Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Steven T. George, began teaching in the Bay County school system in the fall of 1977. He was employed as a physical education teacher and as a coach. The Respondent has had an exemplary record as an instructional employee of the Bay County School Board until he encountered personal problems during the 1988-89 school year. During the 1988-89 school year, he was employed as a physical education teacher and assistant football coach at Mosley High School. During that school year, his supervisor, Assistant Principal Sarah Cooper, observed his performance deteriorate unexpectedly and in a way which was out of character from his previous level of performance and demeanor. She found occasions when he was not properly supervising his class and when he had not done lesson plans, as required by the school administration. Ms. Cooper had to assist the Respondent in developing a semester examination, however, he ultimately used an examination given to him by another teacher. Thereafter, he administered the examination but did not complete the grading of it and failed to complete his grade book, which responsibility was ultimately performed by Ms. Cooper. Additionally, during the 1988-89 school year, the Respondent was observed to become increasingly isolated from other members of the faculty. His behavior became characterized by unpredictability, excessive arrogance, argumentativeness, anger and verbal aggression, which was entirely different from the personality traits which he had exhibited and which his co-workers and supervisors had observed since he had been with the school system. Indeed, female teachers in the physical education department were reluctant to be alone in the workroom with him because of the advent of these objectionable personality traits. The Respondent, during this period of time, was undergoing a divorce, or the aftermath of one, which involved a very emotional custody dispute with his former wife concerning custody of their daughter. During the 1988-89 school year, he was observed to repeatedly burden his co-workers and school administrators with the details of his personal problems and to exhibit uncharacteristic and rather severe emotional outbursts of both anger and grief. After being counseled by his supervisors concerning what they believed to be rather bizarre behavior, when measured against his prior performance and demeanor in other school years, the Respondent ultimately voluntarily admitted himself to Charter Woods, a psychiatric treatment and evaluation facility. The Respondent spent approximately 5-1/2 months in that facility, underwent treatment in response to his supervisor's advice to "get some help", and returned to Mosley High School to complete the 1988-89 school year. For the remainder of that school year, the Respondent satisfactorily assumed and carried out all of his responsibilities and performed his work as a teacher in good fashion. His temperament and demeanor had returned to that of the friendly and caring teacher and co-worker which he had formerly been before his personal problems developed. His supervisor, Ms. Cooper, gave him a satisfactory annual evaluation at the conclusion of the 1988-89 school year. The Respondent's emotional difficulties and related performance difficulties as a teacher reappeared in the 1989-90 school year. During the pre-planning phase of his teaching and coaching duties for the 1989-90 school year, in August of 1989, the Respondent was observed to be very disruptive, argumentative, and, indeed, hostile to a visiting speaker at a seminar for instructional personnel. He was observed to repeatedly interrupt the speaker with arrogant, argumentative questions and comments, during the course of which behavior he was observed to be pacing back and forth at the rear of the room where the seminar was conducted while all other attendees at the seminar were seated and listening to the speaker. This arrogant, argumentative behavior was so apparent and so inappropriate for the seminar-type setting in which it occurred that his supervisor felt it necessary to apologize to the speaker at the lunch break on that day. Additionally, during this pre-planning phase of the school year, which is before the children arrive for the school year, the Respondent was observed to have difficulties in his dealings and relationships with other coaches arising out of his increasingly arrogant, argumentative attitude and behavior. Because of this and, inferentially, because his supervisors were aware of his emotional difficulties with which they had had experience the previous school year, the decision was made to relieve him as assistant football coach at Mosley High School. A meeting was held with the Respondent, Mr. Tucker, the Principal, and Mr. Cochran, the head coach, to explain that action to the Respondent and to explain to him that he would still continue as a physical education instructor. In the course of that meeting, the Respondent became very emotional, hostile, and argumentative. He exhibited frequent angry outbursts to the extent that he would not allow Mr. Tucker or Mr. Cochran to adequately explain the basis of the personnel action directed at him. The Respondent ultimately, angrily departed from the meeting before it was completed. On that same day, he left Mosley High School without administrative permission and went to Cherry Street Elementary School on some mission related to his daughter, who was a student at that school. She had been the subject of a bitter custody dispute between the Respondent and his former wife. He is accused of interfering with the operation of Cherry Street Elementary School on that occasion, although the record does not reflect what his conduct was at Cherry Street Elementary School that day. The 1989-90 school year then commenced at Mosley High School with the arrival of the students. The Respondent assumed his regular duties as a physical education instructor. He was observed, early in that school year, on a number of occasions, to fail to control behavior of students in his gym class and to fail to be in his gym class at appropriate times which amounted to inadequate supervision of his students on those occasions. His planning for his classes was observed to become sporadic, with repeated occasions when he failed to have lesson plans prepared. Also, in the fall of the 1989-90 school year, he was observed to forget his keys to the physical education area on a number of occasions. He would, on repeated occasions, forget, from one period in a school day to the next, what he was to teach that following period. He would have to be reminded by his colleagues. He would also forget to call his students in adequate time at the end of the physical education period for them to dress for their next classes. He had to be reminded by his colleagues to do this. He would also repeatedly forget when he had extra duty, such as "door duty" and locker room assignments. His general level of cooperativeness with his colleagues declined markedly. His behavior became harsh and rude to his colleagues and to students. He was observed to be very harsh and rude to a new student coming into his physical education class and spoke loudly, in an abrasive manner to the student in front of the class, embarrassing that student. These problems occurred repetitively and in rapid succession during the first month of the school year in September of 1989. Because of the nature of the problems, the past history of the Respondent's emotional instability whereby he had lost his ability to be a caring, productive, well-performing teacher (which had been his unblemished record of behavior and performance for all the years he taught prior to the 1988-89 school year), Mr. Tucker, the Principal, felt that he had to act quickly to prevent an even worse situation occurring in the 1989-90 school year when he observed that the Respondent's emotional instability of the year before was recurring. Consequently, Mr. Tucker requested that the superintendent, Mr. Simonson, meet with the Respondent in an effort to resolve his difficulties in the matter of his perceived emotional instability and resulting declining performance. Accordingly, a meeting was held with the Respondent, Mr. Simonson, and Mr. Tucker on September 30th. At the meeting, the Respondent was confronted with the fact of his displayed emotional instability and related declining teaching performance, at which point he became very belligerent and hostile. He was, alternatively, on the verge of tears and shouting in anger. Because of the above-stated reasons for the meeting and because of the emotional instability which was so apparently displayed by the Respondent during the meeting, Mr. Simonson gave the Respondent three days of sick leave to allow him to remain at home and get some professional attention to try to regain his emotional stability before returning to the classroom. The Respondent's problems persisted, however. Although the precise date is uncertain, at approximately this time, the Respondent announced that he was going to seek election as Superintendent of the Bay County school system in opposition to Mr. Simonson. The Respondent testified himself that he elected to run for this office while he was still a teacher at Mosley High School in part, at least, to save his job because he believed that the Bay County school administration and particularly, Mr. Simonson, would be reluctant to discharge him while he was a political candidate in opposition to Mr. Simonson because of the bad impression that might make on the electorate. Shortly after he made this announcement, again on an undetermined date in the fall of 1989, the Respondent was involuntarily hospitalized pursuant to the "Baker Act", Section 394.467, Florida Statutes. Apparently, the Respondent's family members had him committed although the precise reasons are not of record. The Respondent expressed the belief at hearing that his family members had him committed because of his announcement to run for Superintendent, although that is not established to be the case. The Respondent, at the time he was committed, believed that he did not suffer from a mental condition justifying his commitment pursuant to the Baker Act. The Respondent has since come to understand that he suffered from a manic-depressive condition, also known as a "bi-polar disorder". As a result of this eventuality, Mr. Simonson determined that the Respondent should not be teaching in the school system during such a period of emotional instability. In order to be fair to the Respondent, he did not want to actually suspend him from his duties. Accordingly, Mr. Simonson elected to place the Respondent in the status known as "overused sick leave", which means that the Respondent, although he had used up all of his annual and sick leave, could still be carried on the personnel records as an employee in terms of retaining his retirement and insurance benefits, although he was not paid for the time he was absent from his duties as a result of this decision and as a result of his emotional condition. Accordingly, the Respondent was, in this fashion, removed from his instructional duties and from his job site in the fall of 1989, after his involuntary commitment, pursuant to the Baker Act. Thereafter, in the fall of 1989, the Respondent obtained treatment at the "Life Management Center" in Bay County under the care of Dr. Nellis. Dr. Nellis diagnosed the Respondent as suffering from manic-depression and prescribed Lithium to treat his manic condition. The Respondent responded well to treatment, such that Dr. Nellis, late in the fall of 1989, opined that he was fit to return to work as a teacher. The Respondent apparently accepted the fact of his illness, continued taking his medication after being released by Dr. Nellis, and was returned to his duties with the Bay County school system at Rosenwald Middle School in late January or early February of 1990. Once again, he returned to his "old self", in terms of his adequate performance as a teacher, his emotional stability, good relationships with colleagues and students, and his prior demeanor as a genuinely caring teacher. His performance for the remainder of 1990 through the end of classes in June was good. He worked for the remainder of that school year as a physical education instructor, which is the field in which he is certified as a teacher. The Respondent had also been seen by Dr. Zumarraga beginning in November of 1989, who also found him to be manic-depressive, and who informed Mr. Simonson, by letter presented to Mr. Simonson by the Respondent, that the Respondent was taking medication for his illness and had exhibited acceptable behavior. As a result of those assurances by the Respondent's psychiatrist, Mr. Simonson had allowed the Respondent to return to work at Rosenwald Middle School in approximately early February of 1990. Apparently, sometime in late spring or early summer of 1990, the Respondent had doubts that he was still suffering from his condition and consulted another physician for an additional opinion. Apparently, he quit taking his medication sometime during the summer of 1990 as a result of that consultation. In late August of 1990, the Respondent returned to Rosenwald Middle School as a physical education instructor. Ms. Love, who had been Assistant Principal at the school, had moved up to the position of Principal. In the spring of 1990, the Respondent had been quiet and cooperative, had gotten along well with colleagues and students, and had performed his duties well, after undergoing treatment and being placed on a program of medication for his manic- depressive disorder. In the fall, however, he was immediately observed by Ms. Love and others of his colleagues and supervisors to have reverted to the arrogant, abrasive and extremely assertive attitudes and behavior, which he had exhibited in the fall of 1989, prior to securing treatment. Before these attitudes and behavior had manifested themselves, however, and immediately upon the start of the 1990-91 school year, given his long and worthwhile experience in the physical education field in the county system, Ms. Love asked the Respondent if he would work on a plan for a "middle school olympics" athletic event. The Respondent agreed to do this and immediately began setting about the formulation of a plan whereby all of the middle schools in the county would participate in the olympics athletic event on a given day at Tommy Oliver Stadium. He arrived at a plan to accomplish this and drafted it in memorandum form. Instead of sharing it with Ms. Love, however, he transmitted it directly to the Superintendent, Mr. Simonson. This was a departure from appropriate procedures for the planning of such events because the Respondent did not transmit his plan to Ms. Love for her initial approval before its being communicated to supervisory personnel at the county district level. The Respondent became somewhat obsessed with the idea of planning and conducting the olympics event, devoting an inordinate amount of time and energy to it. In early September, the Respondent brought a student to the office for disciplinary reasons asserting that he had caught the student stealing or "going through the lockers". Upon questioning of the Respondent by Ms. Love, it was learned that he did not find the child in the locker room or dressing room actually invading lockers, but found him in the locker room area where he was not supposed to be. He accused the child of stealing or attempting to steal when he had not actually observed him do this. The Respondent was criticized in this action for not having actually observed the child stealing and yet accusing him of it and for having brought prior behavior of the child up in his disciplining of the child, which Ms. Love felt to be inappropriate. In fact, the Respondent had some justification for suspecting this particular child of wrongful conduct or illegal activity because of past disciplinary violations committed by the child of a similar nature. At approximately the same period of time, in early September, the Respondent was observed to have grabbed a child by the arm in the act of admonishing the child for some alleged miscreant behavior and stating that "I am going to break your little arm". Ms. Love counseled the Respondent about these two instances and gave him an "improvement notice" on September 7, 1990 concerning them. An improvement notice is a disciplinary memorandum or report to a teacher such as the Respondent by which the Principal admonishes a teacher for inappropriate behavior and directs steps for improvement of the situation which led to that criticized behavior. On September 14, 1990, Ms. Love had another formal conference with the Respondent, since she had seen his arrogant, abrasive, overly-assertive behavior with colleagues and students continuing. She discussed with him his inappropriate behavior towards students and faculty and the matter of the Respondent's disciplinary referral of a student to the guidance counselor. He had referred a student to the guidance counselor for discipline and had been overbearing and abusive to the guidance counselor in his communication with her concerning the disciplinary referral. Ms. Love counseled him about the basic procedures involved in referring students for discipline, which specifically do not involve the guidance counselor. Rather, disciplinary referrals should appropriately go to the administration of the school, as delineated in the teacher's handbook, which the Respondent had previously been provided. Additionally, Ms. Love felt that the Respondent had exhibited a pattern of not turning in required documents in a timely manner; therefore, she gave him an improvement notice for these matters dated September 28, 1990. In fact, however, it was not established by the Petitioner that the Respondent had been untimely in turning in any required documents, reports, and the like, other than one report which had been due on a Friday, when he was absent due to illness and which he promptly turned in on the following Monday. During the fall of 1990, the Respondent was observed to frequently share details of his custody dispute and problems concerning his child and problems with his wife or former wife through notes, letters and conversations with other members of the staff in an inappropriate manner. He appeared to be emotionally preoccupied with these personal problems while on duty. On the third day of school in the fall of 1990, Mr. Simonson located his office temporarily at Rosenwald Middle School. He had done the same thing at other schools in the county that were having disruptions caused by on-going construction during the fall. Rosenwald Middle School at this time was undergoing construction work, including work on its air-conditioning system, such that many of the students and teachers did not have the benefit of air- conditioning. Mr. Simonson, therefore, elected to spend a day or so at Rosenwald Middle School on a sort of "Bob Graham Work Day". Ms. Love announced that fact over the public address system during the morning announcements on that day. The Respondent came to Ms. Love's office a short time later carrying the school's daily bulletin in his hand. He seemed hostile and agitated, leaned over her desk and shook the bulletin in her face, stating to her that he wanted her to sign on the bulletin her name and the statement she had made about the reason the Superintendent was at the school on that day. He further stated to her, in effect, that he was "fixing to be fired" and that he wanted Ms. Love to admit and put in writing on the face of the morning school bulletin the real reason, as he felt it, why the Superintendent was at the school that day. Ms. Love refused to do this and considered this behavior to be bizarre and threatening, given that the Respondent obviously felt that the Superintendent had been on campus that day to "spy on him". During late September of 1990, the school embarked, at the behest of Ms. Love and other administrators and teachers, on a "school spirit week" contest. The contest involved decorating the doors of the classrooms by the students, using as themes for the decorations certain words which denoted various aspects of "school spirit". The doors were to be decorated during "trust class time". "Trust classes" are classes which meet for approximately fifteen minutes or so at the outset of the school day, somewhat analogous to what is commonly known as "homeroom classes". The students were allowed to decorate the doors during their trust class time. Ms. Love accused the Respondent of keeping students overtime in their trust class, which required them to miss part of their next class and be tardy to that class in order to decorate his room door. In fact, she gave him an "improvement notice" in the nature of a reprimand for this on September 28, 1990. It was not proven, however, that the Respondent had actually kept students late at his behest for this purpose. In fact, his testimony is that he required no students to stay in his trust class working on door decorations after the time for the trust class to be over and instructed them to obtain permission from their other teachers should they elect to stay overtime to decorate the doors. The Hearing Officer having weighed the testimony, candor and credibility of the witnesses on this issue, including the ability of the witnesses to have knowledge of the facts concerning the time and methods employed to accomplish the door decoration effort, this violation of school procedures was not proven. The door decoration contest was judged on September 28, 1990 and the Respondent's class did not win. The Respondent became very agitated and angry at this result to the point of requesting and obtaining a meeting with Ms. Love concerning it. His temper and emotions were out of control on this occasion. He behaved in a loud, abrasive, and angry manner, even to the point of alternately crying, shaking, and shouting. He accused Ms. Love of penalizing his children by denigrating their efforts in the door decoration contest in order to hurt him, claiming that her actions really were a personal vendetta against him in the course of which the children were victimized. In the midst of his emotional outburst concerning this matter, he refused to listen to any explanation which Ms. Love attempted to give him but repeatedly interrupted her efforts to explain how the contest was judged and its rules. He even attempted to call a newspaper concerning the incident. He was inordinately obsessed with the conduct of the contest and with the result. As this incident with Ms. Love was progressing, Corporal Lassiter, the school Resource Officer, observed and heard part of it. In his view, having observed the behavior of the Respondent on this occasion and being aware of the Respondent's past history, Mr. Lassiter considered the possibility of initiating an involuntary Baker Act hospitalization at that moment, because of the Respondent's behavior. During the course of this confrontation with Ms. Love, Mr. Lassiter or others persuaded the Respondent to step across the hall to a different office to calm down. After he went into the other office with Mr. Lassiter and another administrator, Mr. Barnes, the Respondent's behavior continued to be somewhat bizarre. His demeanor toward Mr. Lassiter and Mr. Barnes alternated from being very angry and upset with them to calling them, and acting toward them, as though they were good friends. At one point, he told Mr. Lassiter that when he got elected Superintendent, all would hear about this incident in the newspaper and the reasons for it all "would become very clear". He stated then that Mr. Lassiter and Mr. Barnes would have good employment positions with him when he became Superintendent. Alternatively, before making these statements and also after making these statements, he became angry and hostile to both men, saying, in essence, that they were "all against me", becoming accusatory toward them and asserting, in essence, that Mr. Lassiter, Mr. Barnes, Ms. Love, and others in the administration were seeking to do him harm. Partly at the instance of Mr. Lassiter, the Respondent finally calmed down sufficiently to accede to Mr. Lassiter's recommendation that he call a substitute to take over his classes for the remainder of the day. A substitute was called and Mr. Lassiter then escorted the Respondent to his truck in order to see that he was removed safely from the campus without further incident with colleagues or students. As the Respondent was getting into his truck, preparing to leave the campus, he told Mr. Lassiter to "tell Ms. Love that she can kiss my ass". Teachers are required to be at Rosenwald Middle School by 7:30 a.m. The first bell rings at 7:37 a.m., and the "trust class" begins at 7:45 a.m. On approximately six occasions during September of 1990, Ms. Love had to sit in on the Respondent's trust class because he was late arriving at his class. She gave him an improvement notice concerning this deficiency on September 28, 1990. Additionally, on two separate occasions, Mr. Lassiter handled the Respondent's trust classes when he was late. The next school day after the incident concerning the door decoration contest on September 28, 1990 was October 1, 1990, a Monday. The Respondent was approximately 20 minutes late to school that day. Ms. Love, being concerned about the ramifications of the behavior she had witnessed in the Respondent the preceding Friday, met with the Respondent when he arrived at school for purposes of determining his state of mind and to talk to him about his tardiness. She found him still agitated, although not as much as he had been on Friday, the 28th. He continued to accept no responsibility for those actions and for his tardiness. He denied even being late, and as a result, Ms. Love assigned the school Resource Officer, Corporal Lassiter, to accompany the Respondent whenever he had students with him for the remainder of the day. It should be pointed out, however, that on most of the occasions when the Respondent was tardy to his first class during September of 1990, it was because he did not have a key to fit his office and would have to look for another co-worker to let him in. He was given a key at the outset of the school year which did not fit. Consequently, he disposed of it, ordering another key, the provision of which to him was delayed for unknown reasons. Later that same day, the Respondent brought between 20 and 30 students to the office for being tardy to class. The procedure for handling tardies at Rosenwald Middle School is that if a child is tardy, a teacher counsels with the child at first. The parents are contacted, the child is assigned to "team detention", and a student misconduct form is forwarded to the appropriate administrator upon tardies becoming repetitive. It is unusual to bring a student to the Principal's office for tardiness. The Respondent explained when they arrived at the Principal's office that all of the students were late to class and that Ms. Love should do something about it. This was a departure from normal procedures in dealing with tardy students. It should also be pointed out, however, that the school administration had recently issued a memorandum admonishing teachers that they should deal more severely with tardy students. When this entire group of students proved to be tardy on the day in question, the Respondent volunteered, with the agreement of the other physical education teachers/coaches, to escort the students to the Principal's office for disciplinary reasons concerning their tardiness. The other teachers involved agreed. On that same occasion, on October 1, 1990, when the Respondent had the group of students waiting outside the Principal's office, he apparently had some sort of confrontation with a student named Malackai. Apparently, the student was arguing with him and denying being tardy, which was the reason he was brought to the office. The Respondent offered to wrestle the student after school and "tear him limb from limb". This action caused Mr. Lassiter to step between the Respondent and the student and to send the student to Ms. Love's office to prevent any further such confrontation. Although the student was large for his age, these actions by the Respondent intimidated the student. On that same day, the Respondent was giving a lesson in softball on the softball field. He was being observed by Mr. Lassiter at the time at the behest of Ms. Love, who was concerned about his emotional stability. During this lesson, the Respondent, for unknown reasons, began rather randomly talking about accidents, lions, the dangers of eating red meat, and some sort of discussion of suicide. When he observed a student not paying attention to him, he hit the student on the head with a clipboard. He then continued his rambling discussion. A few minutes later, the same child asked when they would be allowed to play softball; and the Respondent hit him with the clipboard again. The student got tears in his eyes and was intimidated by the Respondent's conduct. When Mr. Lassiter observed that the Respondent might be about to commit the same act for a third time, he stepped between the student and the Respondent in order to prevent this from happening again. Physical education teachers are required to supervise students by direct observation in their locker room where they dress out for physical education classes and then dress in their regular clothes again at the end of classes. This is necessary in order to prevent fights and horseplay in the locker room, which can be dangerous. On October 1, 1990, during the Respondent's period to supervise the boys' locker room, he attempted to telephone Mr. Tucker, the Principal at Mosley High School. While he was on the telephone, he left the locker room class unsupervised and was unable to observe and supervise the locker room from the location of the telephone in the coach's office. On October 2, 1990, the Respondent again left his physical education class unsupervised while he was talking on the telephone for some 15-20 minutes. During the month that the Respondent had worked with Mr. Kent in the physical education department, Mr. Kent felt that although the Respondent generally had handled his duties well, he had spent an excessive amount of time on the telephone, rather than being in his assigned area. October 2, 1990 was the Respondent's last day of employment with the Petitioner. He was suspended with pay and shortly thereafter, the School Board met and accepted the Superintendent's recommendation to suspend the Respondent without pay based upon the conduct described in the above Findings of Fact occurring in August and September of 1990. The Board took the positions that this conduct amounted to gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, and misconduct in office. In the Amended Administrative Complaint, on which this matter proceeded to hearing, which was filed on July 30, 1991, the factual allegations of the Complaint assert that the suspension action was taken based upon "alleged gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, and misconduct in office"; however, the Amended Complaint actually charges that the factual allegations set forth in the Amended Complaint violate Section 231.36, Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-4.009(3), Florida Administrative Code, concerning misconduct in office allegedly so serious as to impair the Respondent's effectiveness in the school system and charges incapacity (as a subset of incompetency) alleging violations of Rules 6B-1.001, 6B-1.006, and 6B-4.009, Florida Administrative Code. Thereafter, after the suspension occurred, the Respondent was involuntarily hospitalized pursuant to the Baker Act on the day following an apparent arrest for DUI, fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer, and having a concealed firearm. The Respondent was convicted of none of these charges but, rather, pled nolo contendere to a reduced charge of reckless driving and to a misdemeanor weapons charge. Adjudication of guilt was withheld. In fact, the weapon which the Respondent had in his car was believed by him to be legally possessed since it was merely the 22 pistol with which he used blanks for training his bird dogs. The pistol happened to be on the floorboard of his car when he was arrested by the officer. The Respondent spent a short period of time at Bay Medical Center, pursuant to involuntary Baker Act commitment on this occasion. Also, in 1990, at an undetermined time in the fall, he voluntarily admitted himself to the Rivendell Psychiatric Center for approximately 2-1/2 weeks in order to receive additional evaluation because he was unsure whether he was actually manic-depressive or not. Thereafter, while still suspended from his employment, in May of 1991, the Respondent apparently had an argument with his parents at their home in Bonifay and then left their home to return to his own home in the vicinity of Panama City in Bay County, Florida. Rumors apparently were communicated to law enforcement officials to the effect that the Respondent had threatened to kill his parents and had left their home with a high-powered rifle and was journeying to Panama City to his own home. Apparently, as a result of such reports, after the Respondent was at his own home, to his surprise, law enforcement vehicles and numerous law enforcement personnel, especially the Bay County Sheriff Department Swat Team, arrived in his yard, and, by megaphone, demanded his surrender. A television news crew was present at the scene and filmed the incident, which may have received billing as an "armed confrontation" between the swat team and the Respondent. In fact, this is untrue. When the Respondent observed the law enforcement officers arriving on his premises in a number of vehicles, he telephoned his attorney to inform him of the situation and then went to the door in response to the directive that he come outside. When he went to the door to ascertain why the law enforcement officers were at his residence, he was armed with a fork and a hamburger. He was charged with no crime in connection with this incident, although, apparently, he was involuntarily committed under the Baker Act once again for a brief period of time. The incident was disseminated to the public on the electronic media. However, no armed confrontation was proven to have occurred, nor was there any proof that the Respondent ever threatened to kill his parents. Although Mr. Simonson testified that there would be a great public outcry if he reinstated the Respondent because of this incident and the other incidents, there was no showing by the Petitioner that the incidents occurring at Rosenwald Middle School leading to the Respondent's suspension nor the incidents involving the alleged high-speed chase were ever communicated to the public generally or to parents of students of the Bay County school system or the students themselves. It was not shown by the Petitioner that the Superintendent or other officials of the Petitioner received any complaints from parents or members of the general public concerning the Respondent, his behavior, or his teaching performance. The incidents involving the alleged high-speed chase and the swat team confrontation, delineated in the above Findings of Fact, did not occur while the Respondent was on school premises nor while he was engaged in his duties as a teacher or coach. With regard to either incident, he was not shown to have committed any crime or conduct which can constitute misconduct in office. Both incidents occurred in the Respondent's private life, away from his employment and away from the School Board premises. The only conduct shown to have been disseminated in the public media involved the Respondent being taken into custody at his home by the Sheriff's swat team because the television news crew was there filming the incident. He was charged with no crime on that occasion and was shown to have committed no form of reprehensible conduct. He was merely involuntarily committed shortly thereafter, pursuant to the Baker Act. None of that can constitute misconduct in office, much less misconduct in office which in any way abrogates his effectiveness as a teacher in the school system involved. The Respondent has been taking Lithium and Prozac for his manic- depressive condition since 1989. He is presently under the treatment of Dr. David Smith, a licensed psychologist; and Dr. Ben Pimentel, a licensed psychiatrist, at a facility known as the "Life Management Center", as an outpatient. Both of these professionals opined that if the Respondent continues to take his medication, the symptoms of mania and depression will remain in remission, as they are at the present time. Indeed, in the past, since he first began taking medication for his condition in 1989 after being diagnosed as manic-depressive, at those times when the Respondent was taking his medication, his behavior and his teaching performance was up to the good and satisfactory standard which he had consistently exhibited from 1977 through the 1987-88 school year. It is only on those occasions when he has ceased taking his medication, in the apparent belief that his problem was not a chronic one, that he has exhibited the emotional instability, such as that displayed at Rosenwald Middle School in August and September of 1990, which is the subject of this proceeding. Indeed, both Drs. Smith and Pimentel, the only experts testifying in this proceeding, who testified for the Respondent, established that if the Respondent continues to take his medication, his symptoms of mania and depression will remain in remission and he will be competent to teach in terms of both his emotional stability and his ability to perform his duties as a teacher. Although Dr. Smith acknowledged that the rudeness exhibited by the Respondent on the occasions at issue in this case and his behavior involving striking a student and offering to wrestle a student might be behavior unrelated to the bi-polar disorder, the totality of the evidence supports the finding that, in the Respondent's case, given the many years of his teaching experience when he was a calm, caring, competently-performing instructional employee with behavior not characterized by such outbursts and aggressiveness, such conduct is, indeed, directly related to the present, active nature of his disorder on those occasions. On those occasions, he was not taking his medication. Dr. Pimentel believes that the Respondent needs to continue his medication. If he does continue his medication, he will be competent to continue teaching or to once again teach because his symptoms will remain in remission. Dr. Pimentel believes that the Respondent may need the motivation of a court order or employment directive or condition to insure that he continues his medication because if he obtains a medical opinion that he is no longer sick, he may not take the medication and stop the treatment. Additionally, Dr. Pimentel finds that the Respondent will require monthly counselling sessions and monitoring of his medication level to make sure it remains at a therapeutic level. Under those conditions, however, he would be capable of resuming his teaching duties. The Respondent, in his testimony, expressed the wish to obtain another medical opinion to make sure, in his view, that he is still manic- depressive, although he accepts the diagnosis that he is manic-depressive and is willing to continue his medication and to submit to monthly monitoring of his medication and monthly treatment by his presently-treating professionals.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Steven T. George, be suspended for a period of two years, but that the suspension be abated and the Respondent immediately reinstated to his duties as an instructional employee of the Bay County school district, with all of the rights of a tenured teacher, under the following circumstances which should remain in effect for a probationary period of two (2) years: His psychiatrist shall file monthly with the School Board a detailed report of his attendance at counselling sessions and the result of his monthly blood tests to ascertain if his medication remains at therapeutic levels. He is required to maintain the therapeutic levels of Lithium and Prozac or such medication as his physician and psychiatrist deem medically appropriate. If he fails to attend counselling sessions or to maintain therapeutic blood levels of his appropriate medication for any two (2) consecutive months, then this should be determined to be, at law, willful neglect of duty, subjecting him to dismissal as a teacher with the Bay County school district subject to the Respondent's right to contest such an employment action, pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, in this forum. There should be no award of back pay in light of the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. There should be no award of attorney's fees in light of the above Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law , and the opinion in Werthman v. School Board of Seminole County, Florida, 17 FLWD 1245 (Fla. 5th DCA, opinion filed May 15, 1992; Case Number 91-1831). The cases cited by the Respondent seem to accord the Respondent a hearing opportunity on the issue, with award of fees being discretionary. The Werthman decision appears contra in termination proceedings, however. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 1st day of June, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-23. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not entirely supported by the record evidence. Accepted. Accepted, except that it was not proven that he had "gone through Ms. Love's mailbox". Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not entirely supported by preponderant evidence. 28-29. Accepted. Rejected, as not supported by preponderant, competent evidence. Rejected, as not supported by preponderant, competent evidence. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not entirely supported by preponderant evidence. 33-35. Accepted. 36. Accepted, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 37-39. Accepted. 40. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 41-47. Accepted. 48. Rejected, as not, in its entirety, being in accordance with the preponderant, competent evidence of record. 49-56. Accepted, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 57-61. Accepted. 62. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-13. Accepted. 14. Rejected, as not supported by preponderant evidence. 15-22. Accepted. 23. Rejected, as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence. 24-30. Accepted. 31-36. Accepted. 37. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence. 38-41. Accepted. 42-48. Accepted. 49-51. Accepted. 52. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 53-54. Accepted. Rejected, as not in accordance with the evidence of record. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not being entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 61-63. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 64-72. Accepted. Rejected, as not in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. Rejected, as not in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. (Second No. 74). Accepted. 75-78. Accepted. 79. Rejected in the sense that it was proven by the Petitioner that at the time he was suspended, the Respondent was incompetent to teach due to incapacity related to his emotional instability. 80-85. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack W. Simonson, Superintendent P.O. Drawer 820 Panama City, FL 32402 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Franklin R. Harrison, Esq. HARRISON, SALE, ET AL. 304 Magnolia Avenue P.O. Drawer 1579 Panama City, FL 32401 David Brooks Kundin, Esq. DOBSON & KUNDIN, P.A. 210 South Monroe Street P.O. Box 430 Tallahassee, FL 32302
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a ninth grade student at North Dade Junior High School. She was born August 22, 1968. Respondent's behavior during the 1983-84 school year has been unsatisfactory and she is no longer responsive to the supervision of school officials. She was counseled or suspended on three occasions for excessive talking in class. She rejected an assignment to a special assistance classroom (C.S.I.) and refused to serve one suspension. She has cut classes and left school without permission on several occasions. A school-parent conference held December 7, 1983, produced no improvement in Respondent's disruptive behavior.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order assigning Rose Marie Farrell to its opportunity school. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of June, 1984, at Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER 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 19th day of June, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Valentine, Esquire 3000 Executive Plaza 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Mrs. Mary Farrell 2970 Northwest 153 Terrace Opa Locka, Florida 33054 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issue is whether the Education Practices Commission should impose a penalty or sanctions against Respondent’s teaching certificate pursuant to Sections 1012.795 and 1012.796, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006, based upon the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator’s Certificate No. 602255, which encompasses Elementary Education and English to Speakers of Other Languages, which is valid through June 30, 2003. After beginning her teaching career working in its Reading Lab, Respondent began teaching a fourth-grade class at Ft. Pierce Elementary School. After a year in that position, she taught for approximately nine years at Bayshore Elementary School, also teaching fourth grade, then transferred to St. Lucie Elementary School, where she also taught a fourth-grade class her first year. St. Lucie Elementary School was a new school, which had opened in August, 1996. Respondent taught third grade during the 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 school years at St. Lucie Elementary School after being reassigned from her fourth-grade class. Dr. Jane Hartman is, and was, at all material times, principal of the school. Among her many duties, Dr. Hartman evaluates the instructional staff and attempts to be in the various classrooms frequently. Dr. Hartman provides feedback and support to her teachers in a variety of ways, including staff development days, written suggestions to teachers, and grade chair meetings. Teachers at St. Lucie Elementary School are given a copy of the school handbook, which is discussed at the beginning of each year. In the event Dr. Hartman receives a parent complaint, she first contacts the staff member to discuss the issues. Thereafter, Dr. Hartman arranges a face-to-face conference with the parent, administration, and the teacher, to ensure that everyone is “comfortable that the relationship has mended” so they can “move forward.” During Respondent’s first year at St. Lucie Elementary School, 1997-1998, Dr. Hartman received some complaints from parents concerning Respondent’s dealings with the parents of her students and with various classroom management issues. Dr. Hartman engaged in informal counseling with Respondent concerning these complaints, and observed some changes on Respondent’s part, although not enough. Dr. Hartman and other members of her administration frequently sent notes to Respondent concerning recommendations and criticisms about her classroom performance. Dr. Hartman reassigned Respondent to a third-grade class at the end of her first year teaching at St. Lucie Elementary School, believing that Respondent would have more success with a smaller number of students who, being younger, might be easier to teach. The average age of a fourth-grade student is nine years old. During her career as an educator, Dr. Hartman has both taught fourth graders and had the opportunity to observe fourth graders in the classroom. Fourth graders are normally at that age where they love their teacher; are able to read and write; are creative; and are ready to learn about their world. Dr. Hartman believed Respondent’s class to be an average class of students, a “sweet class in that they not only cared what was said to them personally,” but also, “what was said to their friend, what was said to someone who wasn’t as strong academically.” Respondent referred to many of the students in the class as having behavior problems. Ms. Drew, a music teacher at St. Lucie Elementary School, taught many of Respondent’s students the year they were in her class. Ms. Drew found these students not to be “bad,” but to be “children who had some bad experiences.” Ms. Drew “felt bad” for many of the students who were in Respondent’s class and agreed to teach a fifth-grade class the next year to help many of Respondent’s former fourth graders. Petitioner’s witnesses at hearing consisted primarily of students from Respondent’s fourth-grade class and their parents. The students complained that Respondent had belittled them in her class and made their fourth-grade year a miserable experience. The former students related comments having been made that they were “slow,” “stupid,” “babies,” “stupid idiots,” and that Respondent was “smarter and had more education than all your parents put together.” The students testified that Respondent yelled at them, “was mean,” told them to “shut up,” embarrassed them in front of the other students, and threatened to tape record them so that their parents could hear how much they misbehaved in class. One student was embarrassed in front of the class when Respondent insisted she call her mother on a speakerphone to address why she had not returned her paperwork and money for a candy sale. Another student reported to his mother that Respondent, an African-American herself, told him he was “acting like a stupid nigger.” Many of the students testified that, while they had previously enjoyed school, after being in Respondent’s class, their self-esteem had been shattered by Respondent’s behavior in class. St. Lucie Elementary School followed “Loving Discipline A to Z,” a guide for teachers to follow regarding discipline. Respondent failed to follow these guidelines. Respondent would punish the entire class for the actions of a few students by making them write sentences that, in some cases, were grammatically incorrect. Respondent would also punish the entire class for the actions of a few students by not allowing them to have recess or go to music or art classes outside the regular classroom. Respondent, for another form of punishment, would not choose “Lynx Leaders,” an award given to students who performed well. Respondent enforced inconsistent policies concerning use of the restroom. Although she testified that students could use the restroom whenever they needed as long as it was vacant, at times she refused to allow students to use the restroom, resulting in at least one student wetting his pants in class on more than one occasion and being ridiculed by other students in the class. The allegations by the students against Respondent were made at the time the students were in her class, both verbally to their parents and in writing to their parents and school officials, as well as in testimony at hearing, six years after they had been in Respondent’s fourth-grade class. Respondent’s disciplinary measures were too harsh for fourth graders. Assistant Principal Linda Applebee testified that Respondent had problems following directions. Respondent failed to participate in a bus evacuation drill in February of 1998, and failed to perform a required book check at the end of a nine-weeks' period, which resulted in the school not billing parents for missing books and therefore having to pay for books that were not returned. Dr. Hartman testified that “chaos” reigned in Respondent’s classroom, and that there had never been a teacher, either before or after Respondent, who had such difficulty maintaining classroom management. Dr. Hartman suggested that Respondent observe other classrooms where her students experienced physical education, art, or music, and did not experience the same disciplinary problems. Respondent never took Dr. Hartman’s suggestion. Respondent admitted to some chaos in her classroom when she described one day when a student was simulating a sex act on the floor while another one scribbled on her desk with a marker. Respondent blamed these problems on “poor parenting skills” rather than on her inability to control the classroom. Respondent had a policy of calling a student’s parents when a student refused to follow a warning to behave, but she failed to follow her own procedure. Dr. Hartman believed that Respondent did not follow school procedures and had difficulties with classroom management. Dr. Hartman repeatedly gave Respondent advice and support, but Respondent failed to change her behavior. For example, Dr. Hartman met with Respondent on September 7, 1998, to discuss the resources available at the school for dealing with classroom management. Dr. Hartman informed Respondent that 1) Level I infractions should be handled by the individual staff member involved, rather than immediately calling the front office, which Respondent often did; 2) Discussions about a student should not be held in front of the student or the class; 3) Students should be given supplies needed to participate in class; 4) Students need to be told what to do; 5) Students should be praised for doing what is expected; 6) Students should not be placed in the planning room for time out; and 7) Respondent should point out only positive behaviors of the students. Dr. Hartman explained that violations of these items as set forth in her letter dated September 7, 1998, would have a negative effect on her competence to perform as a teacher. Respondent refused to attend monthly faculty meetings on a regular basis. Further, when she did attend, Respondent often had to be called and reminded to attend, then arrived late and refused to sit with her team members, sometimes even typing at a computer during the meeting. Faculty meetings are important because they help the administration achieve its goals of having a school act with consistency and a common vision and purpose. Respondent sometimes failed to cooperate with parents and the administration in the scheduling and conducting of parent-teacher conferences. At least one family had to involve both Dr. Hartman and the School Board in order to hold a meeting with Respondent. Often, the meetings proceeded badly with Respondent taking little or no responsibility for the issues expressed by the parents. In January of 1998, an incident occurred involving Respondent at a basketball game in St. Lucie County between Lincoln Park Academy and its cross-town rival. Respondent’s daughter, along with one of her friends, was arrested at the game because they refused to listen to law enforcement officers who attempted to remove them from a confrontation with other students who had congregated outside the over-filled gym where the game was taking place. When Respondent arrived at the rowdy scene outside the basketball game, she began to argue with the two law enforcement officers who were arresting Respondent’s daughter and her friend. Respondent used racial epithets directed at the two officers and engaged in disorderly conduct. She called Officer Terry Miller, an African-American, an “Uncle Tom” which he took to mean an African-American person who takes the side of white people rather than people of his own color. She called Lieutenant David Trimm, who is white, a “cracker,” a racial slur used to describe a white person who is prejudiced against African-Americans. In addition to the racial epithets, Respondent attempted to incite the crowd by yelling about the Ku Klux Klan getting away with whatever they want, and that no arrests would have been made had the crowd been predominately white rather than African-American. Based upon Respondent’s actions, both Officer Miller and Lieutenant Trimm feared for their safety. Both officers had dealt with arrests of minors in the past and with their parents who become upset when they see their sons or daughters in handcuffs, but Respondent’s behavior was “totally different” from what they had experienced in the past. Officer Miller “was shocked” at Respondent’s behavior, especially in light of the fact that she was a teacher, and Lieutenant Trimm would have arrested her had he known at the time she was a teacher. Respondent’s behavior at the basketball game was unprofessional and so racially charged that a riot could have resulted from her actions. Dr. Hartman did not reprimand Respondent at the time of the incidents giving rise to this hearing because she believed Respondent could actually improve and change her behavior. After Respondent failed to take Dr. Hartman’s and Ms. Applebee’s advice, Dr. Hartman decided to change Respondent’s position so that she taught third-grade students, in hopes that “a little bit younger would soften her a bit.” Dr. Hartman’s reassignment of Respondent to a third- grade class for the following school year necessitated that her classroom be moved. Some of Respondent’s classroom items had been moved at the beginning of the 1999-2000 school year, and Respondent attempted to take compensatory leave at the start of the year, but failed to follow the proper procedures which included seeking prior permission from Dr. Hartman. Dr. Hartman called Respondent into her office to discuss Respondent’s failure to follow school policies concerning attendance and attitude at faculty meetings and unauthorized use of compensatory time. Respondent did not respond to Dr. Hartman’s questions, but handed her a letter of resignation, accompanied by an anonymous letter criticizing her teaching abilities that had been left in Respondent’s school mail slot. Respondent claims to have written the resignation letter the night before in response to the anonymous letter that she considered to be “harassment.” The substance of the letter, purportedly from a “very concerned parent,” was that Respondent “will always be remembered as a miserable, nasty, uncaring, cruel teacher that does not deserve to teach anyone, especially children.” Respondent further claims that she wrote the letter of resignation in an attempt to be transferred from St. Lucie Elementary to another school. Respondent is aware that, in order to be considered for a transfer to another school, she must first interview with that school and be offered a position. No other school had offered Respondent a position at the time she handed her resignation letter to Dr. Hartman. Therefore, Dr. Hartman could not have considered her request for a transfer. Initially, Dr. Hartman only read the first part of the resignation letter since, once she realized she was going to be without a teacher on the first day of school, she acted quickly to inform her assistant, Ms. Applebee, so that she could immediately seek a substitute to start the next morning. Once Ms. Applebee read the letter, she perceived it to be a threat to the safety of the students and faculty of St. Lucie Elementary School. Dr. Hartman did not read the entire letter until 6:00 p.m., on August 19, 1999, the first day of school because she was busy with all of the special challenges the first day of school presents every year. Once she read the letter, however, Dr. Hartman had “extreme concerns” about the following paragraph: After considering my remaining options, I decided to depart from this position because of YOU and the lack of professionalism displayed on your behalf. I have been subjective [sic] to an extraordinary amount of harassment every [sic] since I’ve been under your supervision. This included lack of administrative support, extreme and undue stress, your trifling and vindictive ways, and last but not least, your prejudice and racist attitude toward students, minorities, and me. These are conditions in [sic] which no one should be subjective [sic] in the workplace. In fact, it seems to almost define going postal. (Emphasis added) Dr. Hartman believed the “going postal” language meant that Respondent might come in and shoot people. Assistant Principal Applebee was concerned for their safety, after she read the letter. Ms. Jane Grinstead, Executive Director of School Operations for Zone 2, St. Lucie County School District, thought the letter constituted a threat. Even Respondent admitted that her husband warned her that “somebody might take your letter offensively,” yet she still gave it to Dr. Hartman. The letter came to Dr. Hartman at a time that was close to the shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado. Dr. Hartman was trained to be on alert for the type of traits that might be exhibited by a person who would do violence at a school. Those traits include antisocial behavior and failure to follow procedures, two traits exhibited by Respondent during her tenure at St. Lucie Elementary School. Further concern arose because this was a time when some United States Postal workers had assaulted, shot and killed their supervisors and some innocent bystanders. As a result of her concerns, Dr. Hartman contacted Ms. Grinstead who put her in touch with Dave Morris, head of security for the St. Lucie County School District. Mr. Morris arranged for a school resource officer to follow Dr. Hartman around the next school day, August 20, 1999. At the end of the day, Assistant School Superintendent, Russell Anderson, spoke with Respondent and informed her that if she wanted to resign, she must leave the school premises, and the resignation would be accepted at the next School Board meeting. During the meeting with Respondent, Mr. Anderson discussed her claims of harassment with her and offered her the chance to file a formal complaint for harassment against Dr. Hartman. Also, Respondent’s union representative, Ms. Clara Cook, informed her that she could file a formal complaint, yet Respondent declined to do so. Based upon his safety concerns, Mr. Anderson asked the school resource officer, Mr. McGee, to escort Respondent off campus. He then drafted a Notice of Temporary Duty Assignment which informed Respondent that she is “further prohibited from being on any school district property.” Respondent requested to rescind her resignation on August 23, 1999. On August 24, 1999, Respondent’s letter of resignation was rescinded and she was suspended without pay by the St. Lucie County School District. On October 6, 1999, Respondent was suspended without pay and notified that the St. Lucie County School District would recommend that she be terminated at the next School Board meeting based on her violation of School Board policies. After a hearing, Respondent was terminated by the St. Lucie County School District as a result of the contents of the resignation letter. As a result of the incidents culminating in her dismissal, Respondent’s effectiveness as a teacher has been called seriously into question. Dr. Hartman explained that an effective teacher is one who “cares about children, cares about their learning, knows how to communicate, [is] open to learning themselves at all times, [is] very caring, compassionate, willing to work with others, realizing the accountability and responsibility that we hold each day, celebrating. You have to be very intelligent because you’re constantly thinking on your feet, planning and preparing and organizing.” Assistant Principal Applebee believes that Respondent did not like the children she taught because she noticed Respondent was not always nice to them; she complained about them; and the children believed they had no one in the classroom who cared about them. Ms. Grinstead, a school district administrator with 35 years of experience, believes that an effective teacher is one who is 1) sensitive; 2) caring toward children; 3) communicates well with peers; 4) communicates well with parents and students; and 5) can give suggestions on ways the parents and the school can work together for the children. Other teachers at St. Lucie Elementary School “rallied to assist” Respondent’s class. Ms. Drew decided to teach fifth grade so she could teach the same students who had been in Respondent’s fourth-grade class. Dr. Hartman would not reemploy Respondent. Assistant Superintendent Anderson would not recommend Respondent for re-employment in the St. Lucie County School District based on the seriousness of the charges. Assistant Principal Applebee would never re-employ Respondent because she did not believe Respondent to be an effective teacher. Officer Miller believes that Respondent should not be reemployed as a teacher by the St. Lucie County School District. Each of Respondent’s former students and their parents does not believe that Respondent should be employed as a teacher anywhere. Respondent takes no responsibility for any of the allegations made against her. She believes that she did nothing wrong, but that the problems complained of by the administrative staff, law enforcement personnel, her former students, and their parents are the result of either discrimination, harassment, or manipulative children and their parents who refuse to take responsibility for their children’s behavior. Despite all the complaints lodged against Respondent by her former students and their parents, her former principal, assistant principal, school district administrators, and law enforcement officers, Respondent received satisfactory evaluations from Dr. Hartman for the period in question in this case. Respondent currently works for the Head Start program, caring for three- and four-year-old children. Before the Administrative Complaint was filed in this case, a substantially similar Administrative Complaint (the same except for the statutory citations which were renumbered by the Florida Legislature) was filed and scheduled for hearing before DOAH. The case proceeded to hearing and the prior Administrative Law Judge opened the record. Petitioner then attempted to amend the Administrative Complaint to correct statutory citations that had been renumbered by the Legislature. Respondent objected to Petitioner’s ore tenus motion to amend. When the Administrative Law Judge announced that he would not rule on the motion to amend at the hearing, Petitioner announced that it was voluntarily dismissing the Administrative Complaint without prejudice and would thereafter file a new complaint with the revised statute numbers. Respondent asserted at that time that she believed Petitioner’s voluntary dismissal would be dispositive of the claims and allegations in it; that she did not agree to a voluntary dismissal; and that she was prepared to proceed. Nonetheless, Petitioner voluntarily dismissed the Administrative Complaint, and DOAH entered an Order Closing File.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent’s teaching certificate be revoked for a period of 10 years, with reinstatement subject to the provisions of Subsection 1012.795(4)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of June, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of June, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Kelly B. Holbrook, Esquire Broad and Cassel 100 North Tampa Street, Suite 3500 Post Office Box 3310 Tampa, Florida 33602-3310 Mark F. Kelly, Esquire Kelly & McKee, P.A. 1718 East 7th Avenue, Suite 301 Tampa, Florida 33605 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 1244 Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Ms. Ann E. MacPherson, is on continuing contract with the Monroe County School District, and has been a teacher for that District for 19 years. She started first as a physical education teacher in elementary school for one year, and next taught physical education for six or seven years in middle school. Subsequently she started having health problems, and on doctor's advice, switched to teaching something other than physical education. She switched to science. She had had no formal education to teach science, except for courses in her physical education degree. However, she is now certified in Science and Physical Education. For the past two years, the Petitioner has taught General Science and Health at Key West High School. In October 1981, Ms. MacPherson injured her foot on sharp glass. She was then a diabetic, and the injury failed to heal properly. Over the next several years, she had surgery nine times in one foot and seven times in the other foot. Her injuries caused her to require lengthy hospitalization and recuperation periods away from the class room. In the school year 1981-82, she was absent 60.5 days, in the year 1982-83, she was absent 74 days and in the year 1983-84 the Petitioner was absent 48 days. The school year is 180 days. During some of her periods of recovery, Ms. MacPherson was able to work in the classroom, but was not able to walk around the classroom due to her foot injuries. On the days that the Petitioner was absent from her classroom, she continued to supervise the work of the teacher substitute from her home. She continued to prepare the lesson plans, correct notebooks, make up the tests, grade tests, and help the substitute teacher through continuing contact. She asked for a substitute teacher by name to help with continuity of instruction. Ms. MacPherson taught Intermediate Science Curriculum Study (ISCS) initially in the middle school for six or seven years, and then at Key West High School since at least 1980, except for one year when she taught Health. The ISCS program placed special emphasis upon individualized learning. Students were expected to select science areas for investigation or experiment from a list prepared by the teacher, and then to progress at their own rate to conduct the investigation or experiment. Continuity of instruction by the same teacher was especially important for the ISCS course. Other teachers who taught the ISCS program were required to take a summer training course, but the Petitioner was not. The Petitioner received some informal training from Ms. Betty Cox, the school district curriculum coordinator. During the time that the Petitioner taught science at the middle school (Horace O'Bryant), she organized and used field trips as an instructional technique. She was unique among other teachers in this respect in the emphasis that she placed upon field trips, and the fact that she used her own car for transportation and paid expenses from her own pocket. Also while she was at Horace O'Bryant Middle School, the Petitioner applied for and obtained several small grants from the Department of Education for teaching environmental education. An administrator of these grants testified that only about one-half of those who apply are successful, and that the Petitioner's projects were very good. By the 1979-1980 school year, the Petitioner had transferred to Key West High School. Almost all of her students, if not all, were not headed for college. Typically these students were probably going to take jobs fishing, as clerks, or waitresses, after leaving high school, and were of average or less than average academic ability. Homer B. Herrick, Jr., was Chairman of the Department of Science at Key West High School for the school years 1979-80 to 1983-84, and in that capacity, was supervisor of the Petitioner. During the first two years, Mr. Herrick observed no significant problems with Petitioner's teaching. Mr. Herrick observed Petitioner in the classroom during these two years. He had routine lesson plan problems with the Petitioner, of a type that all teachers had, and found that the Petitioner was willing to implement his suggestions, and did so. In the school year 1979-80, the Petitioner received a performance evaluation, Petitioner's Exhibit 6. The evaluation was very good. Ms. MacPherson was praised for her extraordinary efforts to enhance her science program by use of field trips and slide/sound track presentations. The annual evaluation stated that she was a "dedicated instructor, who goes all out for her students." She was commended for "many extra hours" she spent to enhance her program, and the evaluation concluded that she "works well with other members of her department." Ms. MacPherson was criticized in two areas: coordination of field trips, and greater use of the guidance staff to control classroom discipline. These, however, were minor observations, as the evaluation concluded that "overall discipline is very good." The evaluation was signed by the Principal of Key West High School, Clarence Phillips, and was prepared by the Assistant Principal, Thomas Roberts. Mr. Roberts could not remember if his evaluation was based upon his own observations, or the combined observations of himself, Department of Science Chairman Herrick, and a Mr. Gallagher. During the school year 1980-81 Principal Phillips assigned Assistant Principal Roberts, Department of Science Chairman Herrick, and District Curriculum Coordinator Betty Towns Cox to conduct a series of classroom observations of the Petitioner to evaluate her teacher skills. The date is established by Petitioner's Exhibit 3, a letter from Alvin Burney, President, United Teachers of Monroe, to the Petitioner dated February 24, 1981. The date of February 1981 as the date of the first intensive observations was corroborated, apparently, by Ms. Cox's log of visits, which indicated she spent 14 hours in that month in the classroom observing the Petitioner with Mr. Roberts and Mr. Herrick. Transcript, p. 75. (The log is not in evidence.) Ms. Cox, however, placed primary emphasis in her testimony upon observations she made in the 1982-83 and 1983-84 school years. The Petitioner placed the observation period in the 1981-82 school year, Mr. Roberts could not remember if it was in the 1980-81 or 1981-82 school year, and Mr. Herrick placed the date of the observations in the 1981-82 school year. The written evidence of the date is better evidence than the conflicting memories of the witnesses. Department Chairman Herrick was one of those requested to conduct these observations. The observations were almost daily, and went on for about two weeks. To Mr. Herrick, discipline in the classroom was the primary problem. The observers were looking for a teaching deficiency as a potential cause of the discipline problem, but Mr. Herrick did not recall any problem with Ms. MacPherson's delivery of instruction. Mr. Herrick testified that after these observations, extensive plans were formulated for improvement, and these plans were discussed with the Petitioner. In the following months, there seemed to be less problem with discipline, and it was his opinion that the Petitioner had incorporated and implemented their suggestions. Assistant Principal Thomas Roberts also observed Ms. MacPherson during this period of intensive observations in the 1980-81 school year. Tee agreed with Mr. Herrick that the primary problem causing the observations was discipline in Petitioner's classroom. Mr. Roberts observed the Petitioner 5 to 8 times over a period of about a month. Each of the observations were for a continuous 2 to 3 hour time each day. He became "extremely concerned" about the lack of discipline maintained by the Petitioner in some of her classes. In the area of teaching, Assistant Principal Roberts was "pleased that she was making a strong effort in terms of not only the field trips and the slide series, but, you know, she was interested in any information that was given her by Mr. Herrick or Mrs. Cox in terms of her planning process, the things teachers need to do. And more importantly, her interaction with children, you know, she was concerned about that." Transcript, p. 135. Assistant Principal Roberts, however, felt that he was not competent to give an opinion as to Petitioner's competence in instruction, that Mr. Herrick and Ms. Cox were assigned at that time to evaluate that area, and that he himself focused primarily on the discipline issue. He concluded that the Petitioner at that time (1980-81) needed more training in classroom discipline skills. One of the causes of disciplinary problems that year was one student who caused many problems in one of the Petitioner's classes. The Petitioner had had the older brother of this student, and both were significant disciplinary problems. Mr. Roberts agreed that the Petitioner had more serious problems in one class in particular. Transcript, pp. 133-34. The Petitioner testified that the administration failed to help her discipline this one student. Transcript, pp. 164-65. However, it is clear from the testimony of Mr. Herrick and Mr. Roberts above that the Petitioner in general had problems disciplining her classes, and the problem was not confined to one student. In late 1980 and early 1981, Alvin Burney was President of the United Teachers of Monroe, and in that capacity he was contacted by Ms. MacPherson with regard to the evaluation process that had been instituted by Principal Phillips. Mr. Burney met with Principal Phillips, and Petitioner's Exhibit 3, a letter from Mr. Burney to Ms. MacPherson, summarizes what Mr. Burney says he heard from Mr. Phillips at that meeting. In the letter to Ms. MacPherson, Mr. Burney listed items which he said he would submit to Principal Phillips as suggestions for resolving these problems. The suggestions in the letter were apparently not implemented by Principal Phillips, except that the suggestion that fewer observations be conducted was implemented. At about the same time, Mr. Burney talked with the Superintendent, and the Superintendent told him that he had a list of teachers that were not, in his opinion, performing to his standards, and that he wanted to look at ways these teachers could be improved or be terminated. The Petitioner was one of these teachers. The Respondent objected to this testimony as hearsay, and lack of foundation: time, who said it, and so forth. The record contains an adequate foundation. Transcript, p. 114. The testimony is the testimony of an agent of the Respondent, and admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. Section 90.803(18)(d), Fla. Stat. (1984). When the Petitioner testified, she misplaced the period of intensive observations as having occurred in the 1981-82 school year. As discussed above, other more credible evidence establishes the period as February 1981 in the 1980-81 school year. The Petitioner did not mention the problem of discipline in the classroom as a cause for the observations, but emphasized instead what she characterized as a misunderstanding at the beginning of the year as to what was expected of her in teaching the ISCS program that year. She said that at the beginning of the year, there was not enough money to buy equipment for physics, chemistry, and her ISCS course, and that with the knowledge and approval of Mr. Herrick and Ms. Cox, the Petitioner planned to present only one ISCS unit at the beginning of the year, to present more general science instruction, and then to present two ISCS units at the end of the year. But midway through the year, Mr. Phillips called her in and criticized her for not teaching the ISCS units, and started the observations by Herrick, Roberts, and Cox. The Petitioner said that apparently Mr. Phillips had not been told of the plans approved earlier by Cox and Herrick. Ms. MacPherson's position at the hearing was the same as that which she expressed in June 1981 as a response to her 1980-81 evaluation, and is credible. See paragraph A.1., attachment to Petitioner's Exhibit 5. At the end of the school year 1980-81 (May 20, 1981) Petitioner received her annual teacher evaluation, Petitioner's Exhibit 5. The evaluation was signed by Principal Phillips. The evaluation rated the Petitioner acceptable in only 3 categories. In the following categories the Petitioner was rated needs improvement:" preparation and planning, techniques of instruction, teacher-student and parents, and personal qualities. The Petitioner was evaluated as "unacceptable" in classroom management. However, Principal Phillips did not personally observe the Petitioner in the classroom that year, transcript, p. 217, and there is no other testimony in the record to support the conclusions of this annual evaluation, except classroom management, which was improved. Indeed, the testimony of Mr. Herrick and Mr. Roberts lead the Hearing Officer to conclude that Ms. MacPherson responded to the assistance and evaluations that occurred on an intensive basis, and made suitable and adequate improvements. Based upon all of the foregoing, it is the finding of the Hearing Officer that the Petitioner ultimately performed her job adequately for the 1980-81 school year, but that she had had significant disciplinary problems during the school year, which she was able to improve by the end of the year. At the beginning of the next school year (1981-82) following the year in which intensive observations had been conducted, the Petitioner made a special effort to request the assistance of Department Chairman Herrick to develop her lesson plans. The Petitioner wanted to avoid the problems she had had the previous year. In October of 1981, as discussed above, Ms. MacPherson injured her foot, and her serious medical problems began. She was absent 60.5 days during the 1981-82 school year. During the times she was able to attend class that year, her infected feet were open and draining, and standing aggravated her condition. At some time during that school year, Principal Phillips suggested that Ms. MacPherson take a medical retirement. Ms. MacPherson again contacted Mr. Burney, and Mr. Burney, on her behalf, wrote a letter dated February 22, 1982, to Mr. Phillips. It was Mr. Burney's position at that time that in his conversations with Mr. Phillips the year before, Mr. Phillips had agreed to "make arrangements during pre-planning of this school term to outline detailed expectations" for the Petitioner, and this was not done. The letter further stated, on behalf of the Petitioner, that it was the Petitioner's contention that since no more observations had been scheduled, the deficiencies complained of in the previous year had been corrected. At the end of the 1981-82 school year, the Petitioner again received her annual evaluation signed by Mr. Phillips. Mr. Phillips did not personally observe the Petitioner, and the record does not contain any other competent evidence, either pro or con, concerning Ms. MacPherson's performance that year. Neither Mr. Herrick or Mr. Phillips testified specifically about her performance that year, and Ms. Cox's testimony cannot be adequately dated as pertaining to that year. The 1981-82 annual evaluation rated the Petitioner "acceptable" in the following area in which she had been rated "needs improvement" the year before: preparation and planning, professional responsibility, and relationship with staff and parents. Her grating in classroom management, which had been unacceptable in 1980-81, was rated acceptable. Ms. MacPherson was rated "needs improvement" in techniques of instruction and teacher-student relationship, which was the same rating in these categories as the prior year, and was rated unacceptable in personal qualities. Mr. Phillips commented in the evaluation that "although she says she wants to teach, I feel that her physical health is of an extremely serious nature and the suggestion of medical retirement should be reinvestigated." Respondent's Exhibit 1. The Petitioner attached a general rebuttal to the evaluation, simply disagreeing with critical ratings therein. It is the finding of the Hearing Officer from the foregoing that the Petitioner performed her duties adequately during the 1981-82 school year, except that her injuries caused her to miss a substantial number of classroom days, and her performance was impaired by her injuries. During the 1982-83 school year, as discussed above, Ms. MacPherson continued to have serious health problems with her feet. She was absent from school 74 days. In November 1982, she wrote to her Principal to try to schedule surgery and arrange for a permanent substitute so that the substitute, who she suggested by name in her letter, would provide some continuity of instruction for the students in the ISCS program. In preparation for this lengthy absence, Ms. MacPherson set up all the teaching units and day by day lesson plans for her substitute to follow, and prepared instructions for finding the equipment, how to use it, and how to monitor student use. She went over these plans with the substitutes assigned to her. But her hospitalization continued for longer than planned, and during this period she continued to make lesson plans at the hospital, to correct all the tests, correct notebooks, average grades, have frequent discussions of teaching with the substitute, and do the work she could do in the hospital or at hone. All of this work she did without pay because she was then on leave with pay, having exhausted her sick leave. During both the 1982-83 and 1983-84 school years, Ms. Cox, the school district curriculum coordinator, at the request of Principal Phillips, worked with the Petitioner on her lesson plans on a number of occasions. Ms. Cox also observed the Petitioner's performance in the classroom. Ms. Cox estimated that her observation periods lasted from as short as ten minutes to as long as a full hour, and that during the 1982-83 school year, she visited Petitioner's classroom about six times per month. Petitioner's counsel attempted to impeach Ms. Cox's testimony by cross-examination from logs prepared by Ms. Cox which recorded classroom visits she had made. The resulting record does not impeach the evidence provided by Ms. Cox. Much of the transcript simply consists of counsel's characterization of the logs, not testimony of a witness, and the logs were not offered into evidence. Further, it appears that the logs covered the period from 1980 to June 25, 1982, which is a period largely irrelevant to Ms. Cox's period of observations. Transcript, pp. 77, 76-77. Ms. MacPherson testified that the only times she remembered being observed by Ms. Cox was in 1976 and "when Mr. Phillips asked her to on that extensive evaluation." Transcript, p. 161. Ms. MacPherson placed the period of intensive observations, at the request of Principal Phillips, as the school year 1981-82. Transcript, pp. 173-75. At other times, the Petitioner testified that Ms. Cox did not stay in the classroom to observe her, but only beckoned her to come to the door, or visited in some other way so as to not disrupt the class. With respect to lesson plans, Ms. Cox's testimony did not disparage the Petitioner. Ms. Cox testified that she worked on lesson plans with the Petitioner, and that the end result contained some of her suggestions and some of the Petitioner's. Transcript, p. 42. The Hearing Officer concludes from this testimony that the Petitioner functioned adequately in collaboration with Ms. Cox on lesson plans, and had a good attitude in the process. Ms. Cox criticized the Petitioner in the classroom for failing to be "up and moving around, acting as a facilitator . . ." and testified that as a result, she observed a number of students not doing science. Transcript, p. 43. From this Ms. Cox stated her opinion that since the State now requires 72 hours of laboratory cork in science class, that "it would be very, very difficulty for a teacher as inactive as Ms. MacPherson to do seventy-two hours of lab work." Transcript, p. 45-46. In the same vein, she testified that the Petitioner would need a "tremendous" amount of training to be effective in the new science program. Transcript, p. 57. On cross-examination, Ms. Cox was asked specifically to state the factual predicated for her opinion. In addition to the question of moving about the room, Ms. Cox mentioned "facilitating" and "delivery of instructions." Transcript, p. 59. Ms. Cox defined "facilitating" to mean moving around the classroom, observing and instructing, so that concept was simply a short-hand way of combining the concept of motion, observation band delivery. Transcript, p. 59. Ms. Cox's criticism concerning delivery of instruction was that she said that the Petitioner delivered instructions only once, and that repetition was needed. Transcript, pp. 59-60. But when asked whether she had had enough day to day observation of the Petitioner to say "for a fact that her delivery was one shot," Ms. Cox admitted "no, I did not observe that frequently, but we talked about it." Transcript, p. 60. When asked to say whether she talked about it frequently, Ms. Cox testified: "I don't know if I said several occasions, or that we talked about it." Id. Thus, Ms. Cox did not have a sufficient basis upon which to concluded that Ms. MacPherson had any problems with delivery of instructions. With regard to the problem observed of students not on task, and Ms. MacPherson's failure to move around the room, Ms. Cox's opinion was not reliable for two reasons. First, she denied that average and less than average students would be expected to be less on task in an individually motivated science program than above average students. Transcript, p. 66. This is contrary to common sense and indicates that Ms. Cox did not have an adequate appreciation of the problems of teaching a science curriculum that depended substantially upon self-discipline and self-motivation. Further, Ms. Cox was aware that Petitioner's physical mobility in the classroom was significantly impaired due to her foot injuries, transcript, pp. 51-52, but she failed to evaluate how much of the "immobility" and "inactivity" of Ms. MacPherson was due to her feet, and how much may have been due to lack of teaching skills or motivation. Ms. Cox's opinion that Petitioner would have difficulty teaching the new science course because it requires 72 hours of laboratory work also appears not reliable. The ISCS program is no longer in existence at Key West High School, and the Petitioner would be required to teach a more traditional science course having 72 hours of laboratory work. Ms. Cox made no distinction between the ISCS individual laboratory curriculum and the new 72 hour requirement, but that is facially not reasonable. Since the new science program is no longer individualized study, then the 72 hours of laboratory work would also not be individualized. Thus, it would be much easier to teach this laboratory work because all students would probably be involved in the same laboratory experiment during the class period, and would not be able to choose individual experiments. Finally, Ms. Cox significantly limited the usefulness of her opinions by stating that she saw her role as one of assisting the Petitioner only, and not a responsibility for rigorous professional evaluation. She explicitly admitted: "I did not evaluate Ms. MacPherson. . . ." Transcript, pp. 47-48 (E.S.). For these reasons, Ms. Cox's opinions that the Petitioner was an "inactive" teacher, that she had problems with delivery of instruction, that she did not move among the students enough, and that she could not successfully teach the new science curriculum, are rejected as not being based upon sufficiently reliable evidence. On of the reasons given to Ms. Cox for taking steps to help the Petitioner was that parents had complained about the instruction of science by the Petitioner. However, since the complaints mentioned in the record were not complaints made personally to Ms. Cox, such purported complaints are hearsay within hearsay. Transcript, p. 50. As such, no finding can be made that such complaints in fact were actually made. The finding contained in the first sentence of this paragraph, however, can be made. Ms. Cox testified that by being absent sixty days or more in a one hundred eighty day school year, the Petitioner could not have provided her students with a minimum educational experience. Transcript, p. 45. Ms. Cox's opinion explicitly assumed that "the students had to miss a lot of instruction, because a substitute teacher could not just walk in and teach that program." Id. (E.S.). But Ms. Cox's opinion was not based upon an actual evaluation performed by Ms. Cox, but rather was based upon her generalized opinion drawn solely from the absences of Ms. MacPherson. Transcript, p. 56. Ms. Cox admitted that she did not test Ms. MacPherson's students to discover the actual educational level achieved, and that she had no objective criteria for her opinion. Id. Further, there is no evidence that Ms. Cox observed the degree to which Ms. MacPherson had supervised her substitutes, and the quality of instruction provided by the substitutes. For these reasons, Ms. Cox's opinion that Ms. MacPherson failed in fact to provide a minimal educational experience for her students is not sufficiently reliable as a basis for that finding. The fact that Ms. MacPherson candidly admitted that her students would have been better served had she not been absent so much, transcript, pp. 21, 25, does not support the conclusion that she failed to provide a minimal educational experience. At the end of the 1982-83 School year, the Petitioner received her annual evaluation, Respondent's Exhibit 2. She was evaluated as needing improvement in 2 of 8 relevant categories concerning classroom management, was evaluated as needing improvement in 2 of 5 relevant categories in delivery of instruction, needing improvement in the 1 relevant category of assessment techniques, and needing improvement in 6 of 11 relevant categories of professional characteristics. Principal Phillips emphasized the number of absences that Petitioner had had during the school year and her future health in the comments section. The evaluation was signed by Mr. Phillips, but he did not observe the Petitioner in the classroom during that year. At the end of the evaluation, Ms. MacPherson asked to be allowed the opportunity to submit a rebuttal if the criticisms in the evaluation were directed at her teaching skills unassociated with her illness and injuries. That question was not answered by the Respondent, and the Petitioner did not submit further rebuttal. In the pre-planning stages before the beginning of the 1983-84 school year, Ms. MacPherson contacted her Departmental Chairman, Mr. Herrick, and told him that she felt she was on unfirm ground, and that she wanted to be sure that she fulfilled what was expected of her. At that point, Mr. Herrick was no longer making observations of Ms. MacPherson, but he did look over her lesson plans a few times at that time, and he concluded that her lesson plans were satisfactory. Mr. Herrick sought to explain why he was no longer observing and evaluating the performance of the Petitioner at this time by stating that he had "conflicting duties" as a department chairman, wherein he was supposed to help teachers, and he felt it would have been difficult for him to make judgements in a "dismissal type situation." Transcript, p. 145(a). There was no other explanation for Mr. Herrick's departure from his expected normal role as direct supervisor of Ms. MacPherson. It must be concluded from Mr. Herrick's apparent exit from evaluative responsibilities and his excuse that he was too close to the Petitioner to participate in a "dismissal type situation" that by the fall of 1983, a decision had been made to actively pursue evaluation aimed at dismissal of the Petitioner. Nicholas A. Fischer, Director of Human Resources for the Respondent, is responsible in part for professional development and training of teachers, and other duties as assigned by the Superintendent. Dr. Fischer holds a Doctorate in Administration, Planning, and Social Policy from Harvard University. In September 1983, Dr. Fischer was requested by Principal Phillips to observe and evaluate the teaching skills of the Petitioner. Prior to conducting these evaluations, Dr. Fischer had no prior training or knowledge of the curriculum of the ISCS program, and to provide himself with some basis for conducting the evaluations, Dr. Fischer telephoned Dr. William Snyder by telephone. Dr. Snyder is a professor of science education at Florida State University and was one of those involved with writing the ISCS program. From this telephone conversation, Dr. Fischer developed the teaching standard for evaluating the Petitioner. Dr. Fischer conducted his first evaluations on October 13 and 14, 1983. The time spent in observation of the Petitioner was three class periods. Transcript, p. 95. Dr. Fischer was accompanied on at least one of these observation periods by Principal Phillips. At the end of the observations, Dr. Fischer and Principal Phillips prepared the observation form, Respondent's Exhibit 6. Dr. Fischer testified that he observed the Petitioner observing student activity and behavior from the front of the room and by walking around. He criticized her for not discussing with students the tasks on which they were working. At the beginning of the period, the Petitioner told the students to continue on the individual work they had been doing the prior day. Once they completed those tasks, the students were told to begin new work to be chosen by them from a list on the board. After class began, Dr. Fischer noted that the Petitioner failed to discuss the progress of work with individual students, and did not ask students to explain what they were doing, what they intended to do next, and whether they were having problems. Instead, the Petitioner stood in front of the room, or walked around, looking at student work and monitoring behavior, but not orally instructing. Dr. Fischer further testified that the Petitioner did not actively check the students at the beginning for comprehension of her instructions, and did not explain to the students what was expected in their work. Expectations that Petitioner should have communicated to the students included the amount of time to spend on the task, the process to be used to obtain help, and how the students were supposed to work on particular tasks. Dr. Fischer concluded from his observations that the Petitioner did not adequately instruct students at the beginning of the class, and did not adequately instruct student activities during the class. The observation form, Respondent's Exhibit 6, contains additional areas thought by Dr. Fischer to be deficient in Petitioner's teaching. The form mentions a failure to make objectives in lesson plans more specific, activities matched to objectives, and methods of evaluation both made more specific and correlated with objectives and activities. He concluded that it was difficult to determine if lesson plans were followed due to vagueness. In one period, Dr. Fischer observed 50 percent of the students on task 60 percent or less of the time. With regard to behavior of students and professional attitude interacting with students, Dr. Fischer found that the Petitioner needed to be firmer, consistent, and interact in a way that defined what was expected, minimally involving other students. He found that the interactions with students were more confrontations than conversation, and statements were made to the entire class when only the behavior of a few was to be corrected. At the end of the two days in which observations were conducted, Dr. Fischer net with the Petitioner and discussed the contents of his evaluations contained in Petitioner's Exhibit 6. Next, Dr. Fischer developed a professional development plan, which is Respondent's Exhibit 7. The plan follows the topical categories contained in the observation form. The plan sets forth a number of goals to be accomplished by the Petitioner to remedy the matters criticized by Dr. Fischer in the observation form. Dr. Fischer discussed the plan with the Petitioner and scheduled another observation for December 1983. The professional development plan called for daily evaluation of each student's progress. The Petitioner found that daily evaluation was too time consuming and not effective, since students did not make enough progress each day to make evaluation meaningful, and also because there was not enough time each day to both instruct and evaluate each student. Transcript, 185-86. This was corroborated by Respondent's Exhibit 6, which indicates that a class period was about 60 minutes, and Petitioner had 13 students in the third period. While 13 students in a single class is a very small number compared to typical classrooms, it still allows perhaps 10 minutes at the beginning for general instruction and getting out equipment, 10 minutes at the end for equipment storage and summation, and only 180 seconds per student for the remaining 40 minutes in which to monitor behavior, instruct, observe, and evaluate. The Petitioner discussed with Ms. Cox the requirement of daily evaluation, and Ms. Cox told the Petitioner that she agreed that daily evaluation was not possible, but that the Petitioner should try to satisfy "them" (Dr. Fischer and Mr. Phillips) and do it that way for two or three weeks, and then when the period of Scrutiny was over, to go back to doing it the way she had done before. Transcript, pp. 185-86. (As testimony relating that Ms. Cox is fact said these things, the foregoing is not hearsay. To the extent that Ms. Cox's opinion is in the record to corroborate the Petitioner's own opinion that daily evaluation was impossible, it is hearsay, as such, may be relied upon as corroborative of direct evidence on the point). The professional development plan also called for the Petitioner to observe other teachers teaching laboratory science courses in "classes identified by the Principal." Respondent's Exhibit 7, p. 3. Apparently the Petitioner was given the name of one teacher in her own school who taught laboratory science (but not ISCS, since that program had been discontinued), but was not given the names of other teachers in other schools to observe as promised. Further, she was never told when she could be released from her classes to observe these teachers. Transcript, pp. 178-79. Thus, it was impossible for her, on her own, to leave her classes to follow up on these observations. (Dr. Fischer's testimony, which only asserts that "resources" of an identified nature were "suggested" does not contradict Petitioner's testimony. See transcript, p. 100). Other than the matters discussed in the last two paragraphs, the Petitioner was responsible, on her own initiative, to implement all other aspects of the professional development plan. The Petitioner did not ask Dr. Fischer for any help with implementation of the professional development plan, transcript, p. 106, but she did ask for help from Ms. Cox, transcript, p. 187. Dr. Fischer recognized that after a teacher had been evaluated and instructed on areas needing improvement, that the teacher should be afforded a period of time to implement the suggestions. Transcript, pp. 98-99. He estimated that a minimum of a month would be needed to afford a teacher a reasonable period of time to become more specific in plans for instruction, and would need two or three months for some aspects of classroom management. Transcript, p. 99. Other corrections, such as announcing a rule in class, he thought should require only a week to correct, and others, such as stopping fights immediately, should be implemented the next day. Transcript, pp. 98-99. To improve rapport with students, a teacher needed at least two months for implementation. Transcript, p. 99. Applying Dr. Fischer's expectations to the professional development plans, Respondent's Exhibit 7, the development plan consists almost entirely of goals for improvement that would require one to three months to correct. The professional development plan lists goals and objectives stated in broad terms falling within the categories discussed in paragraph 45 above: development of more specific lesson plans, general principles for improving classroom management, and for improving rapport with student. A few of the objectives of the development plan (delivery of instruction, paragraphs 4 and 5, classroom management, paragraphs 1 and 5) would probably be such that it would be reasonable to expect correction and implementation in a few days. But overall the development plan states that implementation of the various sections were to have been accomplished by either December 1, 1983 (five weeks) or January 1, 1984 (nine weeks). At some point between October 26, 1983, when the professional development plan was discussed with and signed by the Petitioner, and December 1983, the Petitioner again became ill due to her feet. The scheduled second observation thus did not occur in December, but occurred on "change-over" day in January, 1984. Change-over day is apparently the day when the second semester begins, and is a day when the skills of a teacher in explaining new material and setting new directions for a class are more extensively tested and required. While it is not a normal teaching day, it is a suitable day to observe a teacher's skills under stress. At the end of the observations that day, Dr. Fischer concluded that the Petitioner had not made significant improvement since his evaluations in October. He felt that some improvement had been made in lesson plans, but still was not satisfied that the plans were sufficiently specific. He gave no examples, however. He said he was still "not clear" on the relationship between the techniques used for evaluating student performance and the objectives for student performance on a given day. And he expressed continued concern for clarity of directions in the classroom and the amount of time students were expected to be on task. Transcript, p. 87. Dr. Fischer's evaluation in January 1984 was based solely upon the observations in the classroom made on that day, and was not based upon observations of or knowledge of the steps that the Petitioner took to improve during the interim. Transcript, p. 88. Dr. Fischer knew that the Petitioner was absent during the period from October 1983 to January 1984, but he did not know the exact number of days of such absence. Transcript, p. 100. Dr. Fischer testified that it would probably not make a difference in his January 1984 evaluation if Ms. MacPherson had been absent due to illness for the majority of the time from the date of the first observations and the beginning of the professional development plan. Transcript, p. 101. In both the October 1983 evaluations and the January 1984 evaluation Dr. Fischer concluded that the Petitioner was not an effective or a competent teacher. Dr. Fischer was of the opinion that he had had an adequate amount of time to observe the Petitioner to develop the above opinion, but that "normally" he would have hoped to have had more time. The students in the Petitioner's ISCS classes were average and below average in skills and intelligence. Ms. Cox did not think that this factor was relevant to her assessment of Petitioner's teaching skills. Dr. Fischer felt Use factor was relevant, and was of the opinion that such students could be taught effectively only by a "highly skilled teacher." Transcript, p. 105. Ms. Cox's failure to consider the skill level of the students in the ISCS science course, with its total emphasis upon learning through self- discipline and self-motivation, severely undermines her credibility as an evaluator of the Petitioner. Dr. Fischer's opinion that only a highly skilled teacher could teach average or below average students in the ISCS science program is accepted as credible. Continuity of teaching by the same teacher is important for proper instruction of students. Unless the teacher is present continuously with the same students, he or she has no adequate way to judge the progress of the student, and from that evaluation of progress, tailor future instruction. Continuity of instruct ion was especially important in the ISCS program because students were not lectured and given the same homework, followed by testing, but progressed at different rates based upon individual choice. With respect to the school years 1981-82, 1982-83, and 1983-84, based solely upon the absences of the Petitioner, it was Dr. Fischer's opinion that the Petitioner could not deliver a minimum educational experience to her students. Transcript, pp. 89-90. Like Ms. Cox, this opinion was not based upon actual testing of students who were taught by Ms. MacPherson in those years, but was based rather upon inferences drawn from the absences themselves, coupled with Dr. Fischer's own expertise. Mr. Herrick also addressed himself to the issue of the Petitioner's absences. He testified that due to the great length of the Petitioner's absences, he had to use several substitutes since there was a rule limiting the time that one substitute could be used. He testified that use of several substitutes resulted in substitutes not always familiar with the materials and student progress, and that he passed by the classroom frequently and could see that the class was "rather chaotic." Transcript, p. 148. Hut Mr. Herrick did not attribute this fact to a lack of skill by Ms. MacPherson: he stated that it would happen to any teacher who had been absent so long. Id. Due to the fact that Dr. Fischer and principal Phillips were faced with a deadline of February 1984 in which to decide whether to recommend to the school board that the Petitioner be returned to annual contract, he and others had to make a decision shortly after the January 1984 observations. Transcript, p. 104. On February 29, 1984, the Superintendent, A. J. Henriquez, wrote to the Petitioner stating that he would recommend to the school board that the Petitioner be returned to annual contract for the school year 1984-1985. Respondent's Exhibit 9. The purpose of returning the Petitioner to annual contract would be to provide her time to improve, and to terminate her if she did not improve. Transcript, p. 107. The Respondent would be legally free to terminate a teacher on annual contract without cause simply by failing to renew the annual contract at the end of one year. In the two previous years, Mr. Phillips wrote to the Petitioner warning that he might recommend that she be returned to annual contract. On April 30, 1982, Mr. Phillips wrote suggesting medical retirement and warning he would recommend return to annual contract if the Petitioner's attendance did not improve. Respondent's Exhibit 4. On March 14, 1983, Mr. Phillips stated that he planned to recommend that Ms. MacPherson be returned to annual contract. Respondent's Exhibit 8. This recommendation, however, was held in abeyance for another year. Respondent's Exhibit 5. In both 1982 and 1983, the basis for the proposed return to annual contract was solely Petitioner's attendance problems, and was not based in upon any claim that the Petitioner lacked teaching skills. In view of the foregoing history of contemplation of return of the Petitioner to annual contract, it is very likely that if the Petitioner is returned to annual contract, her contract will not be renewed at the end of the annual term. Mr. Phillips signed the Petitioner's annual evaluation for the school year 1983-84. The evaluation does not rate the Petitioner unacceptable in any area, but rates her as needing improvement in preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction, assessment techniques, professional responsibility, school contributions, and personal qualities. The Petitioner was rated acceptable in knowledge of subject matter, teacher-student relationships, and relationships with staff and parents. Evidently due to the fact that no one provided Petitioner with a copy of the evaluation or asked her to sign it, and because the Petitioner was not present at school after school ended that year, the Petitioner did not see the evaluation, and thus it was not then (apparently) discussed with her. Transcript, p. 34. During the 1984-85 school year, the Petitioner took leave of absence without pay to try to heal her feet completely. The last surgery was in October 1984, and since then her feet have been healing well, without flare-up. The Petitioner testified that her feet were now completely healed, and she would be able to walk around a classroom without endangering her feet or her health. She further testified that her doctor felt her feet were healed. Transcript, p. 189. (While this is hearsay, it is corroborative of the Petitioner's own testimony concerning the condition of her own feet, and may be relied upon for that purpose.) The Respondent did not introduce any rebuttal or contradictory evidence as to the current condition of Petitioner's health. The Petitioner will have a lower salary if the Respondent changes her contract from continuing to annual status. The parties have proposed a number of findings of fact, many of which have been considered and are a part of the findings above. The following proposed findings of the parties are considered separately: Finding number 20 proposed by the Petitioner is rejected in part. Mr. Burney's opinion as to the Petitioner's competence as a teacher is rejected for lack of a predicate to show that Mr. Burney had observed the Petitioner as a teacher and had the competence to form such an opinion. To the extent that his opinion was based upon conversations with Mr. Herrick and Mr. Roberts, findings have already been made as to their opinions, and Mr. Burney's reiteration of what they said is cumulative and adds nothing to the record. See also ruling at page 123, transcript. The Petitioner's failure to remember what the initials "ISCS" stood for, which is Respondent's proposed finding 6, is largely irrelevant. That failure might have been relevant had it been the only such event in the record. But since counsel for the school board, Ms. Cox, and Dr. Fischer appear to also disagree as to what the letters mean (compare Respondent's proposed finding 6; transcript, p. 42; and Respondent's Exhibit 7, p. 1), the only finding that could possibly be justified is that there is disagreement among the witnesses who were professionally involved with the administration, evaluation, and delivery of the ISCS curriculum. Finding number 20 proposed by Respondent concerning complaints by parents and students is rejected. No parents or students testified. Neither did Principal Phillips. This is hearsay upon hearsay. Respondent's proposed finding 39 proposes a finding that Ms. Cox rendered an opinion that Petitioner was not providing a minimal educational experience for students "based upon her observations and experience," citing the transcript, page 45. Ms. Cox did not respond based upon her "observations." The question asked was "in light of your experience and background and education." Thus, the opinion, as discussed above, was a generalized opinion based solely upon a stated general number of absences. Ms. Cox was not asked to render an opinion based upon her observations of Ms. MacPherson, and the proposed finding is rejected to that extent. With respect to Respondent's proposed finding 46, Petitioner did testify that most students who missed from sixty to seventy-four days out of a school year of 180 days would not receive a minimum educational experience. The Respondent did not show, however, whether the absence of Ms. MacPherson was the equivalent to total absence of the students themselves for those days, and thus the finding is only of marginal relevance. It has been the intent of the Hearing Officer to explicitly comment upon every proposed finding of fact unless such proposed findings are cumulative, subordinate, or unnecessary. If a finding is immaterial, it is the intent of the Hearing Officer to have explicitly identified such finding as immaterial.
Recommendation For these reasons, it is recommended that a final order be entered that good and sufficient reasons do not exist to return the Petitioner, Ann E. M, to annual contract. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of May, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. 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 10th day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas W. Young, III, Esquire General Counsel FEA/United 208 West Pensacola Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael Casey, III, Esquire 2 South Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1800 Miami, Florida 33131 A. J. Henriquez, Ph.D. Superintendent The School Board of Monroe County, 242 White Street P.O. Drawer 1430 Key West, Florida 33040-1430 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent should be dismissed from her employment with the School Board of Dade County, Florida, upon grounds of incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, misconduct in office and/or absence without leave. POST-HEARING PROCEDURE A transcript of the formal hearing was provided the undersigned on March 21, 1985, and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law were timely filed by both parties. A subsequently-filed revision of Respondent's initial proposal was accepted without objection and considered. When a party's proposed findings of fact were consistent with the weight of the credible evidence admitted, they were adopted and are reflected in the Recommended Order, but to the extent proposed findings of fact were not consistent with the weight of the credible evidence, they have been rejected or, where possible, modified to conform to the evidence. To the extent proposed findings of fact have not been adopted or are inconsistent with the findings herein, they have been specifically rejected as irrelevant or not supported by the evidence. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact has thereby been made either directly or indirectly except where the proposed finding of fact was cumulative, immaterial, or unnecessary. Based upon observation of the witnesses and their candor and demeanor while testifying, all exhibits admitted in evidence, and the proposals and arguments of counsel, the following relevant facts are found:
Findings Of Fact Respondent was initially employed by Petitioner on November 15, 1982, at West Little River Elementary School. She suffered a non-school related accident and was absent approximately 121 days during the 1982-1983 school year. Observations of her teaching by her then-principal, John Johnson II, were unfavorable, but due to the prolonged absences, those observations did not result in any formal evaluations/recommendations. Respondent's requested leave for this period was granted and approved by Petitioner upon the basis of her severe electrical shock and back injury. Some of this period was classified as leave without pay. Petitioner also paid Respondent's insurance premiums for this period. Having thus condoned this absenteeism, Petitioner cannot now be heard to complain of it. (See allegations of Paragraph 18 of the Notice of Charges.) Principal Nicholas Rinaldi of Bay Harbor Elementary School hired Respondent as the teacher for its new "home-based" gifted program beginning there for the 1983-1984 school year. Although Principal Johnson would not have recommended Respondent for employment in the second year, he was not consulted by Principal Rinaldi. Principal Rinaldi told Respondent that she was limited to a $1,000.00 budget for purchasing materials for the program she was to develop. Principal Rinaldi understood that Respondent knew she was both to stay within this budget which is the standard limit at all home-based gifted programs and that she was required to get prior approval of her purchases from him. Apparently, Respondent grasped, the concept of a $1,000.00 "cap" but did not initially understand that she was to obtain prior written permission. After two orders were cancelled, she still had overspent by $60.00. She was then told specifically not to make any further purchases without the principal's permission. Thereafter, another order placed by Respondent was received at the school but Petitioner did not establish that Respondent placed the order after the cancellation of two prior orders and after Rinaldi's specific instruction not to order any more goods whatsoever. (See allegations of Paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Notice of Charges.) Respondent was clearly informed that she needed prior authorization for phone calls. She did not get prior permission for five long distance phone calls made personally or by students at her direction. The total cost of these calls is 8.56, which is very minimal. All calls were related to classwork with the exception of one call for $.44 and one call for $.25, which were admittedly of a personal nature. Respondent reimbursed the $.72 after the fact when notified of investigation into the phone bill. (See allegations of Paragraph 2 of the Notice of Charges.) Twenty-five students are required for a home-based gifted program. Bay Harbor was one of three North area schools piloting a home-based program in the 1983-1984 school year. In prior school years, gifted children from Bay Harbor attended a center program physically located elsewhere. A center program places a team of teachers of subjects from various schools in one physical location. Eligible students from various schools come to the center for two days a week for the gifted program and they receive their basic skills education at their respective home schools in the remaining three days per week. In a home-based program, a school which has enough gifted students elects to keep those students physically at the home school. They usually go into that program for two hours a day, every day. Some subject or subjects are used to deliver the gifted program. Those subjects are then graded by the home- based gifted teacher, who in this case was Respondent. When he hired her, Principal Rinaldi told Respondent that mathematics would be part of the new "home-based" gifted program, but math was essentially unstructured in the beginning. Thereafter, Principal Rinaldi instructed Respondent to utilize the standard Dade County "total math program, (TMP). When the TMP program was selected by Principal Rinaldi in approximately, December 1983, his motivation was that he understood TMP provided a structure for math that allows students to enter at the level that they are individually and moves each at a pace commensurate with his individual ability. Unfortunately, because a home-based program does not select its students on their specific giftedness in content area, some students in Bay- Harbor's 1983-1984 pilot program were lower than others in math. Some were even below their grade level. Those above the grade level were becoming bored with the program and those below the grade level were in a constant state of frustration struggling to keep up. A failure on Respondent's part to communicate surfaced, and misunderstandings arose between Respondent and parents and students as to the nature of projects, when projects were due and the reasonableness of homework. Problems concerning teacher absences also arose. The more academic and less "time-out-of-school" atmosphere of a home-based versus a center-based program also caused problems between the Respondent teacher and students/parents and between the Respondent and her principal. Upsets among the students and their parents resulted in many students being permanently removed from the gifted program. Over a period of time, the decrease in enrollment threatened to destroy the Bay Harbor gifted program, the survival of which required 25 students. On January 4, 1984, Principal Rinaldi observed Respondent's class for an hour for teacher evaluation purposes. This resulted in a basically good evaluation with some areas targeted for improvement (instructional planning and maintenance of student records [P-7]). The crux of this targeting was the principal's perception that Respondent did not record sufficient grades and her student files were not arranged alphabetically with papers arranged chronologically within each file. This standard of record-keeping is personal to Mr. Rinaldi and not uniform among other Dade County principals. At the standard post-observation conference, the two argued over the evaluation and the exactitude required by the principal, and Respondent refused to sign the evaluation to acknowledge that she had seen and received a copy of the document. As will be related infra, this refusal to sign or initial merely for acknowledgment of receipt of documents became a constant and continuing refusal on Respondent's part whenever the issue came up. Six days later she refused again; on January 17, 1984, Respondent responded in four written pages defending her methods. As events unfolded chronologically thereafter what started basically as a personality clash of the principal's "irresistible force" authoritarianism and the teacher's "immovable object" obstructionism mushroomed to affect students, parents, teachers, and administrators. In early January, Respondent complained concerning the inclusion of math in the gifted program to a higher outside administrator Dr. Agerwald. Mr. Rinaldi objected to this contact. On January 11, 1984, Mrs. Vickers, Petitioner's Director of Exceptional Students Program, arrived to observe Respondent's classes. She prepared a "School Visitation Report." The report is basically positive but does comment that the gifted classes are too big and current IEPs (records) were not and should have been available in the classroom. On February 2, 1984, Vickers issued a commendation to Hay Harbor on quality of cumulative records for exceptional children. Mr. Rinaldi passed this commendation (R-19) on to Respondent with the note, "Mrs. Burton, please continue this fine record 2/6/84." On 1/23/84, he also commended her on quick responses to the Miami Module records-keeping requests (R-20). Petitioner's advisor to gifted teachers, Richard Huffman, was assigned to assist Respondent at the beginning of the 1983-1984 school year. He testified that in his opinion she was a fit teacher, but he was removed as her advisor at the end of January or early February. February 24, 1984, Assistant Principal Vince Vignola observed Respondent in the classroom for a full hour and rated her overall acceptable except that she needed more grades in math and had, lost a student "contract" which had never been signed. Principal Rinaldi called in Gary Rito, Petitioner's Director of Academic Excellence for help resolving the gifted class problems. On March 2, 1984, Mr. Rito met with Respondent, Principal Rinaldi, and Mrs. Laurence, mother of a gifted student. Respondent and Laurence, who teaches elsewhere in Dade County, exchanged sharp words. It was agreed to meet again on March 8, 1984. At that time, James Miley, Petitioner's Supervisor of Gifted Programs, was present. Respondent was given written notice of the meeting one day in advance. Respondent elected to continue in this meeting at the conclusion of the school day. At this time most of her concerns, as expressed to all others present, were with the number of subjects she was required to cover and with the content of the mathematics curriculum in particular. Mr. Rito explained that "gifted" symbolizes a "technique" not a "subject," that Respondent was to use this technique for teaching subjects of math, science (which Respondent should be teaching anyway), and social studies, and for teaching a health and safety unit which was taught for only one or two grade units. Respondent strenuously objected to the use of the TMP math program. Rinaldi and Miley concurred that it was reasonable to include math in the gifted program. Math was, in fact, successfully used in the other two home-based programs beginning in Bay Harbor's Division that year, but the programs utilized may not have been the TMP. Nonetheless, the following adjustments were agreed upon among all those present at the March 8, 1984 meeting: Principal Rinaldi agreed to relieve the academic excellence program of the TMP math program and increased their enrichment activities; Ms. Thomas, Say Harbor's 6th Grade math teacher, was assigned by Principal Rinaldi to help Respondent in math. It was later Ms. Thomas' assessment that Respondent did not understand the TMP concept; and Respondent was directed and agreed to develop four units of study in botany (2 intermediate and 2 primary) to cover the rest of the school year (9 weeks). These plans were to cover instructional objectives, classroom activities, student evaluation methods and homework assignments on a time line. A preliminary plan was to be shown by Respondent to Mr. Miley on March 20. This assignment was primarily the result of a request by Ms. Laurence and other parents requesting to see a sets of plans for purposes of deciding whether to leave their children in the Respondent's class or return those who had already been withdrawn. Rinaldi, Rito, and Miley felt the plans required by the directive would ease the primary problems of implementing the program and of parent-teacher communications and misunderstandings which had been growing, and also felt they were reasonable and necessary. Everyone was aware that withdrawal of Mrs. Laurence's child could reduce program enrollment below the 25 student minimum required. However, no one clearly expressed the belief that this directive was a prescription to improve Respondent's teaching performance, which had been found basically sound up to this point. 1/ The direction itself was for a reasonable and necessary purpose (preserving and improving the gifted program). However, despite Mr. Miley's opinion that the plans as initially directed were reasonable and necessary and despite Respondent's failure to object to the direction at this point, the initial scope of the direction was actually unreasonable under the circumstances. Mr. Miley postponed his scheduled meeting with Respondent from March 20 to March 23, 1984. On that date, Respondent had nothing to show him with regard to the required botany units she had been asked to prepare. Mr. Miley met with Respondent anyway and reduced the required units from 4 to 2 and extended the time for preparation until April 12, 1984. He also gave her a document entitled "Standards of Excellence" for use in the units she was to prepare and agreed to let Respondent continue with her present evaluation system. This adjustment, made in consultation with Respondent also rendered the scope of the direction to prepare the units reasonable. 2/ On April 12, 1984, Mr. Miley asked for the required botany units and received nothing from Respondent. He returned to the school on April 13, and Respondent produced a series of goals and objectives essentially copied from the "Standards of Excellence" wherein she had identified part of a program for the primary students but none for the intermediate students. There were no classroom activities listed, no homework mentioned, and no time lines provided. Despite the extension of time, Respondent did not fulfill the required directive even in its reduced and consequently reasonable form. 3/ The units were not further amplified by Respondent before she left on April 20 and Mrs. Laurence's child was permanently removed from the gifted program. (See allegations of Paragraphs 5 and 7 of the Notice of Charges). On March 12, 1984, Respondent called Principal Rinaldi a liar three times in the presence of two other school employees. 4/ (See allegations of Paragraph 4 of the Notice of Charges.) Respondent later informed Principal Rinaldi that she perceived the March 8 meeting as disciplinary in nature. He had not considered it so. He accordingly removed a request for her signature from a summary he had prepared of the March 8 meeting and scheduled a "conference-for-the-record" for March 16, 1984. Conferences-for-the record are disciplinary conferences. The March 16, 1984 meeting was postponed at the request of the Respondent's union representative. A second request for postponement for emergency reasons peculiar to the schedule of that particular union representative (Ms. Perez), was not granted and the conference-for-the-record went forward on March 20, 1984, with Respondent accompanied by her union steward, James Collings. At this conference, Rinaldi discussed the same matters that had been discussed at the March 8, 1984 meeting, the incident which had occurred March 12 when Respondent called him a "liar" three times, Respondent's unsatisfactory attendance record that year, and the fact that her absences were having an adverse effect on the program. Respondent was specifically instructed by her union advisers not to speak at this conference. Certainly she did not deny the March 12 "liar" incident. When she did not respond to Principal Rinaldi's accusations and inquiries, he became agitated. Respondent had received prior approval for a half-day in-service conference (8:30 a.m. to noon on March 21, 1984) with Mrs. Vickers, Director of Petitioner's Exceptional Student Education Program. When she did not report back to teach at Bay Harbor that afternoon, Mrs. Macri, secretary to Principal Rinaldi made inquiries and Respondent's continued presence with Mrs. Vickers was confirmed, but not approved. This constitutes a 1/2 day's absence without leave. No substitute was procured since Respondent had been expected to teach her afternoon class. (See allegations of Paragraph 12 of the Notice of Charges.) On March 28, 1984, during a regularly scheduled parent meeting, the parents present expressed a great deal of dissatisfaction with various aspects of the gifted program, particularly math. Principal Rinaldi publicly attributed the problems in the gifted program to Respondent and Respondent retaliated by publicly stating that she did not believe TMP math should ever have been included in the gifted program and that she had no control over the inclusion of the math. The majority of witnesses actually present at this meeting found its entire tone and nature informative prior to Principal Rinaldi's comment. Even then, Respondent's comments may have been less than tactful but were hardly untruthful, unprofessional, irresponsible, or incendiary. (See allegations of Paragraph 6 of the Notice of Charges.) Respondent was tardy to the March 29, 1984 faculty meeting. Based on the contemporaneous memoranda and letter, Respondent's estimate of 3-4 minutes tardiness is accepted over Dr. Rinaldi's later estimate of 20 minutes. The causes related contemporaneously by Respondent are entirely reasonable. (See allegations of Paragraph 11 of the Notice of Charges.) At Principal Rinaldi's April 16, 1984 classroom observation of Respondent, he rated her teaching performance as unacceptable in 3 categories: preparation and planning, assessment techniques, and professional responsibility (P-18). Rinaldi testified that his negative ratings in preparation and planning were due to what were minor concerns on the January evaluation. However, as observed above in Fact Paragraph 6, the January evaluation actually concentrated on the principal's particularly harsh requirement that Respondent's student files must be arranged alphabetically with papers neatly arranged chronologically within each file. Since his perception of the adequacy of records is so intensely personal to Mr. Rinaldi and in light of interim commendations to Respondent for record-keeping, his April analysis of inadequate records of assessment renders the final evaluation "score" highly suspect. 5/ (See allegations of Paragraph 8 of the Notice of Charges.) Respondent was tardy to work and failed to timely sign in on March 26, 27, 28, and April 20, 1984. (See allegations of Paragraph 13 of the Notice of Charges.) Respondent was absent on April 17, 18, and 19. She requested leave for April 17-18 late but it was approved and authorized in advance by Principal Rinaldi for participation in religious holidays. However, these were absences without pay and pushed Respondent over the number of personal leave days to which she was annually entitled. Respondent was absent without authorization on April 19; this was an absence without pay. (See allegations of Paragraphs 14 and 19 of the Notice of Charges.) On April 20, 1984, Respondent protested, but finally agreed to meet with Principal Rinaldi in his office for a post-observation conference. Post- observation conferences are not normally considered disciplinary in nature. By this time, he had added Respondent's late notification of the 4/17-4/18 absence and her 4/19 absence to the prescription sheet as deficiencies. Respondent declined an oral dialogue with Rinaldi wherein she was invited to respond to the rating criticisms and prescriptions and offer alternatives and also refused to initial his notation that she insisted on responding in writing. Midway in this meeting, Respondent announced she was going to leave. Again, she would not sign to acknowledge receipt of the observation and prescriptions. Rinaldi instructed her that she was obligated to discuss the rating and if she left, he would consider it insubordination. Respondent left his office and the school and did not return to work as a teacher at Bay Harbor again. A formal reprimand issued partly as a result of this incident. (See allegations of Paragraph 9 of the Notice of Charges.) On April 23 and April 24 Respondent was absent without pay. April 23 was unauthorized leave. (See allegations of Paragraphs 14 and and 19 of the Notice of Charges.) With regard to the frequent' short absences, which total led 18 as of April 22, Respondent rarely if ever complied with the "Teachers' Handbook" guidelines for advance notification. Respondent originally felt that it did not matter what type of leave (personal or sick) was listed because she had no leave left anyway. Although many of these absences were for legitimate illnesses or injury of herself or a relative, there was either an on-going absence of lesson plans or a failure on Respondent's part to inform the principal that she had created plans since he last commented on there being none. Consequently, he often could not or did not secure substitutes. This resulted in wasted class time and interfered with classroom continuity. Some of Respondent's unauthorized absences were simply gifted programs she chose to attend without notifying the principal in advance. Respondent was also absent during the 1983-1984 school year for two lengthy periods, which, with all other absences, totalled 62 1/2 days. Medical narratives, admitted without objection, corroborate Respondent's testimony that the two lengthy absences were the result respectively of unanticipated allergic complications of a CAT scan (from January 30 to February 10, 1984,) and of surgery to correct acute sinusitis and recovery time from late April until release. One doctor released her from this last treatment On May 29, 1984; the other released her on June 8, 1984. During the period of time she was absent immediately following the April 20 "walkout" incident until approximately June 8, Respondent failed to adequately inform Petitioner of her proposed date of return. Certified letters sent to her post-office box were returned because Respondent did not pick them up and Petitioner could not send these to her by regular mail or by hand- delivery via a "visiting teacher" because Respondent had never informed Petitioner of her street address. The failure of Respondent to stay in touch, her failure to indicate when she could return to work, and her failure to indicate that her absence would be lengthy resulted in an inability of Petitioner to immediately hire a permanent substitute teacher. Therefore, the gifted classes had to "make-do" with a series of short term substitutes (4 or 5) until Mr. Rinaldi finally hired Mrs. Judith Dryanoff. This process created a lack of continuity in the classroom and more student withdrawals from the gifted program. The problem with multiple substitutes was compounded by Respondent's failure on April 24 and thereafter to have available substitute lesson plans. 6/ Because of Respondent's failure to leave any form of lesson plans or grade book, substitute Judith Dryanoff had to make up her own lesson plans for science and enlist the help of Janice Thomas for math plans. (See allegations of Paragraph 10 of the Notice of Charges.) On May 24, Principal Rinaldi signed Respondent's Annual Evaluation, not recommending her for employment in the next school year (P-22). When released by her doctors, Respondent was assigned by Administration to the North Area Office for June 11-15 and was expected by her principal to be at Bay Harbor simultaneously. She obviously could not do both. She was at the North Area Office for part of June 12 and at Bay Harbor for part of June 14. She was in neither location on June 11, 13, and 15. These days constitute absences without leave. (See allegations of Paragraph 19 of the Notice of Charges.) On June 12, 1984, James Monroes, a supervisor in Petitioner's Division of Personnel Control, ordered Respondent to begin the 180 hour course, Beginning Teacher Program, to start at 10:00 a.m., June 14, 1984, at Bay Harbor Elementary School. 7/ At 7:20 a.m. that morning Respondent confronted Principal Rinaldi in his office and called him "malicious, devious, incompetent," and "a sorry excuse for a principal." She accused him of personally taking her personal items from her room and of attempting to get her fired. 8/ Although she initially refused to come back for the program, she returned at 10:00 a.m. and repeated essentially the same harangue in the presence of Mrs. Thomas, the peer teacher selected to oversee Respondent's Beginning Teacher Program. Mrs. Thomas was called in by Mr. Rinaldi who had anticipated that a scene would ensue. Thereafter, out of Mr. Rinaldi's presence, Respondent invited Mrs. Thomas to sign a petition "to get rid of Mr. Rinaldi". (See allegations of Paragraph 15 of the Notice of Charges.) Dr. Huffman testified that Respondent also frequently yelled at Mr. Rinaldi in Dr. Huffman's presence prior to Dr. Huffman's February reassignment, and Mrs. Macri, secretary to Principal Rinaldi testified that she had heard Respondent call Mr. Rinaldi a "bastard" or refer to him as a"bastard," but the date of this incident(s) was not proven. On August 29, 1984, Dr. Richard Artmeier, supervisor of Petitioner's Division of Personnel Control, directed Respondent to be psychiatrically evaluated the next day to determine if there were any mitigating circumstances for her June 14, 1984 behavior. Respondent is obligated to submit to such evaluation by terms of her employment. After vacillation, Respondent refused to sign the written directive indicating its receipt and adamantly refused to see a psychiatrist. Finally, Dr. Artmeier directed her instead to report to the North Area Office the next day. Respondent did, however, actually go the next day as originally directed for psychiatric evaluation to Dr. Gail Wainger. Dr. Wainger was on Petitioner's "approved" list. In so doing, Respondent could not immediately comply with the directive to report to the North Area Office. Respondent reported to the North Area Office later the same day after her psychiatric evaluation. Petitioner accepted Dr. Wainger's psychiatric evaluation of Respondent, paid for it, and it was admitted at hearing upon Petitioner's motion (P-38). Since Respondent could not be in two places at once, she fulfilled the alternative directives reasonably by fulfilling them sequentially even if she did initially refuse. (See allegations of Paragraphs 16 and 17 of the Notice of Charges). The psychiatrist's evaluation is admissible under Section 231.291, Florida Statutes and has been considered. Upon that evidence, together with all other credible evidence adduced at formal hearing, Respondent was accountable for her actions. Respondent has never qualified for and has never been characterized as a teacher under continuing contract.
Recommendation It is recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing Respondent from employment with the Dade County School Board and denying any claims for back pay. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of June, 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 20th day of June, 1985.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses-and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following Findings of Fact: At all times material hereto, the Respondent held teaching certificate number 516212, issued by the Department of Education for the State of Florida. The Respondent's teaching certificate covers the area of substitute teacher. During first period on October 30, 1984, Mr. Mark Fisher, a teacher at Nautilus Junior High School in the Dade County School District, called Dr. Frederick, assistant principal in charge of curriculum, to advise that he was ill and needed to leave school. Mr. Fisher's teaching assignment consisted of five regular classes of industrial arts and one class of crafts with special education students. The special education class was held during the sixth period, from 3:00-4:00 p.m. Ten students were assigned to the sixth period class. The category of special education students in the class included learning disabled, educationally mentally handicapped and emotionally handicapped children. The Respondent was called to substitute for Mr. Fisher at the end of the first period on October 30, 1984. The Respondent reported to the Nautilus Junior High School at approximately 11:00 a.m. and was assigned to Mr. Fisher's class, Room 141. The Respondent had previously substituted at Nautilus Junior High School on October 9, 1984. On that day, Dr. Frederick reviewed the guidelines for emergency substitute teachers with the Respondent. The Respondent signed the guidelines certifying that he had read and understood the school's procedures. The Respondent received a written assignment when he reported to Nautilus Junior High School on October 30, 1984. The assignment specifically noted that the sixth period class was a special education class. Prior to leaving the classroom, Mr. Fisher wrote the lesson plans for his various classes on the black board. After the 5th period class was over and immediately prior to the commencement of the 6th period, anywhere from one to four students who were not regularly assigned to Mr. Fisher's class entered room 141. When the bell rang for the commencement of the 6th period class the Respondent called roll. There were ten students assigned to the class. Eight students responded to the roll call and the Respondent marked two students absent. After roll was called, the Respondent allowed the students to work on their projects. The students went to a closet, retrieved their projects and began working on them. The students were situated at work benches in the class actively working on projects which involved sanding, gluing, nailing and similar processes. The students were not allowed to use any of the electrical equipment or power tools. The students' activity involved a certain amount of movement within the classroom such·as standing up, comparing projects and going to the supply closets for more paste and other materials. At some point during the class period D.W., a female student, went into a closet located in the rear of the classroom. While D.W. was in the closet two male students, at separate times, went into the closet with her. While in the closet, D.W. had oral sex with at least one of the boys. While D. W. and the boys were in the closet, several other students went over to the closet and looked in. One of the students in the class got a stool and stepped up and looked through a hole at the top of the closet door. Two other students also stood on the stool and looked into the closet. (Although D.F. testified that he was on the stool for five to ten minutes, his testimony as to the amount of time that he was standing on the stool was not persuasive. Likewise, his testimony was neither clear nor persuasive enough to determine whether the two other students went back and stood on the stool at the same time or whether they went back separately.) The testimony concerning the amount of time that D. W. and the other students were in the closet was not persuasive and it is impossible to determine the amount of time that D. W. and the other students spent in the closet. Several days following the incident, D.W. informed Ms. Spearman, a special education teacher, about what had happened during the 6th period class on October 30, 1984. Official recognition was taken of the fact that two boys and one girl entered guilty pleas to charges arising from the incident of October 30, 1984. Room 141 is specially designed to be utilized as an industrial arts or "shop" class. Room 141 is larger than typical classrooms at Nautilus Junior High School. According to the diagram introduced as Petitioner's Exhibit 2 and included herein as Appendix B, the entrance is located in the upper northwest corner of the classroom. The teacher's desk is located in the extreme northwest portion of the classroom next to the main entrance. The classroom is approximately 69 feet long (east to west) and 43 feet wide (north to south). There are several cupboards or closets located along the front of the west side of the classroom and a walk-in closet located in the upper northeast corner. The doors of the walk-in closet face to the south. The rear closet is approximately 15 feet deep, 8 feet high and 8 feet wide. The rear closet has double doors and at the top of the right door there is a small cutaway portion in a rectangular shape. Wood supplies are kept in the rear closets and other , types of supplies are kept in the forward closets. The classroom contains two work tables, nine work benches and one bench saw. The teacher's desk faces the work tables and work benches. The Respondent was unable to see the front part of the rear closet from where he was sitting at the teacher's desk. The Respondent first obtained his teaching certificate for substitute teaching from the Department of Education for the State of Florida in December of 1981. The Respondent substituted at over fifty different schools in Dade County and was teaching on the average of four to five days a week prior to the incident on October 30, 1984. The Respondent was employed on numerous occasions as a substitute teacher at Biscayne Elementary School in Dade County, Florida, during the years 1982, 1983, and 1984. According to Ms. Glick, the principal of that school, the Respondent's work was very satisfactory and to her knowledge, there were no incidents in any of his classes involving student misconduct nor were there any complaints about his teaching ability. The Respondent was called to teach frequently at Biscayne Elementary School because his work was satisfactory and he was "pleasant to the children and related well to the rest of the staff." The Respondent served as a substitute teacher at Comstock Elementary School in Dade County several times during the period of 1983-1984. Mr. Levin, the principal at that school, observed the Respondent on several occasions while working at Comstock and each time the Respondent was observed, the students in his classes were involved in a learning process, there were no disciplinary problems and the students seemed to like him.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of December, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of December, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig R. Wilson, Esquire 215 Fifth Street, Suite 302 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 David Rappaport, Esquire 265 Northeast 26th Terrace Miami, Florida 33137 Judith Brechner, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Karen B. Wilde Executive Director Education Practices Commission 215 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Rejected as subordinate. Partially adopted in Findings of Fact 5 and 6. Matters not contained therein are rejected as recitation of testimony. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Rejected as argument and/or a recitation of testimony. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Matters not contained therein are rejected as a recitation of testimony. Adopted in Finding of Fact 141. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 8. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence and/or a recitation of testimony. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Matters not contained therein are rejected as a recitation of testimony. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Matters not contained therein are rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence and/or a recitation of testimony. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Rejected as subordinate and/or a recitation of testimony. Rejected as subordinate. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4 and 6. Rejected as subordinate. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Rejected as subordinate. Rejected as subordinate. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 21. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate. Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary.
The Issue Whether Respondent’s termination of employment as a teacher should be upheld.
Findings Of Fact Respondent received her Florida teacher certification in elementary education in 1988. Since then, she has worked for four different elementary school principals, all in Palm Beach County Schools. Although she has received overall satisfactory evaluations throughout her career, only one of the four principals for whom she has worked found her performance satisfactory in all areas throughout an entire school year. In its Petition for Suspension, the School Board seeks to terminate Kelson's employment, alleging that her teaching performance during the 2001-2002 school year at Jupiter was deficient in the areas of presentation of subject matter, knowledge of subject matter, planning, assessment and recordkeeping. Each of these areas has, over the years, often been identified as being an area of concern on evaluations rendered by three out of four of the principals for whom Kelson has worked. For the 2001-2002 school year, Kelson was offered by Jupiter's principal, Ann Wark (Wark), the opportunity to teach a small class of older elementary aged children who spoke little or no English. Kelson accepted, never suggesting that she was not appropriately credentialed. Kelson did not have a successful year in this assignment. Through counsel, she stipulated that the School Board has complied with all of the substantive and procedural requirements set forth in state law and in Kelson's contract with Petitioner for evaluating teaching performance. The evaluations were negative. Kelson further stipulated that the School Board has complied with all its legal and contractual obligations governing procedures for terminating employment due to deficient performance. Numerous meetings were held between Kelson and School Board representatives to discuss her 2001-2002 performance. At least some of these meetings were also attended by Kelson's union representative. At no time did Kelson express disagreement with the substance of the evaluations. The evidence affirmatively established that Kelson was properly evaluated by individuals qualified to conduct her evaluations; that she was provided with sufficient and appropriate assistance, including improvement strategies reasonably calculated to enable her to bring her performance up to the district's minimum requirements; that she was given adequate opportunity to correct her deficiencies; and that she failed to do so. By way of defense, Kelson contends that she was teaching out-of-field at the time the adverse evaluation was rendered. She argues that, as a matter of law, she cannot be terminated for performance deficiencies which occurred while teaching out-of-field. However, the record affirmatively shows that Kelson was not teaching out-of-field. Neither was any evidence or legal argument offered to support the notion that if a teacher is assigned out-of-field, she has an absolute defense to termination. Like most elementary school teachers employed in Florida, Kelson holds what is known as an English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) endorsement to her elementary education certificate. The endorsement arises pursuant to a "grandfathering" provision contained in a Consent Decree entered into by the State of Florida Department of Education on August 14, 1990. The Consent Decree was aimed at assuring that children of limited English proficiency (LEP) would not be left out or left behind due to the language barrier between them and their teachers. Like most of her colleagues, Kelson took the training contemplated in the Consent Decree and necessary to qualify for the ESOL endorsement to her teaching certificate. The ESOL endorsement, or, more precisely, the classes required to earn the ESOL endorsement, provides the teacher with the requisite training, in fact and in law, to serve LEP students, including students with no ability to speak English. In order to obtain an ESOL endorsement, a teacher must have obtained sufficient credentials to be presumed qualified to teach LEP students in a classroom where most of the children speak proficient English, as well as in a class of nothing but LEP students. At first blush it is counterintuitive at a minimum that a child who speaks no English could learn academic content, including language arts, from a teacher who speaks not a word of the child's language. Yet, the evidence established that in large school districts such as Palm Beach County, dozens of foreign languages may be spoken by students; it would be impossible to find teachers fluent in each of those languages. The point of the Consent Decree is to assure that LEP students are appropriately served, whether or not their teacher is able to speak to them in their primary language. To that end, the grandfathering provision was put in place. Over time, the parties to the Consent Decree have come to be satisfied that the grandfathering provision has furnished teachers for LEP students who have the necessary credentials to teach them. Kelson's theory rests upon a misunderstanding of what ESOL is and is not. ESOL is not a subject, like math or history. Instead, it is a method, or set of strategies, by which teachers who speak no language other than English can teach content to students who speak little or even no English. Kelson, and all teachers who hold an ESOL certificate, have the training necessary to deliver content not only to LEP students in a class with English-speaking students, but also to students in classes which include only children who speak little, and perhaps even no English. Kelson contends that the student population to which she was assigned could be lawfully taught only by a teacher with a state ESOL certification. A certification in ESOL requires substantially more classroom hours than Kelson or any other teacher with an ESOL endorsement would be expected to have. Kelson's claim that only an ESOL certified teacher would have been qualified to teach her 2001-2002 class was not supported by any evidence other than her personal opinion, and is rejected as factually and legally unsound. Kelson claims that she accepted the assignment Wark offered because she felt pressured to do so. She intimated in general ways her belief that school officials, particularly Wark, were not dealing in good faith with her. No evidence was offered upon which a finding could be based that Kelson's feeling of being pressured to teach any particular class was reasonable. Neither was there evidence that Petitioner or its employees acted in bad faith toward her. Rather, the evidence established that prior to the time she retained counsel, Kelson had not claimed to anybody that she was unqualified to teach her class. In fact, Kelson was appropriately credentialed for the class she was teaching. It was her performance, not her resume, which was deficient. Subsequent to obtaining her ESOL endorsement, she completed over one hundred hours of in-service points in ESOL. With this additional background, Petitioner could and did reasonably expect that not only was Kelson qualified to teach her assigned students, she was also credentialed to teach certain aspects of ESOL to other teachers. In the spring of 2002, Kelson requested a transfer to another school, which request was denied. On November 26, 2002, acting in accordance with the Superintendent’s recommendation, the School Board voted to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate her employment effective December 11, 2002.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board issue a final order terminating Cherlyn Kelson’s employment for unsatisfactory performance as set forth in the Petition for Suspension dated November 26, 2002. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of August, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 6th day of August, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Andrew DeGraffenreidt, III, Esquire Powers, McNalis & Moody Post Office Box 21289 2328 10th Avenue, North, Suite 601 Lake Worth, Florida 33461-6617 Jean Marie Nelson, Esquire School District of Palm Beach County 3318 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C302 West Palm Beach, Florida 33407 Dr. Arthur C. Johnson, Superintendent Palm Beach County School Board 3340 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C316 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869 Honorable Jim Horne Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32499-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 1244 Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether just cause exists to terminate Respondent from her employment with the Sarasota County School Board.
Findings Of Fact GENERAL BACKGROUND Petitioner is responsible for operating the public schools in the Sarasota County School District and for hiring, firing, and overseeing both instructional employees and non- instructional “educational support” employees within Sarasota County, Florida. At all times pertinent to this case, Respondent was employed by the Sarasota Board as a teacher at Booker. Respondent holds a multi-grade integrated teaching certificate, which allows her to teach middle school through ninth grade students. Respondent taught high school level algebra during the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school years, and social studies during the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 school years at Booker. Booker is a Title I public school which has approximately 800 to 900 students, and 60 to 80 instructional personnel. Ms. Frost is now the principal at Booker, having previously served as one of its assistant principals. At the beginning of each school year, teachers report one week prior to the students (planning week). During planning week, teachers are reminded of the school’s expectations for the coming year, they develop lesson plans for the coming year, they set up their individual classrooms, and they are provided additional professional development. Booker’s administrators set high standards for their teachers and students. The pertinent parts of the performance responsibilities within the job description for instructional teachers are as follows: *10) Establish and maintain effective and efficient record keeping procedures.7/ * * * *(13) Participate in the development and implementation of IEP’s, EP’s & 504 Plans for exceptional education students, as appropriate. * * * *(15) Interpret data for diagnosis, instructional planning and program evaluation. * * * *(21) Apply appropriate instructional modification for students with special needs. * * * *(27) Communicate effectively, both orally and in writing, with other professionals, students, parents and the community. * * * *(35) Prepare all required reports and maintain all appropriate records. There was no dispute that a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) existed between the School Board and the Sarasota Classified/Teachers Association (SC/TA). Article XIX of the CBA references the evaluation of students. The pertinent part of Article XIX includes: Teachers shall maintain the responsibility to determine grades and other evaluations of students within the terms of the grading regulations of the Sarasota County School system. Ms. Frost believes that every child deserves a “high quality education” and she looks for highly effective teachers to ensure they are providing quality education for all Booker’s students. Ms. Frost maintains that “regardless of what the socioeconomic situation might be for [the] children, they deserve to be educated, obtain a college- and career-readiness education.” Booker teachers are expected and required to teach the Florida standards, which are “much more rigorous standards than” before. These standards require “teachers to be more deliberate about their planning, . . . classroom procedures, and instructions” and develop a student-centered classroom. A Weingarten hearing (Weingarten) is conducted as a fact-finding meeting where an employee is asked to attend and answer questions about whatever situation is being investigated. The employee may appear with or without representation. Based on the facts obtained during a Weingarten hearing and the investigation, a determination is made whether any disciplinary action is necessary. A Professional Learning Community (PLC),8/ is composed of all teachers in a specific grade level and subject area. During a PLC meeting, its members may discuss lesson planning, joint tests or assessments for each unit, goals, and students’ accomplishments. The PLC leader (or one of its members) is required to document attendance and the content of the discussions to Booker’s administrator. The PLC meeting times are established during the planning week at Booker and attendance is required. In the event a teacher is off-campus during the regularly scheduled PLC meeting time, their absence may be excused. The Student Information System (SIS) maintains students’ schedules, contact information for students and their parents or guardians, and other pertinent student information. The SIS is controlled through user name and password protection, and all the information contained in the SIS is not available to teachers. Gradebook is an electronic system by which teachers are to input students’ grades (assignments, projects, tests and exams) on a regular basis. Parents can access their student’s grades via the internet (including a telephone application) to monitor the student’s progress in each class. Booker’s expectation is that grades will be inputted on a regular basis, preferably within a week of the completion of the assignment or test. Once all the grades are entered, Gradebook calculates mid- term or final grades for the students. During the planning week teachers are provided time to set up their Gradebook, and a standardized schedule of when the mid-quarter and quarter grades are to be completed. The teachers are reminded of these deadlines throughout the year. If a teacher fails to enter the mid-quarter or quarter grades by the stated deadline, the system locks the teacher out, and the grades must be handwritten. Additionally, Gradebook is used by Booker (and other schools) to take student attendance. Taking attendance in the first five days of each school year is critical because those attendance numbers are used to determine the appropriate funding for Booker (and other schools in the school system). In order to access Gradebook, each teacher is assigned a confidential “A” number and password. Grades are to be entered by teachers, not paraprofessionals or volunteers. When there are two teachers in a classroom, such as the inclusion room at Booker, the main teacher is responsible for inputting the grades. Each night, information from the Gradebook (the grades posted that day) is uploaded to the SIS. A performance improvement plan (PIP) is basically an action plan to assist an underachieving teacher to succeed. The administrator who supervises the teacher provides coaching and criticism in an effort to improve the teacher’s performance. The CBA provided for progressive discipline. Turning to Article XXV of the CBA, entitled “Disciplinary Actions,” the pertinent parts state: Scope of Article This article covers actions involving oral or written warnings, written reprimand, suspensions, demotions, dismissals, or reductions in grade or pay with prejudice. Disciplinary action may not be taken against a teacher except for just cause, and this must be substantiated by sufficient evidence which supports the recommended disciplinary action. All facts pertaining to a disciplinary action shall be developed as promptly as possible. Actions under this Article shall be promptly initiated after all the facts have been made known to the official responsible for taking the action. * * * A teacher against whom disciplinary action is to be taken may appeal the proposed action through the grievance procedure. A teacher against whom action is to be taken under this Article shall have the right to review all of the information relied upon to support the proposed action and shall be given a copy upon request. The Union shall be provided with a copy of all correspondents that is related to the action of the teacher the Union is representing. The teacher and his/her representative shall be afforded a reasonable amount of time to prepare and present appropriate responses to the proposed actions under this Article, through Step One of the Grievance Process. This amount of time is to be mutually agreed upon by the parties. * * * Previous charges or actions that have been brought forth by the administrative may be cited against the teacher if these previous acts are reasonably related to the existing charge. All previous charges or actions must have been shared with the teacher. The discipline, dismissal, demotion, and suspension of any teacher shall be for just cause. Where just cause warrants such action(s), a teacher may be demoted, suspended, or dismissed upon recommendation of the immediate supervisor to the Superintendent of Schools. Except in cases that constitute a real immediate danger to the district or other flagrant violation, progressive discipline shall be administered as follows: Verbal reprimand. (Written notation placed in site file.) Written reprimand filed in personnel and site files. Suspension with or without pay. Dismissal. * * * K. During the pendency of an investigation into an allegation of wrongdoing on the part of a teacher, the teacher may be temporarily reassigned only if the charges, if proven to be true, could lead to the teacher’s termination or suspension or if the teacher’s conduct poses a threat to any individual’s safety. Booker’s administrators Frost, Dorn, and Jenkins, corroborated the collaborative or triangulation leadership style they utilized at Booker. If one administrator learned of a situation, all three administrators were involved in the investigation and determination of any necessary corrective measures. All three Booker administrators try to coach underperforming teachers through informal counseling or verbal assistance, and memoranda of instructions, both of which are not considered disciplinary actions. In most instances, when a teacher is apprised of a concern, the verbal assistance is sufficient to correct the concern. When the verbal assistance or memoranda of instructions are ineffective, the administrators use progressive discipline. Respondent was verbally counseled at different times by AP Dorn and AP Jenkins of the need to take attendance and/or timely input grades. In October 2012 and February 2014, Respondent received a Memorandum of Instruction from AP Jenkins. The October memo highlighted the need for Respondent to take attendance each day, “within the first fifteen minutes” for each class. The February memo advised Respondent to enter her grades “weekly for parents to access and monitor.” DISCIPLINE AT ISSUE A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU or agreement), dated October 29, 2015, was executed by Respondent, Barry Dubin, executive director of the SC/TA, and Deputy Superintendent Lempe. This MOU resolved three outstanding disciplinary actions (one recommendation for a suspension, and two recommendations for employment termination) against Respondent. The contents of the MOU provided: With regard to the grievance filed on behalf of Ms. Judy Conover a Teacher currently assigned to Booker Middle School, the undersigned parties do hereby agree to the following terms: The Board agrees to withdraw its two termination actions pending against Ms. Conover. Ms. Conover agrees to serve a three (3) day unpaid suspension. Should Ms. Conover fail to execute this Memorandum and elect to challenge the proposed suspension, this suspension will be withdrawn and the matter to be decided by either an arbitrator or DOAH hearing officer will be the matter of all pending discipline including the two pending terminations. Ms. Conover agrees to remain on assistance (PIP) until such time as her teacher Evaluation Score is within the Effective range.[9/] The parties agree that by executing this Memorandum, this brings all matters pertaining to presently proposed disciplinary actions and grievances to a close. Ms. Conover understands that the next step of progressive discipline called for under the terms of the Instructional Bargaining Unit Agreement should there be a further transgression of the rules could be termination of her employment. Prior to her executing the MOU, Respondent returned to Booker for the 2015-2016 school year as a social studies teacher. Principal Frost welcomed her back to school during the teacher’s planning week in mid-August 2015. Principal Frost continued to supervise Respondent’s PIP progress.10/ Shortly after the students returned for 2015-2016 school year, AP Dorn reminded Respondent to take attendance. In mid-September 2015, while conducting a random review of grades, AP Dorn emailed Respondent about the lack of grades for all of her classes, and that her Gradebook had not been set up. In that email, AP Dorn asked Respondent to see him. Respondent did not do so. Just before the mid-quarter grade deadline, Respondent input grades back to August 28, 2015, the end of the first week of classes. Respondent was notified of a Weingarten meeting scheduled for September 30, 2015. Based meeting was rescheduled for and held on November 9, 2015. During the Weingarten meeting, Respondent did not recall receiving or responding to AP Dorn’s email about her grades and gradebook. Respondent acknowledged her understanding of “the need to get in grades” and that the administration had previously spoken with her about entering grades. However, Respondent did not furnish any facts other than non-answers. A second Weingarten meeting was also held on November 9, 2015. The second Weingarten meeting sought information about Respondent sharing her “A” number and password with a paraprofessional who worked with her. Respondent admitted that she gave her “A” number and password to the paraprofessional, who then input grades into Gradebook. Respondent served the agreed three-day suspension in December 2015. On February 22, 2016, Superintendent White issued a certified letter to Respondent. This letter provided that Respondent had been: [I]nsubordinate in performing your assigned duties as they relate to accurately recording and the placing of student grades in the student information system. [W]e have concluded you have committed the following offenses among others: misconduct in office, willful neglect of duties and incompetency. Therefore, . . . I have just cause to terminate your employment with the Sarasota County School Board. This February letter was the result of the two Weingarten hearings that were held on November 9, 2015. On March 8, 2016, the regularly scheduled PLC meeting for the 6th grade social studies teachers was held. Respondent did not attend the meeting. Although Respondent was on campus that day, and initially told the PLC leader that she would be late, she did not attend. Respondent was notified of a Weingarten meeting scheduled for March 24, 2016. This meeting was rescheduled to April 6, 2016, to accommodate Respondent’s request for representation to be present. The meeting was rescheduled again and held on April 12, 2016. The Weingarten meeting was to determine whether Respondent attended the March 8 PLC meeting, her reason(s) for missing the PLC meeting, and what Respondent may have discussed with her PLC members regarding how administration determined Respondent was not at that PLC meeting. Prior to attending the Weingarten meeting, Respondent telephoned her PLC leader, Ms. Scherzer, and asked who had informed the administration of Respondent’s absence from the PLC meeting. Ms. Scherzer sensed that Respondent was upset that the administration knew Respondent had missed the meeting. Respondent’s demeanor was less than cordial toward Ms. Scherzer. Of the 16 questions posed to her during the April 12 Weingarten meeting, Respondent answered three: 1) her current position; 2) her duty day at Booker; and 3) her knowledge that there was a PLC meeting on March 8, 2016. The remaining Weingarten questions provided Respondent with the opportunity to explain her PLC absence, yet she declined to answer the questions, except to say she didn’t feel comfortable answering them without representation. There was no testimony that she advised Booker’s administration at that time, that she was represented by a representative or an attorney. Respondent’s testimony that she was upset that her paraprofessional had been called to the front office, and that no one bothered to question Respondent about her absence from the PLC meeting, is not accurate. Respondent was afforded the opportunity to provide answers and choose not to do so. On April 26, 2016, Superintendent White issued another certified letter to Respondent. This letter provided that Respondent had been: [I]nsubordinate in performing your assigned duties and exercising professional judgement and integrity. [W]e have concluded you have committed the following offenses among others: misconduct in office, willful neglect of duties and incompetency. Therefore, . . . I have just cause to terminate your employment with the Sarasota County School Board. This April letter was the result of the Weingarten hearing that was held on April 12, 2016. Deputy Superintendent Lempe’s job is to run the business operation of Petitioner and he is involved with the grievance process as the “formal level one grievance authority.” He was directly involved with the MOU negotiations, and drafting of the “last chance agreement.” As outlined in the CBA, Petitioner utilizes a four-step progressive discipline structure. One of Deputy Superintendent Lempe’s duties involves the grievance process as the “formal level one grievance authority.” He was directly involved with the MOU negotiations, drafting of the last chance agreement, and referred to this last chance agreement “as step five in our four- step progressive disciplinary [sic] process.” At the hearing, Respondent again acknowledged her understanding of the MOU provision: “that the next step of progressive discipline called for under the terms of the Instructional Bargaining Unit Agreement should there be a further transgression of the rules could be termination of her employment.” RESPONDENT’S PRIOR DISCIPLINARY HISTORY There was ample testimonial and documentary evidence presented regarding Respondent’s disciplinary history. The following is a summary of the evidence regarding Respondent’s disciplinary history: February 24, 2014: Respondent was given a verbal reprimand11/ for her use of disparaging comments and behaviors toward students in her class. Respondent did not grieve this action. April 8, 2014: Respondent was given a written reprimand12/ for an incident that affected Booker’s FTE (full-time employees) survey, which directly related to Booker’s funding for employees, and another colleague’s VAMS (value added model system) score. Respondent inappropriately retained a student in her class when the student had been administratively transferred to and was on another teacher’s rooster. Respondent did not grieve this action. October 29, 2014: Superintendent White notified Respondent that, acting on Principal Frost’s recommendation, Superintendent White would recommend to the school board that Respondent be suspended for three days without pay. Respondent had been insubordinate, used inappropriate language, and had inappropriate interactions with students. December 1, 2014: Principal Frost recommended Respondent’s employment be terminated. Respondent refused to allow a student back in the classroom after the student had completed a suspension period. April 6, 2015: Principal Frost placed Respondent on “administrative leave pending an internal investigation.” A substitute teacher had found Respondent’s handwritten note, which contained derogatory and offensive language regarding certain students in her class(es). Principal Frost had also entered Respondent’s classroom, observed Respondent on the phone, and heard Respondent use obscenities that could be heard by students. Following the Weingarten meeting on this matter, Respondent was reassigned to the Landings, the School Board’s administrative offices, during the course of the investigation. On April 7, 2015, Superintendent White notified Respondent that, acting on Principal Frost’s recommendation, Superintendent White would recommend to the School Board that Respondent’s employment be terminated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner terminate Respondent's employment as a classroom teacher for Sarasota County School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of January, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 5th day of January, 2017.
The Issue The issue is whether the allegations contained in the Second Amended Administrative Complaint filed by Petitioner are true, and if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The School Board has employed Dr. Whalen since 1997. She first worked as a teacher at Gladys Morse Elementary School. When Morse closed she was transferred to Taylor Elementary School, a new school. She continued teaching at Taylor Elementary School until January 19, 2005. Her employment was pursuant to a professional services contract. Dr. Whalen holds Florida Educator's Certificate No. 530568. Dr. Whalen has been confined to a wheelchair for almost 55 years. She cannot move her lower extremities and she is without feeling in her lower extremities. On January 19, 2005, she was approximately 58 years of age. During times pertinent Dr. Whalen taught a "varying exceptionalities" class. A "varying exceptionalities" class is provided for students who have a specific learning disability, or have emotional difficulties, or who have a physical handicap. She has been an exceptional student education teacher for about 20 years. She has never been disciplined by an employer during her career. In addition to her teaching activities she is also County Coordinator for the Special Olympics. The Commissioner of Education is the chief educational officer of the state and is responsible for giving full assistance to the State Board of Education in enforcing compliance with the mission and goals of the K-20 education system. The State Board of Education's mission includes the provision of certification requirements for all school-based personnel. The Education Practices Commission is appointed by the State Board of Education and has the authority to discipline teachers. Nonviolent Crisis Intervention Kathy Kriedler is currently a teacher at Taylor Elementary School. She is certified in teaching emotionally impaired children and has taught emotionally impaired children in Taylor County since 1983. She is an outstanding teacher who was recently named Taylor County Elementary School Teacher of the Year and Taylor County District Teacher of the Year. Ms. Kriedler is a master level instructor in Nonviolent Crisis Intervention, which is a program of the Crisis Prevention Institute. The use of skills associated with the program is generally referred to as CPI. CPI arms teachers with the skills necessary to de-escalate a crisis involving a student, or, in the event de-escalation fails, provides the skills necessary to physically control students. Ms. Kriedler has been the School Board's CPI teacher since 1987. CPI teaches that there are four stages of crisis development and provides four staff responses to each stage. These stages and responses are: (1) Anxiety-Supportive; (2) Defensive-Directive; (3) Acting Out Person-Nonviolent Physical Crisis Intervention; and (4) Tension Reduction- Therapeutic Rapport. The thrust of CPI is the avoidance of physical intervention when possible. The CPI Workbook notes that, "The crisis development model . . . is an extremely valuable tool that can be utilized to determine where a person is during an escalation process." It then notes, helpfully, "Granted, human behavior is not an orderly 1-4 progression." The CPI Workbook provides certain responses for a situation that has devolved into violence. CPI physical control techniques include the "children's control position" which is also referred to as the "basket hold." CPI also provides a maneuver called the "bite release" which is used when a child bites a teacher and the "choke release" which is used when a child chokes a teacher. CPI specifically forbids sitting or lying on a child who is lying on the floor because this could cause "positional asphyxia." In other words, an adult who lies upon a child could prevent a child from breathing. CPI holds are not to be used for punishment. The School Board encourages teachers to learn and apply CPI in their dealings with students. The use of CPI is not, however, mandatory School Board policy nor is it required by the State Board of Education. Dr. Whalen took and passed Ms. Kriedler's CPI course and took and passed her refresher course. She had at least 16 hours of instruction in CPI. She could not accomplish some of the holds taught because of her physical handicap. The alleged chain incident Ms. Amanda Colleen Fuquay taught with Dr. Whalen when both of them were teachers at Gladys Morse Elementary School. Ms. Fuquay, like Dr. Whalen, taught exceptional children. Ms. Fuquay's first teaching job after receipt of her bachelor's degree was at Morse Elementary School. At the time Ms. Fuquay began teaching, Dr. Whalen was also a teacher at Morse. The record does not reveal when Ms. Fuqua initially began teaching at Morse, but it was after 1997 and before August 2002, when Morse Elementary merged into the new Taylor Elementary School. During Ms. Fuqua's first year of teaching she entered Dr. Whalen's class. She testified that upon entry she observed a male student chained to a chair at his desk. The chain may have been about the size of a dog choker. She said that the chain ran through the student's belt loop and around the chair. Ms. Fuqua said that she inquired of Dr. Whalen as to the reason for the chain and she replied, in perhaps a joking way, that the student wouldn't sit down. The evidence does not reveal when this occurred or even in what year it occurred. The evidence does not reveal the name of the alleged victim. The evidence does not reveal the victim's response to being chained to the chair. The evidence does not reveal whether Dr. Whalen chained the child or if someone else chained the child or if it just appeared that the child was chained. Robin Whiddon was Dr. Whalen's aide for school years 1998-99, 1999-2000, and 2000-2001, and she testified at the hearing. She did not mention this incident. Ms. Fuqua could not discern if this was a serious matter or whether it was some sort of a joke. She said, "I didn't have a clue." Ms. Fuqua failed to report this incident because she was new to teaching and she had not, "learned the ropes." Dr. Whalen denied under oath that she had ever chained a student to a chair, and specifically denied that she had done it in 1999, which is within the time frame that Ms. Fuqua could have observed this. Moreover, she specifically denied having chains in her classroom. The Commissioner has the burden of proving the facts in this case, as will be discussed in detail below, by clear and convincing evidence. Undoubtedly, Ms. Fuqua saw a chain of some sort that appeared to be positioned in such a manner as to restrain the unidentified student. However, the lack of any corroborating evidence, the paucity of details, and the denial of wrong-doing by Dr. Whalen prevents a finding, by clear and convincing evidence, of maltreatment. The alleged incident involving S.A. On August 13, 1998, at Morse, Ms. Kriedler was called by Dr. Whalen to her class. When Ms. Kriedler entered the class she observed Dr. Whalen holding S.A.'s arms to his desk with her right hand and holding the hair of his head by her left hand. She stated to Ms. Kriedler that, "If he moves a quarter of an inch, I'm going to rip the hair out of his head." Dr. Whalen also related that S.A. had kicked her. Dr. Whalen also said to S.A., in the presence of Ms. Kriedler, "Go ahead and kick me because I can't feel it." This referred to her handicap. By this time S.A. was motionless. After a discussion with Ms. Kriedler, Dr. Whalen released S.A. and Ms. Kriedler took him to her classroom. Subsequently, Ms. Kriedler requested that he be transferred to her class and that request was granted. Ms. Kriedler reported this incident to Shona Murphy, the Taylor County School District Exceptional Student Education Administrator. Ms. Murphy stated that Ms. Kriedler reported to her that that S.A. was flailing about and kicking when Dr. Whalen threatened to pull his hair. Robin Whiddon was Dr. Whalen's aide on August 13, 1998. She recalls S.A. and described him as a troubled young man who was full of anger. He would sometimes come to school appearing disheveled. He had blond hair that was usually short. Ms. Whiddon has observed him lash out at others with his hands. Ms. Whiddon was not present in the classroom when the incident described by Ms. Kriedler occurred. However, upon her return to the classroom, Dr. Whalen informed her that she had grabbed S.A. by the hair until she could control him. Ms. Murphy discussed the incident with Principal Izell Montgomery and Superintendent Oscar Howard in late August 1998. As a result of the discussions, these officials decided to video-tape Dr. Whalen's classroom, and to take no other action. Dr. Whalen denied under oath that she grabbed S.A.'s hair. Despite Dr. Whalen's assertion to the contrary and upon consideration of all of the evidence, it has been proven by clear and convincing evidence that Dr. Whalen grabbed and held S.A.'s hair and threatened to pull it out. Grabbing a student's hair is not an approved CPI hold. However, at the time this occurred Dr. Whalen was not required to use CPI methods. Grabbing a student's hair is generally unacceptable conduct unless, for instance, it is done in self- defense, or in order to protect the student or others. It has been not been proven by clear and convincing evidence that grabbing S.A.'s hair was impermissible. Dr. Whalen told Ms. Kriedler that S.A. had been kicking her. This statement raises the possibility that the action was initiated as a self-defense measure. When one considers that Dr. Whalen has limited mobility, and that her aide was not present, she was permitted to take reasonable actions to defend herself. Grabbing a student's hair may have been reasonable under the circumstances and, in the event, the record does not provide enough evidence to permit a determination. The video-tape of November 20, 2002 A video-tape, that included audio, and which was made part of the record of the case, portrays events on the morning of November 20, 2002. The video-tape was brought to the attention of the school administration by a parent who had received the video-tape from Dr. Whalen. The picture quality of the video is satisfactory but the audio is derived from a microphone near Dr. Whalen's desk. Therefore, it is clear that the microphone did not record all of the words spoken in the classroom at the time and date pertinent. Accordingly, facts found as a result of viewing the video-tape are limited to those which are clearly depicted by it. The School Board had discussed the wearing of apparel with representations of the Confederate battle flag on them in a meeting immediately prior to November 20, 2002. Early in the morning of November 20, 2002, there was a discussion with regard to the School Board deliberations among some of Dr. Whalen's students. The discussion came close to degenerating into physical conflict. This was reported to Dr. Whalen's aide, Ruth Ann Austin. It was further reported that some students called some of their fellow students "rebels," and others called other students "Yankees" and "gangsters." Assistant Principal Verges visited the classroom at the beginning of the school day, at Dr. Whalen's request, and he explained the matters discussed at the School Board meeting. Upon the departure of Assistant Principal Verges, Dr. Whalen unleashed a torrent of criticism upon her students addressing the subject of name-calling. Dr. Whalen spoke to the students in a loud and threatening tone of voice. While delivering this tirade, Dr. Whalen traveled to and fro in her motorized wheelchair. The video-tape revealed that this wheelchair was capable of rapid movement and that it was highly maneuverable. The lecture was delivered in a wholly confrontational and offensive manner. The lecture continued for more than 30 minutes. This behavior was the opposite of the de-escalating behavior that is suggested by CPI. However, Dr. Whalen had never been directed to employ CPI. S.O. was a student in Dr. Whalen's class and was present on November 20, 2002. He was a student of the Caucasian race who had, prior to this date, displayed aggressive and violent behavior toward Assistant Principal Verges and toward Ruth Ann Austin, Dr. Whalen's aide. Some on the school staff described him, charitably, as "non-compliant." S.O. was quick to curse and had in the past, directed racial slurs to Ms. Austin, who is an African-American. Because of his propensity to kick those to whom his anger was directed, his parents had been requested to ensure that he wear soft shoes while attending school. On November 20, 2002, S.O. was wearing cowboy boots and a Dixie Outfitters shirt with the Confederate battle flag emblazoned upon the front. Subsequent to Dr. Whalen's tirade, S.O. slid out of his chair onto the carpeted floor of the classroom. Dr. Whalen instructed him to get back in his chair, and when he did not, she tried to force him into the chair. She threatened S.O. by saying, "Do you want to do the floor thing?" When S.O., slid out of his chair again, Dr. Whalen forcibly removed S.O.'s jacket. Thereafter, Ms. Austin approached S.O. Ms. Austin is a large woman. Ms. Austin removed S.O.'s watch and yanked S.O.'s boots from his feet and threw them behind his chair. Dr. Whalen drove her wheelchair into the back of S.O.'s chair with substantial violence. Thereafter, Ms. Austin removed S.O. from the classroom. Removing S.O.'s jacket, watch, and boots was acceptable under the circumstances because they could have been used as weapons. The act of driving the wheelchair into the back of S.O.'s chair, however, was unnecessary and unhelpful. A memorandum of counseling was presented to Dr. Whalen by Principal Ivey on December 2, 2002, which addressed her behavior as portrayed by the video-tape. The S.O. and C.C. incidents Reports from time to time were made to Assistant Principal Verges, and others, that Dr. Whalen engaged in an activity commonly referred to as "kissing the carpet." This referred to physically taking children down to the floor and sitting on them. During April 2003, Dr. Whalen reported to Assistant Principal Verges and Ms. Kriedler that she had recently put two students on the carpet. During the four years Mr. Verges was Dr. Whalen's Assistant Principal, Dr. Whalen reported a total of only about four instances of having to physically restrain students. Dr. Whalen has never told Mr. Verges that she has regularly restrained children on the floor. Dr. Whalen's agent for using physical restraint is her aide, Ms. Austin, because Dr. Whalen's handicap does not permit her to easily engage in physical restraint. Ms. Austin physically restrained children five or six or seven times during the four years she was Dr. Whalen's aide. On four occasions a child actually went to the floor while being restrained by Ms. Austin. One of the two students who were reported to have been physically restrained during the April 2003, time frame was S.M. During this time frame S.M. became a new student in Dr. Whalen's class. S.M. was unhappy about being placed in a "slow" class. It was Ms. Austin's practice to meet Dr. Whalen's students when they exited the school bus in the morning. Accordingly, she met S.M., the new student. S.M. was "mouthy" when she exited the bus and would not get in line with the other children. S.M. and the rest of the children were taken to the lunch room in order to procure breakfast. While there, S.M. obtained a tray containing peaches and other food and threw the contents to the floor. Ms. Austin instructed S.M. to clean up the mess she made. S.M. responded by pushing Ms. Austin twice, and thereafter Ms. Austin put S.M. in a basket hold. S.M. struggled and they both fell on the floor. Ms. Austin called for assistance and someone named "Herb" arrived. Herb put a basket hold on S.M. while Ms. Austin tried to remove S.M.'s boots because S.M. was kicking her. S.M. was almost as tall as Ms. Austin and was very strong. At the end of the day, Ms. Austin was trying to "beat the rush" and to get her students on the school bus early. She was standing in the door to the classroom attempting to get her students to form a line. She and Dr. Whalen had planned for S.M., and another student, with whom she had engaged in an ongoing disagreement, to remain seated while the rest of their classmates got on the bus. While the line was being formed, S.M. and her fellow student had been directed to sit still. Instead, S.M. rose, said that she was not going to wait, and tried to push by Ms. Austin. Ms. Austin responded by asking her to sit down. S.M. said she would not sit down and pushed Ms. Austin yet again. Ms. Austin tried to restrain her and told the other students to get to the bus as best as they could because she was struggling with S.M. and was having substantial difficulty in restraining her. Ms. Austin asked for help. She and S.M. fell to the floor. S.M. was on the carpet. Dr. Whalen slid from her wheelchair and attempted to restrain the top part of S.M.'s body. Ms. Austin held the bottom part of her body and attempted to remove her boots with which S.M. was kicking. S.M. was cursing, screaming, and otherwise demonstrating her anger. Dr. Whalen talked to her until she calmed down. They then released S.M. The actions taken by Ms. Austin and Dr. Whalen were appropriate responses to S.M.'s behavior. The S.M. affair precipitated the C.C. incident. C.C. was a large male student who had no history of violence. C.C. teased S.M. about having been "taken down" by Ms. Austin. C.C., teasingly, told Ms. Austin, that he did not think Ms. Austin could take him down. Ms. Austin said she could put him in a basket hold which she did. C.C. challenged Ms. Austin to put him on the floor and she did. This was considered a joke by C.C. and Ms. Austin. This incident was nothing more than horseplay. As the result of the comments made by Dr. Whalen, addressing the S.M. and C.C. incidents, to Ms. Kriedler and to Assistant Principal Verges, a memorandum issued dated April 7, 2003. It was signed by Principal Sylvia Ivey. The memorandum recited that Dr. Whalen's comments raised concerns with regard to whether Dr. Whalen was using appropriate CPI techniques. The memorandum stated that Dr. Whalen's classroom would be video-taped for the remainder of the school year, that Dr. Whalen was to document each case of restraint used, that she should use proper CPI techniques, and that she should contact the office should a crisis situation arise in her classroom. The J.R. incident On January 19, 2005, J.R. was a student in Dr. Whalen's classroom. On that date, J.R. was a ten-year-old female and in the third grade. J.R. had been a student in Dr. Whalen's classroom only since about January 10, 2005. Dr. Whalen did not know much about J.R.'s history on January 19, 2005. At the hearing J.R. appeared physically to be approximately as large as Dr. Whalen. A determination as to exactly who was the larger could not be made because Dr. Whalen was seated in a wheelchair. Assistant Principal Verges found that J.R.'s physical strength was greater than average for an elementary school student on an occasion when he had to restrain her after she bit another person. J.R. brought a CD player to class on January 19, 2005, and after lunchtime, Dr. Whalen discovered it and confiscated it. Dr. Whalen took possession of the CD player because school rules forbid students to have CD players in class. Dr. Whalen put it in a drawer by her desk. When this happened, in J.R.'s words she, "Got mad." A heated discussion between Dr. Whalen and J.R., about the dispossession of the CD player ensued, but after a brief time, according to Dr. Whalen's aide, Angela Watford, "the argument settled." Even though Ms. Watford's lunch break had begun, she remained in the room, at Dr. Whalen's request, until she was satisfied that the dispute had calmed. Subsequent to the departure of Ms. Watford, J.R. approached Dr. Whalen, who was seated behind her desk working. The configuration of the desk and furniture used by Dr. Whalen was such that she was surrounded by furniture on three sides. In order to obtain the CD player, it was necessary for J.R. to enter this confined space. J.R. entered this space, moving behind Dr. Whalen, and reached for the drawer containing the CD player in an effort to retrieve it. When Dr. Whalen asked her what she was doing, J.R. said, "I am getting my CD player and getting out of this f class." Dr. Whalen told J.R. to return to her desk. J.R. continued in her effort to obtain the CD player and succeeded in opening the drawer and grasping the headset part of the CD player. Dr. Whalen attempted to close the drawer. J.R. reacted violently and this surprised Dr. Whalen. J.R. attempted to strike Dr. Whalen. Dr. Whalen reared back to avoid the blow and then put her arm around J.R. When J.R. pulled away, this caused Dr. Whalen to fall from her wheelchair on top of J.R.'s back at about a 45-degree angle. Immediately thereafter, J.R. bit Dr. Whalen several times. The bites broke Dr. Whalen's skin in three places and the pain caused her to cry. J.R. began cursing, screaming, and kicking. J.R. said she was going to "kick the s _ _ _" out of her teacher. In fact, while on the carpet, J.R. kicked Dr. Whalen numerous times. Dr. Whalen believed she would be in danger of additional harm if she allowed J.R. to regain her feet. This belief was reasonable. J.R. was in no danger of asphyxiation during this event because Dr. Whalen removed part of her weight from J.R. by extending her arms. Upon returning from lunch Ms. Watford spotted T.B., a boy who appears to be eight to ten years of age. T.B. was standing outside of Dr. Whalen's classroom and he calmly said to Ms. Watford, "Help." Ms. Watford entered the classroom and observed Dr. Whalen lying on top of and across J.R., who was face down on the carpeted floor, and who was cursing and kicking while Dr. Whalen tried to restrain her. Ms. Watford ran over to assist in restraining her by putting her legs between J.R.'s legs. J.R. thereafter tried to hit Ms. Watford with her right hand. Ms. Watford grabbed J.R.'s right arm and was severely bitten on the knuckle by J.R. The three of them ended up, Ms. Watford related, "in a wad." Within seconds of Ms. Watford's intervention, Frances Durden, an aide in the classroom next door came on the scene. She was followed by Takeisha McIntyre, the dean of the school, and Assistant Principal Verges. Ms. McIntyre and Mr. Verges were able to calm J.R. and safely separate her from Dr. Whalen. Then J.R. stated that Dr. Whalen had bitten her on the back. Dr. Whalen and Ms. Watford went to the school's health clinic to have their wounds treated. The wounds were cleaned and Ms. Watford subsequently received an injection. While Dr. Whalen and Ms. Watford were at the health clinic, J.R. was ushered in by Ms. McIntyre. J.R.'s shirt was raised and the persons present observed two red marks between her shoulder blades. Dr. Whalen said that the marks must have been produced by her chin or that possibly her teeth may have contacted J.R.'s back. She said that she had forced her chin into J.R.'s back in an effort to stop J.R. from biting her. Ms. McIntyre took photographs of the marks. The photography was observed by Mr. Verges. The photographs reveal two red marks positioned between J.R.'s shoulder blades. The two marks are vertical, parallel, and aligned with the backbone. They are from one, to one and one half inches in length. The skin is not broken. There is no wound. Teeth marks are not discernible. A teacher who has many years of experience in the elementary or kindergarten education levels, and who has observed many bite marks, may offer an opinion as to whether a mark is a bite mark. Mr. Verges has the requisite experience to offer an opinion as to the nature of the marks on J.R.'s back and he observed the actual marks as well as the photographs. It is his opinion that the two marks were caused by a bite. Ms. McIntyre, who has also observed many bite marks in her career, and who observed the actual marks as well as the photographs, stated that the marks were consistent with a bite. Registered Nurse Cate Jacob, supervisor of the School Health Program observed Julia's back on January 19, 2005, and opined that the red marks on J.R.'s back were bite marks. J.R. reported via her mother, the day after the incident, that she had been bitten by a boy on the playground of Taylor Elementary School, by a black boy with baggy pants, possibly before the incident with Dr. Whalen. Facts presented at the hearing suggest that it is unlikely that J.R. was bitten on the playground under the circumstances described in this report. T.B. was the only nonparticipant close to the actual combat who was a neutral observer. He did not see Dr. Whalen bite J.R., but did see her chin contact J.R.'s back and he heard Dr. Whalen say words to the effect, "I am going to make you say 'ouch.'" Dr. Whalen denied biting J.R. She stated at the time of the event, and under oath at the hearing, that she forcibly contacted J.R.'s back with her chin. She stated that it was possible that in the heat of the struggle her teeth may have contacted J.R.'s back. The opinion of the school personnel as to the origin of the marks upon J.R.'s back is entitled to great weight. On the other hand, a study of the photographs exposed immediately after the incident, reveals no teeth marks and no broken skin. The marks could be consistent with pressing one's chin upon another's back or pressing one's teeth in one's back. In the latter case, whether J.R. was bitten may be a matter of definition. Generally, a bite occurs when the victim experiences a grip or would like that experienced by Ms. Watford or Dr. Whalen in this incident. Although J.R. asserted that the marks occurred because of the actions of, "a boy on the playground," given J.R.'s general lack of credibility, that explanation is of questionable reliability. The evidence, taken as a whole, does not lend itself to a finding of the origin of the marks on J.R.'s back. Because proof by clear and convincing evidence is required in this case, it is not found that Dr. Whalen bit J.R. Principal Ivey's memorandum of April 7, 2003, specified that ". . . Mr. Howard and I informed you that we will video-tape your classroom . . . ." Thus it is clear that it was not Dr. Whalen's duty to cause the classroom to be video-taped. It is clear that for many months Dr. Whalen's classroom was video-taped and until the November 20, 2003, incident, none of her actions caused attention to be drawn to her teaching methods. It is found that the assault on Dr. Whalen was sudden and unexpected. Any actions taken by Dr. Whalen were taken in permissible self-defense. J.R. was suspended from Taylor Elementary School for ten days following this incident. Miscellaneous Findings Sylvia Ivey has been the principal of Taylor Elementary for three years. She has evaluated Dr. Whalen three times. She has evaluated Dr. Whalen as "effective," which is the top mark that a teacher may receive. From approximately 1997, when the S.A. hair pulling allegedly occurred, until December 2, 2002, not a single document was created indicating dissatisfaction with Dr. Whalen's teaching methods. Dr. Whalen's normal voice volume is louder than average. She would often elevate her already loud voice, intimidate students and pound on her desk. The aforementioned activities are not part of CPI. On the other hand, these methods worked for Dr. Whalen for 20 years. She was not required to use CPI until subsequent to the memorandum of April 7, 2003. There is no evidence that she failed to use CPI once she was required to employ it. As revealed by the testimony of Dr. Whalen, Ms. Kriedler, Assistant Principal Verges, Ms. Austin, and others, some of these children would strike, kick, bite, throw objects, curse, and hurl racial epithets at their teachers. Teaching some of these children was difficult.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of Counts 3 and 4, that she be issued a reprimand, that she be placed on probation as that term is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-11.008, for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER 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 15th day of June, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Mary F. Aspros, Esquire Meyer and Brooks, P.A. 2544 Blairstone Pines Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Brian A. Newman, Esquire Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson, Bell & Dunbar, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Second Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether respondent's teaching contract should be renewed for school year 1995-96.
Findings Of Fact Based on all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background In this proceeding, petitioner, Suwannee County School Board (Board), seeks to terminate respondent, Lallah P. Singh, a teacher, on the ground his classroom performance in school years 1993-94 and 1994-95 was unsatisfactory. In doing so, petitioner relies upon Section 231.36(3)(e), Florida Statutes, which authorizes a school board to terminate an employee with a professional services contract (PSC) when that employee has an unsatisfactory performance rating for two consecutive years. This proceeding represents the first occasion on which the Board has utilized the statute for a PSC teacher. Respondent, who has been employed in the Suwannee County school system since December 1977, is certified as a teacher in the areas of biology and mathematics for grades 6-12. A native of India, he holds the equivalent degree of a doctor in veterinary medicine from a university in that country. He has also obtained a master's degree in veterinary science in this country and is certified as an education specialist in mathematics. Until school year 1993-94, respondent was employed in a variety of positions, including a regular classroom teacher (1977-86), a home study teacher (1987-89), and an alternate education teacher (1990-92). During school year 1993-94, respondent was assigned to the Branford Pre K-12 School in Branford, Florida where he taught the in-school suspension (ISS) class. That class is made up of high school level students suspended from their regular classes for disciplinary reasons. The assignment required that respondent maintain discipline and assist students with work assigned by their regular teachers. Based on observations conducted by his principal during the school year, respondent received an unsatisfactory evaluation for his classroom performance. He was notified of these deficiencies in writing and was told that such deficiencies must be corrected by the end of the following school year, or else he would face possible non-renewal of his contract. For school year 1994-95, respondent was reassigned to an ISS classroom four periods per day but was also required to teach a general science class one period per day. During that year, respondent was observed by his principal in the general science class on four occasions to determine if the deficiencies noted in the prior year had been remediated. While most of the earlier deficiencies were eventually corrected, respondent was still unsatisfactory in one performance area noted in the prior year, as well as two other areas, and his performance was accordingly deemed to be unsatisfactory. On May 15, 1995, he was notified that his contract would not be renewed. By letter dated May 19, 1995, respondent requested a hearing to contest the Board's action. Although Section 231.36(3)(e)4.b., Florida Statutes, requires that the hearing be scheduled within 45 days of receipt of the written appeal, the parties have waived this requirement by requesting hearing dates beyond that timeframe. As clarified by his counsel, respondent generally contends the Board erred in the termination process by (a) providing him untimely and insufficient notice, (b) performing an inadequate evaluation, and (c) offering him inadequate assistance to correct his deficiencies. He asks for reinstatement of his professional services contract, as well as back pay. Events Leading up to School Year 1993-94 Around 1982, the legislature amended Section 231.36(3), Florida Statutes, to create a professional services contract under which teachers could be employed. Prior to that time, teachers not on annual contract status were employed under what was known as a continuing contract. Both a PSC and a continuing contract are considered a form of tenure for public school employees. After the new law became effective, teachers employed under a continuing contract were given the option to convert to a PSC. The advantage to a PSC is that if a teacher is cited for unsatisfactory performance in a given year, he or she has the following year in which to remediate those deficiencies. If the deficiencies are not remediated in the second year, a school board can change the teacher to annual contract status and decline to renew the teacher's contract. This procedure contrasts with the continuing contract process which, after an unsatisfactory rating is given but is not remediated by the teacher, allows a school board to change the teacher to annual contract status and not renew the contract at the end of any given year. In school year 1991-92, respondent was still employed under a continuing contract. When he received an unsatisfactory evaluation, and was threatened with the possibility of being changed to an annual contract and not renewed, he consulted with a teacher's union field representative, Richard E. Layer, on his procedural and substantive rights. During their discussions, the two talked about whether respondent should remain on a continuing contract or switch to a PSC. According to Layer, he explained to respondent "how the statute (governing a PSC) worked," advised him that a PSC offered more job security than a continuing contract, and recommended respondent switch to a PSC since this would give him two years in which to correct any deficiencies that might occur in the future. Layer added that after their conversation, respondent "knew exactly what the (PSC) provided." Based on Layer's advice, in April 1992 respondent requested that he be converted to a PSC. This was done for school year 1992-93, and he remained in that status until his contract was terminated in May 1995. The Evaluation Process Generally When evaluating classroom performance in both school years 1993-94 and 1994-95, the Board used standard evaluation forms developed by representatives of the Board and teacher's union. The evaluation, which must be performed at least once a year for teachers having a PSC, is conducted by the teacher's immediate supervisor, who in this case was the school principal, Melvin McMullen. McMullen had assumed that position during the latter part of school year 1992-93, had received special training for conducting evaluations, and was required to perform evaluations for over fifty teachers in both school years 1993-94 and 1994-95. The evaluation process for a teacher on a PSC consists of at least one classroom evaluation during a given school year. The results of the first evaluation are recorded by the evaluator on an assessment form. Within five days after the observation, a principal-teacher conference must be held for the purpose of reviewing the outcome of the observation. At that meeting, the teacher must sign the form, which includes a written admonition that "(f)ailure to correct the area(s) marked unacceptable may lead to your dismissal or non- renewal." Subsequent evaluations during the year, if any, are also recorded by the evaluator on an assessment form. For all evaluations, the teacher is given an acceptable ("A") or unacceptable ("U") rating for each evaluated area. Although the assessment forms used herein changed in some minor respects from school year 1993-94 to school year 1994-95, their substance was essentially the same. Each assessment form for a classroom teacher contains six overall performance standards, including planning, teaching procedures, classroom managment, presentation and knowledge of subject matter, assessment techniques and personal characteristics and professional responsibilities. Under the performance standards are found a total of twelve "indicators." Finally, within the indicators are found a "checklist of observable teaching behaviors," consisting of twenty-seven behaviors, each requiring a rating of "U" or "A." If any teaching behavior is given a "U," the indicator likewise requires a rating of "U." If an indicator is marked "U," the performance standard is also scored unacceptable. A total score is then assigned to the teacher, with one point given for each indicator with an "A," and the highest score being twelve. Anything less than a twelve is considered unsatisfactory and, if not corrected, may result in the teacher's dismissal. If the first observation of a PSC teacher results in an unsuccessful rating in any area, a "level-one" assistance plan is instituted by the principal, which consists of a principal-teacher conference to discuss the deficient areas, suggestions on how to correct the deficiencies, and a timeframe to correct the substandard performance. If insufficient progress has been made by the end of the timeframe, at the option of the assessor, the level-one assistance process can be repeated or a "level-two" assistance plan can begin. The latter level of assistance generally mirrors the assistance given during level-one but the assessor must also notify the superintendent that level-two has been initiated. If the deficiencies are still not corrected by the end of the school year, the superintendent is notified, and the teacher is again placed on notice that he must correct those deficiencies during the following school year or suffer the risk of being reverted to an annual contract status and not being renewed. Finally, during the subsequent school year, the same observations are conducted, and level-one and two assistance plans are implemented if deficiencies are observed. If remediation does not occur by the end of the second school year, the superintendent has the authority to recommend that the school board decline to renew the teacher's contract. School year 1993-94 Respondent was first evaluated by principal McMullen on February 23, 1994. He received a total credit of 10 out of 12 possible points. For the indicators "Recognizes and provides for individual differences" and "Demonstrates effective classroom facilitation and control," respondent received a "U." A conference was held by McMullen and respondent the same day, at which time respondent was given a form entitled "Related Work Performance Form (Appraisal III)." It contained not only an explanation of unacceptable areas and recommended procedure for correction, but also a notation that respondent had "2 weeks from today to demonstrate acceptable teacher corrective action." On March 14, 1994, respondent was again evaluated by principal McMullen. Although McMullen noted that "improvement" had occurred since the earlier evaluation, respondent received a credit of 11 out of 12 points. Indeed, he was still deficient in the area of "Demonstrates effective classroom facilitation and control." At a conference held the same day, respondent was given an explanation of his unacceptable area, a recommended procedure for correction, and the following timeframe for improvement: "2 weeks approximately from 3/14/94.". On March 15, 1994, respondent was given a lengthy list of resource materials available for use in correcting his deficiencies, including videos, journals and publications. In addition, he was given written instructions for use of the materials. Based on the unsatisfactory performance rating, principal McMullen sent the following letter to respondent on March 25, 1994: This letter is to notify you that you have demonstrated unsatisfactory performance on the Final Observation/Assessment Form (Appraisal I), with deficiencies noted in the folowing areas: Classroom Management Number 2: Maintains rules of conduct Number 3: Maintains instructional momentum These deficiencies must be corrected by April 1, 1995. I am requesting that your employ-ment be continued an additional year in order to provide you assistance. If you wish to discuss this matter with me further, please schedule an appointment through Mrs. Cannon. I look forward in continuing to work with you on classroom management issues. Respondent acknowledged receiving a copy of the letter the same day. On March 31, 1994, principal McMullen wrote the following letter to superintendent Blaylock: Dr. Lallah Singh has been notified of unsatis- factory performance on the Final Assessment Form with deficiencies noted in the following areas: Classroom Management Number 2: Maintains rules of conduct Number 3: Maintains instructional momentum I request that his employment be followed for an additional year to allow the opportunity to correct these deficiencies by April 1, 1995. Whether respondent received a copy of this letter is not of record. Although the March 14, 1994 evaluation was ostensibly used for personnel decisions that year, on May 6, 1994, a third formal assessment of respondent's classroom performance was conducted by principal McMullen. On that date, he received a credit of 11 out of 12 points. Even so, respondent was still deficient in "Classroom Management" and the related indicator based on unacceptable ratings given for the following observable teaching behaviors: "Maintains rules of conduct" and "Maintains instructional momentum." Thus, no matter whether the March or May evaluation was used, at the end of the first school year in question, respondent's only noted deficiency continued to be for classroom management and the related indicator, "Demonstrates effective classroom facilitation and control." On May 10, 1994, respondent and principal McMullen met to discuss respondent's latest assessment. Although McMullen noted that respondent had made "progress in meeting recommended procedures to help correct areas of concern," he noted that his level of improvement was "still not acceptable" and that respondent must continue the earlier suggestions for improving his performance. The two agreed to meet during the next school year's pre-planning period to discuss a plan of improvement for that year. This was embodied in a letter sent by McMullen to respondent on May 11, 1994. Sometime after receiving this notification, respondent contacted his local teacher's union representative, Willie Veal, Jr., for advice and assistance. On April 21, 1994, acting on the superintendent's recommendation, the Board reemployed respondent for the following year and placed him in a status known as "Professional Services Contract continuation (2nd year)," which is the Board's terminology for the "subsequent year" described in section 231.36(3)(e). Respondent did not receive a copy of this action. On June 7, 1994, however, respondent received a letter from the superintendent advising that the Board had approved him for a PSC for school year 1994-95. School year 1994-95 On August 19, 1994, respondent, union representative Veal, and principal McMullen met to discuss respondent's teaching status for the 1994-95 school year. At that meeting, respondent learned he would be reassigned to ISS but would also be required to teach general science one period per day. Although respondent says general science was not his strongest suit, which was mathematics, it was a subject within his certified area of biology. He also understood that his contract was subject to being non-renewed if he did not correct his deficiencies during the school year. This was confirmed by witness Veal. The following letter was given to respondent on August 29, 1994, to memorialize the substance of the meeting: Thank you for meeting with me while Mr. Veal had a moment last Friday (August 19th., 1994) to generally discuss plans for teaching improvement for the 1994-95 school year. As we discussed, I believe the opportunity to teach a General Science class and Mr. Brown spending two periods a days (sic) with I.S.S. students (doing Drop-Out Prevention counseling) will be two positive techniques to aid improvement as noted on the Appraisal II Form from last year. You and I will meet again soon, to review matters particular to unacceptable areas noted on the May 6th., 1994 Observation/ Assessment. We will then outline other suggestions, techniques and/or personnel that might assist this teacher improve- ment process. On November 15, 1994, respondent was sent the following letter by principal McMullen: As we discussed at our 8/25/94 (sic) meeting, and briefly the other day, we need to meet this coming week to discuss items noted on the Appraisal II Form. We will review the items which were unacceptable on the 5/6/94 Observation/Assessment Form. Can a meeting between you and I be set up for Tuesday afternoon, about 2:30 in your room? Please let me know. Pursuant to this letter, a meeting was held on November 20, 1994. During the meeting, principal McMullen further discussed respondent's deficient areas in the prior year and suggested ways to improve them. He also recommended that informal observations be made in an effort to prepare respondent for his formal observations during the following months. While respondent contends this assistance was begun too late in the school year to be of any meaningful value, it was rendered more than four months before the final evaluation on March 29, 1995. Then, too, respondent's most persistent problem continued to be in the area of classroom management, for which assistance to remedy that problem had been offered throughout the previous year. On December 12, 1994, principal McMullen conducted the first of four observations of respondent's performance in his general science classroom. That classroom, rather than the ISS class, was chosen out of fairness to respondent in order to assess him in a controlled classroom environment. On that day, respondent received a score of 7 out of 12 possible points. More specifically, he received an unacceptable rating for the following indicators: "Uses instructional materials effectively," "Displays skills in making assignments," "Recognizes and provides for individual differences," "Demonstrates effective classroom facilitation and control," and "Presents subject matter effectively." The following day, or December 13, 1994, petitioner was placed in the level-two assistance process. He was given a detailed explanation of unacceptable areas of performance observed at the December 12 evaluation and a lengthy list of suggestions on how to correct each of those deficiencies. Late on the morning of the same day, or December 13, 1994, principal McMullen walked by the building in which respondent taught and "noticed (him) sleeping at (his) desk" with his shoes off and leaning back in his chair. There were four students in his classroom at the time. Respondent was given a letter confirming this incident and told that if he had a medical reason which caused him to sleep to provide the principal with a doctor's note by December 16, 1994. Respondent provided a letter from his doctor the following day in which the physician listed four medications being taken by respondent, none of which would cause him to sleep. However, the physician noted that respondent "occasionally" took an over the counter cough syrup "that may cause drowsiness." Whether respondent was taking a cough syrup that day is not of record. This incident is relevant to the charge that respondent did not properly manage his classroom. On January 24, 1995, principal McMullen again performed an assessment of respondent's classroom performance. On this occasion, respondent received a score of 10 out of a possible 12 points. He received unacceptable ratings for the following indicators: "Demonstrates effective classroom facilitation and control" and "Presents subject matter effectively." On January 27, 1995, and pursuant to the level-two assistance program, respondent was again given a written, detailed explanation of his unacceptable areas and a list of recommended procedures for correction. He was told that he would be reevaluated on or about February 17, 1995. Finally, respondent was given the following written notice: Failure to satisfactorily correct all area(s) of unacceptable performance within the expected timeframe may result in returning the teacher holding a CC/PSC contract to annual contract status. If area(s) of unacc- eptable performance are not satisfactorily corrected during the second year, the teacher may be recommended for non-renewal. On February 21, 1995, another classroom observation was conducted by principal McMullen. That day, respondent received a score of 10 out of 12 possible points. Respondent again received unacceptable ratings for the following indicators: "Demonstrates effective classroom facilitation and control" and "Presents subject matter effectively." At a conference the same date, respondent was advised in writing that the following administrative assistance would be rendered: "Arrange conference time with fellow teachers/administrators, help secure resource materials and arrange for time to visit (illegible), etc." Respondent was also told that "(b)y April 5th (approximately six weeks), 1995 all observed/assessed areas should be scored acceptable." In addition, respondent was given a more detailed explanation of his unacceptable areas and recommended procedures for correction of those areas. On March 13, 1995, principal McMullen acknowledged receipt of certain corrective measures which respondent proposed to use at his next observation. These corrective measures were considered by principal McMullen at the next observation. A final observation of respondent occurred on March 29, 1995. Respondent received three unacceptable ratings which resulted in a score of 9 out of 12 points. On that occasion, he received unacceptable ratings for the following indicators: "Uses appropriate motivating techniques," "Demonstrates effective classroom facilitation and control," and "Presents subject matter effectively." The second noted indicator, "Demonstrates effective classroom facilitiation and control," was the same indicator for which respondent had received an unacceptable rating the prior year. On March 30, 1995, principal McMullen sent the following letter to respondent: This letter refers to our meeting today on your 3/29/95 Observation/Evaluation. Having gone over that with you, I wanted to highlight the fact that you still have three areas deficient in evaluation of your classroom teaching. These areas are noted on your evaluation form. Instructional recommendations are due to the Superintendent April 1, 1995. Due to this being the second year in the process to correct noted deficiencies and those continue, I have no choice but to recommend non-renewal at that time. Respondent acknowledged receiving a copy of the letter the same date. On March 31, 1995, principal McMullen notified the superintendent by letter that he could not recommend respondent for the 1995-96 school year term given his failure to correct the deficiencies. The superintendent accordingly recommended to the school board on April 21, 1995, that respondent not be rehired for the following school year. The recommendation was accepted by the school board at its April 25, 1995 meeting. On May 15, 1995, the superintendent advised respondent by letter that his contract was not being renewed for the following school year. This notice prompted respondent to request a formal hearing to contest the school board's proposed action. Was There Adequate Notice, Evaluation and Assistance? Notice Respondent contends that the school board erred by giving him inadequate and untimely notice of its actions. At the same time, respondent asserts that he was unaware of the consequences of the unsatisfactory performance ratings in school year 1993-94. He claims that, before the middle of school year 1994-95, no one ever specifically told him that his employment status was in jeopardy if his deficiences were not corrected by the following school year. Respondent's contention that he was unaware of the consequences of the 1993-94 unsatisfactory rating is not deemed to be credible. As early as 1992, respondent was given an explanation on how section 231.36(3)(e) "worked" by a field representative of the teacher's union, and according to the representative, "knew exactly what the law provided." Based on that advice, he switched from a continuing contract to a PSC since he had been told that this would give him two years to correct deficiencies before his employment could be terminated. Beginning in the summer of 1994, he was also represented by the president of the Suwannee County teacher's union, Willie Veal, Jr. At a meeting with Veal and principal McMullen in August 1994, respondent was told that he must correct his deficiencies before the end of the school year or face non- renewal. In addition, respondent had been through a similar evaluation process several years earlier. In 1992, he received an unsatisfactory performance rating and was told that unless the deficiencies were corrected, his contract might be terminated. In that case, however, the deficiencies were corrected, and he retained his tenure under a PSC. Finally, each of the many assessment forms that respondent signed during this process specifically noted that his "(f)ailure to correct the area(s) marked unacceptable may lead to (his) dismissal or non-renewal." Therefore, the totality of the evidence belies respondent's contention that he did not understand that this could happen. Statutory requirements The school board did not strictly follow all requirements of the law in terminating respondent. For example, the law requires that the superintendent provide the teacher in writing "no later than 6 weeks prior to the end of the postschool conference school period, of performance deficiencies which may result in termination of employment, if not corrected during the subsequent year of employment." In this case, respondent received this notice from his principal, rather than the superintendent. However, such notice was sufficient to inform respondent of the gravity of the situation. In the subsequent year, or school year 1994-95, the same notice must again be provided to the employee "no later than 6 weeks prior to the close of the postschool conference period." In this case, the notice was given by the superintendent, but this occurred less than "6 weeks prior to the postschool conference period." Although several errors in procedure occurred during the termination process, they were not so serious as to impair the fairness of this proceeding, or to cause prejudice to respondent in the defense of this case. Therefore, the errors in procedure are deemed to be harmless. Evaluation and Assistance The statute also calls for the employee to be "provided assistance and inservice training opportunities to help correct the noted performance deficiencies." However, the specific type of assistance and opportunties to be afforded a teacher is not statutorily defined. Respondent contends that such assistance and opportunities were never provided. Beginning with his first evaluation in February 1994, respondent was given assistance in the form of specific suggestions on how to correct the deficiencies. Also, numerous principal-teacher conferences were held to discuss the observation findings. After the March 14, 1994 evaluation, respondent was given a lengthy list of videos, journals and publications to use in an effort to correct his deficiencies. He was also given written instructions for the use of the materials. At the beginning of school year 1994-95, respondent had a pre-school meeting with both his principal and union representative concerning this matter. He also met with the principal on November 20, 1994, and the two discussed "other suggestions, techniques and/or personnel that might assist (his) teacher improvement process." Following an evaluation on December 12, 1994, respondent was given a detailed explanation of unacceptable areas of performance and a lengthy list of suggestions on how to correct those deficiencies. After another evaluation on February 21, 1995, respondent was again given advice on how to correct his deficiencies before the next evaluation. Although respondent says he took this advice to heart, and did all of the things suggested by his principal, he was still unable to obtain an acceptable rating. The Board, however, cannot be faulted for respondent's continued inability to correct the cited deficiencies. Through his expert, respondent contended that the evaluation and assistance process was not adequate. In reaching this conclusion, the expert relied upon her experience in the States of Georgia and Texas, as well as Dade and Seminole Counties, Florida. She did not, however, have any teacher remediation experience in small, rural counties such as Suwannee. The expert pointed out that a peer teacher did not assist the principal in performing the evaluations and making subsequent recommendations on how to correct the deficiencies. But there is no requirement that more than one person conduct the evaluation, and respondent (and his union representative) did not request that someone other than principal McMullen perform the observation. The expert further contended the Board should have assigned a peer teacher to assist respondent throughout this process. She also recommended that the Board send him to various seminars relating to his deficient areas. Again, however, there is no statutory requirement that a school board provide this type of assistance, especially when other forms of assistance and opportunities being given the teacher are adequate. Finally, the criticism that the Board did not adequately formalize its planned assistance measures into a written document is deemed to be unavailing. Because the assistance and opportunties provided respondent were adequate, the Board met its statutory obligation to provide "assistance and inservice training opportunities to help correct the noted performance deficiencies." Summary After being evaluated in a fair and impartial manner, and receiving timely and adequate notice of his deficiencies, as well as adequate assistance and opportunities to correct those flaws, respondent did not remediate a noted performance standard and related indicator during two consecutive school years. Therefore, the Board could properly change respondent's contract status from PSC to annual at the end of school year 1994-95 and decline to renew his contract.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order terminating respondent from employment by not renewing his 1995-96 contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, 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 4th day of January, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-2988 Respondent: 1-3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in findings of fact 2 and 3. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 9-12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. Rejected as being unnecessary. 15-17. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. 18-19. Rejected as being unnecessary. 20-21. Partially accepted in finding of fact 44. 22-35. Partially accepted in findings of fact 13-20. 36-56. Partially accepted in findings of fact 21-34. 57-67. Partially accepted in findings of fact 40-46. 68-71. Partially accepted in findings of fact 35-37. 72-73. Partially accepted in finding of fact 39. Note - Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary for a resolution of the issues, not supported by the more credible evidence, cumulative, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Victor Africano, Esquire P. O. Box 1450 Live Oak, Florida 32060-1450 Sally C. Gertz, Esquire 118 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1700 Charles F. Blaylock, Jr. Superintendent Suwannee County School Board 224 West Parshley Street Live Oak, Florida 32060-2396 Honorable Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
