The Issue Whether Respondent should be reassigned to Douglas MacArthur Senior High School--North.
Findings Of Fact During the whole of the 1987-1988 and the beginning of the 1988-1989 school years, Respondent was a student at Carroll City Senior High School. As of fall, 1988, he was ranked as a 9th grader. Ms. Schipelberg was Respondent's mathematics teacher during the 1987- 1988 school year. In her class, he was outspoken, never brought required supplies to class, and did not work productively when Ms. Schipelberg provided supplies to him. Although Ms. Schipelberg spoke with his father, who promised better behavior on his son's part, better behavior was not forthcoming from Respondent, and on February 18, 1988, Ms. Schipelberg referred Respondent to the office for the same repeated behavior. On March 10, 1988, Respondent was referred by another teacher to Mr. William E. Henderson, a Carroll City High Assistant Principal, for cutting class and leaving school without permission. Three days indoor suspension was meted out as discipline. On May 17, 1988, Respondent was again referred for the administration of discipline by Mr. Henderson. This referral was the culmination of an incident in which Respondent entered a classroom without permission while a class was in progress; "visited" with a student who was properly assigned to that class; refused to leave when requested to do so by the teacher; prevented the teacher from closing the door to shut him out; and directed profanity at the teacher. A security monitor had to be called to eject Respondent from the room, and Mr. Henderson counselled with Respondent's parents and imposed three days outdoor suspension on Respondent. During the whole of the 1987-1988 school year, Respondent initiated repeated incidents of disruptive behavior. He frequently moved around the school without a hall pass, contrary to school rules and the Code of Student Conduct. He repeatedly had excessive absences, cut classes, and left the school grounds without permission. During that period he was referred to the guidance counsellor, the visiting teacher, the occupational specialist, and the dropout program. He was placed on a "behavioral contract" requiring weekly progress reports through him to his parents but he failed to comply. By the end of the 1987-1988 school year, Respondent's exit grades were seven failing classes (F's) and one "D," and he had accumulated 89 absences out of 180 days of school. On September 8, 1988, approximately one month into the 1988-1989 school year, Respondent was referred to Mr. Arthur Lindsey, also an Assistant Principal of Carroll City High School. This referral was for counselling due to Respondent's verbal abuse of a substitute teacher. Mr. Lindsey advised Respondent that his behavior was in direct defiance of the Student Code, which it was. Later that same day, Mr. Lindsey was summoned by walkie talkie due to Respondent's presence in the hall without a hall pass, refusal to go back to class, defiance of a school security officer, and loud use of sexually explicit obscenities. Respondent's father was notified, and Respondent was suspended for 10 days. After review by a child study team on September 12, 1988, Mr. Lindsey formally recommended that Respondent be transferred to the alternative education program at Douglas MacArthur Senior High School--North, an "opportunity school" established by the Dade County School Board. The child study team concluded that this was the appropriate placement for Respondent since all of Respondent's infractions and suspensions fell in the Group 5 range of the Student Code. Group 5 offenses rate suspension, expulsion, or transfer to alternative education. The transfer was deemed the least harsh alternative. At formal hearing, Mr. Henderson stated that he concurred in Mr. Lindsey's recommendation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered assigning Respondent Robert Ward to the opportunity school program at Douglas MacArthur Senior High School--North until such time as his performance reveals that he can be returned to the regular school program. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 6th day of March, 1989, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. 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 6th day of March, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph A. Fernandez, Superintendent School Board of Dade County 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Frank R. Harder, Esquire Twin Oaks Building--Suite 100 2780 Galloway Road Miami, Florida 33165 Mr. and Mrs. Derek Nesbitt 3130 Northwest 174th Street Miami, Florida 33056 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds Florida teaching certificate 595057, covering the area of Speech and Language Impaired, which is valid through June 30, 1993. At all times pertinent to the allegations in this case, the Respondent was employed as a Speech Therapist at Castle Hill Elementary School (hereinafter "Castle Hill") in the Broward County School District. At all times pertinent hereto, Dr. Valoria Latson was the principal of Castle Hill, Ronald Wright was the Director of Professional Standards for the Broward County School Board, Mark Seigle was the Associate Superintendent of the Broward County School Board, and Virgil Morgan was the Superintendent of the Broward County School Board. In the Spring of 1990, the Respondent began to exhibit unusual and bizarre behavior both in and out of school. Such behavior included: Claiming that students in her class and children around her neighborhood were watching her; Claiming that students and teachers were talking about her personal life; Claiming that her classroom, apartment, phone and car contained covert listening devices; Claiming that unknown persons were breaking into her car and home on a frequent basis; Calling police on numerous occasions requesting them to investigate and/or fingerprint her apartment and car because they were tampered with; Claiming that she was being followed by friends, staff members, church members and the State of Florida; Claiming that her lesson plans had been stolen and copied; Claiming that her lesson plans were being photographed by a camera in the light bulbs or air conditioner in her classroom; Claiming that staff members were listening in on her class through the school intercom. The accusations and claims made by the Respondent were the product of delusional thought processing and paranoia. Dr. Latson became concerned about Respondent's bizarre behavior, which she described as exhibiting overt signs of paranoia. In July of 1990 Dr. Latson referred Respondent to the Employee Assistance Program ("EAP"). This referral did not benefit the Respondent. With the onset of the 1990-91 school year, Dr. Latson remained concerned about Respondent's continued bizarre behavior. On September 10, 1990, Dr. Latson advised Mr. Wright of her concerns about Respondent and about the referral to the EAP. On September 21, 1990, Dr. Latson advised Mr. Wright that she had not observed any significant changes or improvements in the Respondent. Mr. Wright recommended that Dr. Latson have her Assistant, Ms. Weissberg, observe the Respondent at least 2 to 5 minutes a day, 3 to 4 days a week, to be certain that nothing was going on in that classroom that should not be. On or about October 26, 1990, Dr. Valoria Latson had a conference with the Respondent and the Assistant Principal, Ms. Weissberg, at which time the Respondent indicated that she was "tired of this shit" and would be giving them her letter of resignation. The Respondent failed to bring in her letter of resignation. The Respondent had also informed Ms. Laura Rogers, Program Specialist with the Exceptional Student Education Department for the central area, that she was going to resign. After further observation of Respondent's behavior, it was determined that a formal psychological or psychiatric evaluation of the Respondent would be appropriate. On November 5, 1990, Dr. Latson met with Mr. Seigle and Ms. Lucy Thomas, a friend of the Respondent, regarding the Respondent's unusual behavior. Dr. Latson was concerned about the Respondent's ability to function as a classroom teacher and her ability to work with children and adults in a school setting. Dr. Latson requested that Mr. Seigle make arrangements for a psychological or psychiatric evaluation of the Respondent. She also requested that Respondent be taken out of the classroom until her emotional and mental stability was assessed. Dr. Latson believed that a psychological evaluation of the Respondent was necessary because of her bizarre behavior and her unusual accusations. Dr. Latson believed that the Respondent's effectiveness in the classroom had been reduced, and that it was in the best interests of the students for Respondent to be evaluated. Dr. Benjamin Barnea, a physician trained in Neurology and Psychiatry, conducted an initial evaluation of the Respondent on November 8, 1990. Dr. Barnea summarized his findings in a letter to Mr. Seigle on November 12, 1990. Dr. Barnea's impression of Respondent's condition was that of schizophreniform disorder. His recommendation provided, in pertinent part, as follows: The patient presently shows overt delusional thought processing that prevents her from functioning and interacting with her peers and students. I would not recommend that she be returned to her regular employment until she seeks treatment and is stabilized. Since she has never had a formal workup for her disturbed thought processing, I would recommend that she receive an MRI of the brain and an EEG for completeness sake to rule out possible underlying pathology that might be amenable to treatment. In addition, the patient will need to be started on anti- psychotic medications and I have broached this subject with her but she shows no insight into her illness and does not show willingness to participate in treatment. The prognosis is unfortunately guarded, if her workup is totally negative then the long- term picture is one of probable continued mental illness. In this initial evaluation of the Respondent, the Respondent indicated to Dr. Barnea that she believed her phone conversations at school were being monitored, that her lesson plans were being photographed from the light bulb in her room, that someone at the school knows whose behind this and is doing it, that she is being followed wherever she goes by the Methodist Church that she belongs to, and that her students who are in the age range of five (5) to six (6) years old are aware of who she is dating and sleeping with because, as the Respondent explained, her boyfriend has a pet snake and the students were making hissing sounds in class. During a follow-up evaluation on December 3, 1990, with Dr. Barnea, Respondent again showed evidence of a "fixed delusional system involving people getting into her apartment and moving things around in collusion with her church and her school". Dr. Barnea noted that this was continual evidence of an underlying delusional thought processing that was ongoing with the Respondent, and not merely a transit thing that happened on one particular day. During a follow-up evaluation on December 13, 1990, Dr. Barnea again attempted to convince the Respondent to consider treatment with anti-psychotic medication. Dr. Barnea noted that Respondent refused his advice and was of the opinion that she had no insight that she has a mental problem. Respondent underwent the physical tests recommended by Dr. Barnea. These results of these tests revealed no physical abnormalities. Following his evaluation of Respondent on January 30, 1991, Dr. Barnea noted that Respondent remained delusional with no insight into her illness and that she continued to refuse treatment in the form of anti-psychotic medication for the underlying thought disorder. Dr. Barnea again saw the Respondent briefly on February 4, 1991. It was still his opinion that Respondent was unable to function as a classroom teacher or in an educational setting as long as the underlying delusional thought processing was present. With the exception of anti-psychotic medication, there is no other treatment for a delusional thought disorder. There was no evidence in this proceeding that Respondent's condition had improved since her last evaluation with Dr. Barnea. There was no evidence that she has sought or received treatment or that she was on any type of medication that would benefit her. Without proper treatment, Respondent's delusional thought processing makes her behavior unpredictable. Her behavior could range from being totally docile to physically violent. Although there was no evidence that she had become physically violent, Dr. Barnea was of the opinion that persons suffering from Respondent's mental condition have the potential to become violent because of the underlying delusional thought processing. Respondent should not be placed in a position of responsibility and is incapable of teaching. On or about April 23, 1991, the Respondent was suspended without pay by the Broward County School Board and dismissal proceedings were initiated. Pursuant to the petition for formal proceedings, filed by the Broward County Superintendent of Schools, Virgil Morgan, the Respondent requested a formal hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) and the case was assigned DOAH Case No. 91-2839. The formal hearing conducted in that case was heard before William Dorsey on September 4, 1991. On November 7, 1991, a Recommended Order was issued by the Hearing Officer in DOAH Case No. 91-2839 that concluded, in pertinent part, that Respondent's ". . . thought disorder places any children who would be assigned to her class at unreasonable risk of harm which could result from unpredictable reactions by Ms. Wynne to those students. She is currently not competent to perform her duties as a teacher." The Recommended Order recommended that Respondent's contract with the Broward County School Board be terminated due to her mental incompetency. On January 17, 1992, the Broward County School Board entered a Final Order which adopted the Recommended Order in its entirety, including the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation, and the school board thereby terminated the Respondent from her employment effective April 23, 1991. Based on the School Board's position that the Respondent was mentally incompetent and unfit to hold a teaching certificate, Mr. Wright reported the allegations against the Respondent to Professional Practices Services ("PPS) of the Department of Education. The Respondent is incompetent to perform her duties as an employee of the public school system based upon her mental incompetency. Consequently, her effectiveness as an employee of the school board has been lost.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order which finds Respondent guilty of violating Sections 231.28(l)(b) and 231.28(l)(f), Florida Statutes, and which bars the Respondent from reapplying for a new teaching certificate for a period of three (3) years. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that prior to recertifying Respondent as a teacher in the State of Florida, the Education Practices Commission require Respondent to submit documentation from appropriate mental health professionals that establishes that Respondent does not represent a threat to the safety or well-being of students under her supervision or care, that she is receiving any recommended treatment, and that she is competent to perform her educational and administrative duties in an acceptable and satisfactory manner. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of December, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 17th day of December, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-3376 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 1 are unnecessary as findings of fact, but are incorporated in the Preliminary Statement section of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 34, 35, 41, 43, 44, 45, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, and 74 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 6, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 71, and 75 are subordinate to the findings made. The post-hearing submittal filed by Respondent contained no proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Jill M. Boyd, Esquire Bond & Boyd, P.A. 411 East College Avenue Post Office Box 26 Danita Wynne, pro se 9277 Dunwoody Lane Indianapolis, Indiana 46229 Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Sydney H. McKenzie, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent should be terminated from employment with Petitioner for abandonment of position.
Findings Of Fact No dispute exists that, at all times material hereto, the School Board was a constitutional entity charged with the duty to operate, control and supervise the public schools within the school district of Broward County, Florida. No dispute exists that, at all times material hereto, Ms. Granatelli was an instructional employee with the School Board. At the time of hearing, Ms. Granatelli had been an instructional employee with the School Board since 2005. Ms. Granatelli moved from Illinois to Florida in 2005, having been recruited to be a teacher with the School Board. She obtained a teaching certificate in Florida, certifying her to teach Exceptional Student Education (ESE) for grades K through 12. Her teaching certificate was valid July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2010. The ESE certification authorizes and permits the holder to teach autistic children, as well as others with developmental and emotional delays. Ms. Granatelli’s first position with the School Board was at Cooper City High School for the 2005-2006 school year, as a support facilitator within the ESE program. On May 1, 2006, Ms. Granatelli received a letter from the principal of Cooper City High School, Wendy Doll, regarding excessive absenteeism by Ms. Granatelli. Ms. Doll’s letter, among other things, specified the absent days, the status of Ms. Granatelli’s balance of sick and personal leave, and the applicable Florida statutory provisions regarding sick leave and absence without leave; and indicated that Ms. Doll was bringing the excessive absenteeism to Ms. Granatelli’s attention. By letter dated May 2, 2006, Ms. Granatelli responded to the letter of excessive absenteeism providing, among other things, an explanation as to why she was absent. In her explanation, Ms. Granatelli indicated, among other things, that she had unfinished moving, family, and divorce circumstances to occur. For the 2006-2007 school year, Ms. Granatelli was re- assigned to Cooper City High School. However, by letter dated August 7, 2006, Ms. Granatelli resigned from her employment and indicated, among other things, that she would not return to Cooper City High School. By letter dated August 17, 2006, Ms. Granatelli rescinded her resignation letter. She was permitted to rescind her resignation letter. Ms. Granatelli requested a transfer and indicated on the request that she be assigned to Attucks Middle School. For the 2006-2007 school year, she was assigned to Attucks Middle School, as a support facilitator within the ESE program for the eighth grade. Ms. Granatelli desired to move to a high school for the 2007-2008 school year and requested a transfer to a high school, providing a list of high schools to which she desired to be transferred; but she was re-assigned to Attucks Middle School. However, in the Fall of 2007, Ms. Granatelli was notified by the principal at Attucks Middle School that, due to the decrease in student enrollment, some teachers would be surplused, that Ms. Granatelli would be one of the surplused teachers, and that she (Ms. Granatelli) would need to complete a surplus form. When the School Board has a decrease in student enrollment, either through the loss of students or the movement of students to a charter school, the principals lose budgeted monies and, therefore, must “surplus” their excess employees. Surplus is referred to as an “Involuntary Transfer.” The school that loses budgeted monies can no longer support the employees on its budget and must, therefore, reduce the number of employees who have been appointed to that school; the employees are involuntarily transferred from the school that has suffered a lost of budgeted monies to another school. The teachers with the least seniority are the employees who are transferred. Ms. Granatelli refused to complete the surplus form and failed to identify schools to which she wished to be assigned. Ms. Granatelli was surplused, for the 2007-2008 school year, to Fairway Elementary School, where she was an ESE teacher in the areas of math and reading. Ms.Granatelli continued to have the desire to teach at a high school. She requested a transfer from Fairway Elementary School. At the end of the 2007-2008 school year, instead of being transferred, Ms. Granatelli was surplused from Fairway Elementary School to Wilton Manors Elementary School for the 2008-2009 school year. By letter dated July 15, 2008, Ms. Granatelli was notified by the School Board’s Supervisor of Instructional Staffing that she was being assigned to Wilton Manors Elementary School for the 2008-2009 school year. Further, the letter advised her, among other things, that she may request to be transferred from Wilton Manors Elementary School and the process for such a request; that she was expected to report to the school on August 11, 2008, unless she secured her own transfer; and that her failure to report would result in a recommendation to the School Board for her termination. On July 21, 2008, Ms. Granatelli met with the principal of Wilton Manors Elementary School, Mark Narkier. During their meeting, he notified her that she had been assigned to teach second grade in the autistic program, as an autistic teacher. Ms. Granatelli expressed her concern to him that she was not comfortable teaching in the second grade autistic program and notified him that she would seek a transfer. Also, at that meeting, Mr. Narkier signed her request for transfer. Further, during that meeting, Mr. Narkier attempted to alleviate her concern and reassure her that she could be a successful second grade autistic teacher. He advised Ms. Granatelli that he would provide her with all of the resources that were available to assist her in getting comfortable and more familiar with teaching autism. He informed her that paraprofessionals would be available to provide assistance as needed and the same paraprofessionals who had worked with the students the previous school year would be available; and that full-time autism coaches and other School Board employees would be available to provide assistance. Furthermore, on August 8, 2008, he sent her an e-mail providing her with a list of workshops that were available for training on autism, including the dates and registration information for the workshops. Additionally, Mr. Narkier attempted to reassure Ms. Granatelli that he would provide her with all of the support that she would need to be a successful teacher in the position. Eventually, Ms. Granatelli decided that she did not want to take advantage of the workshops because they were time- consuming and because they were being offered after the beginning of the school year. Teachers were to report to Wilton Manors Elementary School on August 11, 2008. On August 10, 2008, the day before she was to report, Ms. Granatelli sent an e-mail to Mr. Narkier at approximately 11:29 p.m. notifying and indicating to him, among other things, that the time had come for her “to sever [her] career path with [the School Board]. . . Although your office has sent me with [sic] information on all the trainings I would need to become a successful Autism teacher, It [sic] is not something I chose or would choose for my career aspirations. . . Please know that I want to continue being the excellent teacher and team player I am, but unless an appropriate assignment is given to me, [the School Board] is going to lose a highly qualified, experienced, caring individual. Any suggestions would be appreciated at this time.” Ms. Granatelli did not report to Wilton Manors Elementary School on August 11, 2008. At hearing, she testified that she failed to report because she had the belief that her being in the position of an autistic teacher in the second grade was putting the health and safety of the autistic children and herself in jeopardy. Ms. Granatelli did not review the records of the autistic children who were assigned to her class. She did not observe or have any contact with the children who were assigned to her class. She did not access the abilities of the children who were assigned to her class. Further, no evidence was presented to indicate that attending the training after the beginning of the school year would be detrimental to the children who were assigned to her class or to her. The evidence fails to support Ms. Granatelli’s belief that the health and safety of the autistic children and herself were in jeopardy as a result of her being in the position of an autistic teacher in the second grade at Wilton Manors Elementary School. By letter dated August 11, 2008, Mr. Narkier directed Ms. Granatelli to report to Wilton Manors Elementary School on August 15, 2008. He further advised her in the letter that her contract began that day; that she neither reported for work nor called in sick nor requested leave; and that, if she failed to report to work by August 15, 2008, her employment with the School Board would be terminated based upon job abandonment. Furthermore, out of concern for Ms. Granatelli and the possibility of her losing her employment, Mr. Narkier telephoned her and spoke with her regarding the same matters in the letter. During the telephone conversation, he suggested to her that, if she was not going to report, it would be better to resign than be terminated because termination would look worse than resignation; and she indicated that she would resign. The letter from Mr. Narkier dated August 11, 2008, was sent by certified mail, return receipt. The return receipt indicates that Ms. Granatelli received the letter on August 15, 2008. An inference is drawn and a finding of fact is made that Ms. Granatelli intentionally did not retrieve the letter until the day that she was required to report, i.e., August 15, 2008; and that she did not contact Mr. Narkier to notify him that she had received the notice that same day. As a result, a finding of fact is made that Ms. Granatelli intentionally refused to report to Wilton Manors Elementary School on August 15, 2008, as directed by Mr. Narkier. The evidence demonstrates that Mr. Narkier, as principal of Wilton Manors Elementary School, had the proper authority to give Ms. Granatelli a direct order. Furthermore, the evidence demonstrates that the directive given by Mr. Narkier to Ms. Granatelli was reasonable in nature. Ms. Granatelli did not report to work on August 15, 2008, or thereafter. Also, no letter of resignation from her was received by Mr. Narkier. On August 22, 2008, Ms. Granatelli contacted her BTU representative, George Segna, by e-mail relating to him the circumstances of her refusal to accept the assignment at Wilton Manors Elementary School. She indicated, among other things, that she was not resigning and was not abandoning her assignment. Subsequently, on that same date, Mr. Segna e-mailed Ms. Granatelli. He advised her, among other things, that she would be considered to have abandoned her position if she was absent from work for more than three days without approved leave. Ms. Granatelli does not dispute that, at the time of the e-mail, she was absent from work for more than three days without approved leave. No dispute exists that being absent from work for more than three days without approved leave constitutes abandonment under School Board policy. Also, in the e-mail, Mr. Segna advised Ms. Granatelli, among other things, that, as a general rule, even if the School Board violates her rights, she must comply with her assignment unless it endangered her health or safety; and that, absent a violation of her rights, the School Board has the right to assign her within her area of certification and to assign her outside her area of certification involuntarily for one year. Additionally, in the e-mail, Mr. Segna advised Ms. Granatelli, among other things, that her only options were either to apply for leave for which she qualified; or to report to work for the assignment which she had been given; or to resign; or to be terminated for abandonment. Moreover, in the e-mail, Mr. Segna recommended to Ms. Granatelli that, if she chose not to accept the assignment, she should resign to not mar her employment record and to allow a permanent replacement to be hired, without delay, for the class. Ms. Granatelli did not follow any of the advice provided by Mr. Segna or his recommendation. By another letter dated August 21, 2008, Mr. Narkier directed Ms. Granatelli to report to his office on August 28, 2008, at 2:00 p.m., for a pre-termination meeting to discuss her abandonment of her job on August 11, 2008. He also advised her in the letter that she had the right to have a representative of her choosing present and that her failure to attend would result in her name being forwarded to the School Board for termination. The letter dated August 21, 2008, was sent certified mail, return receipt. The return receipt indicates that Ms. Granatelli received the letter nine days later on August 30, 2008. An inference is drawn and a finding of fact is made that that Ms. Granatelli intentionally did not retrieve the letter until after the date that she was directed to attend the pre-termination meeting, i.e., August 28, 2008; and that she did not contact Mr. Narkier to notify him that she had not received the letter until August 30, 2008. As a result, a finding of fact is made that Ms. Granatelli intentionally refused to attend the pre- termination meeting on August 28, 2008, as directed by Mr. Narkier. The evidence demonstrates that the directive given by Mr. Narkier to Ms. Granatelli was reasonable in nature. Mr. Narkier had intended, at the pre-termination meeting, to inquire of Ms. Granatelli as to why she failed to report and to discuss whether termination was appropriate. However, she failed to attend the pre-termination meeting and, therefore, there was no discussion. With Ms. Granatelli having failed to attend the pre- termination meeting, by letter dated August 28, 2008, Mr. Narkier notified her that he would be submitting her name to the School Board with a recommendation for termination on the basis of abandoning her job by failing to report to work. He indicated to her, among other things, that her failure to report to work adversely affected Wilton Manors Elementary School. Also, by letter dated September 8, 2008, the School Board’s Director of Instructional Staffing, Rebeca Brito, informed Ms. Granatelli that, on September 23, 2008, her name would be submitted to the School Board with a recommendation for termination of her employment. Subsequently, by letter dated September 24, 2008, Ms. Brito advised Ms. Granatelli that, at its meeting on September 23, 2008, the School Board had approved the recommendation to terminate her employment. Ms. Granatelli timely requested a hearing on the decision to terminate her employment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board enter a final order terminating the employment of Diane Granatelli for abandonment of position. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of October 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of October, 2009.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations of this case, Petitioner was a school board charged with the responsibility of operating and supervising the public schools within its district. Such responsibility includes the employment of non-instructional school employees. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent was employed as a non-instructional school employee and was utilized as a security monitor assigned to Earlington Heights Elementary School. Prior to the incidents complained of, Respondent had been a satisfactory employee for approximately eight years. During the 1996/97 school year Respondent came to know an eight year old student, R.B., who was enrolled at Earlington Heights in the second grade. On March 14, 1997, Respondent went to R.B.'s classroom during an after school period and advised R.B.'s mother, who was present at the time, that the student was being taken to the office. Contrary to that remark, Respondent took R.B. to a restroom and requested that the minor child urinate into a paper cup left inside the restroom while Respondent remained outside. R.B. did as he was told but was not very happy. When R.B. did not return to the classroom, his mother went to find the minor, found him in the hallway, and asked him what had happened. R.B. related the incident of Respondent requesting him to urinate in the cup. At that time, R.B. and his mother went to see the school principal to lodge a complaint against Respondent. R.B. was frightened; his mother was angry at the prospects of what might have occurred with her son; and the principal tried to pacify them by calling Respondent to the office. Respondent admitted, in front of the principal and R.B.'s mother, that he had taken the child to the restroom so that he could urinate into a cup. Respondent explained the matter by saying he needed the urine for a friend's drug test. Subsequently, Respondent was placed in an alternate assignment away from contact with children while Petitioner investigated allegations of lewd and lascivious behavior (unsupported) and the instant charges of conduct unbecoming a school board employee and misconduct in office. Later during the investigation, Respondent admitted to Officer Ruggiero that the urine was needed for his own drug testing program. Apparently, unbeknown to his employer, Respondent was required to submit to drug testing several times prior to March 14, 1997. According to R.B., prior to March 14, 1997, Respondent had asked him for urine several times and had, on more than one occasion, paid him for same. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent wore a security uniform and was in a position of authority over the minor child, R.B. Respondent claimed to want to help R.B. by "adopting" him and supporting him for various school programs. Thus Respondent sought and exercised additional control over the minor student. R.B. complied with Respondent's requests for urine because he was, in part, afraid of the mean look on Respondent's face. R.B. was embarrassed by the requests for urine. Respondent's conduct with R.B. demonstrates a lack of professional judgment, exploitation of a minor, and a gross indifference to the child's rights. Respondent has offered no explanation for such a breach of ethics. Respondent's conduct has seriously impaired his service to the school district as administrators can no longer trust Respondent around minor students.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County, Florida enter a Final Order dismissing Respondent from his employment with the district. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. Parrish 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of December, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Roger C. Cuevas Superintendent Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Suite 403 Miami, Florida 33132 Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire School Board of Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Patricia M. Kennedy, Esquire Leslie Meek, Esquire United Teachers of Dade 2929 Southwest Third Avenue Miami, Florida 33129
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the School Board enter an order dismissing all charges brought against respondent by the Superintendent of Schools of St. Lucie County. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of April, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of April, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Ben L. Bryan, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 3230 Ft. Pierce, Florida 33448 Steven A. Been, Esquire FEA/United 208 West Pensacola Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Norman Behling, Superintendent School Board of St. Lucie County 2909 Delaware Avenue Ft. Pierce, Florida 33450
The Issue Does Petitioner, Nicholas A. Mancini, PhD (Dr. Mancini), satisfy the requirements for licensure as a mental health counselor as established in section 491.005(4), Florida Statutes (2010)?1
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: On December 30, 2010, the Board issued its Notice of Intent to Deny Dr. Mancini's application for licensure as a Mental Health Counselor. Dr. Mancini requested a hearing to challenge the decision. This proceeding followed. Dr. Mancini has been licensed to practice psychology in California and Pennsylvania. His Pennsylvania license expired November 30, 2003. His California license was canceled on May 31, 2006. Dr. Mancini earned a master's degree in psychology from Fairleigh Dickinson University. He completed 34 semester hours of coursework there. The Fairleigh Dickinson University master's in psychology program that Dr. Mancini completed was not a mental health counseling program accredited by the Council of Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. The program is, however, related to the practice of mental health counseling. At the time Dr. Mancini attended Farleigh Dickinson, it was accredited by the Commission on Higher Education of the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools. It was also accredited by the Council of Higher Education Accreditation. By completing Fairleigh Dickinson course 20PY624, Counseling and Interviewing, Dr. Mancini obtained three semester hours of graduate coursework in the content area of counseling theories and practice. By completing Fairleigh Dickinson course 30PY633, Abnormal Psychology, Dr. Mancini obtained three semester hours of graduate coursework in the content area of diagnosis and treatment of psychopathology. By completing Fairleigh Dickinson Course 30PY600, Tests and Measurements I, Dr. Mancini obtained three semester hours of graduate coursework in the content area of individual evaluation and assessment. By completing Fairleigh Dickinson courses 20PY603 and 20PY604, Statistics and Experimental Psychology, Dr. Mancini obtained three semester hours of graduate coursework in the content area of research and program evaluation. By completing Fairleigh Dickinson course 30PY710, Social Problems, Dr. Mancini obtained three semester hours of graduate coursework in the content area of substance abuse. Dr. Mancini attended, but did not receive a degree from, Hahneman University Medical College of Philadelphia (now Drexel University). He completed four semester hours of graduate coursework there. At the time, it was regionally accredited by the Council of Higher Education Accreditation. Dr. Mancini attended, but did not receive a degree from, Glassboro State College (now Rowan University). He completed six semester hours of graduate coursework there. At the time, it was regionally accredited by the Council of Higher Education Accreditation. Dr. Mancini earned a doctoral degree in counseling psychology from the Professional School of Psychological Studies. At the time, the school was not regionally accredited. Dr. Mancini has not obtained three semester hours of graduate-level coursework from a regionally accredited institution in each of the following content areas: human growth and development; human sexuality, group theories and practice; career and lifestyle assessment; social and cultural foundations; counseling in community settings; and legal, ethical, and professional standards issues in the practice of mental health counseling.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Board of Clinical Social Work, Marriage, and Family Therapy and Mental Health Counseling issue a final order denying Dr. Mancini's licensure application. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of June, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 7th day of June, 2011.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether just cause exists to discipline Respondent based on allegations that she used inappropriate language when talking to students in violation of the Code of Ethics and/or the Principles of Professional Conduct, and if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is responsible for hiring, firing, and overseeing all employees for public schools within Duval County. In addition to the regular K-12 classes, the School Board has created the Bridge for Success program. The Bridge operates at eight sites within the Duval County school system. One of those sites is Ribault High School (“Ribault”). The Bridge is a new program, created to assist students who have fallen behind their chronologically-aged peers due to academic or other problems. The program is an innovative approach aimed at helping students who have fallen behind catch up with their peers and graduate from high school at about the same time as others of their same age. Many of the students in the Bridge program have behavioral issues as well as academic struggles. They can be a difficult group of students to teach. The goal of the Bridge program is “to promote and graduate” those students, to improve their attendance, and to teach them how to function as students. At its inception, there were 864 students in the program, distributed among the eight campuses. There were 108 students assigned to Ribault. By the end of the first school year, only 75 to 80 students remained in the program at Ribault. Some students had dropped out of school, some had moved to a different school, and it was difficult midway through the school year to replace those who had left. At all times relevant hereto, Quiller was a math teacher in the Bridge program at the Ribault location. She was hired for that position just prior to the 2013-2014 school year, the final year of the Bridge program. She had been teaching in the Duval County school system as a mathematics teacher for 21 years. Quiller is a graduate of Ribault and has very strong ties to the school. Quiller was chosen as a teacher for the Bridge program for many reasons: she was a graduate of Ribault and held a special place in her heart for the school and its students; she was certified in grades six through 12 for math, a less than common certification; she had a master’s degree in Guidance, giving her a better background and training for facing the Bridge students; she had been previously assigned to an alternative school for behavioral problem students; and, she demonstrated the kind of caring personality necessary for the challenges of teaching such students. When Quiller was hired, she mistakenly thought her position would be in the area of guidance. However, she was hired to teach math, partly in recognition of her status as a certified teacher in that area. She was hired to teach several math classes in the Bridge program, including Algebra I and II, Math for College, and Geometry. At the beginning of the 2013-2014 school year, the Bridge was not entirely ready for implementation at Ribault. There was a shortage of books and other materials and the program had not yet filled all the required staff positions. The start- up of the program was a challenge for both the teachers and school administrators. Also, the students in the Bridge program were not always cooperative or interested in school. No one denies that it was a difficult situation for all involved. Despite the lack of materials and adequate staff, Quiller’s classes began relatively well. She was a very strict teacher, demanding participation by all students regardless of their level of interest. She expected and required each student to be fully prepared when they entered the classroom. For example, the students were expected to have pen/pencil and paper, to have their homework completed, and to be ready for class. She was, however, very frustrated at times because many of the students seemed to ignore the fact that they were being given a second chance. They continued to demonstrate the kind of behavior that caused them to fall behind in the first place. As a result of their behaviors, many of the students in her classes were failing. Most of the students who testified at final hearing were in agreement that the classroom was fairly unruly, but agreed that Quiller was a stern disciplinarian and reacted promptly to quell any disruptions. Conversely, one student said the class was always quiet and that Quiller would make anyone making noise leave the classroom. Principal Davis began getting some complaints about Quiller beginning in September 2013, a month or so after commencement of the school year. The first complaints were relayed to her from assistant principal Micheau. During the first pep rally of the year (in late August), Micheau had been sitting with a group of students who were being disciplined and therefore, could not attend the rally. The students brought up unsolicited complaints about Quiller, saying that Quiller had used profanity towards her students. Micheau relayed these allegations to Principal Davis and Davis instructed Micheau to meet with Quiller and remind her that such language was not acceptable. Micheau met with Quiller and attempted to explain-- without being accusatory--that it was improper to use such language in front of students. Quiller denied ever having used inappropriate language with students; Micheau took Quiller at her word at that time. Sometime later, Micheau heard loud talking emanating from Quiller’s classroom area. When she investigated, she saw Quiller standing in the hallway next to her room. She was yelling loudly at a student and was obviously very upset. Micheau attempted to call her over and calm her down, calling out her name over and over, “Ms. Quiller. Ms. Quiller. Ms. Quiller.” Quiller yelled at Micheau to reprimand the student rather than her, saying, “You [Micheau] need to talk to these damn kids!” Micheau, shocked at Quiller’s language and her anger, removed the student from the classroom, and went back to her office. A few weeks later, Micheau was in her office adjacent to Quiller’s classroom. She and Rita Franklin, who was at the school that day as a School Improvement Coach, heard a loud commotion outside the office and went to investigate. When they came out of the office, they saw the school security guard already moving toward the sounds emanating from Quiller’s classroom. Upon arrival at the classroom, Micheau and Franklin heard Quiller talking very loudly to her students. She threatened to throw one student’s test paper into the trash. She told the students that the work they were being asked to do was third-grade work and they still could not get it right. She referred to the students as “hooligans” or “hoodlums.” When Quiller saw Micheau and Franklin outside her door, she reduced the volume and changed the content of her comments to the students. Quiller’s demeanor and actions were inconsistent with professional behavior by a teacher. Quiller denies making any of the alleged statements, except for the comment about some of the work being third-grade level. According to Quiller, that comment was made about some supplemental work she had assigned to an algebra project; she told the students it was third-grade work so they should not be intimidated by it. As to the comments about being flunkies, Quiller maintains that all she said was that the boys were flunking her class, although that would not have been an appropriate thing to say in front of other students. While Quiller seems to be generally honest and forthright, the most credible evidence is that she made remarks to the students along the lines of what Franklin and Micheau reported. Crimley, the security guard who was also present during one of the outbursts, heard Quiller say something about “getting this kid out of my damn class.” Crimley usually went into Quiller’s classroom three-to-five times a day but never heard her curse at students during those visits. Crimley attempted to testify at final hearing that some students had recanted their accusations against Quiller because “it had gone too far” and they did not want Quiller to be sanctioned. That testimony was not allowed due to its hearsay nature, but it is also inconsistent with the testimony of the students who testified at final hearing. On another occasion, Quiller was talking loudly to a student named Wayne and one or two other male students. The boys were doing some sort of vulgar dance and were attempting to enter the classroom at about the time the tardy bell was ringing. Quiller said something to the effect of “you are a bunch of flunkies and you need my class” and “your dirty ass can’t come into my class.” Both Micheau and another teacher, Ms. Crowden- Richardson, heard those comments. By the end of the first semester, i.e., about the time of the winter break from school, Principal Davis began getting additional complaints from students and their parents about Quiller. T.C., who was likely about to fail Quiller’s class, remembers hearing Quiller saying such things as “you kids can’t remember [sh--],” and “[N---s] always coming into my class and sleeping,” and she said students were coming into her class when high on drugs. C.F., who had a D and C on his first two grade reports from Quiller's class, heard Quiller say, “Y’all don’t do [sh--],” and also that students had been “smoking weed.” A.P., a D and F student in Quiller’s class, reported that Quiller told the class to “shut the [f---] up,” told kids to get their “ass” out of the classroom, and referred to students as “[N---s].” A.P. said these things were not yelled in anger, but in a normal tone of voice. F.H., an admittedly problem student, remembers Quiller telling a student to “Sit your ass down and come to class on time.” She also heard Quiller say, “[N---], please,” or some such comment. None of the aforementioned students’ testimony was individually very persuasive. Each of the students was struggling in class and had received their poor grades just prior to the time of the comments they reported hearing. It is certainly possible they had an axe to grind with Quiller. One student (D.R.) who testified that he never heard Quiller make such comments was passing the class, had regular attendance, and generally commended Quiller for being strict and stern with problem students. Nonetheless, the students’ description of Quiller’s comments and behavior was fairly consistent. The things they reported Quiller saying were very similar to contemporaneously written statements from them and other students. The alleged remarks were similar in nature to one another but not exactly the same, so the comments did not seem rehearsed or planned. The students were very direct and unwavering when testifying at final hearing. The greater weight of the evidence supports the contention that Quiller used inappropriate language in her classroom. In the letter notifying Quiller of her termination from employment, it is alleged that Quiller made the following inappropriate communications: “Kids do not do [sh--],” “You all should know this [sh--] already,” “Shut the [f---] up,” “Get out of my [f---ing] class,” “You do not do your [f---ing] work,” “You little [N---s],” and “You are all some lazy [N---s] for coming to class late.” There was not enough credible testimony to support all of the allegations that each of those things was said to students or in the presence of students. There was, however, sufficient evidence to support that some of those statements had likely been made. The contemporaneous written statements by students and staff support the verbal recollections made at final hearing, at least in part. While the students were making disparaging comments about Quiller, she was in turn making complaints to school administration concerning the program. She lamented the lack of materials and raised concerns about her own safety in the classroom. More than once, Quiller walked out of her classroom as she became too frustrated to teach. It was undoubtedly a very difficult situation for Quiller and other teachers. All in all, the Bridge program had elements of success as well as some problems. Some of the students were able to graduate with their classmates, some were able to catch up to those in their age cohorts, and some came to the realization that school simply would not be appropriate for them. The program gave students a good chance to make up for past failures. But it was not a panacea and did not work for everyone. Quiller asked that certain students be removed from her classes because she believed they were poisoning the other students. Some were removed, some were not. Quiller gave far more D's and F's to her students than other teachers in the program. Many of her students began to receive passing grades after Quiller was replaced, however. Quiller maintains that the low grades were given because the students earned them, i.e., they were not issued as punishment or retribution for bad behavior. But the students’ subsequent success under a different teacher suggests otherwise. Quiller appeared unemotional and stoic when discussing the allegations against her. Some of her responses to questions at final hearing seemed to be aimed at avoiding the allegations rather than denying them. She had undeniably been placed in a very trying and vexatious situation and tried to make the best of it, but she very well may have crossed the line at times with her words and behavior. It is impossible to place oneself in the environment in which Quiller was working, but it is easy to see that the classroom problems she faced could drive a person to outbursts on occasion. As opined by Davis and Micheau, there is never a valid reason to curse at students, but there are times when doing so could be more understandable. Quiller had been reprimanded in the past for using profanity in the presence of students. She received discipline on two separate occasions for her language. While she denied the allegations, there is some support for the premise that Quiller, on occasion, used profanity around or directly to her students. Even those who support her recognized that Quiller would sometimes use profanity, albeit fairly innocuous and restrained in nature. There is a strong suggestion in the testimony that Quiller was using such language in the hopes it would resonate with these students, described as the worst of the worst. However, there is no acceptable rationale for using such language around students. Quiller was placed in an almost untenable situation with the students assigned to her classes. They were unruly and generally well behind academically. She did not have all the tools needed to work with the students and her classes were too large. Nonetheless, she was expected to maintain her composure and professionalism. While that is easy to say without “walking a mile in her shoes,” it is still a prerequisite for teaching that the teacher act professionally and not do anything to disparage the students. Quiller was by all accounts a good teacher prior to her involvement in the Bridge for Success program. She received a most difficult teaching certification and had favorable annual reviews for most of her time as a teacher. She was sought and hired as a teacher at Ribault on the basis of her distinguished career and training. She is not a bad person or a bad teacher. However, she succumbed to a harsh situation and failed to maintain her decorum. Quiller’s prior disciplinary history included the following: December 2001--A written reprimand (Step II discipline) for using profanity in the presence of students; April 2013, 11 years later--A verbal reprimand (Step I) for making an inappropriate comment to a student; October 2013--A written reprimand (Step II) for using profanity and derogatory language in the presence of students; and February 26, 2014--The notice of termination at issue in the present case (Step IV). The School Board began its recent discipline of Quiller with a Step I verbal reprimand followed by a Step II written reprimand. Due to the nature of Quiller’s conduct, the School Board did not believe it had to follow the Step II discipline with Step III discipline, i.e., suspension without pay. Rather, it went directly to the most severe and extreme level of discipline, Step IV--Termination of employment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Duval County School Board, rescinding its termination of the employment of Joyce Quiller and, instead, suspending her for a period of time without pay and reassigning her to a less-challenging position. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of July, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 July, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Wendy Byndloss, Esquire Assistant General Counsel City of Jacksonville Office of the General Counsel 117 West Duval Street, Suite 480 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Stephanie M. Schaap, Esquire Duval Teachers United 1601 Atlantic Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Dr. Nikolai P. Vitti, Superintendent Duval County School Board 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Pam Stewart, Commissioner Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Matthew Carson, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether William G. Veal is eligible under the State of Florida Employees' Group Health Self-Insurance Plan for reimbursement of occupational and speech therapy received by him?
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Mr. Veal has received health insurance coverage pursuant to the State of Florida Employees' Group Health Self-Insurance Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "State Plan"). At all times relevant to this proceeding, Mr. Veal has been a resident of Leon County, Florida. On October 7, 1986, Mr. Veal was in North Carolina. He suffered a left brainstem infarct (commonly known as a stroke), with associated dysphagia (difficulty in swallowing), dysarthria (impaired speech), hemiparesis (paralysis to the right side) and neurogenic bowel and bladder. Mr. Veal was initially taken to a hospital emergency room in Waynesville, North Carolina. He was later transferred to the Tymes Hospital in Ashville, North Carolina. Finally, Mr. Veal was transferred to the Thoms Rehabilitation Hospital. The Thoms Rehabilitation Hospital is also located in Ashville, North Carolina. From October 14, 1986 through November 11, 1986, Mr. Veal received occupational therapy, physical therapy, speech therapy and other treatments at the Thoms Rehabilitation Hospital. Mr. Veal's physical therapy was paid for pursuant to the State Plan. Mr. Veal was billed for the following amounts of occupational therapy and speech therapy: Date Description Amount Oct. 15, 1986 Occupational Therapy $ 153.00 Oct. 31, 1986 Occupational Therapy 1,836.00 Nov. 10, 1986 Occupational Therapy 901.00 Nov. 10, 1986 Speech Therapy 102.00 $2,992.00 The Department refused to pay the amounts billed to Mr. Veal for occupational and speech therapy. Mr. Veal has paid Thoms Rehabilitation Hospital the amounts set out in finding of fact 6. Charles R. Shields, M.D., a physician at Thoms Rehabilitation Hospital, described the occupational therapy treatment received by Mr. Veal as follows: Occupational Therapy was involved with this therapy in mobility, impaired ADL, and dysphagia. Most significantly was their work with impaired ADL. His right upper extremity remained nonfunctional while he was here. For this reason, he needed a considerable amount of work to learn activites [sic] of daily living with his nondominant upper extremity. Besides this compensatory type therapy, Occupational Therapy was intensely involved with neuromuscular re-education of the right upper extremity and procurement and fitting of the appropriate orthoses for this extremity as ordered by the physicians. . . . The orthoses mentioned by Dr. Shields was necessary to prevent Mr. Veal's right shoulder from pulling out of its socket. Dr. Shields described the speech therapy received by Mr. Veal as follows: Speech Pathology was important with this gentleman's care. They worked with him in the areas of his dysarthria to improve his speech quality and strength. They also were essential in areas of dyshagia evaluation and management as was needed. Both occupational therapy and physical therapy involve the same general type of neuro-muscular therapy. Occupational therapy involves the treatment of the upper body. Physical therapy involves treatment of the lower body. Occupational therapy also involves learning self-care activities while physical therapy involves mobility. A Benefit Document has been issued by the Department. The Benefit Document defines medical benefits which are covered by the State Plan and those which are not covered. The Benefit Document is used to determine the rates charged for medical insurance coverage under the State Plan and the benefits covered. Pursuant to the Benefit Document for the State Plan "occupational therapy" and "speech therapy" are not covered by the State Plan. Occupational therapy has been excluded by the Department because it involves learning self- care activities and not the treatment of a medical condition. Physical therapy on the other hand involves the treatment of a medical condition.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a Final Order denying payment of any additional benefits and dismissing this case with prejudice. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 29th day of March, 1988. APPENDIX The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 2d Paragraph The proposed findings of fact in this paragraph of Mr. Veal's letter of March 1, 1988, are only partially true. The first sentence is not relevant to this proceeding and is not correct. The second sentence is only partially true. Some portion of the occupational treatment received by Mr. Veal, based upon the letter from Dr. Shields, was consistent with the Department's definition of occupational therapy. The third sentence is partially correct. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 2. 2 1. 3-6 3. Mr. Veal suffered his stroke in Waynesville, North Carolina and not Ashville, North Carolina. 7 4. 8 5 and 8. 9 9. 10 6. The total of the amounts listed is $2,992.00 and not $2,982.00. 11-12 5. COPIES FURNISHED: William G. Veal 3741 Lifford Circle Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
The Issue Should Respondent be dismissed from her employment with Petitioner School Board for "professional incompetency as set forth in Section 4(e) of the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act" (Ch. 21197, Laws of Florida, 1941, as amended by Chs. 70-671, 72-576, and 81-372, Laws of Florida).
Findings Of Fact For purposes of this proceeding, Petitioner Duval County School Board is an agency of the State of Florida charged with administrating the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act as cited above. Respondent Clementine Johnson is a certificated and tenured teacher pursuant to the provisions of that Teacher Tenure Act. She has been employed by Petitioner at all times relevant. The charging document only covers the 1992-1993 and 1993-1994 school years. During the 1992-1993 school year, Respondent was assigned to Ed White High School. During the 1993-1994 school year, Respondent was assigned to Arlington Middle School. Ronnel Poppell was the principal at Ed White High School during the 1991-1992 and 1992-1993 school years. He has been an employee of the Duval County School Board for 34 years. During the last 17 years of that time, he has served as a school principal at various schools. He holds a Bachelor's Degree and a Master's Degree and is certificated in Physical Education and Health and in Administration Supervision. At the time of the hearing herein, he was the immediate past president of the Florida Association of School Administrators and a member of the assessment team that prepared the Duval County School System's current assessment instruments. During the 1991-1992 school year, which is not directly in issue in this case, Respondent worked at Ed White High School under Mr. Poppell's supervision. During that year, Respondent was an Inside School Suspension Teacher and as such was not responsible for delivering instruction as that term is normally understood. Mr. Poppell gave Respondent a satisfactory evaluation for her performance as an Inside School Suspension Teacher during the 1991-1992 school year. Prior to the beginning of the 1992-1993 school year, Respondent voluntarily changed assignments in order to avoid being reassigned to another school as part of a staff reduction. Respondent's duties for the 1992-1993 school year consisted of teaching classes in business education and teaching classes in peer counseling. Respondent was certificated in the area of business instruction and thus qualified on paper to teach those types of classes. Mr. Poppell observed Respondent in the classroom on 10 to 12 occasions during the 1992-1993 school year. His observations were memorialized in a series of notes which were ultimately reduced to typed form. At each observation, Mr. Poppell found a number of deficiencies in Petitioner's performance, although the same, precise problems did not occur each time. The most serious problem was always in the area of classroom management and discipline. Mr. Poppell observed unruly student behavior on virtually every occasion that he visited Respondent's classroom. He observed continual bickering between students. One time, a textbook was thrown across the room. Mr. Poppell also observed inappropriate and inconsistent instruction by Respondent in that the same lesson was taught on successive days rather than new material being introduced on a progressive basis. Mr. Poppell observed that significant destruction had been done to School Board property. While he did not always observe all the acts that damaged classroom equipment, he clearly observed that significant damage had been done to typewriters and to chairs as well as graffiti written on desks. Jane B. Friedlin was the School Board's Supervisor of Business Administration during the 1992-1993 and 1993-1994 school years. Ms. Friedlin has a Bachelor's Degree in Business Education and a Master's Degree in Educational Leadership (formerly Administration Supervision). She has taught business education at the high school and business college levels and has written business education textbooks. She has been involved in the business education field the majority of the last 33 years. At Mr. Poppell's request, Ms. Friedlin observed two of Respondent's classes on November 17, 1992. Her observations from that date were memorialized in a memorandum to Mr. Poppell dated November 18, 1992. Ms. Friedlin observed that Respondent was not in control of her class with all students on task at any time. The students displayed a total lack of respect for Respondent. Instruction was scanty, hard to follow, and in some cases incorrect or incomplete. Several students threw paper, one student made chicken sounds without being reprimanded, and students talked during the entire period. Mr. Poppell discussed his observations with the Respondent on three separate occasions: October 7, 1992, November 18, 1992 and January 6, 1993. Despite Mr. Poppell's conferences with Respondent, her performance did not materially improve. Respondent failed to turn in seating charts to Mr. Poppell in order to determine which students were responsible for the damage, as requested by Mr. Poppell. By memorandum of January 19, 1993, Respondent protested the observation and involvement of Ms. Friedman. In order to assist Respondent in improving her techniques and performance, Mr. Poppell made arrangements for her to observe peer counseling classes taught by other teachers at Ed White High School and for her to visit similar classes at three other high schools. She did this and also attended an in-service workshop. On March 15, 1993, Mr. Poppell completed an "Evaluation of Professional Growth of Teacher" for Respondent for the 1992-93 school year. That evaluation showed Respondent to be unsatisfactory in five of the eight competencies rated therein and unsatisfactory overall. Mr. Poppell had read Ms. Friedlin's memorandum and considered the contents of that memorandum as part of his evaluation of Respondent's performance. Respondent signed the evaluation and the Classroom Observation Instrument (COI) upon which the evaluation was based. Pursuant to Section 4(e) (2) of the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act, Respondent transferred to Arlington Middle School for the 1993-1994 school year. She also took a summer course between the school years. Dr. Jordan E. Baker, Sr. was the Principal of Arlington Middle School during the 1993-1994 school year. Dr. Baker holds a Bachelor of Science Degree, a Master of Education Degree, a Specialist in Education Degree, and a Doctor of Philosophy Degree. He has been employed by the Duval County School Board for a total of 30 years, including three years as a Principal, seven years as a Vice- Principal, and two years as an Assistant Principal. Pursuant to Section 4(e) (3) of the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act, Dr. Baker met with Respondent in order to develop a plan to afford Respondent the opportunity for specific in-service training to correct the alleged deficiencies in her performance. Dr. Baker met with Respondent on August 18, 1993 and August 27, 1993 to develop this plan, which Dr. Baker referred to as a "Success Plan". During the course of the conferences on August 18, 1993 and August 27, 1993, Dr. Baker observed no recognition on Respondent's part that her teaching performance was deficient or that she was in need of assistance in improving that performance. Dr. Baker informally observed the Respondent's classes on several occasions between September 24, 1993 and October 18, 1993. Dr. Baker's notes concerning those observations were subsequently reduced to typed form. During those observations, Dr. Baker detected fundamental problems with the Respondent's classroom management. Respondent's classes were not focused on the academic assignments. The students acted in a disruptive manner throughout each of his observations. Dr. Baker also observed that the classroom environment itself was deteriorating in terms of furniture and equipment being destroyed. Dr. Baker became concerned over the safety hazard not only to the students but to the Respondent due to the conduct of students in turning off lights and throwing textbooks and other objects. Dr. Baker conducted formal observations of Respondent's teaching performance on October 26 and 27, 1993. Those observations were conducted at different times of the day and with different classes of students. Again, Dr. Baker noted major problems with classroom management and with students' disrespect for Respondent. He noted that the students were confused about what was expected of them and did not understand Respondent's directions. Dr. Baker memorialized his observations on these two dates in two Classroom Observation Instruments (COI). Shortly thereafter, Dr. Baker met for an hour with Respondent to discuss her progress and his observations. Dr. Baker suggested to Respondent that the "Success Plan" be revised to help Respondent be more comfortable with what was expected of her. He suggested that Respondent needed to visit other schools to observe other teachers' performances and that she take workshops. Because Respondent indicated that she had done those things in the past and saw no need to do so again, Dr. Baker neither offered nor arranged further assistance of these types. Again, Dr. Baker observed Respondent's lack of recognition of, and denial of, the existence of the problem. On November 4, 1993, Dr. Baker was called to the music suite because of a fire which had been set by two of Respondent's students. On that occasion, Respondent was able to provide Dr. Baker with little or no information concerning what happened or who was responsible. Dr. Baker memorialized this occurrence in a written Incident Report and in a narrative. Further investigation showed that the students were referred to the office by Respondent for discipline. They forged a punishment assignment on the teacher's copy and set fire to the original referral slip outside the window of her classroom in the band room, with resultant smoke and pandemonium in all classes in that area. As a result of this incident, Dr. Baker became even more concerned about safety. He expressed his concerns in a November 10, 1993 memorandum to Dr. Alvin White, Assistant Superintendent, requesting that Respondent be removed from the classroom for her safety and that of the students assigned to her classes. That request was denied. During the course of the 1993-1994 school year, Dr. Baker received a number of Student Accident Reports and Incident Investigation Forms concerning students being injured by thrown books, fights, and being tripped and injured in Respondent's classroom. Shirley Rodriquez was Vice Principal of Arlington Middle School during the 1993-1994 school year. Ms. Rodriquez has a Bachelor's Degree in Business Education and a Master's Degree in Educational Leadership. She has been employed by the Duval County School Board for a total of 19 years, three of them as Vice-Principal. She has completed the Duval County School Board Principal Preparation Training Course. Respondent first came to Ms. Rodriquez's attention due to accident and injury reports and reports of noise, confusion, and lack of safety in Respondent's classroom from surrounding teachers in the band area where Respondent's business education lab was located. Through an October 18, 1993 memorandum from Chuck McKenny, the Assistant Principal for Community Education, Ms. Rodriquez became aware of problems with the condition of the typewriters and textbooks in Respondent's class. She accompanied Mr. McKenny to Respondent's classroom and found numerous typewriter parts on the floor and in the trash cans. She gathered up the parts and kept them in the school vault. She had not received any reports from the prior year's business education teacher concerning any problem with the typewriters nor any complaints from the Respondent prior to being made aware of this problem by Mr. McKenny. Ms. Rodriquez observed Respondent's classroom performance on October 21, 1993 for part of a 50 minute classroom period, approximately 33 minutes. She found that Respondent's class was not an atmosphere conducive to learning, that a number of students were talking while the Respondent was talking, and that the students were generally off-task. One student was playing with a chair part which he had removed from his chair. On October 27, 1993, Ms. Rodriquez and Michael S. Kemp were summoned to Respondent's classroom by students in need of assistance. Michael S. Kemp was one of the Assistant Principals for Student Services at Arlington Middle School during the 1993-1994 school year. Mr. Kemp has a Bachelor's Degree in Business Administration and a Master's Degree in Teaching and Educational Leadership. He is currently enrolled in the Doctoral Program at the University of North Florida. He has worked for the Duval County School Board for six years. Arriving in Respondent's classroom on October 27, 1993, Ms. Rodriguez and Mr. Kemp observed students running around the room, one student throwing a dictionary across the room, and a couple of students hiding under desks to avoid being hit with books. Respondent was taking no action to stop these activities. After Mr. Kemp and Ms. Rodriquez entered the classroom and Mr. Kemp demanded order, the students settled down in approximately 15 to 20 seconds. Several children complained of having been hit in various portions of their bodies by books and/or pencils that had been thrown. Ms. Rodriguez and Mr. Kemp memorialized this incident in separate memoranda, each dated October 27, 1993. In response to calls from Dr. Baker, the Principal, and Ms. Rodriquez, the Vice-Principal, Supervisor of Business Education Jane B. Friedlin again observed Respondent for a total of one hour and thirty minutes on November 9, 1993. Ms. Friedlin again noted that Respondent did not have control of her class and that she had very poor rapport with her students. Ms. Friedlin also noted misspelled words on posters in the classroom and noted that Respondent mispronounced a number of words and committed grammatical errors. Ms. Friedlin memorialized these observations in a Classroom Observation Instrument (COI) dated November 10, 1993 and in a narrative memorandum of that date. At formal hearing, Respondent put forth that the posters were purchased at her own expense and were not made by her, but she did not explain any satisfactory reason for allowing them to remain on display without correction. In Ms. Friedlin's professional opinion offered at formal hearing, the problem areas with Respondent's performance at Arlington Middle School were consistent with those she had observed in Respondent at Ed White High School the prior year but Respondent's overall performance had gotten worse. During the early part of 1994, Dr. Baker continued to observe Respondent on an informal basis and to discuss her problems with her. Again, he observed that Respondent was in denial concerning the deficiencies in her performance and the necessity to make improvements. Ms. Rodriguez observed disturbances similar to those of October 27, 1993 in Respondent's classroom on January 7, 1994 and January 11, 1994. On January 7, 1994, Ms. Rodriguez and Mr. Kemp went to Respondent's classroom in response to a call for assistance. Ms. Rodriguez discovered that one student had switched off the class lights on two occasions. This had triggered episodes of throwing textbooks across the room. At least one student was struck on the head by a textbook. Ms. Rodriguez memorialized this event in writing. On January 11, 1994, Ms. Rodriquez went to Respondent's classroom in response to a request from a security officer. Ms. Rodriquez found the classroom littered with paper. Respondent indicated that her home-room students had begun throwing paper and this behavior carried on into subsequent classes. Ms. Rodriguez memorialized this event in writing. On January 11, 1994, Dr. Baker provided Respondent with a letter expressing his continuing concern about her performance and his continuing willingness to work with her in developing another Success Plan and in providing her with assistance, such as the use of District level staff, to improve her performance. Dr. Baker also gave Respondent advance warning that he would be conducting another formal observation of her teaching prior to March 1, 1994. Ms. Rodriquez again observed Respondent's teaching performance on February 23, 1994, when she spent approximately 47 minutes of one class period in Respondent's classroom. Ms. Rodriguez again observed students talking while Respondent attempted to explain the lesson. Respondent's instructions were unclear. Little or no teacher-directed instruction occurred. Ms. Rodriguez memorialized these observations in a March 3, 1994 Classroom Observation Instrument (COI). According to Ms. Rodriguez, Respondent's performance as a teacher had deteriorated between her observation on October 21, 1993 and her observation on February 23, 1994, partly because Respondent most recently projected an attitude of defeat and was simply trying to get through the day. In Ms. Rodriquez's opinion based upon her education, training, and experience and her observation and contacts with Respondent, Respondent's teaching performance was incompetent. Bennie Floyd-Peoples was one of the Assistant Principals for Student Services at Arlington Middle School during the 1993-1994 school year. Ms. Peoples has a Bachelor's Degree in Home Economics, a Master's Degree in Home Economics with emphasis on early childhood education, a Master's Degree in teaching, and has taken course work in the area of educational leadership. She is certified in the Florida Performance Measurement System and is a trainer in that program. She has been employed by the Duval County School Board for a total of five years and has served as Assistant Principal for Student Services at Arlington Middle School during the last three years. Ms. Peoples went to the Respondent's classroom on 15 to 20 occasions during the 1993-1994 school year. On each occasion, Ms. Peoples observed a consistent pattern of classroom disruption, students being disrespectful and defiant to Respondent, students throwing paper, students walking around the classroom idly, and students arguing with each other. Ms. Peoples memorialized her observations in two memoranda to Principal Baker, dated October 14, 1993 and February 17, 1994 respectively. On February 24, 1994, Dr. Baker informed Respondent in writing that he would be conducting his formal observation on February 25, 1994 On February 25, 1994, Dr. Baker conducted a formal observation of the Respondent's classroom performance. In Dr. Baker's opinion, Respondent's performance continued to be unsatisfactory. While he did notice slight improvement in the area of knowledge of subject matter, he also noted a decline in Respondent's willingness to assume non-instructional responsibilities, such as due care of the equipment entrusted to her. The "Evaluation of Professional Growth of Teacher" which Dr. Baker completed on March 7, 1994 showed Respondent to be unsatisfactory in seven of the eight competencies rated therein and unsatisfactory overall. Respondent refused to sign the evaluation form. Dr. Baker continued to be concerned about the safety of Respondent and her students. He again expressed these concerns in a March 23, 1994 memorandum to Dr. Alvin White, Assistant Superintendent. Based upon Dr. Baker's recommendation, Respondent was removed from the classroom shortly thereafter. In Dr. Baker's opinion based upon his education, training, and experience, his personal observations of Respondent's performance, and the information related to him by his staff and others, Respondent was incompetent as a classroom teacher during the 1993-94 school year. In Dr. Baker's opinion, Respondent was afforded the opportunity of specific in-service training to correct the alleged deficiencies in her performance, but most, if not all offers of assistance, were refused. Dr. Baker's testimony to this effect and the supporting exhibits are accepted over Respondent's protests at formal hearing that she would have accepted more workshops if they were guaranteed to be during school hours and a substitute provided. Respondent attributed a portion of her problems with classroom management at Arlington Middle School to the students being "a little unusual than they had been for the previous years" and as being motivated by "another spirit . . . making them do it". Respondent also attributed a portion of her problems to physical deficiencies in her classroom at Arlington Middle School. The classroom was physically located between the band and chorus rooms. She testified that the classroom was "very noisy," that the room "sits into something like a hole," that the room had "something like an echo to it," and that the skylights in the room were closed off, which caused "strange things" to happen in the room. Respondent is a very devout Christian and speaks and writes with considerable religiosity. From the evidence as a whole, it appears that, in secular terms, Respondent felt that her Arlington Middle School classroom was inferior acoustically and had bad lighting, that the students' access to the light switch was uncontrollable, and that her lack of experience with middle school children, especially sixth graders who are more rowdy than the more mature high school students she was used to contributed to the discipline problems she had throughout the 1993-1994 school year. She also attributed student misbehavior to "toe tapping" caused by the music and noted that being an observer and monitor of indoor suspension had not fully prepared her for actually teaching the classes she was assigned at Arlington Middle School. She also believed sincerely that the damage to equipment occurring in the 1992-1993 school year at Ed White High School occurred during the times other teachers were in charge of the same classroom or occurred overnight when the room was used by others and that the damage to equipment at Arlington Middle School "just happened" because it was old and the students were rowdy. The overwhelming weight of the evidence is that the equipment damage in both schools could not have occurred at any time other than during Respondent's periods of responsibility. Despite some rumor of an ancient accidental death which caused the skylight of her classroom at Arlington Middle School to have been boarded up long ago, the room itself had been effectively used by other teachers. These other teachers experienced no unsolvable discipline problems, and they were able to function effectively with the same lighting and acoustics that perturbed Respondent. The greater weight of the credible evidence is that there was nothing inherently unusual or noisy about Respondent's classroom at Arlington Middle School and that if the band or chorus was heard through the adjoining walls on occasion, it was not loud enough to interfere with effective teaching. Overall, Respondent's classes represented an accurate cross-section of the students in the school. It may be inferred therefrom that Respondent received students no more predisposed to rowdiness than any others of their age group. In two of Respondent's classes, she received a new group of students four times a year. In the other three classes, she received a new group of students twice a year. It may be inferred therefrom that on each of these rotations, she had an opportunity to "start over" with a fair cross-section of students, untainted by whatever had gone wrong in her classroom in the previous grading period. The disciplinary problems experienced by Respondent were unique in both nature and degree from those presented by the same students in other classes under other teachers. She was certificated in the areas she was assigned to teach, and she should have been able to handle the classes assigned her. Respondent also seemed to attribute a portion of her problems to a conspiracy toward her, testifying that "it was a schemer towards me"; that Dr. Baker is her enemy; and that a student named James lied about her and then brought her a number of treats (which she accepted) because "his conscious must have bothered him really bad". Her opinion on these issues is unsupported. Respondent showed that at Arlington Middle School she had established a work program whereby her students rotated every ten days through other parts of the school to receive "grades" or commentaries on their performances by other instructional and administrative personnel and that most of the comments received were good. This learning experience was an optional part of the curriculum which she devised. It involved such things as students assisting with shelving books in the library or doing minor clerical work in the school office. Although the experience may have been valuable to individual students in giving them exposure to a variety of work tasks, Respondent did not directly observe or grade their work, and this innovation was not shown to promote the required curriculum, particularly the typing curriculum. Respondent's students' good behavior for other school personnel outside her classroom also does not demonstrate Respondent's classroom management skills. Respondent admitted that some of the incidents testified to by Petitioner's witnesses and memorialized in the documentary evidence did occur, but she minimized them or did not recognize them as dangerous, as disruptive to the educational process, or as her responsibility. For example, Respondent testified that, "There was cases in my classroom where books was thrown when he cut the light off, but it wasn't that many time. I mean three or four times." Similarly, in discussing an incident where a student named "Waled" had chipped his tooth during a classroom disturbance, Respondent testified "Things like that happen in the classroom." She took no responsibility for students setting a fire outside her classroom window (see Findings of Fact 29-30). She took no responsibility for students lifting her wig off her head in the hallway on the way back from lunch and playing with the wig with resultant noise and disorder. She felt she was not in control of the latter situation and that children just do such things. She expressed herself as unable to control tardiness which disrupted class concentration and as never refusing a child who wanted a hall pass to go to the restroom, no matter how many students wanted to go there simultaneously. These instances of denial are, in themselves, evidence of her incompetence to teach. Petitioner participated in some of the observations of other teachers established by Mr. Poppell during the 1992-1993 school year, but no meaningful improvement in her performance could be measured. She was transferred to a different school in order to permit her improvement with a "fresh start." (See Findings of Fact 21-22). However, instead of improving, her classroom management deteriorated. Her memorandum to Mr. Poppell dated January 19, 1993 indicating that Jane Friedlin's visit to observe her at Ed White High School "wasn't welcome" (See Finding of Fact 17), her declining Mr. Baker's suggestion that at Arlington Middle School they proceed with Respondent observing other classes and attending workshops again in the 1993-1994 school year, and her comments at formal hearing that she did not acknowledge that there were correctable problems with her teaching confirm that further attempts to help her were made but did not improve the situation.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Duval County School Board discharging Respondent from her employment as a tenured teacher within the Duval County School System for incompetency. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of January, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. 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 31st day of January, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER 94-4272 The following constitute specific rulings, pursuant to S120.59(2), F.S., upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF). Petitioner's PFOF: With minor fine-tuning and additional material to more closely conform to the competent, credible evidence as a whole, all of Petitioner's 57 proposed findings of fact are accepted. Respondent's PFOF dated November 21, 1994 (See "Preliminary Statement" for information on another rejected proposal). The paragraphs are numbered and are described as best the hearing officer can. First paragraph: rejected as introductory only. Indented paragraph: rejected as attempting to change finalized annual unsatisfactory evaluations to satisfactory. Also, rejected as not supported by the record. Next indented paragraph: rejected as not a finding of fact but as a request to be reinstated to employment at the highest administrative level now vacant. Next indented paragraph: rejected as not a finding of fact but as a prayer for money damages not provided for by statute or rule. Second regular paragraph: This is either a prayer for relief, a Biblical reference, or both. Rejected as irrelevant argumentation. Next indented paragraph: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the credible competent evidence. Next indented paragraph: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the credible competent evidence or as a prayer for relief. Next indented paragraph: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the credible competent credible evidence. Third regular paragraph: This is either a prayer for relief, a Biblical reference, or both. Rejected as irrelevant argumentation. Next indented paragraph: This is Respondent's complaint that she should have been allowed additional in-service workshops during the school day in both years. It is addressed as needed in Findings of Fact 22, 24, 25, 28, 56, and 71. Next indented paragraph: This is appears to complain of any standardized oversight of teachers and students by administrators and is rejected as mere opinion contrary to the authority of law. Next indented paragraph: This is replete with religiosity but is not even a complete sentence. It is rejected as incomprehensible. Next indented paragraph: Rejected as irrelevant and/or unproven. Next indented paragraph: This is Respondent's complaint that Dr. Baker was her enemy for reasons never specified. It is covered as needed in Finding of Fact 69. Fourth regular paragraph: This is either a prayer for relief, a Biblical reference, or both. Rejected as irrelevant argumentation. Next indented paragraph: This is Respondent's assertion that her students passed or improved on standardized educational tests. Her assertion was not proven, and is not supported by the record. Therefore, this proposal is rejected. The topic is covered as needed in Finding of Fact 68. Fifth regular paragraph: This is either a prayer for relief, a Biblical reference, or both. Rejected as irrelevant argumentation. Next indented paragraph: This is an accusation of perjury or a religious diatribe. In either case, it is unsupported by the record or by the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and is rejected. Sixth regular paragraph: This is either a prayer for relief, a Biblical reference, or both. Rejected as irrelevant argumentation. The final closing paragraph is conclusory only and rejected. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary Eckstine, Esquire 600 City Hall 220 East Bay Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Clementine Johnson 3104 West 12th Street Jacksonville, Florida 32205 Douglas L. "Tim" Jamerson Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Dr. Larry Zenke, Superintendent Duval County School District 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207-8082
