgan and they chatted on Facebook. Finney suggested that the two of them get together and asked Morgan, do you want to "chill?" Morgan agreed and said "I don't mind." They then decided to meet up. Finney did not offer to pick Morgan up at her house. Finney instructed her to meet him at the stop sign, around the corner and down the street from where she lived.1/ Morgan, unbeknownst to her mother, met Finney by the stop sign. At the stop sign, Morgan got in Finney's mother's truck with Finney. When Finney first made contact with Morgan that night, he gave her a hug. He then drove her to his home. At all times relevant to these proceedings, Morgan was a 17-year-old minor. Finney did not have permission from Morgan's parents to either pick her up or take her to his house. His inappropriate actions were outside of school and not in connection with any school-related activity in any way. At approximately 12:24 a.m. on Monday, April 13, 2015, Morgan's mother, Atkins, was at her residence and went to use the restroom and she then discovered that Morgan was not at home. Morgan had left home without her permission. Atkins was worried about Morgan being out that early in the morning because it was "unsafe because [of] the neighborhood that [she] live[d] in, there [were] some people in that neighborhood that [were] unsafe."2/ While at Finney's house, Finney and Morgan remained in the parked truck alongside of the house alone together for approximately an hour and a half to two hours and spent some of the time talking and scrolling through Netflix on Finney's phone. Neither Morgan nor Finney can recall the name of any of the movies they watched on Netflix. Morgan's mother was looking for Morgan and found out from Bethanie Woodson ("Woodson"), Morgan's friend, that her daughter was with Finney. Atkins took Woodson with her and drove to Finney's house looking for Morgan. While in the truck with Finney, Morgan's friend contacted her and let her know that her mother was looking for her. Morgan told Finney she needed to go home. Atkins also learned while at Finney's house that Morgan was on the way home, so she got back in her vehicle and returned home. Morgan told Finney to drop her off near the railroad track, which is not the same place he picked her up. He then dropped her off where she suggested near Avenue A, a neighborhood on the opposite side of the railroad tracks from where Morgan lived, and several blocks away from her home. After Finney dropped Morgan off in the early school day morning while it was dark outside, Morgan had to walk down the street, come through the neighborhood and then walk across the bushy railroad tracks to get to her residence. The foot path Morgan took was also unlit, grassy, and rocky near the train tracks. No streetlights were near the tracks.3/ When Morgan got home, her mother, sister, and Woodson were waiting for her. Morgan's mother was irate that Morgan had been with Finney and drove Morgan back to Finney's home to address his actions with her daughter. Finney lived with his parents. When Atkins knocked on the door, Finney's father came to the door and Atkins requested to see Finney. Atkins confronted him angrily and berated him for being a teacher, picking up Morgan, and taking her to his house at that hour of the night. Atkins also informed Finney's mother what occurred while she was at their house. Morgan and Finney have had no contact since the incident. Morgan's mother reported the incident to Glades Central. As a result, the principal assigned Finney to his residence by letter, with pay, starting April 13, 2015, pending the investigation or notification of a change in assignment in writing. On April 15, 2015, Finney was assigned to temporary duty at Transportation Services pending investigation. An investigation by the school police found no violation of a criminal law by Finney, and the case was referred to Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards, which is charged with conducting investigations into alleged violations of School Board policy. On or about May 11, 2015, the Office of Professional Standards opened an administrative investigation. Dianna Weinbaum ("Weinbaum"), now director of Office of Professional Standards and former human resources manager, was assigned to investigate the matter. Around the time the investigation was being conducted, Finney deactivated his Facebook page due to the mostly negative comments and statuses, as well as rumors surrounding the incident of him picking up Morgan and taking her to his house. Finney was able to finish the school year working back at Glades Central between investigations. Weinbaum performed a thorough and complete investigation regarding the allegations against Respondent. She interviewed all the witnesses and obtained statements, as well as visited the locations where Finney picked up and dropped off Morgan. On August 4, 2015, consistent with District policy, Respondent was removed from the classroom and reassigned from his teaching position back to a temporary duty location again. On October 8, 2015, a pre-determination meeting was held with the director of the Office of Professional Standards and Finney, who was represented by counsel regarding the interactions between Finney and Morgan. Finney was provided a copy of the investigative file. At the end of the investigation, it was determined that Finney's actions were both an inappropriate relationship with Morgan and posed a clear threat to Morgan's health, safety and welfare. Weinbaum recommended discipline for Finney consistent with discipline received by other employees based on the superintendent and School Board's position that employees who engage in inappropriate relationships with students and who endanger the health, welfare and safety of a child will be terminated. On November 19, 2015, Petitioner notified Finney of the superintendent's recommendation for termination of his employment at the School Board Meeting set for December 9, 2015. The School Board accepted the superintendent's recommendation and voted to suspend Finney for 15 days and thereafter terminate his employment. Finney timely requested a hearing to contest the superintendent's recommendation. Finney's disciplinary history does not include any discipline for actions similar to these for which suspension and termination are recommended. Petitioner charged Finney by Petition with soliciting an inappropriate relationship with a student that jeopardized her health, safety and welfare. The Petition charged Finney with the following violations: School Board Policies 0.01(2)(c),(2)(f) Commitment to the Student Principle 1; 3.02(4)(a)(b)(d)(e),(g); 3.02 5(a),(a)(iii),(a)(v),(a)(vii); Code of Ethics; 1.013(1) and (4), Responsibilities of School district Personnel and Staff; School Board Policies 1.013 and 3.27, Criteria for Suspension and Dismissal, and Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida; the Collective Bargaining Agreement Article II, Section M; and (C) Rule 6A-5.056 (2)(a),(b) and (4) F.A.C., Criteria for Suspension and Dismissal; 6A-10.081 (3)(a) and (3)(e), F.A.C.; 6A-10.080(1),(2) and (3) F.A.C. Code of Ethics for the Education Profession of Florida; and 6A-10.081(3)(a) and (3)(h) F.A.C. Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession. During the final hearing in this matter, Finney testified that his decision to drive Morgan to his house "was a lapse in judgment and it was just a bad decision that I made." At hearing, the testimony and exhibits established that Finney initiated contact with Morgan and solicited an inappropriate relationship with a student that jeopardized her health, safety and welfare.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Palm Beach County School Board, enter a final order: dismissing charges of violations of policies 0.01(2)6., 3.02(4)(a), (d), (e), and (g); 5(a), (a)(iii), (a)(v), and (a)(viii); 1.013(4); and rule 6A-10.081(3)(e) and (h); finding Respondent in violation of rules 6A-10.080(2) and (3), 6A-5.056(2), 6A-10.081(3)(a), policies 0.01(2)3., 1.013(1), 3.02(4)(b), and 3.02(5)(a)(vii), as charged; and upholding Respondent's suspension without pay and termination for just cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of January, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. MCKINNEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of January, 2017.
The Issue Whether Respondent's employment as a teacher by the Duval County School Board should be terminated for the reasons specified in the Notice of Termination of Employment Contract and Immediate Suspension without Pay dated March 27, 2013.
Findings Of Fact The Duval County School Board (School Board) is charged with the responsibility to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Duval County, Florida. Ms. Beverly L. Howard has been employed by the Duval County School Board as a classroom teacher for over 32 years. She went to Paxton Senior High School and then to Florida A & M University, graduating with a bachelor of science degree in elementary education. The School Board seeks to terminate Ms. Howard’s employment. Her substantial interests are affected by this intended action. Ms. Howard has a history of past misconduct and disciplinary action. While teaching at Hyde Grove Elementary School in 1992, Ms. Howard received three memoranda from Principal Theresa Stahlman concerning her interactions with parents and students and her teaching performance. Among other comments, Ms. Stahlman noted that Ms. Howard needed significant improvement to “show sensitivity to student needs by maintaining a positive school environment.” Ms. Stahlman testified that Ms. Howard exhibited a “very loud punitive behavior management style” and that she wanted to help Ms. Howard improve. A note at the end of one memorandum indicates that Ms. Howard had said that she did not need cadre assistance and that she would request assistance if she needed it. A note on another memorandum indicates that Ms. Howard refused to sign it. Ms. Howard testified at hearing that the things Ms. Stahlman wrote in the three memoranda were lies. Ms. Howard said that Ms. Stahlman was a racist and was prejudiced. Ms. Stahlman gave Ms. Howard an unsatisfactory evaluation. The next year, Ms. Howard got an option to go to another school. On March 8, 1995, a conference was held between Ms. Howard, a parent of one of her students, and Principal Debbie Sapp. The student had alleged that Ms. Howard had pushed her down. Principle Sapp noted in a memorandum that Ms. Howard “vehemently denied this, in an extremely rude and unprofessional manner” and said that she would never put her hands on a student. Principal Sapp advised Ms. Howard that being argumentative and defensive with parents was unacceptable and only made bad situations worse. On March 10, 1995, Principal Sapp was making morning classroom checks when she overheard Ms. Howard repeatedly yell at a student, “Get out of my classroom.” Ms. Howard’s final comment was “Get out before I throw you out.” Principal Sapp then entered the classroom and saw a student standing at her desk, about to leave. Ms. Howard said that the student had been misbehaving all morning. Principal Sapp told the students that she did not expect teachers to yell at them or threaten them and admonished them to behave. In a memorandum to Ms. Howard, Principal Sapp wrote that Ms. Howard needed to work on controlling her temper, noted that Ms. Howard’s classroom was frequently in disarray, and stated that yelling at students and threatening them was inappropriate behavior that only made things worse. Ms. Howard testified at hearing that when Ms. Sapp came down the hall and heard a teacher yelling, Ms. Sapp never came face-to-face with her, and that it could have been the voice of another teacher which Ms. Sapp heard. On May 27, 2003, the Office of Professional Standards investigated a complaint from a student’s parent that Ms. Howard had grabbed the student by the arm, choked him, and caused him to vomit. The student said that Ms. Howard dug her fingernails into his arm when he got up to retrieve a paper that another boy had taken from his desk. He said that her nails were hurting him, so he began hitting Ms. Howard. He then said that she put her hand around his throat and made him choke. He said he felt sick and threw up. Ms. Howard denied the accusation. She stated that the student was in a fight with a female student in her class and that she separated them. She said she asked the female student to sit down and attempted to gain control of the male student. Ms. Howard showed the investigator a scratch on her thumb that she said was made by the student. She stated that after she assisted the student to his desk he began gagging and attempting to vomit. She said that only saliva came up and she asked him to go to the bathroom to clean himself up. The investigation was closed as “unable to prove or disprove.” The Office of Professional Standards investigated allegations of unprofessional conduct against Ms. Howard on April 28, 2004. The mother of student T.J. had left a message with Ms. Howard to call her to talk about scratches on T.J.’s arm. Ms. Howard called the mother at her workplace, University of Florida Jacksonville Physicians. The mother asked Ms. Howard if she knew where the scratches came from, and Ms. Howard said they came from an incident in the library. The mother could then hear Ms. Howard asking T.J. and another girl in her class about what had happened. The other girl said that T.J. had done things to cause the incident. Ms. Howard immediately relayed to the mother that the incident had been T.J.’s fault. The mother became upset, realizing that Ms. Howard had not been present and yet was completely accepting the other girl’s version of what had happened. The mother then told Ms. Howard that this was not right and that she would go to see the principal. Ms. Howard told the mother that she could talk to whomever she wanted to, and then put the phone down as if intending to disconnect the call, but the mother could still hear what was going on in the classroom. Ms. Howard said, “Class, isn’t T.J. a nasty little girl?” The class responded, “Yes, ma’am.” The mother heard Ms. Howard say, “Class, don’t I send home paperwork?” The children responded, “Yes, ma’am.” The mother could hear T.J. trying to ask Ms. Howard a question, and Ms. Howard saying, “Go sit your behind down.” At this point the mother became angry that Ms. Howard was verbally abusing her child in front of the other children. She asked her “lead” at her workplace to continue to monitor the call. She immediately left, and drove directly to the school to talk to the principal, Ms. Blackshear. The investigator received statements from the mother’s lead and several co-workers which contained additional statements Ms. Howard made to the students. Ms. Howard said: [T.J.] get out of my face, you can go home and tell your mama all of those lies. Yeah, she is probably going to want to have a conference with Ms. Blackshear. Go ahead and get out of my face with your nasty disrespectful face. Ms. [T.J.] sit down, I have already told your mama that you will be retained in the second grade. You want to be all that, well I can be more. The investigator determined that the phone number shown on the workplace caller ID feature was the number of Ms. Howard’s cell phone. When interviewed by the Office of Professional Standards, Ms. Howard denied making the above comments regarding T.J. She stated that T.J. had been a problem all year and that the student’s mother “got an attitude” with her. Ms. Howard did admit she placed a “shelter kid,” who was a juvenile inmate, outside of her classroom without supervision “for a few minutes.” She stated that everyone in the school knew it was a bad class, but she was being blamed. Ms. Howard testified at hearing that the lead and co-workers of T.J.’s mother were lying when they made statements about her interactions with the students in her classroom. She said she put the phone in her purse, and the purse in her desk drawer, and that no one could have heard any conversations in the classroom. Student T.J. was then reassigned from Ms. Howard’s class. At hearing, T.J. testified that when she was in Ms. Howard’s third-grade class, she “got her card flipped to pink” on a daily basis (this color indicating the worst conduct). She admitted that she deserved this sometimes, but not all the time. She testified that she remembered that Ms. Howard used to pinch her arm when she was “in trouble.” T.J. remembered that Ms. Howard called her names, saying she was nasty, disrespectful, and in need of home training, in front of the other students. She testified that she had problems in Ms. Howard’s class because she needed to go to the bathroom frequently and Ms. Howard would only let her go once a day. She would sometimes wet her pants. She then would have to wait until she was allowed to go to the office to call her mother to get clean clothing. On May 17, 2004, the Duval County School Board administered discipline to Ms. Howard for her interactions with her class as reported by T.J.’s mother and her co-workers. She was issued a written reprimand, suspended for five days without pay, and required to attend an anger management session. Ms. Howard was informed that she had been given the opportunity of constructive discipline instead of a reduction of pay or dismissal to afford her progressive discipline, and that any further improper conduct on Ms. Howard’s part would subject her to more severe disciplinary action. The written reprimand set forth Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) in its entirety, with its requirement that she “make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student’s mental and/or physical health and/or safety.” Ms. Howard signed a Receipt and Acknowledgement that she received a copy of the reprimand. On September 6, 2012, shortly after the start of the 2012-2013 school year, Louis Sheffield Elementary School held an open-house night. Ms. Lindsey Connor, assistant principle at the school, credibly testified to Ms. Howard’s response to a parent’s assertion that Ms. Howard had refused to allow her son, T.S., to go to the bathroom and that he had wet his pants in her class. Ms. Howard said to the mother of T.S., “What seems to be the problem?” in a harsh tone. After some discussion, Ms. Howard said something to the effect of: “Your son is a liar. He lies. He doesn’t need to be in my classroom anymore.” Ms. Howard denied that she ever told the mother of T.S. that her child was a liar. She stated that that would have been unprofessional. Ms. Howard testified that Ms. Connor’s statement that this had happened was a lie and that Ms. Connor was always taking the parents’ side. Ms. Howard testified that she never prevented a child from going to the bathroom and that T.S. just wet himself. Ms. Conner received numerous complaints about Ms. Howard from parents of Ms. Howard’s kindergarten students. Ms. Connor received six requests from parents to remove their children from Ms. Howard’s class. Ms. Connor testified that this was an unusually high number of requests and that she was concerned. J.F. was a student in Ms. Howard’s kindergarten class who exhibited behavioral problems. She would do acrobatic flips in the classroom and would tie her shoelaces to the chairs. She appeared to be hyper-active and would fall out of her chair when she was at her seat. J.F. would go all around Ms. Howard’s classroom and did not listen to Ms. Howard. She would back-talk Ms. Howard and showed her no respect. J.F. was frightened of Ms. Howard and often cried. Ms. Howard testified that she wanted to get specialized treatment or placement for J.F. but that the parents would not agree. In response to a complaint from the parents of J.F., Ms. Connor asked Ms. Howard to prepare a chart on which stickers could be placed to document J.F.’s progress in school. Ms. Connor asked Ms. Howard to bring the chart to a meeting to discuss how to help J.F. advance. Ms. Howard did not bring anything to the meeting and said nothing about how she might be able to help J.F. The mother of W.B. testified that her son was in Ms. Howard’s kindergarten class and that he loved Ms. Howard as a teacher. On one occasion in Ms. Howard’s classroom, W.B.’s mother observed Ms. Howard pull J.F. by the arm over to her when J.F. had gotten into trouble. The mother stated that J.F. appeared scared and she would not have liked Ms. Howard to do that to her child. In response to a call from the parent of C.B., a student in Ms. Howard’s class, Ms. Connor suspected that Ms. Howard may have hit one or more of her kindergarten students with a book. In a discussion with the Professional Standards office, Ms. Connor was told that she should investigate, advise the teacher, and contact the Department of Children and Families. Ms. Conner conducted interviews with students assigned to Ms. Howard’s class in the presence of a witness and took notes as to what the students told her. She testified that she brought the students into her office individually, that they didn’t know beforehand what she was going to talk to them about, and that they had no opportunity to collaborate or coordinate their statements. After conducting interviews with the children, Ms. Connor advised Ms. Howard of an allegation that Ms. Howard struck J.F. on multiple occasions with a book. Ms. Howard responded that she would not provide a written statement because she had never hit a student. Ms. Connor notified the Department of Children and Families. The report and testimony of the child protective investigator indicated that J.F was open, happy, and smiling during the “non-threatening” portions of the interview, but the investigator testified that when asked about Ms. Howard’s class, J.F. became nervous, chewed on the ends of her clothes, began to fidget, and asked if Ms. Howard was going to know what J.F. was saying. The investigator interviewed several students in the class. The report indicated that J.F. was free of suspicious marks or bruises. When the investigator interviewed Ms. Howard, she denied ever hitting J.F. with a book or slamming her down in her seat when J.F. was misbehaving. Ms. Howard indicated that she was close to retirement and would not hit a child. Student J.F. testified at hearing that she did not like Ms. Howard as her kindergarten teacher because Ms. Howard “did not want to be nice to me.” She testified that Ms. Howard “hurt me.” She testified that Ms. Howard “hit me on the leg with a book.” She testified that Ms. Howard hit her with the book because Ms. Howard had told her to get down on the carpet. She held up five fingers when asked how many times Ms. Howard had hit her. During cross-examination, she testified that she had been hit five times in succession on a single occasion. On redirect, she testified that she had been hit on five separate days. Student K.D., aged six, testified that J.F. did bad things in Ms. Howard’s class. He testified that J.F. put her head in her shirt. He testified that the class would sit on the carpet every day for a little while. He testified that sometimes J.F. would stay on the carpet when she was supposed to go to her seat. He said that J.F. got spanked on her back by Ms. Howard with a book. He testified that Ms. Howard hit her on more than one day, and when asked how many days, said “sixteen.” He did not know how he knew it was 16 days. He later testified that Ms. Howard hit her “sixteen times every day.” The father of student J.C.M. testified that he transferred J.C.M. from a Montessori school to Louis Sheffield Elementary because his wife was going to have another baby and that school was closer to their home, which would mean a shorter drive for her. The first day that J.C.M. went to Ms. Howard’s class was February 11, 2013. The parents immediately began receiving “agenda notes” from Ms. Howard saying that J.C.M. was not behaving well. The father testified that J.C.M. did not want to go back to Ms. Howard’s class the next few days and would cry when they dropped him off. The father testified that since J.C.M. had never been a discipline problem and had done well at his prior school, he sent a note in after the second day to schedule a conference with Ms. Howard. The father testified that on the second or third day, J.C.M. came home complaining that his arm hurt, but when questioned as to what had happened, J.C.M. gave different stories. First he said a lady had grabbed his arm in the classroom. When asked “What lady?” J.C.M. said that it was a friend, another student. Later, he said that the injury had happened on the playground. Still later, he said that the injury was caused by his grandfather. The father was confused by these different answers. When the parents received no response to the request to meet with Ms. Howard, the parents went to the school and met with Ms. Connor, who advised them that Ms. Howard was no longer in the classroom, but she did not tell them why. Since J.C.M. now had a new teacher, his parents did not ask that he be moved to another class. Student J.C.M., aged six, testified that he had been moved into Louis Sheffield Elementary in the middle of the school year and only had Ms. Howard as his teacher for a few days. J.C.M. testified that on one of those days, “I was in the door and then I -- I didn’t kicked it. I didn’t kicked it, I touched it with my feet.” He testified that Ms. Howard grabbed him and put him by her desk or table and that his “arm hurted for a little bit –- a little bit long.” He testified that he saw Ms. Howard hit J.F. on the head with a book because she was not writing when she was supposed to be writing. He testified that on a later day Ms. Howard also hit him on the head with a book when he was on the rug, but he forgot if he was supposed to be on the rug or not. Ms. Howard testified at hearing that she never put her hands on any of the students. She did not know why the children would say that she had, except that they had been coerced to say it. She testified that she had been under a doctor’s care and that she had had back surgery and that her medical condition affected her ability to lift or throw items. She testified she could not bend over or lift heavy objects because it probably would have torn her sutures. She testified that she had been under a doctor’s care since January 30 and that it took her until February 14, the day she was reassigned, to recover. She testified that not only was it not in her character to hit a child, she was physically incapable of doing so at the time. The testimony of Ms. Connor that the kindergarten children had no opportunity to coordinate their statements and that they did not even know in advance why she wanted to talk to them is credited. Ms. Connor’s notes as to what each child told her supplement and corroborate the testimony of the children later at hearing. Although the direct testimony as to Ms. Howard’s actions all came from these young children, they were capable of observing and recollecting what happened in their kindergarten class and capable of relating those facts at hearing. Their responses to questions at hearing showed that the children had a moral sense of the obligation to tell the truth. There was no objection from Respondent as to the children’s competency, and they were competent to testify. These young children’s accounts of events were sufficiently credible and corroborative to prove that Respondent struck J.F. with a book on multiple occasions. There was credible testimony that J.F. was struck on her legs with a book when she would not get down on the carpet as she was supposed to, was struck on her back with a book when she would not get up off of the carpet as she was supposed to, and was struck on the head with a book when she would not write as she was supposed to. These physical contacts took place in front of other students. While the exact number of times she was struck was not clear, the testimony that it was deliberately done and was constantly repeated is credited. Ms. Sonita Young is the chief human resource officer of Duval County Schools. She reviewed Ms. Howard’s personnel file in making her recommendation to the Superintendent that Ms. Howard be suspended without pay pending termination. Ms. Howard’s employment record, including both performance issues and disciplinary issues, was considered in determining the appropriate recommendation to be made to the Superintendent and ultimately to the Board. A Notice of Termination of Employment Contract and Immediate Suspension without Pay from her position as a kindergarten teacher at Louis Sheffield Elementary was presented to Ms. Howard on March 27, 2013. The Notice alleged that Respondent had violated certain provisions of the Code of Ethics, contained in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.080, and a Principle of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, contained in rule 6A-10.081. Ms. Howard challenged the grounds for her termination and sought a hearing before an administrative law judge with the Division of Administrative Hearings. The rules cited above were adopted by the State Board of Education and relate to the public schools or the public school system. Rule 6A-10.081 was renumbered, but is substantively identical to the rule cited to Ms. Howard earlier in her May 17, 2004, Written Reprimand. Ms. Howard was well aware of her responsibility to protect students from conditions harmful to learning or to students’ mental or physical health or safety, because she had previously been disciplined for failing to do so. Ms. Howard’s actions in striking J.F. with a book failed to protect her students from conditions harmful to their mental and physical health and safety in violation of rule 6A- 10.081. Ms. Howard’s constantly repeated actions in striking J.F. constitute persistent violation of the rule and are cause to terminate her employment as a teacher. Ms. Howard’s deliberate actions in striking J.F. constitute willful refusal to obey the rule and are cause to terminate her employment as a teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED That the Duval County School Board enter a final order terminating the employment of Beverly L. Howard. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of October, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of October, 2013.
