The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent's teaching certificate should be disciplined for alleged violation of various provisions of Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B
Findings Of Fact Respondent Clayton McWilliams holds Florida teaching certificate number 653517, covering the area of substitute teaching, which is valid through June 30, 1994. He is 27 years of 1989, from Valdosta State College in Valdosta, Georgia. After a few brief months employment in retail sales in Tallahassee, Florida, Respondent returned to Madison, Florida, where he was born and lived prior to attending college. Respondent returned to Madison in August of 1989, after being contacted by the high school coach there regarding the possible employment of Respondent as an assistant coach at the high school from which Respondent graduated. He was employed in the 1989 County School Board. Subsequently, he was employed by the Board during the 1990 high school. Respondent served as an assistant coach during this period. While serving as a substitute teacher during the 1989 Respondent was responsible for a ninth grade science class. Female students M.B., R.B., J.D., and R.C., were in a group surrounding Respondent's desk, talking with Respondent. All the students in the group were curious about Respondent and asked him such questions as what are you going to coach, are you married, do you have a girl friend, and why did you come back to Madison? Respondent knew many of the students on a first name basis and, in the course of bantering with the group, responded at one point to the students' questions about his private life by asking the students about their social lives, if they kissed their boy friends with their mouths open, and if they used their tongues. There was general laughter from the students, although R.B. didn't think the question was "any of [Respondent's] business." This was the only question or comment that Respondent ever made that bothered R.B. R.B. regarded Respondent's conduct in the ensuing two years as "flirting" and "didn't ever think anything bad about it." The next year when R.B. was in the tenth grade (1990 photograph. Respondent later told R.B. that he stared at the photograph every night. When R.B. was in the eleventh grade and not a student in a class taught by Respondent, Respondent jokingly asked R.B. in the presence of D.C., her boyfriend at the time and an athlete with whom Respondent enjoyed a rapport, why she wanted to date such a "big, old dummy." There were other times that Respondent would see R.B., tell her that she looked nice, wink at her and blow her kisses. During the 1990 M.B., by asking her if she kissed with her mouth open, and would she teach Respondent how to do this. Respondent also told M.B. that she looked beautiful. M.B. was not a student in a class taught by Respondent. During the 1991-1992 school year, M.B. was a high school junior and a varsity cheerleader. Respondent continued to speak to M.B., although she was not his student, when he saw her on the school campus or at sporting events. He continued to ask M.B. about kissing with her mouth open, whether she would teach Respondent how to do this, and when could she teach him. M.B. declined to specify any time or place to meet with Respondent. M.B. did not disclose Respondent's behavior to anyone at this time. On one occasion, M.B. and other eleventh grade students, including her boyfriend, were in the high school library, ordering their class rings. Respondent became involved in conversation with the students and asked M.B. again about teaching him to kiss open would lose his job for M.B. Although he heard these comments, M.B.'s boyfriend considered Respondent to be joking. In the fall of the 1991 Wakulla County for a game which would determine whether the team could compete in the district championship playoff. Upon boarding the bus after the game for the trip home, Respondent was asked by M.B. if he was going to sit with her on the bus. He replied that he would if she saved him a seat. Respondent stored the athletic equipment which he was carrying, returned to the forward section of the bus and assumed the vacant seat beside M.B. Since the team had lost the game, most passengers on the bus were despondent. In the course of the trip, M.B. and Respondent leaned their heads against the back of the seat in front of them and Respondent talked about college and how being from a small high school had been difficult when he had attended the University of Florida before transferring to Valdosta State. Respondent had his hands between his knees as he talked and at one point placed it on M.B.'s knee or patted her knee. She, feeling discomfited by the gesture, brushed his hand away. This was the only time that Respondent touched a student where such touching was interpreted by a student to have sexual significance. Respondent testified that he patted M.B. because she acted as though "something had been bothering her" and characterized the pat as something he would give "football players or baseball players at school." Eventually, M.B. became sleepy and rested her head against the bus window. Respondent in a normal tone of voice offered to let her place her head on his shoulder, but M.B. declined. During the 1991 photographs. On the back of his photograph, Respondent wrote: M., I remember when I first saw you, you struck me as beautiful. I really think you are. You are truly special to me. Please know that I love you. Stay sweet and pretty. Love, Clayton. P.S., Please teach me sometime. Mary Rice, a teacher at the high school, began teaching there at approximately the same time as Respondent. Rice, like Respondent, was single. Rice, like Respondent, enjoyed informal relationships with some students, such as the cheerleaders for whom she served as staff sponsor. The cheerleaders, similar to many students who called Respondent by his first name, referred to Rice as "Mary". She became engaged in October of 1991 to Scott Alley, another teacher who occasionally substituted at the school. Rice and Respondent had a normal collegial relationship. Prior to Christmas of 1991, Rice and Respondent were in the school office discussing what they were getting their significant others for Christmas. Respondent told Rice that he would tell her what he was getting his girl friend for Christmas if Rice would have sex with him. Later in the day, Respondent got down on his knees in the hallway outside of Rice's classroom in the presence of students and asked Rice to "go with me before you get married". While Respondent meant that he wanted to have sex with Rice, he did not explicitly state such in the hallway. Later, Respondent sent Rice a note containing four blanks for letters. According to Rice, the note stated that Respondent would tell Rice what he was getting for his girlfriend for Christmas if Rice would " ". Rice assumed the four blanks to represent a sexually suggestive word. Rice stored the note in her desk drawer. She determined not to tell anyone about the note. In February of 1992, her fiancee, Scott Alley, discovered the note in the desk while he was substituting for Rice. He showed the note to Debra Wetherington, a school secretary, and later asked Rice about the note. Rice was startled that Alley had found the note and became upset. Later, in a telephone conversation initiated by Respondent, he discussed the note with Alley. Respondent apologized to Alley for any misunderstanding about the note, stating that he had written it merely to get a laugh from Rice. Respondent told Alley that he, Respondent, just flirted with everyone and that was "how I broke the ice with everyone." After Respondent's apology, the two men agreed to remain friends. Subsequently, the note was destroyed by Alley. Debra Wetherington, the secretary at the high school, frequently interacts with the teaching staff. Initially, Respondent and Wetherington enjoyed a good working relationship no different than those she shared with other teachers. She had known Respondent all of his life. Over a period of time, Respondent began to flirt with Wetherington, asking her about open mouth kissing. At these times, Wetherington ignored his remarks or laughed them off as a joke. When his behavior persisted, she told him that his conduct bothered her and that he should stop. She never told her husband or any one else about Respondent's attentions, hoping to resolve the matter without confrontation and embarrassment. On or about February 25, 1992, Respondent came into the school office and physically put his arms around Wetherington in a "bear" hug and, according to Wetherington, tried to put his tongue in her ear. Also present in the room were the school resource officer and another office worker. No eyewitness corroboration of Wetherington's allegation that Respondent attempted to put his tongue in her ear was offered at the final hearing and she had not reported this detail in an earlier affidavit regarding the incident. Respondent denies he attempted to put his tongue in her ear. Respondent's testimony is more credible on this point and it is not established that he attempted to put his tongue in Whetherington's ear. Wetherington later complained about Respondent's conduct to Lou Miller, the school principal. Miller called Respondent into her office, discussed the incident with him, and directed him to have no such contact with Wetherington in the future. Respondent apologized for his conduct, both to Miller and Wetherington. While Respondent and Wetherington had no further contact, Wetherington later asked another teacher, Tony Stukes, if Respondent was angry with her since she had not seen or heard from him lately. On or about March 24, 1992, Respondent saw M.B. in the hallway outside the door of his classroom while classes were changing. Respondent spoke to M.B. and told her that he had a dream about her. M.B. went to see Mary Rice, the cheerleading sponsor, who had earlier asked M.B. if she was having any problems with a teacher. Rice had taken this action following the discovery of Respondent's note in Rice's desk by Rice's fiancee. M.B. had confided in Rice about Respondent's previous flirtatious behavior toward her. Rice told her to write down future incidents. After relating to Rice the comment of Respondent about having a dream, M.B. was asked by Rice to go back to Respondent and find out more about the dream. M.B. went into Respondent's class where the students were working on a geography project. An overhead projector displayed the continent of South America on a board. Some students were tracing the projection on the board, preparatory to cutting the shape out of the board. Other groups were cutting out other continents. The lights in the room were turned on. Respondent was sitting at his desk, cutting out the Asian continent. M.B. went to a chair by Respondent's desk and sat down. M.B. was on her lunch break and was not a student in the class. However, in the context of the situation, her entry into the classroom was not that unusual. Respondent had on previous occasions entered an art class where M.B. was a student and had spoken with her or, on some of these occasions, had also spoken with the teacher in the class. After seating herself by his desk, M.B. asked Respondent to tell her about his dream. Respondent replied that he couldn't, but M.B. persisted. Finally, Respondent wrote on a piece of paper, "I had a dream about you and me." M.B. then wrote on the paper, "Well, what happened?" The rest of the written exchange is as follows: Respondent: "Well, all I remember is you were teaching me." M.B.: "Teaching you what?" Respondent: "Guess." M.B. "I don't know. Why don't you tell me what I was supposedly teaching you." Respondent: "How to kiss with my mouth open. I liked it, too. I woke up sweating and holding my pillow to my mouth." M.B. then took possession of the piece of paper on which she and Respondent had been writing, left the class and went back to see Mary Rice. M.B. discussed the matter with Rice. After this discussion, M.B.'s feelings about Respondent solidified and she determined that she detested Respondent. At Rice's suggestion, she then went to see Principal Miller. Miller and School Superintendent Eugene Stokes confronted Respondent with the note. Respondent stated he meant no harm by his conduct, recognized that he had a problem and needed help for his aberrant behavior. After a discussion of options, including suspension or resignation, Respondent thought about the matter overnight and submitted his resignation to Stokes on March 27, 1992. Respondent was told that the matter must be reported to the Professional Practices Commission. Respondent was, however, under the impression that his resignation would conclude the necessity for any further proceedings of a disciplinary nature. Until the time of his resignation, Respondent had received good evaluations. His contract was renewed annually. However, as expressed at final hearing by Miller and Stokes, they would not rehire Respondent in view of his past behaviors which now, in their opinion, would reduce his effectiveness as a teacher at Madison High School. Subsequently, Respondent was informed on May 28, 1992, that an investigation regarding alleged misconduct been instituted by the Professional Practices Commission. In August of 1992, Respondent sought and was appointed to a teaching position in Hawthorne, Florida, at the combined junior/senior high school in that city for the 1992 completion of course work for issuance of a five year teaching certificate from the State of Florida which he received in October of 1992. Dr. Lamar Simmons, the supervising principal at the school in Hawthorne, Florida, where Respondent is presently employed is acquainted with Miller. Simmons contacted Miller at the Madison High School, prior to employing Respondent. Miller informed Simmons that Respondent had been a satisfactory employee. Miller did not disclose Respondent's alleged misconduct to Simmons because she assumed Respondent was receiving professional help for his problem and that the issuance of Respondent's five year certificate indicated that further disciplinary proceedings by the Professional Practices Commission had been abandoned. Respondent later disclosed the instant disciplinary proceeding to Simmons. To date of the final hearing, Respondent continues to teach at the school in Hawthorne without apparent incident.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the third, fourth, and fifth count of the Administrative Complaint, and placing Respondent's teaching certificate on probation for a period not to exceed three years upon reasonable terms and conditions to be established by Petitioner, including the following requirements: That Respondent present himself for psychological evaluation by a qualified professional selected by Petitioner. That Respondent complete such course of psychotherapy as may be prescribed as a result of that evaluation. That Respondent assume the cost of such evaluation and subsequent therapy, if any. That Respondent enroll and complete a minimum of six hours of continuing education courses in the area of professional conduct for educators. That in the event that Respondent fails to comply with any of the terms and conditions of probation, Respondent's teaching certificate shall be subjected to a period of suspension not to exceed two years, and that compliance with these conditions of probation serve as the prerequisite for any reinstatement of Respondent's teaching certificate in the event that suspension for noncompliance with these conditions occurs. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of June 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 1st day of June, 1993. APPENDIX In accordance with provisions of Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, the following constitutes my specific rulings on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties: Petitioner's proposed findings 1.-12. Accepted. Rejected as to D.C.'s feelings, hearsay. Accepted. (Note: this is the second finding numbered 13.) Rejected as to "two or three times", accepted as to touching on the knee one time, on the basis of resolution of credibility on this point. (Note: this is the second finding numbered 14.) Accepted. Accepted in substance, not verbatim. 16.-18. Accepted. Rejected as to tickling reference since no sexual significance was ascribed by M.B. to this action, she did not supply a point in time when this occurred and inclusion would imply a significance not proven at the final hearing. Rejected, unnecessary. 21.-23. Rejected, subordinate to Hearing Officer findings on this point. 24.-42. Accepted, but not verbatim. 43. Accepted as to bear hug, remainder rejected on basis of creditibility. 44.-57. Accepted, but not verbatim. Respondent's proposed findings 1.-20. Accepted, but not verbatim. 21. Rejected, unnecessary. 22.-23. Accepted, but not verbatim. Rejected, unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Margaret E. O'Sullivan, Esquire Department of Education 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Thomas E. Stone, Esquire Post Office Box 292 Madison, Florida 32340 Karen Barr Wilde Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practice Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Sidney H. McKenzie, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue in this cause is whether the Petitioner Duval County School Board should dismiss the Respondent for professional incompetence pursuant to the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act, Laws of Florida, Chapter 21197 (1941) as amended.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the Duval County School Board. The Respondent, Bobby Palmore, has been an employee of the Petitioner since the 1992-93 school year. The Respondent is a tenured teacher assigned as a guidance counselor. During the 1997-98 school year, the Respondent was a guidance counselor at North Shore Elementary School. The Principal at the school in 1997-98 was Larry Davis. Concerns regarding the Respondent’s work performance at North Shore were raised early in the school year regarding his participation with Intervention Teams. An Intervention Team is formed to assist a guidance counselor with a particular student. The team meets when requested by the guidance counselor. Notwithstanding that the Intervention Team convened at the Respondent’s request, he missed the meeting scheduled for September 29, 1997. His erratic attendance at other Intervention Team meetings was of concern to the Assistant Principal, Martha Johnson, and the Principal. Ms. Johnson spoke with the Respondent about this, and Mr. Davis wrote the Respondent about his attendance at these meetings. Respondent’s attendance did not improve. The Respondent’s erratic attendance at Intervention Team Meetings was unsatisfactory performance of his duties and showed a lack of understanding of the subject matter. The Respondent repeatedly interrupted classroom teachers with unannounced and unscheduled calls and visits to their classrooms. This disrupted their classes, and they complained to administrators about Respondent’s conduct. These interruptions were frequently to obtain information regarding students who were being staffed for one reason or another, an activity coordinated by the guidance counselor. The Respondent was officially counseled about these interruptions by Ms. Johnson, but continued to interrupt classes and cause disruptions. This was unsatisfactory job performance and showed the Respondent’s failure to follow directions, plan his activities effectively, and manage his time well. These are considerations in Competency 2 of the Evaluation criteria. The Respondent was asked by Ms. Johnson to make a sign to direct parents and others to a December 12, 1997, Child Study Team (CST) meeting. He did not do so. This also showed the Respondent’s inability to follow direction. On January 13, 1998, the Respondent told Deborah Nurse, an employee of the school, in a rude and loud voice, that she was not to use the copying machine that was outside his office. Mr. Davis counseled the Respondent in writing regarding his behavior on January 16, 1998. On January 14, 1998, at a CST meeting, Ms. Slaughter asked the Respondent for a cumulative folder on a student. The Respondent had been asked to the meeting because of his lack of cooperation regarding the folder. The Respondent accused Ms. Slaughter of not respecting him in the meeting, and insisted that she ask him again for the folder. The Respondent’s actions were embarrassing to the professionals present at the meeting and showed a lack of professionalism on the part of the Respondent. He was counseled in writing by Ms. Johnson about his conduct. On January 15, 1998, a meeting was held to discuss a student between Ms. Johnson, Mrs. Shabazz, and the Respondent. Mrs. Shabazz indicated that a pertinent document was missing from the student’s folder that could effect his educational program and result in a loss of funding for the school. It was Respondent’s responsibility to maintain the student’s records in the guidance office. Ms. Johnson counseled the Respondent about his responsibilities in maintaining records and their importance to the school. She offered to assist the Respondent in reviewing the cumulative folders prior to their processing. The Respondent was responsible for preparation of materials for and participation in CST meetings on students. The Respondent placed students on the CST agenda without completing the data in their folder. This failure interfered with the proper and timely placement of students, and evidenced an unsatisfactory performance of a basic part of the Respondent’s job. As a result of the complaints about the Respondent’s work and conduct, a Success Plan was developed. This plan outlined areas in which the Respondent was not performing satisfactorily, identified objectives for improving his performance, and strategies to meet the objectives. A team was created to assist the Respondent including Mr. Davis, Ms. Johnson, the Respondent’s supervisor in guidance services, and the professional development facilitator. The Intervention Team had decided that team members should receive a response from the Respondent within three days. This time limit was incorporated in the Respondent’s Success Plan; however, the Respondent did not submit the CST packets within the time limits. In addition, the Respondent’s tone in speaking with the teachers was such that they complained to Ms. Johnson about the Respondent. Ms. Johnson counseled the Respondent about the lateness of his submittals and his interactions which the teachers. The Respondent did not improve his conduct that directly resulted in student’s needs not being met. The Respondent continued to be late to or to miss meetings and scheduled classroom visits. On February 4, 1998, he was late to a classroom visit. He cancelled a classroom visit he had scheduled. He did not follow the weekly calendar of guidance activities as required in his Success Plan. On February 4, 1998, Mr. Davis met with the Respondent to discuss the proper procedures for conducting a CST meeting as a means of assisting the Respondent. On February 6, 1998, Mr. Davis counseled the Respondent about his continued interruption of classes, and the Respondent forgot about a scheduled guidance session and did not attend, until reminded by Ms. Dennis. On February 6, 1998, Ms. Anderson met with the Respondent to discuss the guidance program and to offer assistance to him. She suggested that he use a weekly, hour-by- hour calendar to plan his time and activities. She also counseled with him about using a lesson plan for a small group session to provide a clearly defined objective for the session. Ms. Anderson directed the Respondent to follow-up with her in a week. The Respondent did not follow-up with Ms. Anderson or follow any of her advice. On February 9, 1998, Mr. Davis observed the Respondent conduct a meeting with staff regarding the Florida Writes Test. The Respondent’s conduct of the meeting was unsatisfactory. Issues were left unresolved and staff members were confused about the presentation. Some of the material presented was inconsistent with the information in the manual. Mr. Davis wrote the Respondent about these matters, and referred the Respondent to his Success Plan. On February 9, 1998, the Respondent failed to provide proper parental notification of a CST meeting pursuant to district guidelines. On February 9, 1998, the Respondent failed to provide proper parental notification of a CST meeting pursuant to district guidelines. On February 9, 1998, the Respondent failed to make to two-scheduled classroom visitations. On February 10, 1998, the Respondent missed a scheduled classroom visitation. The Respondent was not following a weekly calendar of activities, and his performance was unsatisfactory and contrary to the Success Plan. On February 10, 1998, the Respondent attempted to counsel the wrong child about the death of the child’s mother, and was prevented from doing so by the teacher. This reflected poorly on the Respondent’s attention to his duties, and his professionalism. On February 10, 1998, the Respondent was provided a list of counselors at other schools who had agreed to let the Respondent attend classroom guidance or CST meetings at their schools. The Respondent was late and showed a lack of interest while attending a classroom guidance session at Lake Forrest. On February 11, 1998, Mr. Davis observed a CST meeting at North Shore. It was evident that the parents had not received the required seven days' notice of the meeting. The Respondent had not conducted the pre-conferences, and had not coordinated the scheduling with the teachers. The Respondent did not have the proper forms in the cumulative folders, and had not conducted any classroom observations in preparation for the CST meeting. In sum, the Respondent’s performance showed a complete lack of competence and knowledge of his duties as a guidance counselor. On February 11, 1998, the Respondent missed his scheduled classroom guidance visit. On February 12, 1998, the Respondent missed his scheduled classroom guidance visit because he was late in arriving. On February 12, 1998, The Respondent discovered a coding error on the Florida Writes Test. He reported the error to Mr. Davis and accused the teacher of coding the test incorrectly. Davis directed the Respondent to correct the mistake and notify the testing department regarding the possible problem. The Respondent did not correct the test as directed, but placed a note on the box and resealed it to be mailed. The Respondent’s actions violated the testing procedures, and he did not do as he had been directed. On February 17, 1998, Ms. Johnson counseled with the Respondent concerning his failure to respond to student and staff needs. She advised him he was not meeting his Success Plan goals, and students were not receiving services they needed. The Respondent refused to counsel with a developmentally disabled student who had been sent to guidance by his teacher. The proper paper work had been completed for the student to participate in the group counseling session; however, the Respondent refused to allow the student to participate, chasing the student around the room telling him to "get out." The student was confused and embarrassed. Ms. Johnson, who was observing the session, and took charge of the student by having him sit with her, resolved the situation. The Respondent's actions demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the role of a guidance counselor, sensitivity for students, and ability to conduct a class or counseling session. On March 9, 1998, Mr. Davis completed the Respondent’s Annual Performance Evaluation. The evaluation consisted of eight competency areas. The Respondent received an unsatisfactory rating in three of the competency areas, which constituted an overall unsatisfactory evaluation. The facts as presented at hearing confirm the evaluation, and show that the Respondent was clearly incapable of performing his job duties. He lacked knowledge of his duties or how to perform them. He was insensitive to the students' needs and did not meet them. He did not follow the direction of his Principal and did not maintain a professional relationship with his coworkers and superiors. After receiving this evaluation, the Respondent continued in the same pattern of behaviors. He did not prepare and use a calendar of activities. He continued to provide materials late. He refused to assist a parent obtain the proper papers to enable the parent’s child to enroll in another school. He continued to disturb classes. He failed to notify staff of CST meetings at which they needed to attend. He took seven months to complete the paper work to have one child tested. In fact, there were several students who were awaiting CST processing at the end of the year. The Respondent was treated fairly and provided assistance by the school’s administration. Based upon his unsatisfactory evaluation in 1997-98, the Respondent was administratively transferred to J.E.B. Stuart Middle School the following year for an additional year of observation of in-service training. Carol Daniels is the Principal of Stuart Middle School. She met with the Respondent and advised him that he was starting with a clean slate at her school. School Board Policy required that Ms. Daniels confer privately with the Respondent and develop a Success Plan. She met with the Respondent on August 24, 1998. The Success Plan outlined goals and objectives to improve the Respondent’s performance as a guidance counselor. A support team was created to assist him. Soon after the school year began, Ms. Daniels counseled the Respondent about the proper method to request student records. She arranged for him to attend New Counselor Training on or about August 31, 1998. The Respondent was negative and adversarial about being requested to attend the training. He officially complained about the request, but upon review the Regional Superintendent determined that Ms. Daniels’ request was not arbitrary and was appropriate. The Respondent was counseled by Mr. Gilmore, the Vice Principal, on the need to process gifted students under the ESE program. He had failed to process several of these students, and he was given a deadline for processing these students. On September 8, 1998, the Respondent did not exit the building during a fire drill. Ms. Daniels counseled him in writing about the need for everyone to evacuate the building during drills. Mr. Gilmore counseled in writing the Respondent about the lack of lead-time in requesting information about students, and his abruptness and tone in making requests. On October 26, 1998, Linda Bailey requested an ESE/CST Agenda from the Respondent. The Respondent replied he was too busy to provide the information. On October 28, 1998, Ms. Bailey again asked for the information in writing. The Respondent did not provide the information. On October 26, 1998, Ms. Bailey also requested progress reports for the ESE students who would be reevaluated on November 9, 1998. These reports had been used at Stuart Middle School for many years as a best practice strategy. The Respondent advised that he had no intent of providing the progress reports and refused to do so. On October 26, 1998, the Respondent accused the District ESN Admissions Representative of taking ESE forms from his office. His tone and manner were threatening and confrontational. On October 27, 1998, Ms. Daniels notified the Respondent that he would have an evaluation and conference on October 30, 1998, pursuant to district guidelines. On October 28, 1998, Charlotte Robbins, ESE Interventionist, met with the Respondent to discuss three students. It was the Respondent’s responsibility to provide information to Ms. Robbins in a timely manner. The Respondent did not provide Ms. Robbins the necessary information prior to the meeting. The Respondent also invited parents to the meeting without advising Ms. Robbins. On November 2, 1998, Norma Peters, a speech therapist, advised Ms. Daniels that she had requested the Respondent to provide her a list of students to be evaluated two to three weeks before CST meetings. The Respondent told Ms. Peters he would not be able to provide the information as requested, although previous guidance counselors had provided Ms. Peters the names three to four weeks in advance of meetings. Although Ms. Daniels spoke with the Respondent about Ms. Peter’s concern, the Respondent did not provide the information as requested. On November 5, 1998, the two eighth grade counselors met with the Respondent to discuss the need for him to be a team member. They raised the fact that he did not answer the phone, assist parents, or help the guidance clerk when necessary. They also advised him to improve his communication with the ESE teachers, CST members, speech pathologist, and interventionist. A CST meeting was held on November 9, 1998, and only half the parents had been noticed and invited to come to the meeting. The Respondent had been responsible for contacting the parents in compliance with district policies. This failure prevented the CST team from addressing the needs of students. Not only did it potentially deny students services, it frustrated teachers, staff, and parents. On November 24, 1998, the Respondent interrupted class instruction by bringing a parent into the class who had missed an earlier appointment with the teacher. On November 25, 1998, Kathee Cook telephoned the Respondent regarding contacting children for the December 9, 1998, CST meeting. The Respondent refused to contact the parents of the students because ESE procedures required that Ms. Cook contact him seven days prior to the designated date. Ms. Cook reported this to Ms. Daniels, who discussed it with the Respondent, explaining that the requirement was for at least seven days notice. Ms. Daniels advised him that he was responsible for notifying parents for CST meetings, and his position potentially jeopardized notice to the parents as required by district policy. Ms. Daniels directed the Respondent to give the Vice Principal all of the parental notices by December 2, 1998. On December 2, 1998, the Respondent gave Mr. Gilmore ten notice letters; however, he did not provide notices to eleven other parents. The Respondent excused his failure by asserting his interpretation of the seven-day rule. On November 25, 1998, Ms. Daniels advised the Respondent that he had made little improvement in his performance. She discussed with him performance of his duties; and being courteous and respectful to faculty, staff, and parents. The Respondent did not accept the evaluation and was confrontational and adversarial with Ms. Daniels. He refused Ms. Daniels' offer of assistance. On or about January 5, 1999, the Respondent placed seven notice letters to parents in Mr. Gilmore’s box for the January 11, 1999, CST meeting. Not only were the letters late, if intended for the January 11th meeting, but they were addressed to the parents of children being staffed in the January 22, 1999, meeting. The Respondent failed to discontinue ESE services to a student contrary to the parent’s request on three separate occasions, to include at least one request in writing. The Respondent’s failure resulted in the matter being re-assigned to the chair of the guidance department to discontinue the services in accordance with the parent’s wishes. The Respondent left the campus without following the procedures for leaving early. These requirements had been explained during orientation and were in the teachers’ handbook. Ms. Daniels had to notify the Respondent in writing of his oversight. On January 25, 1999, Ms. Daniels notified the Respondent pursuant to the collective bargaining that his work performance was unsatisfactory. He was advised that his performance in Competencies 1, 2, 4, 8 and 9 needed improvement by March 15, 1999. On February 2, 1999, the Respondent was notified that this memorandum would be placed in his personnel file. The Respondent met with parents who were not enrolled in Stuart Middle School during the middle of the school day. Ms. Daniels advised him in writing on February 11, 1999, that this was inappropriate, and he should limit meeting to parents or students enrolled or engaged in enrolling at Stuart. On March 10, 1999, the Respondent made a presentation to an ESE class. His Success Plan required him to schedule presentations during Advisor/Advisee time period. The Respondent’s presentation was arbitrary and he did not seek assistance from his support team. On March 11, 1999, Ms. Daniels completed the Respondent’s annual evaluation. The evaluation addressed nine competency areas. Th Respondent received an unsatisfactory in five of the nine areas, which constituted an overall unsatisfactory evaluation. The Respondent’s performance in Competency 1 (ability to plan and deliver instruction), Competency 2 (demonstrates knowledge of subject matter), Competency 4 (shows sensitivity to student needs by maintaining a positive school climate), Competency 8 (demonstrates a commitment to professional growth), and Competency 9 (shows evidence of professional characteristics) was unsatisfactory. Not only was his performance unsatisfactory, he continued to be unwilling to accept support and assistance. He failed to comply with many areas of his Success Plan and failed to perform his duties. On March 17, 1999, the Respondent interrupted Mrs. Bascombe’s class. Ms. Daniels counseled the Respondent in writing about class interruptions, and how to handle situations by checking the master schedule and placing notices in teacher mailboxes. On March 23, 1999, Ms. Daniels relieved the Respondent of his responsibilities for ESE students because of his poor performance and its impact on the students' welfare. He had failed to timely notify parents. He had failed to communicate with parents, the staff, faculty and the district. His failures had adversely affected the operations of the ESE program. The Respondent was assigned to handle seventh grade non-exceptional education students. Ms. Daniels had to direct the Respondent in writing to relinquish the ESE forms to his successor. On April 20, 1999, after being relieved of his ESE duties, he met with the mother of an ESE student who was then receiving services from his successor. The Respondent was treated fairly at Stuart Middle School. All of the personnel were ready and willing to provide him assistance. He was negative, and refused to co-operate or perform his duties as directed. On May 19, 1999, the Respondent was notified by the Superintendent that he was charged with professional incompetence. He was advised that he would be discharged from the Duval County School System if the charge was sustained by the School Board. He was advised of his right to request a hearing within two days of receipt of the letter dated May 19, 1999. On June 15, 1999, Ms. Daniels provided John Heavner, Director of Professional Standards, written notice that the Respondent had not completed the requirements of his Success Plan. The Respondent requested a formal hearing by letter on July 10, 1999. Notwithstanding that this was late, he was afforded a hearing. On August 5, 1999, the Respondent was notified that he would be suspended without pay effective August 12, 1999. The Respondent was advised that the suspension would be considered at the September 7, 1999, regular meeting of the School Board. The Respondent is charged with incompetence.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that: A final order be entered denying the Respondent’s disciplinary appeal and demands set forth in his pleadings, and dismissing the Respondent for incompetence. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of March, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of March, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Lashanda R. Johnson, Esquire City of Jacksonville 117 West Duval Street, Suite 480 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Bobby G. Palmore 863 Poydras Lane, West Jacksonville, Florida 32218 John C. Fryer, Jr., Superintendent Duval County School Board 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207-8182 Honorable Tom Gallagher Commissioner of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 321399-0400
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds Florida Teaching Certificate 297447 covering the area of elementary education. At all times pertinent hereto, the Respondent was employed as an elementary school teacher in the Dade County School District. During the 1983-84 school year, the Respondent was employed as a second grade teacher of Chapter I students at Lillie C. Evans Elementary School. During the 1984-85 school year, the Respondent was again employed at Lillie C. Evans Elementary School as a second grade teacher. In March 1985, Respondent was transferred to Miami Springs Elementary School for the remainder of the school year as a result of an altercation involving an irate parent. During her tenure at Lillie C. Evans Elementary School, Respondent was assigned approximately 16 students in her second grade classes each year. Respondent was assigned a fourth grade class at Miami Springs Elementary School from March through June 1985. The Respondent's class contained approximately 30 students. Respondent was a first year annual contract employee of the Dade County Public Schools during the 1983-84 school year and a second year annual contract employee of the Dade County Public Schools during the 1984-85 school year. Respondent was not reappointed for the 1985-86 school year as an employee of the Dade County Public Schools because she failed to perform at an acceptable level of professional performance at two different schools, under two different administrations, with two different sets of students. The principal of Lillie C. Evans Elementary School, Willie Mae Brown, is a thirty-six year employee of the Dade County School System. Ms. Brown was Respondent's principal during Respondent's employment at Lillie C. Evans Elementary School. Ms. Brown has been trained to observe and evaluate the professional performance of classroom teachers and has observed and evaluated hundreds of teachers in her position as principal. On May 31, 1984, Brown prepared the Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1983-84 school year. She rated Respondent as unacceptable in the category of classroom management and noted in the remarks section of the evaluation that Respondent "should continue participating in workshops that will enable her to acquire techniques in instruction and classroom management." Brown requested that Respondent attend workshops on techniques of instruction and classroom management during the 1983-84 school year and that she observe fellow teachers in the school in order to improve Respondent's performance in the classroom. During the 1984-85 school year, Brown continued to observe serious problems with Respondent's control of student conduct and classroom management. On October 1, 1984, Brown overheard a child screaming loudly in the Respondent's classroom as if the child was in pain. When Brown observed Respondent on October 5, 1984, she noted that Respondent was unable to manage the class, failed to use non-verbal techniques and few verbal techniques to deal with students who were off-task. Brown observed that pupils were moving about and making noise in the classroom. Respondent's lesson plans did not appear to have enough activities to occupy the students' attention. Respondent was provided with "prescription plan" activities and recommended resources for implementation of the prescriptions. Brown provided a time line for improvement of October 29, 1984. On October 24,1984, Brown prepared a log of assistance which had been provided to Respondent. Brown's log noted that on October 1, 1984, Mrs. Mayme Moore, North Central Area Chapter I Resource Teacher, provided special assistance to Respondent concerning control of student conduct. In addition, Brown documented assistance provided to Respondent by Teacher Lena Hoskins; Teacher Sharon Sbrissa; Mr. Mitchell, School Guidance Counselor; Walter Foden, Assistant Principal; and others. As a follow-up to the October 5, 1984 observation, Brown again observed Respondent's classroom performance on October 29, 1984. Brown observed that the Respondent's performance was deficient in preparation and planning and classroom management. Brown observed a large number of children off-task. Respondent still appeared to be unable to manage her students. Again, Respondent failed to provide enough activities to occupy the students for the full class period. Brown noted that two pupils fell asleep during the class. Once again, Brown prescribed plan activities and recommended resources to Respondent with a time line of November 15, 1984. Brown continued to provide Respondent with assistance through the Teacher Education Center and through fellow teachers. On November 21, 1984, Brown found four of Respondent's students creating a disturbance in a bathroom. Upon returning these students to Respondent's classroom, she observed eight or nine of the twelve students in the classroom running around making noise. During the course of the 1984-85 school year, Ms. Brown received three or four written complaints and several additional telephone calls from parents complaining about Respondent's class. The nature of the parental complaints concerned Respondent's lack of control of student conduct in the classroom. On December 10, 1984, a conference for the record was held by Brown with Respondent and her union representative to address parent complaints, the complaint of the primary helping teacher for Respondent, Respondent's performance assessment to date and her employment status. At the conference, Respondent was advised of letters of complaints from parents and peers regarding her classroom management. Respondent was afforded the opportunity to identify a fellow teacher with whom she could confer and observe. Respondent did not indicate a preference for peer assistance. As primary helping teacher, Ms. Scurry complained that Respondent's inability to control students in her classroom was requiring Ms. Scurry's assistance almost every day. Scurry expressed concern to Brown about Respondent's continuous need for assistance with her students which was interfering with Scurry's instruction of her own class. In addition to Scurry, two other teachers, Ms. Drawley and Ms. Bell, made written complaints to Brown concerning the disruption of their respective classes due to excessive noise emanating from Respondent's classroom. At the request of Principal Brown, on November 1, 1984, Respondent prepared a summary of assistance which the Respondent received during the year. Respondent's handwritten narrative discloses that she received assistance from Mrs. Sbrissa, Mrs. Hoskins, Mrs. Moore, Mrs. Knight, Ms. Johnson, Ms. Brown, and Mr. Foden. Brown continued to require that Respondent attend prescriptive in- service courses through the Teacher Education Center in the latter half of the 1984-85 school year. Specifically, Brown requested that Respondent attend courses concerning classroom management and preparation and planning. On February 15, 1985, a joint observation of Respondent's professional classroom performance was conducted by Brown and Mrs. Eneida Hartner, the Area Director for the North Central Area of the Dade County Public Schools. Each observer evaluated Respondent's performance separately. Respondent received advance notice of the observation. The combined evaluations of Brown and Hartner resulted in an overall rating of unacceptable, with specific ratings of unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning and classroom management. Respondent was once again provided with prescription plan activities, recommended resources with which to implement the activities and a time line for improvement. Both observers noted that Respondent failed to provide sufficient activities for the class period to occupy the students' time for the entire period and, as a result, students were off-task. Respondent failed to motivate her students to be interested in the task at hand and failed to provide appropriate feedback concerning the students' behavior. In March, 1985, Brown again received a memorandum from the Teacher Education Center regarding prescriptive in-service courses for the Respondent. Brown requested that Respondent attend the course on classroom management. Subsequently, on April 15, 1985, Ms. Brown was notified by memorandum that the Respondent had failed to attend the classroom management course prescribed for her. During the 1984-85 school year, many educators from Lillie C. Evans Elementary School and from the school district provided Respondent with assistance at the request of Brown in an effort to remediate Respondent's observed deficiencies. In addition to Principal Brown, Assistant Principal Walter Foden observed and evaluated Respondent's performance. On November 19, 1984, Foden conducted an observation of Respondent's classroom and found her to be deficient in the area of classroom management. In the TADS observation form, Foden identified the areas of deficiency, prescribed plan activities for improvement, indicated recommended resources, and provided a time line for Respondent's improvement. Foden observed that Respondent was unaware of childrens' off-task behavior in the classroom despite the fact that there were only 12 to 13 children in her classroom at the time. Foden recommended six individuals to provide Respondent with assistance, and each of the six did provide assistance to her. Foden also observed Respondent on September 12, 1984. Based upon this observation, Foden concluded that Respondent was deficient in classroom management and in the teacher-student relationship. The students ignored Respondent, would not listen to her and appeared to lack respect for her. In addition, Respondent's instructions were unclear. Foden recommended four resource persons to Respondent. These individuals provided Respondent with the assistance requested. Gwendolyn Bryant, Primary Education Coordinator for the Dade County School System, provided assistance to Respondent at the request of Principal Brown. Bryant met with Respondent in her classroom on December 12, 1984, and on January 9, 1985. Bryant observed that Respondent needed assistance with classroom management and with the implementation of the primary education program. Bryant returned on January 9, 1985, and reviewed the procedures for implementing PREP, RSVP (Reading Systems Very Plain) and TMP (Total Math Program). During her January visit, Bryant found that Respondent had not yet evaluated her students to determine their needs under these programs. The evaluations of the students' individual needs should have been completed at the beginning of the school year. Bryant concluded that Respondent was in need of continuing assistance with classroom organization and management. Margaret Rogers, teacher on special assignment to the Reading Department, provided assistance to Respondent in April 1985 at Miami Springs Elementary School. Rogers reviewed RSVP with Respondent, reviewed the Respondent's grouping of students for reading, provided the Respondent with handouts on teaching a directed reading lesson and classroom management, rearranged the students' desks to comply with fire code and to provide access to the blackboard, and provided Respondent with numerous suggestions on control of student conduct. On the following day, April 2, 1985, Rogers demonstrated a writing lesson for Respondent and provided Respondent with information on RSVP and teaching a directed reading lesson. During her tenure at Miami Springs Elementary School, Respondent received assistance from Helen B. Francis, Assistant Principal. It was Ms. Francis who requested that Mrs. Rogers provide assistance to Respondent. On April 15, 1985, Ms. Francis conducted a formal observation and evaluation of Respondent's classroom performance. Ms. Francis rated Respondent deficient in the categories of preparation and planning, classroom management and techniques of instruction. Francis observed that Respondent failed to control student conduct, resulting in constant disruptions and interference in the reading lesson which she was attempting to conduct at the time. Ms. Francis was in the Respondent's classroom almost on a daily basis because of constant complaints from parents and other teachers. Francis concluded that Respondent was unable to provide her students with appropriate instruction because she could not maintain control of the children's behavior. On March 29, 1985, Principal Margot J. Silverman observed and evaluated Respondent's teaching performance. Based upon that observation, Dr. Silverman rated Respondent deficient in the areas of preparation and planning, classroom management and techniques of instruction. Dr. Silverman provided an intensive description of the observed deficiencies and numerous specific suggestions for improvement. Silverman observed Respondent's performance again on May 13, 1985. Based upon the observation, Dr. Silverman evaluated Respondent's performance to be unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction and teacher-student relationships. Again, Dr. Silverman provided a detailed description of the observed deficiencies as well as specific suggestions for improvement. On May 30, 1985, Dr. Silverman prepared Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1984-85 school year. On the evaluation, Silverman rated Respondent's performance as unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction and teacher-student relationships. Silverman rated Respondent's overall performance as unacceptable and recommended that she not be re- employed for the following school year. Dr. Patrick Gray, Executive Assistant Superintendent in the Office of Professional Standards for the Dade County Public Schools, testified at formal hearing that in his professional opinion, Respondent has proven to be incompetent as a classroom teacher, by the standards of both the County School System and the Florida Department of Education. In Dr. Gray's expert opinion, Respondent's personal performance in the classroom has seriously reduced her effectiveness as an employee of the Dade County School Board. Dr. Gray determined from a review of all of the observations, both internal and external, that Respondent's professional performance was worsening, rather than improving, despite extensive assistance to help her remediate her deficiencies. Gray's review of Respondent's personnel file discloses that the Respondent did not achieve an acceptable level of performance in any of the nine classroom observations conducted of her during the 1984-85 school year. Gray is unaware of any additional assistance which the Dade County School System could provide to Respondent to assist her in remediating perceived deficiencies beyond the assistance which has been previously provided to her.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained within the Administrative Complaint and permanently revoking Respondent's Florida Teaching Certificate. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 11th day of December, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of December, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-46 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 47 has been rejected as being unnecessary, and Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 48 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel or conclusions of law. Respondent filed posthearing correspondence which contains ten unnumbered paragraphs. The eighth unnumbered paragraph is the only one which constitutes a proposed finding of fact, and it is rejected since it is not supported by the evidence in this cause. The remainder of the unnumbered paragraphs in Respondent's correspondence have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: J. DAVID HOLDER, ESQUIRE POST OFFICE BOX 1694 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32302 JOYCE L. PENCHANSKY 610 N.E. 177TH STREET NORTH MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33162 KAREN B. WILDE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR EDUCATION PRACTICES COMMISSION 125 KNOTT BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399 MARTIN B. SCHAPP, ADMINISTRATOR PROFESSIONAL PRACTICES SERVICES 319 WEST MADISON STREET, ROOM 3 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399
The Issue Whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2018), as charged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.1 1 Respondent’s alleged conduct occurred in September 2018. The 2018 version of chapter 1012, and related statutes, was in effect at the time of the alleged conduct, and, therefore, applies to this proceeding. See Orasan v. Ag. for Health Care Admin., 668 So. 2d
Findings Of Fact Background Petitioner, the Commissioner of Education, is responsible for determining whether there is probable cause to warrant disciplinary action against an educator’s certificate and, if probable cause is found, for filing and prosecuting an administrative complaint pursuant to chapter 120. Respondent holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 1124072. Respondent’s certificate is valid through June 30, 2024, and covers the areas of educational leadership, elementary education, English for speakers of other languages (ESOL), and reading. During the 2018-2019 school year, Respondent was employed as a reading teacher at Dr. Phillips High School (DPHS) in the Orange County School District (OCSD). Respondent has been a licensed educator since 1995 and admits to understanding that she is a “mandatory reporter” in instances where a child has been abused or where abuse is suspected. Section 1012.795(1)(b) authorizes the Education Practices Commission to discipline an educator “for knowingly failing to report actual or suspected child abuse as required in s. 1006.061 or report alleged misconduct by instructional personnel or school administrators which affects the health, safety, or welfare of a student as required in s. 1012.796.” Section 39.201, Florida Statutes (2018), requires any person who knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that a child is abused by a person responsible for the child’s welfare to immediately report the knowledge or suspicion to the Department of Children and Families (DCF) Abuse Hotline. Several OCSD policies also mandate that a teacher immediately report any suspected child abuse to the DCF Abuse Hotline. The Complaint The Complaint alleges that “[o]n or about September 11, 2018, A.C., an eleventh[-]grade female student, reported to Respondent that [she] was being physically abused by her mother, [and that] Respondent failed to timely report the suspected abuse to [DCF] as required by law.” As a result of this alleged conduct, the Complaint charges Respondent with having violated section 1012.795(1)(b). Evidence Adduced at the Final Hearing Respondent first met A.C. at or near the beginning of the 2018-19 school year, which commenced sometime around the latter part of August 2018. As to her initial encounter with A.C., Respondent testified as follows: Q. And when did you first meet A.C.? A. I believe she may have been absent the first few days of school, but upon her first day of entry to my classroom she asked me, when we were greeting each other at the door, do you know who I am? And I said, A.C. And she goes, well, do you know about me? And I said, no, A.C. Hi, nice to meet you. She goes, well don’t you know about my history, don’t you know anything about me? I know your son and I’m in ROTC and, well, DCF used to be here all the time in ninth and tenth grade, don’t you know anything about me? I thought you would know all about me. And I mentioned to her that I knew nothing about her except her name and her grades and welcome to my class. And I said, let me show you where you’re sitting this year. And I showed her her seat. Q. When she said, DCF used to come to school all the time, what was she talking about? A. I have no idea. I think she was telling me about her personal history. Her behavior was a little flamboyant and very attention seeking and it was very extroverted, wanting to get to know me on a personal basis. And I -- it was just a little different from what I’m used to. And but she definitely did stand out in my vision as somebody that was seeking attention. (Tr. pp. 103-104). Within seconds of meeting A.C., Respondent, by her own admission, thought of A.C. as an extreme extrovert who was prone to engage in flamboyant and attention-seeking behavior. On the morning of September 6, 2018, Ms. Shuster included Respondent on an email that was sent to several individuals regarding A.C. The email informed recipients of the need to schedule “a team meeting … in reference to [A.C.’s] sporadic attendance.” Respondent, in response to the email from Ms. Shuster, stated the following with respect to A.C.: She is extremely bright and multi-lingual. She mentioned the school had to call DCF (A4) on her several times last year because her mom is really mean. The last few absences she had ROTC commitments. I would check with them to verify. 8/24 was the ROTC field day, 9/5 was the Club Fair. She probably shouldn’t be in reading; however, she fell asleep on the FSA last year. The question may be why isn’t she getting enough sleep? I hope this helps. Although A.C. had only briefly mentioned to Respondent during their initial interaction that she had encounters with DCF during the previous school year, it is obvious that A.C.’s reference to DCF resonated with Respondent given that several days later Respondent thought the information was of such significance that it needed to be included in Respondent’s reply to the email from Ms. Shuster. As of September 6, 2018, Respondent knew that A.C.’s school attendance was sporadic; that something in A.C.’s life was causing her to not get enough sleep; and that A.C. reported having a “really mean mom” whose purported conducted resulted in several visits from DCF during the previous school year. September 11, 2018 According to Respondent, prior to the commencement of her fifth period class on September 11, 2018, she was greeting students at the doorway of her classroom when A.C. arrived. Because A.C. had recently been absent from Respondent’s class, Respondent asked A.C. “where you been.” In response to her question, A.C., according to Respondent, stated that she “got arrested and I can tell you all about it.” Respondent testified that she then told A.C. to go to her seat and “we can talk about that later.” Respondent testified that she then instructed A.C. to sit down, but A.C. continued talking and said to Respondent “I can show you pictures.” Respondent then instructed A.C. to “put [her] phone away and sit down.” A.C. complied with Respondent’s directive, but before doing so persisted in trying to show Respondent the pictures on her phone. Respondent said that she was about 20 feet from A.C. when A.C. attempted to show her the pictures. Because of the distance between her and A.C., Respondent testified that she was unable to discern what was reflected in the pictures, but she recalled that A.C. said “I can show you pictures, I can show you, you know, these bite marks.” (Pet. Ex. 18, pp. 22-23). Respondent testified that at the conclusion of the fifth period class, she told A.C. to remain in the classroom. According to Respondent, as reflected in Petitioner’s Exhibit 18, pages 18 and 19, the following events then transpired over a period of about 10 to 15 minutes: Q. Okay. So now you and A.C. are in the room. A. Yes. Q. And you say to A.C. or she says to you, what? A. I said, hey, A.C., you said you were arrested. Can you tell me about that? What’s going on? She goes, well, if you really want to know, I wanted to get it on with my boyfriend and so my mom didn’t like it, we got into it and I called the police on her and they arrested me. And I said, oh wow, A.C. I was like, why did they take you. And she goes, well, the cops said that they were calling DCF and that they found me -- that I was the one not listening to my mom. And I said, well, A.C., I can tell you this. I have a teenage daughter. She graduated from here a few years ago and, I said, I’m going to talk to you as a teacher and I’m going to talk to you as a mom. I said, as a mom, maybe try to put your foot in the other shoe. Maybe your mom doesn’t want a little A.C. running around in nine months. Did you ever think about that perspective? And she goes, no. She goes, oh I don’t want to have kids. She goes -- I said, well, are you planning on going to the military and she said no, I don’t want to do that either. And she goes, I want to do something in art, graphic arts. Create -- I’m very creative. And I said okay. Then we spoke about, you know, what else did we speak about? We spoke about, you know, trying to follow house rules so that she doesn’t get in this situation again, whatever. And she goes, yeah, yeah, I know. She goes, I’m over it. And I said, well, you know, lunch is about to end, you better hurry on. And so, then she left for lunch and then when she left I called Ms. Graves and I called Ms. Shuster. I did not get Ms. Shuster. I didn’t leave a message. Ms. Graves, I left a message. Ms. Graves called me back sixth period and when I told her, hey, A.C. reported that she got arrested, what’s going on, she goes, oh, every teacher has told me already. We know. And I said, okay, great, thanks. In addition to the above, Respondent testified that the following events also occurred during her 10 to 15-minute discussion with A.C: Q. During that period, did A.C. show you any photos? A. I don’t recall having any photo opportunities except the time that she -- when she was walking into the room trying to show me the phone from across the room. Q. Okay. So, while she is having the conversation with you during the lunch period, she didn’t try to show you the photos that she had previously tried to show you; is that correct? A. I don’t believe so. I remember I asked her about the photos and stuff like that. She goes, I can show you photos and I was like, no, I don’t want to see your photos. Because I just didn’t. A.C. testified that on September 11, 2018, she reported to Respondent’s class and informed Respondent that she had been abused by her mother. According to A.C., she showed Respondent several pictures of bruising and bite marks on her body, which A.C. attributed to having resulted from the conduct of her mother. A.C. testified that the images reflected in Petitioner’s Exhibit 4 are copies of the pictures that she showed Respondent on September 11, 2018. Bates stamped page 9 of Petitioner’s Exhibit 4 is an image that clearly shows bite marks on A.C.’s hand. A.C. testified that the bite marks reflected in this exhibit were still visible on her hand when she met with Respondent on September 11, 2018, and that she showed her injured hand to Respondent. A.C. could not recall if she showed the pictures to Respondent upon entering Respondent’s classroom or immediately following Respondent’s fifth period class. While A.C. was uncertain as to when she discussed the details of her situation with Respondent, her testimony regarding her interaction with Respondent on September 11, 2018, was without equivocation or hesitancy, she recounted the events in question with precision, and her testimony was not otherwise impeached by Respondent. A.C. was a credible witness, and her testimony is appropriately credited. September 13, 2018 Thursday, September 13, 2018, was open-house day at DPHS, and teachers were required to remain at school until 8:00 p.m. At approximately 4:30 p.m., Respondent and her colleague, Ms. Rosa Martinez-Rodriguez, were conversing in Ms. Martinez-Rodriguez’s classroom when the administrative dean, Ms. Tamie Shuster, appeared in the doorway of the classroom. According to Ms. Shuster, she needed to speak with Ms. Martinez-Rodriguez about ESOL-related matters. Ms. Shuster finished her conversation with Ms. Martinez-Rodriguez, and before exiting the classroom, she was hailed by Respondent who informed her that student A.C. reported to Respondent that she had been bitten by her mom, and that A.C. had shown her cellphone pictures of the bite marks. When asked by Ms. Shuster if she had told anyone else about A.C.’s complaint, Respondent indicated that she had not. Ms. Shuster informed Respondent that the incident involving A.C. had to be reported, and after meeting with Respondent, Ms. Shuster promptly reported the incident involving A.C. to the DCF Abuse Hotline. In the narrative section of the reporting form completed by Ms. Shuster on September 13, 2018, she noted the following: “The student [A.C.] reported to her teacher Ms. Camacho Szeto that her mother got mad at her [and] left bite marks on her.” As a follow up, Ms. Shuster, on September 14, 2018, prepared a written statement outlining the events of the previous day. In all material respects, Ms. Shuster’s written statement on September 14, 2018, is consistent with her testimony and the information that she included in the narrative section of the abuse reporting form that she prepared on September 13, 2018. Ms. Martinez-Rodriguez was in earshot of the conversation between Respondent and Ms. Shuster and testified to the following: Q. Okay. And then what did you hear during that conversation between Ms. Szeto and Ms. Shuster? A. So they were talking about, as I said, a student that they both seemed to know about. The student seemed to have a lot of absences. And I heard Ms. Szeto tell Ms. Shuster that the student had said that her parent bit her and had shown her some pictures on the phone, but that she hadn’t reported anything because she had not observed bite marks on the student in person, on her person. And she wasn’t sure, also, if it was true as -- because there was a question about whether the pictures were of the student. To my understanding. Q. Okay. So, it’s your testimony that Mrs. Szeto told Ms. Shuster that she didn’t report it to DCF because she wasn’t sure if the student was telling the truth; is that correct? A. I’m not sure who she was referring to as not reporting it. I’m not sure if it was DCF or administration. That was unclear to me. But, yes, it was clear that she said that she wasn’t sure if it was true. Q. Ms. Camacho saying she wasn’t sure if it was true. If what was true? A. What the student was alleging that her parent had bit her and that the marks were actually the student’s. (Tr. pp. 60-61) Ms. Martinez-Rodriguez, approximately two weeks after witnessing the conversation between Respondent and Ms. Shuster, prepared a “witness statement,” which reads as follows: On September 13, 2018, Ms. Camacho-Szeto visited my office. She remained here for about an hour. It was Open House day, so we had to be in school until 8 p.m. We were having a conversation about personal matters. At some point during the visit, Ms. Tamie Shuster stopped by the door. Ms. Camacho-Szeto informed her that one of her students was stating that her mom bit her and the student had shown her pictures of the bite marks on her phone. I do not recall the name of the student, nor if it was an ESOL student. Ms. Camacho-Szeto stated that she had not reported anything because she wasn’t sure if the student was saying the truth as she never saw the bite marks on the student, only pictures on her phone and she didn’t know if they were really pictures of her. Ms. Tamie Shuster said she would investigate and left. Ms. Camacho-Szeto left to get her meal before Open House began. Respondent, when recalling her conversation with Ms. Shuster on September 13, 2018, testified as follows: Q. What did you say to Ms. Shuster? A. I said, hey, Ms. Shuster, last week you sent an email about A.C. and regarding the attendance child -- that you were spearing up the Child Study Team and I needed to talk to you. I called you the other day, but you weren’t at your desk. I said, I have this girl, A.C., she’s a little bit, you know, she’s a handful, I said, but I need to tell you, she told me she was arrested and she said these things. She’s trying to show me a phone from across the room and she mentioned some bite marks. I see no evidence of bite marks. I see nothing but the behaviors that’s exhibited tell me this child needs some type of counseling or whatever… . She goes, oh, gee, thanks. Now I have to call it in. And I said, well, I don’t know, Tamie, I’m not -- I don’t see any signs of abuse here whatsoever, she just said she was arrested, but I don’t have her history. You have her history, you’re starting the Child Study Team. I said, if I call in a report to DCF, I have nothing to show except that she was arrested and they’re not going to take the report … . * * * Q. Okay. Now you said you mentioned to Ms. Shuster that A.C. said something about bite marks. A. Yes. Q. But what did you tell Ms. Shuster about what A.C. said about bite marks? A. I said, she was trying to show me a cellphone from across the room of a -- looked like an x-ray with bite mark -- not bite marks, sorry. Teeth -- like x-ray teeth. And I said, and I see no evidence here of any bite marks or anything on this child. But I was just trying to calm her down and to start my class and I’ve not spoken to her about it anymore. And I said, could you follow up with her? (Pet. Ex. 18, pp. 38-41). Ms. Shuster and Ms. Martinez-Rodriguez both testified that Respondent, when speaking with Ms. Shuster on September 11, 2018, stated that A.C. had been bitten by her mother and had shown Respondent pictures of the bite marks. Neither Ms. Shuster nor Ms. Martinez-Rodriguez testified, nor did they note in their written statements, that Respondent stated that A.C. was “trying to show Respondent pictures from across the room.” Furthermore, neither Ms. Shuster nor Ms. Martinez-Rodriguez testified that Respondent mentioned “x-ray like pictures of teeth” when discussing A.C. with Ms. Shuster. In addition to the above, Respondent’s purported statement to Ms. Shuster that she had “not spoken to her (A.C.) about it anymore,” when read in context, is in direct conflict with other testimony where Respondent states that she met with A.C. for 10 to 15 minutes after class to discuss with A.C. the situation involving A.C. and her mother. It is not entirely clear from the evidence why Respondent would not disclose to Ms. Shuster that she had met with A.C. for 10 to 15 minutes, and thus mislead Ms. Shuster about the extent of her interaction with A.C. on September 11, 2018. Also, Respondent’s testimony that she did not have an opportunity to review the pictures on A.C.’s phone during her after-class meeting with A.C. is problematic, and not worthy of belief. While it may have been reasonable under the circumstances for Respondent to forestall A.C.’s attempts to show Respondent the pictures at the beginning of the class period, it defies logic and reason that Respondent would meet with A.C. for 10 to 15 minutes after class, ask A.C. about the pictures, and then refuse to view them when given the opportunity to do so. Respondent’s evasive, misleading, and inconsistent testimony undermines her credibility to the point to where her version of the events in question cannot be believed. Dr. Knight is the principal at DPHS and testified that it is not required that an employee have actual knowledge that a child has been abused. According to Dr. Knight, employees are trained that, when dealing with issues of suspected child abuse or neglect, “it’s not your job to determine if you think it’s factual or not. You call it in and then DCF is the organization that determines whether it’s factual or not. Your job is to just report it and they take it from there.” Dr. Knight’s testimony accurately states Respondent’s obligation as a “mandatory reporter.” Findings of Ultimate Fact On September 11, 2018, A.C., who was then an eleventh-grade student, reported to Respondent that she had been physically abused by her mother. A.C., when discussing the events with Respondent, presented pictures of her injuries and also showed Respondent bite marks that were then present on A.C.’s hand. The fact that A.C. verbally informed Respondent that she was abused by her mother was, in itself, sufficient to trigger Respondent’s reporting obligation to DCF. The fact that A.C. showed Respondent pictures of injuries to her body was, in itself, sufficient to trigger Respondent’s reporting obligation to DCF. Although Respondent understood her obligation to report known or suspected child abuse to DCF, she failed to do so with respect to A.C.’s allegations of abuse. Based on the foregoing, it is determined that Petitioner proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent engaged in the conduct alleged in the Complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order that: 1) suspends Respondent’s educator’s certificate for a period of two days; 2) places her educator’s certificate on probation for a period of two years from the date of the final order, with conditions determined by the Education Practices Commission; 3) requires Respondent, during her period of probation, to attend and successfully complete, at her expense, training related to her reporting obligations under section 1012.795(1)(b); and, 4) pay a fine in the amount of $480.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of July, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of July, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Carol R. Buxton, Esquire Florida Education Association Suite 109 1516 East Hillcrest Street Orlando, Florida 32803 Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 Lisa M. Forbess, Interim Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief Office of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether the Respondent should be terminated from her employment with Petitioner as a result of her teaching performance.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Margaret Irvin (Irvin) has been employed as a classroom teacher with the Palm Beach County School District (School District) since the 1965-66 school year, with a break in service between 1967 through 1978 and again from 1979 through 1982. Irvin received a continuing contract for the 1985-1986 school year and has remained on continuing contract with the School District through the 1994-1995 school year. Irvin is employed pursuant to a Professional Service Contract from which she may be discharged only in accordance with the terms of Sections 231.36, 231.28 and 231.29, Florida Statutes. From 1982 through June 1993, Irvin taught pre-kindergarten at Belle Glade Elementary School (Belle Glade) and received satisfactory evaluations. The use of certified classroom teachers in the School District's pre- kindergarten program was discontinued at the end of the 1992-1993 school year. Irvin is certified by the State of Florida to teach all early childhood grade levels, which would include pre-kindergarten through sixth grade. For the 1993-1994 school year Irvin was assigned to teach a first grade class of fifteen students at Belle Glade. During the 1993-1994 school year, Lynn McGee (McGee) was the principal at Belle Glade. As part of her duties, McGee was responsible for evaluating Irvin's work performance. A Classroom Teacher's Assessment Evaluation Form is used in evaluating a teacher's performance in the classroom. This form is used for mid-year evaluations and for annual evaluations. Specific areas are marked on the form as being either satisfactory or unsatisfactory. If a teacher receives unsatisfactory in fewer than five areas, the teacher is given an overall rating of satisfactory. If a teacher receives unsatisfactory in more than four areas, the teacher is deemed to have an overall unsatisfactory rating. In December 1993, McGee presented Irvin with a mid-year evaluation of her performance as a classroom teacher. The overall evaluation was unsatisfactory and identified the following areas in which Irvin needed to improve her teaching performance: Management of Student Conduct. Instructional Organization and Development. Presentation of Subject Matter. Establishes an Appropriate Classroom Climate. Demonstrates Ability to Plan Effectively. Develops and Maintains an Accurate Record Keeping System. In the area of Management of Student Conduct, the teacher is evaluated on whether she keeps the students under control at all times. This area also covers teacher "withitness", which means the ability to know what the students are doing at all times. During her observations for the mid-year evaluation, McGee saw students talking and walking around and not being on task. Irvin had a chart on the wall for a behavior plan but she was not implementing the plan in the classroom. Irvin demonstrated a lack of "withitness." The area of Instructional Organization and Development covers lesson delivery, whether a teacher uses a variety of techniques, whether she teaches a complete lesson, and the actual presentation of the lesson itself. During McGee's observations, Irvin relied heavily on the use of dittos and did not use a variety of teaching techniques. Although all first grade teachers were using the same dittos, Irvin could have refrained from using one ditto sheet after another and varied the activities. Irvin did not follow the steps which are used to teach a lesson: orientation to the students, beginning review, teaching the concept, and an ending review or closure. Irvin asked questions which called for a unison response, which is usually not appropriate. A unison response does not allow the teacher to determine if all the students are giving the correct response to the question. Irvin did not ask a lot of "higher order questions", which are questions requiring the student to analyze and apply the information given. The area of Presentation of Subject Matter is specifically directed to the question of whether the teacher teaches concepts. A concept is taught by giving a definition and providing examples and nonexamples. McGee did not observe Irvin teaching any concepts. The area of Establishes An Appropriate Classroom Climate looks at the environment of the classroom, including the physical environment and whether the classroom is warm, caring and conducive to learning. When McGee observed the classroom, it did not have an environment which was conducive to learning. The room was not "print rich", which means that the classroom did not have a lot of written materials on the wall, labels on objects, and pictures on the walls. McGee's opinion was that the classroom did not present a warm and caring environment. The area of Demonstrates Ability to Plan Effectively is directed to the teacher's ability to put a plan together and whether the teacher is executing the plan when observed. Irvin did not have written lesson plans. The area of Develops and Maintains an Accurate Record Keeping System deals with properly recording the students' grades. During the first nine weeks of school, Irvin failed to maintain a grade book. In an effort to assist Irvin to improve, McGee sent Irvin to a workshop, provided demonstration lessons, and told Irvin to observe some of the other first grade classrooms. Additionally, Irvin was provided with sample lesson plans and was told to attend the weekly meetings of the first grade teachers where they did their lesson plans. Irvin sometimes did not go to the meetings or was late. Irvin was also provided with a sample grade book. Irvin disgreed with the content of the December 1994 evaluation. In March 1994, Irvin received from McGee an annual evaluation of her performance as a classroom teacher rating her overall performance as unsatisfactory and identifying the following areas which needed improvement: Management of Student Conduct Instructional Organization and Development Presentation of Subject Matter Establishes Appropriate Classroom Climate Demonstrates Ability to Plan Effectively In the area of Management of Student Conduct, Irvin still had students who were not on task. There was down time in the class because of student misbehavior and failure to follow instructions, resulting in very little teaching time. In the area of Instructional Organization and Development, Irvin continued to rely heavily on dittos and did not vary her teaching techniques. The activities were disjointed rather than flowing and interrelated. Irvin did not teach a complete lesson which included the necessary elements for a lesson. In the area of Presentation of Subject Matter, Irvin again failed to teach concepts. In the area of Establishes an Appropriate Classroom Climate, McGee observed that Irvin did not smile or express enthusiasm. Her classroom did not provide a happy environment which was conducive to learning. Irvin was still not preparing lesson plans. McGee observed that for the week of February 7-11, 1994, there was almost no planning. By the time of the annual evaluation, Irvin had begun to keep a grade book. She was evaluated satisfactory in the area of Develops and Maintains an Accurate Record Keeping System. Irvin disagreed with the content of the March 1994 Evaluation. After the 1993-1994 annual evaluation, McGee notified the superintendent of schools that Irvin's annual evaluation was unsatisfactory. The superintendent sent a letter to Irvin advising her that she would have the following school year to remediate her teaching deficiencies. On May 4, 1994, Dr. Christina Diaz, a board certified neurologist, diagnosed Irvin as having Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). Irving advised McGee a few days later that she had been diagnosed with ADD. On June 9, 1994, Irvin was placed on a Professional Development Plan (PDP) by the administration of Belle Glade to aid Irvin in remediating each area of concern contained in the March 1994 evaluation. The PDP also contained materials regarding deficiencies in the area of Develops and Maintains Accurate Record Keeping System, which was not included on the March 1994 evaluation as an area of concern. The PDP provided that a team of educators, including someone employed outside the School District, observe Irvin's performance and provide her with feedback and improvement strategies. The PDP also provided for Irvin to attend workshops, to review teacher effectiveness manuals, and to observe the performance of other teachers. Irvin was assigned as a kindergarten teacher in the 1994-1995 school year. The principal at Belle Glade for the 1994-1995 school year was Glenda Garrett (Garrett). Like McGee, Garrett's duties included evaluating Irvin. In September, 1994, Irvin attended an assistance review meeting, where she received the list of observers and the approximate dates that they would be observing her classroom performance. Through out the implementation of the PDP, Irvin was kept advised of the times when she would be observed. On September 29, 1994, Melvis Pender (Pender), an Area IV Instructional Support Team member in math and science, observed Irvin. The students were noisy. Irvin asked questions that called for unison responses, which made it difficult for the teacher to detect students who were giving incorrect responses. The discipline plan that Irvin was using was not effective and emphasized the bad behavior. Mr. Pender made recommendations on ways to improve in the areas that needed improving and provided them to Irvin. On September 30, 1994, Juanita Malone, assistant principal at Belle Glade, observed Irvin. The students were very noisy and Irvin kept turning the lights on and off to get their attention. Irvin was teaching the children about patterns during the observation. She started using links of four different colors to illustrate the lesson, but when she saw that a four color pattern was too difficult for the children to understand she switched to a simpler two color pattern. The students had not used the links before and many of the students spent time during the lesson playing with the links. Ms. Malone shared her observation with Irvin. On October 21, 1994, Irvin was observed by Jeanne Burdsall ("Burdsall"), the Manager of Professional Standards for the Palm Beach County School System. During the observation, Irvin did not teach a lesson. She did not have any lesson plans. Irvin did not smile or show any enthusiasm during the observation. She did not teach any concepts. Irvin lost valuable teaching time while she was looking for a misplaced "birthday box." She gave birthday cake to the children just prior to lunch. Again she lost teaching time while she had each child individually take his placemat to the sink, resulting in the children becoming disruptive while they were waiting for all the children to clean up. Burdsall put her observations and suggestions for remediation in writing and gave it to Irvin. On October 26, 1994, Irvin met with Burdsall, Garrett, and Clarence Gunn, her union representative to review the progress of the PDP. During the meeting, Irvin advised everyone that she had ADD and was taking medication for the condition. Burdsall said that she would provide Irvin with a copy of the American's with Disability Act (ADA) policy and request for information. Burdsall stated that she would see if someone from the School District could locate a local neurologist who could treat Irvin. At the October 26 meeting, Irvin stated that she plans by putting ideas and themes down as she goes along. Sometimes she writes them down before the activity and sometimes it is afterward. Garrett gave Irvin a set of model lesson plans. Irvin was instructed to prepare two days of lesson plans which could be used by a substitute teacher if necessary. It was agreed that Irvin would be allowed to shadow another kindergarten teacher. In the fall of 1994, Irvin attended workshops on intergrated curriculum, language arts and math manipulatives. On October 27, 1994, Mary Gray (Gray), a professor of Education Leadership at Florida Atlantic University, observed Irvin. Gray noted that the students were too noisy and could not hear directions that were being given by the teacher. Irvin did not have any lesson plans. Irvin asked the children multiple questions which resulted in confusion. Irvin told the class about a student's father who had been shot. Other children began to talk about unhappy incidents in their lives such as a brother who had gotten stuck in the eye with a knife. Gray felt that such discussion was inappropriate for kindergarten students. Gray shared her observation comments and suggestions on ways to improve with Irvin. On November 17, 1994, another meeting was held to review the progress of the PDP. Irvin was given the ADA policy with the medical request for information and was told to take it to the neurologist of her choice as soon as possible. Irvin had failed to turn in the two days of lesson plans as requested in the October meeting. She was again instructed to prepare the plans. Irvin was going to be released for two days to shadow a kindergarten teacher, who would demonstrate the whole language approach to teaching. Irvin asked for the materials that were handed out in a October 28 workshop and Ms. Burdsall agreed to provide her with those materials. On November 18, 1994, Gale Fulford (Fulford), who was the Area IV support team member for language arts, observed Irvin's classroom performance. Irvin did not have any lesson plans. Fulford did not see a lot of teacher created materials in the classroom, and the classroom lacked a print rich environment. Irvin's questions to the students did not include enough "high order" questions. The class was too noisy. On December 2, 1994, Dorothy Kelsey (Kelsey), a specialist in Pre- K/early intervention observed Irvin. Ms. Kelsey noted inappropriate activities being offered to the students such as dittos, rote memorization in the math lesson with no hands on activity, and reading and showing a small book in a group setting so that some of the children were unable to see the book. The classroom lacked well organized learning centers and did not have a print rich environment. On December 9, 1994, Garrett observed Irvin teach a concept. Irvin continued to ask for unison responses and posed multiple questions. Based on the codes on the evaluation form used by Garrett, Irvin's teaching performance was not satisfactory during the observation. On December 9, 1994, Irvin received a midyear evaluation of her performance as a classroom teacher identifying the following areas which needed to be improved and rating her overall performance as unsatisfactory: Management of Student Control Instructional Organization and Development Presentation of Subject Matter Demonstrates Ability to Plan Effectively Demonstrates Ability to Evaluate Instruc- tional Needs Irvin was still unable to manage the students' conduct. She failed to make lesson plans, resulting in her not being prepared to teach lessons. She was not following the kindergarten checklist, which is a list of objectives that the students should be able to meet at the end of the school year. Based on testing, it was determined that a large number of the students in Irvin's class were not working on the level that they should have been. It appeared to Garrett that some of the students in Irvin's class were "falling through the crack" and would not meet the objectives on the kindergarten checklist. Irvin had made improvement in the area of classroom climate. However, for this evaluation Irvin was rated unsatisfactory in the area of Demonstrates Ability to Evaluate Instructional Needs because she was not able to incorporate the kindergarten checklist in her lesson planning. The area of Demonstrates Ability to Evaluate Instructional Needs deals with the ability to tailor the instruction to meet the needs of the students. Thus, Irvin ended up with five areas of concern for her mid-year evaluation. Garrett recommended that Irvin remain on the PDP. Irvin disagreed with the December 1994 evaluation. Irvin was placed on her second PDP in January, 1995 for the purpose of providing her assistance in correcting the deficiencies listed on mid-year evaluation. The dates listed for the timeline for the PDP were from January through March, 1995. Irvin was observed during the time frames set forth in the second PDP. The School District received a letter dated January 12, 1995, from Dr. Diaz, informing the School District that Irvin had ADD and was successfully taking medication. The doctor stated: This disability will continue and is chronic. Disabilities will be noted in terms of ability to concentrate, organize and respond to change. Working in a quiet environment undistracted is helpful. Functioning in the school district with an aide is helpful as well as understanding the disorder in terms of response to changes in curriculum or responsibilities. On January 20, 1995, Pender observed Irvin. The students were divided into three groups. One of the groups was working at a table with manipulatives, was very noisy and was not directly supervised. Irvin asked her daughter who was helping her that day to sit with the noisy group. The group continued to be noisy and distracting to the other students. It was chaotic when the groups switched from one station to another. There was no connection of skills or concepts among the three stations during the class period. Irvin was reading the students Mother Goose Rhymes, which was appropriate for that grade level, but the noise level was so high that very little learning was going on. In comparing his first observation with his second observation, Pender opined that Irvin's ability to manage the classroom had not improved but was worse. On February 1, 1995, an assistance review meeting was held. The letter from Dr. Diaz had been given to Louis Haddad, the School District's Coordinator of Employee Relations and Services. Irvin was told that Mr. Haddad needed to have a list of the specific accommodations that were being requested. Irvin indicated that she was going to another doctor to get the list. Irvin had rearranged her room and modified her lesson plans. She had been working with Fulford. Irvin was scheduled to attend three workshops: Management of Student Conduct, Presentation of Subject Matter/Planning, and an inservice session on whole language. Irvin advised the members of the meeting that she was pleased with the assistance and the progress being made. On February 10, 1995, Gray observed Irvin in the classroom. Irvin spent ten minutes taking up money for various activities and collecting valentines. There was a show and tell with all the students. Irvin went to the calendar and indicated that the day was Friday. Nine students were taken to a table to work with the aide. The remaining nineteen students were talking and rolling on the floor. Instead of supervising the noisy children, Irvin helped the aide set up the work station for the nine students. The class became so noisy at one point that when Irvin was asked by the aide how many cards each child was to have, Irvin replied, "Sorry, I can't hear you." Irvin put eleven children at a table by themselves to draw a picture about weather, while Irvin began to teach the eight remaining children. During the 30 minute observation period, no teaching occurred for the first 26 minutes. During the observation, from 7 to 19 students were off task at various times. On February 14, 1995, Garrett observed Irvin's classroom. She went to the classroom early in the morning but the class was having a valentine party. She returned around 10:00 a.m. and observed Irvin and the students singing songs. Irvin did use her behavior management plan during the observation. The determination of whether a particular teacher should be recommended for termination based on incompetency is the responsibility of the principal of the school at which the teacher works. At the end of the day on February 14, 1995, Garrett met with Irvin and advised Irvin that she was going to recommend that Irvin not be reappointed. By letter dated February 14, 1995, Garrett advised the superintendent of schools that Irvin had not corrected her performance deficiencies and recommended that Irvin not be reappointed for the 1996 school year. The letter was sent according to a School District requirement that principals send notice regarding teacher termination to the superintendent sometime during February. During the 1994-1995 school year, the School District established February 14 as the date by which the School District needed to receive notice regarding teachers possibly not being reappointed for the next school year. The other observers on the PDP team agreed with Garrett's assessment that Irvin was not competent. On February 20, 1995, Irvin made an office visit to see Dr. Helen Baker (Baker), a licensed mental health counselor. Diaz had referred Irvin to Baker for counseling. Irvin requested assistance from Baker in coming up with specific accommodations relating to her ADD which she could request from the School District. On March 1, 1995, Burdsall observed Irvin. Burdsall noted that the classroom environment had improved. Irvin had some lesson plans but was not following the format that Gray had given her. Irvin did not completely follow her lesson plan during the observation period. Irvin was still not using all the elements that are necessary in teaching a lesson and was not teaching concepts by giving definitions, examples and nonexamples. Burdsall suggested that Irvin interact more with the students by asking comprehensive questions, both high and low order. On March 2, 1995, Irvin received an annual evaluation rating her classroom performance unsatisfactory and identifying the following areas which needed improvement: Management of Student Conduct Instructional Organization and Development Presentation of Subject Matter Demonstrates Ability to Plan Effectively Demonstrates Ability to Evaluate Instruc- tional Needs In developing the evaluation, Garrett factored in her formal and informal observations of Irvin as well as the observations of the members of the Professional Development Plan's assistance team. Irvin disagreed with the content of the March 2, 1995, evaluation. By letter dated March 10, 1995, the superintendent of schools notified Irvin that she had failed to correct the deficiencies noted by the principal and that her current classroom performance was unsatisfactory. Irvin was informed that her employment would end on June 16, 1995, and that she would not be reappointed for the 1996 school year. On March 19, 1995, Garrett received a letter from Helen Baker of Cape Counseling Services of Southwest Florida. After having seen Irvin two times Baker suggested the following accommodations for Irvin: Allow for changes to occur at a slower pace and when change is indicated be precise as to what is needed in the new situation. Have a clear workable curriculum. Have only one or two persons involved in giving guidance to Irvin and preferably a person with experience with the dynamics of ADD. Do not send conflicting messages in assisting Irvin. Place carpets or other materials to soften the sound in the classroom. Do not allow public announcements through electronic devices to interrupt during class. Leave Irvin messages in her mailbox for her to focus on when she has time to orient to them. Present written material on student behavior to Irvin one item at a time in a different manner. Allow Irvin timeout from her classroom so that she can extract herself from the over stimulation of the classroom. Provide Irvin with a full time aide who is aware of ADD behavior. The School District had made accommodations to Irvin prior to the letter from Dr. Baker. Irvin was allotted more aide time than any other kindergarten teacher. Usually different teacher assistants came to the teachers at different times of the week. Irvin requested that she keep the same teacher assistant. Garrett accommodated Irvin by allowing her to have the same assistant for the rest of the day and for the rest of the week. Belle Glade had a kindergarten extension room where kindergarten teachers are allowed to take their students twice a week, allowing the children to work with hands-on skills and activities. Two different groups would come into the extension room two different times of the day. Irvin felt that was too much movement for her and requested that she be allowed to go to the extension room only once with the same students at the same time. Garrett made the accommodation for Irvin. Irvin indicated that the format of the lesson plans for the extension schedule was difficult to follow and suggested that she be allowed to color code her lesson plans. Garrett allowed the accommodation. Irvin was provided the Florida Performance Measurement System otherwise known as the blue book. The purpose of the book is to provide assistance for effective teaching. Additionally, in September, 1994, Garrett provided Irvin with mini packets which broke the material down to a smaller scale so that Irvin would not have to try to digest the blue book at one time. A month later, Garrett supplied Irvin with additional reference materials. Irvin was provided training in formats other than written material. She attended workshops and observed other kindergarten teachers. In the area of lesson planning, Irvin met with the kindergarten chairperson one-on-one for assistance with the lesson plans. Garret also met with Irvin and the kindergarten chairperson to provide assistance to Irvin on the lesson planning. Irvin was provided with copies of lesson plans that Garrett deemed to be sufficient. Irvin had been provided with the kindergarten checklist. Based on the checklist Irvin should have been able to determine what things that the kindergarten students should be taught during the school year. Thus, Irvin was provided with a clear workable curriculum. There were seven kindergarten teachers at Belle Glade during the 1994- 1995 school year. The kindergarten supplies for the 1994-1995 had been ordered based on number of kindergarten teachers the previous year, six. Thus, the supplies which were ordered for six teachers had to be divided among seven teachers. Irvin did not receive a math kit which Pender had suggested using until almost the end of the 1994-1995 school year.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered terminating Margaret Irvin's employment with the Palm Beach School District. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 19th day of April, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-2073 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1995), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1-4: Accepted. Paragraphs 5-16: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 17: Accepted. Paragraphs 18-23: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 24: Accepted. Paragraphs 25-26: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 27: Accepted. Paragraph 28: Accepted in substance. 9 Paragraphs 29-30: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 31: Accepted. Paragraph 32: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 33: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1-18: Accepted. Paragraphs 19-29: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 30-36: Accepted. Paragraphs 37-39: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 40: The first two sentences are accepted. The last sentence is rejected to the extent that it implies that the timeline was not followed. Irvin was observed during the times set forth in the PDP with the exception of the evaluation by Kelsey which took place on March 9. Paragraph 41: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 42: The first two sentences are accepted in substance. The last sentence is accepted to the extent that the workshop dealt with planning but rejected to the extent that it implies that if Irvin had had the workshop earlier it would have helped her. When Burdsall observed Irvin on March 1, 1995, Irvin was not using the lesson planning format that Gray had recommended. Paragraph 43: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 44: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 45: The first sentence is accepted. The second sentence is subordinate to the facts found because Irvin was given the kindergarten checklist and she knew that she was to incorporate those objectives in her lessons. Paragraph 46: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Irvin had not remediated her deficiencies by March 10. Paragraph 47: The first sentence is rejected as irrelevant. Irvin had taught kindergarten in summer school. (TR 622) The last sentence is rejected as not supported by the record as it deals with the use of the term "colored." The gist of Garrett's testimony was that she considered not only her observations in recommending termination but all the information from the observers and the assistance that had been provided to Irvin. Paragraphs 48-49: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 50-51: Accepted in substance to the extent that Irvin had made some improvement during the 1994-1995 school year but rejected to the extent that it implies that she had remediated her deficiencies. Paragraph 52: Accepted in substance that the material was appropriate but rejected to the extent that it implies that Pender thought Irvin's performance was satisfactory. Paragraphs 53: Accepted in substance that singing songs is an appropriate activity for kindergarten children, but not necessarily that the activities that the students were engaged in constituted the teaching of a lesson. The last sentence is accepted. Paragraph 54: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 55: The first sentence is accepted. The second sentence is rejected as not supported by the record. Irvin presented a concept but whether she was teaching it could not be determined because of the unison responses and the failure of the students to line up appropriately in making the parade pattern. The third sentence is accepted in substance as to presenting a concept but rejected to the extent that it could be determined that the students actually learned a concept. The last sentence is accepted. Paragraph 56: The first sentence is accepted in substance. The first half of the second sentence is accepted to the extent that Irvin went from having no lesson plans to having some lesson plans that were acceptable some of the time. The last sentence is rejected as not supported by the record. According to Burdsall's last observation, Irvin was not following the format set up by Gray. Paragraph 57: Accepted. Paragraph 58: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 59: The first sentence is accepted to the extent that Irvin received the same amount of supplies as did the other kindergarten teachers and that she was impacted to the same extent as the other teachers but rejected to the extent that it implies the shortage of supplies caused Irvin to be incompetent. The remainder is accepted in substance. Paragraph 60: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 61: The first two sentences are rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. The last sentence is rejected to the extent that although the advice appeared to be conflicting, it was not because the problem was that Irvin could not control her classroom behavior with the techniques that had been suggested. It was not that the techniques were all inappropriate but that Irvin just could not seem to implement them. Paragraph 62: Rejected as not supported by the record. The observers were focusing on having Irvin make lesson plans, follow the lesson plans, and teach concepts. Irvin had been doing none of these things. Paragraph 63: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Apparently it was normal to have a housekeeping center in the classroom and Irvin had asked Fulford if it was okay to remove it. Kelsey did not see a housekeeping center which is normally a part of the classroom and commented on it. Irvin could have very easily explained to Kelsey that she had permission to remove the housekeeping center but Irvin chose not to tell Kelsey. Paragraph 64: Accepted that classroom climate was dropped but rejected that that was the only area in which Burdsall gave specific things to do. Paragraphs 65-67: Accepted to the extent that Irvin, like the other kindergarten teachers, was given a draft language arts curriculum which would be used in the upcoming year. Rejected to the extent that it implies Irvin was not given a clear idea of what the curriculum should be for the kindergarten because she was given the kindergarten checklist which spelled out what the children should learn in kindergarten. Paragraph 68: Accepted in substance but not incorporated in the findings of fact. However, this does not mean that Burdsall was against praising good behavior as well. Paragraph 69: The first two and the last sentences are accepted in substance but not incorporated. The third sentence is accepted in substance but not incorporated. However, it should be noted that Kelsey also concluded that a formal behavior management system would not be necessary if there was proper planning and organizing. Paragraphs 70-71: Accepted in substance but not incorporated. Paragraph 72: Accepted in substance to the extent that the management system that Irvin was using did not accentuate the positive behavior because there were only two categories, a happy face and a sad face. By adding a neutral category, Irvin could reward the student by moving his name to the happy category from the neutral category. Paragraph 73: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 74: The first sentence is accepted to the extent that in Malone's testimony she was emphasizing that Irvin had a management behavior system posted on the wall but she was not using it and was turning the lights on and off, which was not working, as a method of controlling the behavior of the children. The second sentence is accepted in substance but not incorporated. Paragraphs 75-76: Accepted in substance but not incorporated. The context of the statements is that Irvin was not in control of her classroom which resulted in the students being very noisy and off-task. Paragraph 77: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 78: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 79: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 80: The first sentence is accepted in substance. The remainder is rejected as not supported by the evidence. The assistance provided to Irvin included accommodations which were requested by Irvin prior to the notification of her termination. Paragraph 81: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 82: The first and second sentences are accepted in substance. The third sentence is rejected as subordinate to the facts found because even with the accommodations that Irvin had requested and those listed by Diaz, Irvin was not able to satisfactorily perform her job. The fourth sentence is rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraphs 83-84: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 85: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 86: Accepted in substance that Irvin had ADD and that her behavior was symptomatic of ADD. Paragraph 87: The first sentence is accepted to the extent that Diaz believed it but rejected to the extent that the evidence demonstrated that with accommodations such as an aide Irvin still could not perform satisfactorily. The second and third sentences are rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraphs 88-89: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 90-91: Rejected that there was not a clear workable curriculum in place. Although SADI, was being phased out and whole language was being phased in, there did exist a kindergarten checklist which essentially provided what skills had to be taught during the kindergarten year. Paragraph 92: Accepted. Paragraph 93: The first sentence is accepted. The second sentence is rejected to the extent that it implies that the School District did not accommodate Irvin in this area. Paragraph 94: Accepted. Paragraphs 95-96: Rejected to the extent that the information was in conflict. It was apparent that to a great extent Irvin was unable to use the behavior management system effectively whether she was emphasizing the negative or the positive. Paragraph 97: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. The point to be learned from the observations was that Irvin did not have control of her classroom or her aide. Irvin should not have had to go to help the aide but the control of the classroom was the ultimate responsibility of Irvin so the misconduct had to be stopped at some point whether it was by Irvin or by the aide. Paragraphs 98-116: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found that accommodations were made for Irvin. Paragraph 117: Accepted. Paragraph 118: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: Darren K. Edwards, Esquire Palm Beach County School Board 3318 Forest Hill, Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5813 Thomas L. Johnson, Esquire 202 West Cardy Street Tampa, Florida 33606 Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Bernard Shulman, Superintendent Palm Beach County School Board 3340 Forest Hill Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an annual contract teacher with the Dade County Public Schools and holds a Florida state teacher's certificate. Although she had worked as a teacher assistant in the past, her first year of employment as a full time teacher was the 1980-81 school year. Since she is an annual contract teacher with no right to a continuing contract, the primary issue is whether she has the right to obtain back pay for the period of the school year during which she was suspended. Respondent was a teacher at Melrose Elementary School for the 1981-82 school year. At the beginning of the school year, she was assigned to teach a Compensatory Education Class. These are small classes and, in Ms. Harper's case, never exceeded 11 students. She was, however, required to keep and retain student records to enable subsequent teachers to determine at what level the student was functioning. After Respondent was transferred from the Compensatory Education classroom, the assistant principal requested that she turn in the records for the class. Respondent stated that she had destroyed them. Respondent's next assignment at Melrose Elementary School was as the teacher of a fifth-sixth grade combination regular education class. The assistant principal officially observed Respondent in this classroom three times and unofficially observed her on additional occasions. She found that Respondent lacked effective instructional planning based on Respondent's failure to complete lesson plans. The collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the Respondent's union stated that lesson plans were an essential part of the teaching process and a proper subject for evaluation. On one occasion, the school was preparing for an audit. Auditors (administrators from other schools) check teacher's plan books, grade books and other teaching materials. The assistant principal contacted Respondent several times in advance of the audit in an attempt to prepare her for it. However, Respondent failed to develop the required lesson plans, so the assistant principal wrote out a week's plans for her. She asked Respondent to take the plans home over the weekend and copy them in her own handwriting. The following Monday at the beginning of the audit, Respondent had only filled out plans for Monday, Tuesday and Friday. There were no lesson-plans to be delivered to the auditors regarding Wednesday or Thursday. Testimony of Respondent's supervisor established that she was unable to control the students in her classroom, primarily because she did not assign them anything to do. A Furthermore, she sent her students out to play without supervision and left her classroom unattended on several occasions, even though she had previously been instructed by her supervisor not to do so. Respondent received an unacceptable performance rating in the area of "techniques of instruction". This rating was based on the fact that Respondent did not pre-test her students and therefore had no knowledge of what the student did or did not know, what he needed to be taught or where to place him in the classroom. As a result, she attempted to teach students division when those students had not yet mastered prerequisite skills. She did not divide her class into ability groups so that she could teach groups of students at their levels of comprehension, and she did not maintain student profiles which would have shown her a particular student's abilities and deficiencies. Respondent either did not assign homework to her students or they did not return it because she had no records to indicate such assignment or files containing student homework. Her records of student grades were incomplete and only sporadically maintained. In the spring of 1982, two students from Respondent's class ran into the principal's office crying. The female student had welts on her chest and face; and the male student had similar injuries to his arms. These injuries were the result of an attack by Respondent. She had not been authorized to administer corporal punishment by her supervisor. Although there was another incident where Respondent chased a student with a ruler, this was the only situation in her teaching career where her loss of control had serious consequences. She appears to regret this incident. Ms. Harper was reassigned to South Hialeah Elementary School for the school year 1982-83. When she reported to South Hialeah Elementary School on September 20, 1982, she was given a lesson plan format, a teacher handbook and other pertinent teaching materials. Respondent received a two day orientation during which she was permitted to read the handbook, observe other teachers and talk with the grade level chairman. She was given instruction in writing lesson plans in the format used throughout the county and required by the UTD-School Board contract. She was then assigned a regular fourth grade classroom. On her second day of teaching, the assistant principal noted an unacceptable noise level emanating from Respondent's classroom during the announcement period. When she walked into the room, she found Respondent preparing her lesson plans with the students out of control. The assistant principal advised Respondent that this was not the proper time to prepare lesson plans. The next day the situation was the same, and fights broke out between students. The assistant principal was concerned for the safety of these students because of the fights and because Ms. Harper's classroom was on the second floor and students were leaning out of the windows. On October 4, 1982, the assistant principal conducted a formal evaluation of Respondent's classroom teaching, and initially found Respondent preparing lesson plans and not instructing or supervising her students. During the reading lesson, Respondent did not give individual directions to the students, but merely told them all to open their books to a particular page. Since the students were not all working in the same book because they were functioning at different levels of achievement, this created confusion. Finally, the students who had the same book as Respondent were instructed to read, while other students did nothing. After a brief period of instruction, the class was told to go to the bathroom even though this was the middle of the reading lesson and not an appropriate time for such a break. The assistant principal noted that Respondent did not have a classroom schedule or rules. The classroom was in constant confusion and Respondent repeatedly screamed at the children in unsuccessful attempts to maintain order. The assistant principal determined that these problems had to be addressed immediately. Accordingly, in addition to a regular long term prescription, she gave Respondent a list of short term objectives to accomplish within the next two days. These objectives consisted of the development of lesson plans and a schedule, arranging a more effective floor plan in the classroom, making provisions for participation by all of the students and developing a set of classroom rules. The assistant principal advised Respondent that if she had any difficulty accomplishing these objectives, she should contact her immediately. The short term objectives were never accomplished. Respondent did not develop classroom rules. Although the assistant principal and other teachers attempted to teach her to write lesson plans, this was relatively unsuccessful. The principal observed the classroom on October 6, and found that no improvements had been made. She also noted that Respondent had not complied with the outline for lesson plans required by the contract between the UTD and the School Board. Neither had she complied with the school's requirements for pupil progression forms. The principal advised Respondent to attempt once again to work on the short term prescription assigned on October 4, 1982. Subsequent observations and assistance did not result in any noticeable improvement. Respondent was unable to understand the need for organizing students in groups according to their abilities. Her students continued to wander aimlessly about the classroom. She was unable to document required student information even after repeated demonstrations. She did not test students and she failed to record their grades, except sporadically. Other teachers and parents complained about classroom conduct. Some parents requested that their children be moved out of Ms. Harper's class. Others complained to school officials about telephone calls from Ms. Harper at 2:00 a.m. or 6:00 a.m. Even the school custodian complained because Respondent's students repeatedly threw papers out of the windows. The principal arranged for Respondent to meet with the grade-level chairman and the assistant principal to learn to develop lesson plans. She obtained information about classes at the Teacher Education Center of Florida International University and directed Ms. Harper to attend the classes. She subsequently determined that Respondent had not attended. Respondent told the principal that she could not attend because of car trouble. At the hearing, Respondent stated that not only did she have car trouble, but since she was a single parent, she lacked the time and money to attend the classes. She conceded, however, that the classes were free. In a further effort to assist her, Respondent was excused from her regular classroom duties to observe successful teachers. On one occasion she was found taking a coffee break instead. Again, there was no improvement apparent from this remedial measure. At the principal's request, the School Board's area director observed Respondent on November 11, 1982. Her testimony established that Respondent worked with only one group of three students in the classroom and that the reading lesson being taught to those children was below their appropriate level. She also observed that there were no records indicating the progress of Respondent's students and that the students were talking continually. Due to her numerous difficulties in teaching and the lack of progress in correcting the deficiencies, the principal, assistant principal and area director concluded that Respondent lacked the requisite competence to continue in her contract position. A recommendation of dismissal to the School Board followed and on January 5, 1983, Respondent was suspended. After her suspension, Respondent secured employment as a teacher of English for speakers of other languages (ESOL) at the Tri-City Community Association. Testimony of its director established that Respondent is an effective teacher of ESOL and that she trains other teachers to perform this function.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing Respondent from her position as a contract teacher effective January 5, 1983. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of December, 1983, in 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 20th day of December, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Phyllis O. Douglas, Esquire 1410 N.E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Ellen Leesfield, Esquire 2929 S.W. Third Avenue Miami, Florida 33129 Dr. Leonard Britton, Superintendent Dade County Public Schools Lindsey Hopkins Building 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact Thomas Sundquist was a student enrolled in North Miami Junior High School, operated by the Petitioner, during the school years 1984-1985 and 1985- 1986. Respondent was a seventh grade student during those two school years. He was the subject of seven independent student case management referral forms initiated by school personnel for aberrant behavior. These included 3-1-85: Defiance of Authority; continuous disruptive behavior; failure to complete assignments; failure to bring assigned- materials; and leaving class without permission. 5-24-85: slapping the face of a female student and fighting with her in the classroom. 2-27-86: Assault on another student. 3-21-86: Late to school on test day; left holding area without permission, banged on classroom doors disturbing testees; and evading security and administrators. 5-29-86: Assault on another student; truancy; and defiance of authority. For the assaults on 2-27-86 and 5-29-86, Respondent was given 5 days outdoor suspension for the first and 10 days for the second, and for his misconduct on 4-29-86, was also suspended for 10 days. Counseling policy at this school calls for automatic counseling by the student's grade counselor as well as by a school administrator in the event of a case management referral and in each case, this policy was followed. Further, in each case referenced above except the first, parent contact was accomplished both verbally and in writing. No improvement was noted at any time. On May 30, 1986, Mr. W.G. Murray, a vice principal at the school, requested progress reports on the Respondent from each of his six teachers. These reports were, for the most part, uniformly uncomplimetary. They were: Science - Ms. Fernandez: "He does not do any work. Is never prepared for class. Is a discipline problem and exhibits unacceptable behavior." Music - Ms. Pena: "He has been absent so much he is very far behind on his instrument,but while in class, his conduct is good." P.E.- Ms. Jardine: Class work "F", conduct "D". Math - Mr. O'Keefe: "Was not seen in class after October 8, 1985. Class work "F", conduct "F". He is very disobedient, insultive [sic], and immature." English - Ms. Weber: " He usually sleeps in class. Occasionally will do a spelling list but is not in class long enough to do anything. His conduct is poor, challenging authority, answering back, bangs on door when not in class, and does not often show up for class." [This teacher indicated the student can do the work if he wants to.] Graphics - Mr. Machado: "Refuses to do any work, disruptive, will not stay in seat, talks out loud, hits and touches other students against their will." Mr. Machado and Ms. Fernandez amplified their written comments by testimony at the hearing and confirmed that he was always late for class, was never prepared when he came, and rarely did any work in class. He would chew gum, try to distract the other students, fail to follow instructions and class and safety rules, and would assault other students without provocation. He would try to hug or touch females or fight with males to the point that some students would leave class and go to the assistant principal's office just to get away from him. Both teachers repeatedly had to stop their classroom teaching, taking time away from other students, to attempt, most often unsuccessfully, to deal with the Respondent. Respondent's final report card for the 1985-1986 school year reflected a final grade of "F" for each of his subjects for the year. Out of 180 school days, he was absent: Science: 101 periods. Music: 97 periods. P.E.: 91 periods. Mathematics: 86 periods. English: 104 periods. Graphics: (second semester only) 65 periods. In the 3rd and 4th grading periods, his "effort" grades were uniformly "3" which signifies "insufficient." In the first two grading periods, he did earn 4 "C's" and 1 "D". His "conduct" grades are mostly "F" with some exceptions in Music, P.E., and, in the first grading period only, English, in which he got a "D" and Industrial Arts, in which he got a "C". All three witnesses who testified for Petitioner were of the opinion that Respondent's lack of interest and disruptive behavior cannot properly be handled within the regular class system where teachers have between 33 and 35 students per class. They do not have the time to devote to him and his behavior takes their attention away from other students whose education suffers thereby. They all agree, however, that in the opportunity school, where classes normally consist of 10 to 15 students, he would benefit from the more personalized attention he would receive and would undoubtedly do better. This seems to be a reasonable analysis of the situation and it is so found. Respondent is definitely not interested in school in the regular classroom setting and his behavior is decidedly disruptive.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED THAT: Petitioner enter a Final Order affirming the assignment of Respondent to its Opportunity School Program. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of October, 1986 at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Jaime Claudio Bovell, Esquire 1401 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Ms. Sue Sundquist Stevens 11317 Northeast 11th Place Biscayne Park, Florida 33161 and 14155 West Dixie Highway North Miami, Florida 33161 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Judith Brechner, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The central issue in case no. 88-2368 is whether Respondent should be suspended for thirty workdays due to misconduct in office. The central issue in case no. 88-3315 is whether Respondent should be dismissed from employment due to misconduct in office, gross insubordination, and incompetency.
Findings Of Fact COPIES FURNISHED: Marlene Rodriguez 16333 Wood Walk Miami Lakes, Florida 33014 Frank Harder Twin Oaks Building, Suite 100 2780 Galloway Road Miami, Florida 33165 Mrs. Madelyn P. Schere Assistant School Board Attorney School Board of Dade County Board Administration Building, Suite 301 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Joseph A. Fernandez Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: With regard to case no. 88-2368, that the School Board of Dade County enter a final order affirming the administrative decision to suspend Respondent for a thirty workday period for misconduct in office. With regard to case no. 88-3315, that the School Board of Dade County enter a final order affirming the administrative decision to dismiss Respondent from employment for misconduct in office, incompetence, and gross insubordination. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 1st day of December, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of December, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 88-2368, 88-3315 RULINGS ON PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: Paragraph 1 is accepted with the exception of George C. Clark, Mr. Clark's testimony was offered by deposition. Paragraph 2 is accepted. Paragraphs 3-4 are accepted. Paragraph 5 is rejected as a recitation of testimony, not specific facts adduced by such testimony; some of the recitation being without basis. It is found that Respondent did not follow school policies regarding the discipline administered to students, that Respondent was aware of the correct procedures, and that Respondent continuously had trouble regarding classroom management. Paragraph 6 is accepted. Paragraph 7 is accepted. Paragraph 8 is accepted. Paragraph 9 is accepted but is unnecessary to the conclusions reached in this cause. Paragraph 10 is accepted not for the truth of the matters asserted therein but as a indication of the student-teacher relationship between Respondent and one of the students she taught. Paragraphs 11, 12, and 13 are accepted. Paragraph 14 is accepted not for the truth of the matters asserted therein but see p.9 above. Paragraph 15 is accepted. Paragraph 16 is accepted not for the truth of the matters asserted therein but see p.9 above as it relates to the hearsay contents of the letter. Other portions of the paragraph which conclude respondent knew discipline procedures but did not follow them, or knew notice policies but did not follow them are accepted. Paragraphs 17 and 18 are accepted. Paragraphs 19,20,21, and 22 are accepted only to the extent addressed in findings of fact, paragraphs 7,8,9, and 10; otherwise, the proposed findings are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or unsupported by admissible evidence. Paragraphs 23, 24, and 25 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 26, the first two sentences are accepted, the balance is rejected as hearsay or unsupported by the record in this cause. Paragraphs 27, 29, and 30 are accepted. (Petitioner did not submit a paragraph 28) In the future, proposed findings submitted which do not conform to the rules of the Florida Administrative Code will be summarily rejected. Petitioner is cautioned to review applicable rules, and to cite appropriately. RULINGS ON PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: Paragraph 1 is accepted with the clarification that Clark's testimony was offered by deposition. Paragraph 2 is accepted. With regard to paragraph 3, according to the evidence in this case, Repodent taught at Miami Gardens Elementary School (Leon was her principal there) and North Carol City Elementary School (Sawyer and Brown were her principals there). Other schools may have been assigned during her periods of "special assignment" but the record is insufficient to establish Respondent's performance while on such assignments. The record is insufficient to make the legal conclusion addressed in paragraph 4, consequently, it is rejected. The Board addressed a recommendation to terminate Respondent's employment; however, the record does not establish final action was taken. The facts alleged in paragraph 5 are too voluminous to address in one paragraph. Petitioner's continued use of a recitation of the testimony does not constitute findings of fact. Pertinent to this case are the following facts adduced from Petitioner's paragraph 5: that Respondent's overall performance was unacceptable, that Respondent failed to direct students who were off task, that Respondent made an excessive number of referrals for discipline, and that the atmosphere in Respondent's class was not conducive to learning. With the exception of the last sentence in paragraph 6, it is accepted. The last sentence is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. See finding made regarding paragraph 5, case no. 88-2368. Paragraph 8 is rejected as contrary to the specific evidence presented. Paragraph 9 is accepted. Paragraphs 10-14 are accepted. Paragraph 15 is rejected with the exception of the last sentence; the time sequence referred to is not specified in the record. The record does establish, however, that Respondent did not make progress in correcting noted areas of deficiency. Paragraphs 16 and 17 are accepted. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact have duplicate numbers for the following paragraphs: 15,16, and 17. The second set of these paragraphs are addressed below. Second paragraph 15 accepted not for the truth of the matters asserted but as an indication of the teacher-student relationship between Respondent and her student. Second paragraph 16 is accepted. Second paragraph 17 is accepted. Paragraph 18 is accepted. Paragraphs 19-22 are accepted.
The Issue Whether just cause exists to terminate Respondent from employment with the Brevard County School Board.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Brevard County, Florida. This includes the power to discipline employees, such as teachers. § 4, Article IX, Fla. Const.; §§ 1001.42(5), 1012.22(1)(f), and 1012.33, Fla. Stat.1 Respondent is a classroom teacher, and as such, the terms and conditions of her employment are governed by the collective agreement between the School Board and The Brevard Federation of Teachers, Local 2098. Respondent has a Bachelor’s degree in exceptional education. On or about November 9, 2006, Respondent, pursuant to an annual contract, was hired by the School Board to provide services as a classroom teacher. Beginning in the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent continued her employment with the School Board pursuant to a professional services contract. During all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent taught at Hoover Middle School, which is under the jurisdiction of the School Board. At the commencement of the 2014-2015 school year, Respondent taught exceptional education (ESE) students in a self-contained, supported-level class. At approximately the midway point of the 2014-2015 school year, Respondent began teaching a resource math class which was comprised entirely of ESE students. Beginning in the 2017-2018 school year, and continuing through the 2018-2019 school year, Respondent taught one resource math class for a single class-period of the day, and she co-taught, or “pushed-in,” for the other five instructional class periods. In both settings, Respondent taught math to ESE students. By correspondence dated March 26, 2019, Superintendent Mullins advised Respondent of the following: Pursuant to Florida Statute 1012.34, you are being recommended for termination of your Professional Services Contract due to unsatisfactory 1 All subsequent references to Florida Statutes will be to the 2018 codification, unless otherwise indicated. Performance …. The actions leading to this recommendation are as follows: On October 29, 2018, you were provided a 90-day notice advising of performance-related concerns based upon three years of unsatisfactory annual evaluations. Several performance review meetings were held with you, your union representative, and your school Principal to discuss your progress. A review of your past evaluations indicates several attempts at corrective activities through the use of District Peer Mentors and Resource Teachers. After the completion of the 90-day plan, adequate progress was not obtained and is grounds to sever the Professional Services Contract. The School Board uses an “Instructional Personnel Performance Appraisal System” (IPPAS) as a guide when evaluating a teacher’s performance. According to the IPPAS manual, classroom teachers are evaluated on a rubric which consists of five dimensions. The first dimension focuses on “instructional design and lesson planning.” The second dimension focuses on the “learning environment” created and fostered by the teacher. The third dimension focuses on “instructional delivery and facilitation.” The fourth dimension focuses on “assessment,” and the fifth dimension focuses on a teacher’s “professional responsibility and ethical conduct.” IPPAS is approved annually by the Florida Department of Education (FLDOE), and the School Board meets regularly with The Brevard Federation of Teachers, Local 2098, to address any issues concerning the evaluation process. Teachers and evaluators receive yearly training, which covers the various components of the evaluation process. Pursuant to IPPAS, and related statutory provisions, classroom teachers are evaluated annually. The overall score given to a teacher on the annual evaluation is determined by how a teacher scores in the areas of “Professional Practices Based on Florida’s Educator Accomplished Practices (Professional Practices),” and “Individual Accountability for Student Academic Performance Based on Identified Assessments (Student Performance).” The Professional Practices category accounts for 67 percent, and Student Performance accounts for the remaining 33 percent of a teacher’s annual evaluation score. For purposes of quantifying a teacher’s annual evaluation, IPPAS identifies the Professional Practices category as “Part 1 of the Summative Evaluation,” and the Student Performance category as “Part 2 of the Summative Evaluation.” Part 1 of the Summative Evaluation is completed in the spring of each school year and consists of the supervising principal’s annual evaluation of the teacher, the teacher’s self-assessment, and the collaboration and mutual accountability score. The evaluative components of Part 1 of the Summative Evaluation are comprised of the previously referenced “five dimensions.” Part 2 of the Summative Evaluation is determined based on student academic performance data (VAM score) as calculated by the FLDOE. VAM scores are released by FLDOE in the fall, and these scores reflect student performance for the preceding school year. Consequently, a teacher will not receive an overall annual evaluation score for the immediate preceding school year until the fall semester during which VAM scores are available. As a practical matter, this explains, in part, why the recommendation for termination letter sent to Respondent by Superintendent Mullins was issued on March 26, 2019.2 2015-2016 SCHOOL YEAR Respondent, on or about April 25, 2016, received Part 1 of her Summative Evaluation for the 2015-2016 school year. Respondent received a score of 27.71 out of a maximum available score of 67 points. Respondent’s Part 1 Summative score placed her in the category of “Needs Improvement.” On or about November 2, 2016, Respondent received Part 2 of her Summative Evaluation for the 2015-2016 school year. Respondent received a VAM score of 56.71 out of a maximum available score of 100 points. Respondent’s VAM score placed her in the “Needs Improvement” category. The combined Part 1 and Part 2 scores resulted in Respondent receiving an overall annual evaluation rating of “Needs Improvement.” 2016-2017 SCHOOL YEAR Respondent, on or about April 5, 2017, received Part 1 of her Summative Evaluation for the 2016-2017 school year. Respondent received a score of 20.42 out of a maximum available score of 67 points. Respondent’s Part 1 Summative score placed her in the “Needs Improvement” category. On or about November 13, 2017, Respondent received Part 2 of her Summative Evaluation for the 2016-2017 school year. Respondent received a VAM score of 50.42 out of a maximum available score of 100 points. Respondent’s VAM score placed her in the “Needs Improvement” category. The combined Part 1 and Part 2 scores resulted in Respondent receiving an overall annual evaluation rating of “Needs Improvement.” 2 VAM scores for the 2017-2018 school year were released on or about October 19, 2018. As discussed elsewhere herein, Respondent was placed on 90 days probation following the release of her VAM score. The timing of the release of the VAM score, coupled with the 90-day probationary period and related matters, account for the March 2019 date of Superintendent Mullin’s letter to Respondent. 2017-2018 SCHOOL YEAR Respondent, on or about May 3, 2018, received Part 1 of her Summative Evaluation for the 2017-2018 school year. Respondent received a score of 34.58 out of a maximum available score of 67 points. Respondent’s Part 1 Summative score placed her in the “Needs Improvement” category. On or about October 19, 2018, Respondent received Part 2 of her Summative Evaluation for the 2017-18 school year. Respondent received a VAM score of 64.58 out of a maximum available score of 100 points. Respondent’s VAM score placed her in the “Needs Improvement” category. The combined Part 1 and Part 2 scores resulted in Respondent receiving an overall annual evaluation rating of “Needs Improvement.” A PLAN FOR ADDRESSING PROFESSIONAL DEFICIENCIES The School Board, in order to address Respondent’s professional deficiencies as identified during the relevant evaluation periods, provided support to Respondent through the utilization of Professional Development Assistance Plans (PDAPs). PDAPs are designed to provide a teacher with opportunities for professional development, which includes access to online resources, training activities and courses, and opportunities to work with School Board resource and peer mentor teachers. The School Board, acting through Respondent’s supervising administrators, agreed in the PDAPs to support Respondent’s professional growth and development as follows: By providing access to the “District Peer Mentor Teacher for collaboration on dimension 3.” By conducting “informal observations documented in ProGOE with feedback for improvement.” By providing “resources on utilizing formative assessment to check for understanding.” By providing “resources regarding implementing differentiated instruction.” By providing “resources on the utilization of Webb’s Depth of Knowledge.” By providing “exemplary sample lesson plans as a model … to follow.” By providing “pacing guide if needed.” By meeting every two weeks to review weekly lesson plans. By providing Respondent with “an exemplary teacher to observe, as well as a substitute [teacher] for class coverage during observation.” By providing a list of Professional Development courses on classroom management, as well as a substitute teacher to cover Respondent’s class while she attends the course. By providing “assistance and specific feedback from school based coaches.” By completing “informal observations on a bi- monthly basis, and provid[ing] feedback.” The evidence establishes that the School Board honored its commitment to Respondent as outlined in the respective PDAPs. 90 DAYS OF PROBATION, AND RECOMMENDATION FOR TERMINATION By correspondence dated October 29, 2018, the School Board advised Respondent of the following: In accordance with section 1012.34(4), F.S., this shall serve as the District’s notification of unsatisfactory performance. Please be advised that your Professional Service Contract for the 2018-19 academic year is on a probationary status for ninety (90) days. Your contract is being placed on probation due to your receiving an overall “Needs Improvement” rating on your last three (3) consecutive annual performance evaluations. See also section 1012.22, F.S. During the next ninety (90) days, you will be evaluated periodically. You will be apprised of any progress achieved in writing. You will work with the administration of your school to assist you in obtaining opportunities to help correct any noted deficiencies. After February 25, 2019, the ninetieth (90th) day, administration has fourteen (14) days to assess your progress. If no improvement is shown, administration will notify the Superintendent if you do not rate an overall Effective on the Summative Part 1 of your evaluation. Sincerely, Burt Clark, Principal Hoover Middle School Respondent, during her 90-day probationary period, continued to receive professional development services from the School Board, which included working with a peer mentor teacher, participating in CHAMPs training, receiving assistance from a math content specialist, and observing an exemplary math teacher. Burt Clark was the principal at the school where Respondent worked when she was placed on probation. As the principal, Mr. Clark served as Respondent’s supervisor and was responsible for evaluating her performance. During Respondent’s probationary period, Mr. Clark regularly met with Respondent and her union representative to discuss Respondent’s progress and offer assistance. In addition to meeting with Respondent, Mr. Clark also conducted one interim evaluation, four informal observation, and two formal observations of Respondent’s performance. Mr. Clark also conducted a number of “walk-throughs,” which provided additional insight into the status of Respondent’s professional development. While it is true that Mr. Clark’s observations of Respondent mainly occurred in the classroom where Respondent was the teacher of record, as opposed to Respondent’s work as a “push-in” teacher, Mr. Clark credibly testified that he had sufficient data to assess Respondent’s performance. Mr. Clark, at the end of the probationary period, determined that Respondent’s professional deficiencies remained, and on March 6, 2019, he made the following recommendation to Superintendent Mullins: Ms. Lisa Lemieux had an overall unsatisfactory performance appraisal. We have worked with her to try to improve her instructional strategies; but, it has not been successful in changing the behavior to better serve the students assigned to her. As defined in [section] 1012.34(4), [Florida Statutes], February 25, 2019, was the 90th day since the notification of her 90-day probation for this contract year and after demonstrating no improvement on the Summative Part 1, I have assessed that the performance deficiencies have not been corrected. I would recommend the termination of her employment with Brevard Public Schools. Burt Clark, Principal Hoover Middle School After receiving Mr. Clark’s recommendation to terminate Respondent’s employment, Superintendent Mullins reviewed Respondent’s last three years of evaluations, considered the extensive support and training provided to Respondent by the School Board, and concluded that termination of Respondent’s employment was warranted and justified.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Brevard County enter a final order terminating Respondent’s employment as a teacher. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of March, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN 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 16th day of March, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Amy D. Envall, General Counsel Brevard County Public Schools 2700 Judge Fran Jamieson Way Viera, Florida 32940 (eServed) Mark S. Levine, Esquire Levine & Stivers, LLC 245 East Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Wayne L. Helsby, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 1477 West Fairbanks Avenue, Suite 100 Winter Park, Florida 32789 (eServed) Shannon L. Kelly, Esquire Allen, Norton and Blue, P.A. 1477 West Fairbanks Avenue, Suite 100 Winter Park, Florida 32789 (eServed) Howard Michael Waldman Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 1477 West Fairbanks Avenue, Suite 100 Winter Park, Florida 32789 (eServed) Ronald G. Stowers, Esquire Levine & Stivers, LLC 245 East Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Dr. Mark Mullins, Superintendent School Board of Brevard County 2700 Judge Fran Jamieson Way Viera, Florida 32940-6601 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 1244 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Richard Corcoran, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 1514 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
